Larry Sharpe on the Joe Rogan Experience

NY Libertarian Governor candidate was interviewed Thursday on the very popular Joe Rogan podcast. On YouTube the video already has over 400,000 views. The interview is over two hours long.

40 thoughts on “Larry Sharpe on the Joe Rogan Experience

  1. Bondurant

    Hopefully the publicity over the Elon Musk interview will bring more people to Joe’s channel and they’ll take in Sharpe’s interview as well. The 400k plus views is good for a LP candidate but still behind the curve for most JRE interviews.

  2. wredlich Post author

    I found the education discussions painful. Joe didn’t get what Larry was saying and Larry didn’t get what Joe didn’t get.
    Personally I think it makes more sense to make the libertarian answer instead of Larry’s answer, but do it the right way:

    The libertarian answer is to end public schools and let private schools innovate and thrive. But … I would only be the governor and the legislature is not going to go along with that. So all I’d be able to do is work with the legislature as best I can to try to make things work better.

    Now let’s talk about the things I can do as governor …

  3. robert capozzi

    WR,

    Yes, as I indicated in the open thread, the education discussion was painful. He could have narrowed the scope to the ratio of administrators:teachers and that could have been powerful.

    I suspect advocating the end of public schools would have led to an even worse outcome. Politics seems at its best when a candidate offers plausible ways to make things better, bounded by his/her term in office. Utopian stances don’t work in politics.

  4. wredlich Post author

    I agree that you can’t say “I’m going to close the public schools.”

    You can say: “The standard libertarian position is to replace government schools with the private sector, but that’s not going to happen so we have to work with people to see what we can do to eliminate waste, end the excessive testing, and focus on quality teachers.”

  5. Andy

    I was going to post this as an article here last night, but I fell asleep before I did it. I am glad to see that somebody else posted it as an article here, but I wonder if I had posted it if it would still be stuck in the “pending” status. I had 11 articles here that were stuck in pending, some for more than a month, then within the last few days, one that I tried to post back in July about Larry Sharpe finally got posted here. I still have 10 other articles that are stuck in pending status, some of which have been stuck in that status since July. There are more articles that I’d like to post here, including one about a great Libertarian activist who died several months ago, who sadly received zero recognition here, but I’ve got to wonder how long they will be stuck in pending status, and if they will ever get posted at all.

  6. Anthony Dlugos

    RC,

    I got a chance to listen to this interview yesterday.

    I thought maybe you were making too much of how bad the discussion on education went…then I watched this podcast.

    Yikes.

    That went WAY off the rails.

    That being said, the solution isn’t that difficult. Like you said, he’s just got to narrow the scope of his education policy, This involves accepting the reality that ending public schools is not gonna happen, and isn’t within the power of the governor anyway.

    JR was right to point out that a nebulously defined education policy is just going to let parents’ imaginations run wild.

    Bite the bullet: Public schools are not going anywhere, certainly not within the next term of the Governor of New York, the job Mr. Sharpe is applying for. Decide on a couple concrete proposal inspired by libertarianism to improve public education (the possibilities are myriad), and leave it at that.

  7. robert capozzi

    WR,

    I’d add to that by talking about innovation, too. More BOCES, more charter schools, more vouchers, more options for parents and children. Green eyeshades alone lacks aspiration.

  8. Chuck Moulton

    I haven’t watched the podcast yet (I will in the next few nights). But I do want to praise Larry Sharpe for even appearing on the Joe Rogan experience. That is an amazing media get!! Great job securing that earned media, Larry!!!

  9. Marc Montoni

    Ron Paul fielded questions about privatizing education and ending public schools, and it helped him get and retain a base of support for years.

    If you can’t make the case for eliminating government programs and hammering on the sacred third rails, you should re-examine why in the hell you’re running for office as a Libertarian.

    Fearful, timid Libertarianism is pathetic.

    Sharpe will not win, regardless of how he approached that question. He had a chance to pull a Ron Paul and get a conversation started, but he phoned it in.

  10. Anthony Dlugos

    “Ron Paul fielded questions about privatizing education and ending public schools, and it helped him get and retain a base of support for years.”

    I agree. As Dondero once said…and I came to accept the reality of this much later…you just have to follow the money with the old coot racist Ron. It was ALWAYS first and foremost about getting and retaining that base of dumbass, reactionary paleoconservative support, and this was only tangentially related to libertarianism.

    J-W’s pragmatic libertarianism got far more votes than Paul did. Johnson did twice, actually. Easily.

    But, Preaching To The Choir is the hallmark of the Dogmatic Cult of the NAP.

  11. robert capozzi

    MM,

    I’m not finding a source of RP1 “ending public schools” in 08 or 12. Are you sure he did? I suspect he advocated “leaving it to the states.”

