DK's reply is as follows:
For what it is worth, it is a problem of practicality, rather than a problem of votes. It was Hayek, I think, who made the point that an open borders policy (which would be the free-trade policy) is impossible to meet whilst there is an imbalance in other areas.There are two points to make here: First, this is still ducking the fundamental issue. If I as, say, an East Anglian farmer, wish to hire Azerbaijanis to pick my kale and potatoes then that is (as I understand Libertarianism) a mutually beneficial exchange between two free people, and as such sacrosanct. What business is it of the government's? That I may, at some later date, terminate their employment and that they might, under those circumstances, choose to claim unemployment benefit seems a poor reason now to force me to pay higher wages to less eager employees, or to deny these putative Azerbaijanis the right to rent me their life. In other words, this still strikes me as a major departure from the LPUK's founding principles. It's almost as if the need to balance competing interests - or competing rights, in Lib-speak - creates unforeseen complexities and can even lead to some restrictions on the liberty of the individual. Tyranny!
In other words, if people want to come here to work, then that is entirely fine. But people also come here because of the level of Welfare; even if they lose their job, then they have a safety net well beyond the level of their home country. To put it in scientific terms, there is an osmotic imbalance.
Of course, once the Welfare State is removed (and you know that I regard the WS, as currently set up, to be counterproductive and, in many cases, downright evil) then we can absolutely open our borders and have free trade in people as we would in goods and capital.
The second point stems from DK's admission that this policy is a matter of practicality - that as matters stand, Libertarianism cannot be thrust upon us wholesale. Indeed. It seems that in order to make political headway, they will have to compromise, water down their principles and make accommodations with the vast number of people who disagree with them. Politics as the art of the possible. All of which would be banal, except that this comes from the mouths of Libertarians, who are ceaseless in their claims that all of politics stems with Euclidean simplicity from one fundamental axiom , that issues are only ever black and white, and that today's politicians' charade of mutual compromises is just evidence of the corruption, incomepetence and general unfitness to rule.
Once again, it seems there's a tradeoff between ideological purity, and getting something done.