It's why people don't take the "wild eyed" libertarian type seriously and assume it's all about the sex and pot.

The Free State Project was going to go colonize New Hampshire, then demand different terms, and then - the fatal flaw, since I talked to many of them who were gung ho about Michael Badnarik against Bush - they would open the doors wide, because they wouldn't want any police power to check people at the border to ask whether they were really interested in living according to the modes and ideas of the Free Staters, or if they were just there to get money.

(Fun fact: Look up the great Italian immigration wave, then look what happened to them. More than half eventually went back once Italy unified. They were just here for the money.)

Vermont should be a moral lesson for this. Old dairy-and-cows Vermont produced Calvin Coolidge and people like him. You don't ever imagine Calvin Coolidge being OK with the gay marriage. However, they had an open door, anything goes approach to things. Now, you have the weird combination of socialist economic policies (where Howard Dean is a rightist...) and yet no gun laws.

There's a reason the US was extremely choosy until 1965 and generally did not permit people in - going whole decades with bans on immigration unless you had tons of money - it was to protect the uniquely American culture and ideas from foreign ideas considered incompatible with the American way of life. That's why every country, everywhere, deserves the right to build its own walls and restrict immigration to who it wants when it wants.

This is an example of liberal "tolerance". We tolerate laws they exempt themselves from.

"The California state Senate voted 28-8 (ln June) to exempt itself from the pointless gun-control laws that apply to the rest of the populace. Legislators apparently think they alone are worthy to pack heat on the streets for personal protection, and the masses ought to wait until the police arrive."

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_12?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=men+are+from+mars+women+are+from+venus&sprefix=undefined%2Caps%2C203

oops!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/6/one-law-for-us-another-for-you/

The rigid enforcement of tolerance necessarily means the elimination of all standards, whether physical strength standards for fire-fighters or soldiers or literacy standards, since standards are intolerant of those who can't live up them. Having a "coat-and-tie" requirement at a restaurant is hurting someone's feelings. Halloween costumes become forbidden. Superheroes in comics are too muscular because it implies muscles are better than no muscles, which is intolerant. It implies that all cultures are equal, so we can't disapprove of cultures that jail journalists or (ahem) throw people off roofs.