[JTG]

That's fine. It's not that big of an issue for most people, but certainly Harry Browne wouldn't care if states set up their own border control. He just doesn't want the federal government doing it, because it's not authorized in the Constitution.

I don't agree with Harry on everything, either. For example, I disagree with the typical libertarian position on drunk driving: they think that you can't arrest drunk drivers until they hit someone, and I think that's just stupid. There is nothing wrong with driving checkpoints for drunk drivers. Driving is a right, not a privilege. I do however disagree with safety belt laws. I think that once you are 18+, you should be able to drive without a seat belt. But I do believe that kids must be in child seats or in seat belts. If you want to screw up your own life, that's fine. But don't put your kids in danger. That's how I feel about those two issues.

[JTG]

Correction:

I meant to say that driving is a privilege, not a right. I said it the other way around by accident. =)

[JoeFromSidney]

There is nothing wrong with driving checkpoints for drunk drivers.

Actually there is something wrong. It's inefficient. According to one article I read, written by a cop, putting those same cops on the street looking for cars being driven in an unsafe manner would actually catch more drunk drivers. On a per-cop basis, check points are an inefficient use of manpower.