  12. Paul

    RC,

    I think you are right. He generally wanted to devolve everything to the states, even when it didn’t necessarily increase human liberty, which (among other things) got him some strange bedfellows.

  13. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    I’m not finding a source of RP1 “ending public schools” in 08 or 12. Are you sure he did? I suspect he advocated “leaving it to the states.”

    In the context of Marc’s comment about building a base of support, I inferred that he was referring to statements made during Paul’s 1988 run with the LP or one of his many congressional races.

    Anthony Dlugos wrote:

    It was ALWAYS first and foremost about getting and retaining that base of dumbass, reactionary paleoconservative support, and this was only tangentially related to libertarianism.

    I certainly don’t agree with Ron Paul on everything, but it seems clear to me that he advocated several positions which appealed more to libertarians than paleo-conservatives. For example, he repeatedly suggested that we should legalize heroin. These positions won him admiration not from kooks or bigots, but rather from teal libertarians all over the country.

    In contrast, Gary Johnson has spent most of his time stumping for a big new tax and welfare for all plan. He’s trying to score goals for the other team.

  14. Eric Sundwall

    To my knowledge, Jimmy McMillan did not get knocked off the ballot this year. He got 40K+ votes in 2010. There are about 200-250K “independent” votes to throw around in any NY Gubernatorial cycle (based on the last two cycles).

    Howie Hawkins doesn’t consider himself a communist. Working with Howie made the debate presence possible for all the third party candidates in 2010. He sticks to his principals and gets 50K the last two times out (184K in 2014), shrug.

    LS: “I can win with 2 million dollars to get the message out.” Tom Golisano put a boat load of money (60 million?) into a race in the 1998/2002 and got 8-14% of the vote.

    I can’t comment on the final hour and half of the interview. Did he smoke a blunt like Elon?

  15. robert capozzi

    CM: In the context of Marc’s comment about building a base of support, I inferred that he was referring to statements made during Paul’s 1988 run with the LP or one of his many congressional races.

    me: Did RP1 advocate ending public schools prior to 08? Maybe, but again I think he’s pretty much always been a “devolve to the states” guy.

    His post 08 base was appreciably bigger than his pre-08 base, I strongly suspect. You? He may have been more of an extremist prior to 08 (though I don’t think so), but his semi-major name ID was won by his constitutionalist positioning, not his proto-anarchism, is my sense.

  16. Chuck Moulton

    In his 2008 run, Ron Paul gained additional notoriety over his existing libertarian base primarily from his anti-war stance and pro- drug legalization stance.

    The spread of his ideas also benefited from the Internet, which was not pervasive in 1988.

  17. robert capozzi

    CM,

    I’m not sure how you think that’s relevant here. We WERE talking about education, not war or drugs.

    My sense is that RP1’s base may have increased 10-fold or more in 08. Before that, he had a fringe following. After 08, he was probably near the bottom of the big leagues in terms of his name ID. As for his drug legalization stance, I’m not seeing it. Yes, he exclaimed his heroin position once in a debate, but I didn’t see his “end the drug war” sympathies as a major part of his brand.

    What makes you see him otherwise?

    I do agree that his anti-war stance was vital to his rise. It’s a reason why I was pulling for him. I note that he didn’t advocate the anarchist position of disbanding the government’s military, or the entire government, for that matter.

  18. Andy

    Chuck Moulton said: ” For example, he repeatedly suggested that we should legalize heroin. These positions won him admiration not from kooks or bigots, but rather from teal libertarians all over the country.”

    I agree that heroin should be legalized, and that the entire War on Drugs should be called off, but keep in mind that there are still a lot of people who consider this to be a “kooky” position. Surveys indicate that mover 50% of the country now believes that marijuana should be legal, but there are still people out there who think that legalizing marijuana is a “kooky” position, and even out of those who think that marijuana should be legalized, some of them think that legalizing hard drugs like heroin is a “kooky” position.

  19. Andy

    “Surveys indicate that mover 50% of the country now believes”

    Should read, “Surveys indicate that more than 50% of the country now believes..”

  20. Andy

    Robert Capozzi said: ” I note that he didn’t advocate the anarchist position of disbanding the government’s military, or the entire government, for that matter.”

    Good point. Since Ron Paul has retired from running for political office, he has expressed anarchist views, but you are correct that he did not do this while running for office, although he did advocate making very large cuts in government as a candidate, and his record in Congress reflected this as well.

    Running on a pure anarchist platform is something that few Libertarian Party, or small “l” libertarian, candidates do. Whether or not this is a good strategy is open to debate. I agree with the anarcho-capitalist philosophy, but I am not sure if I’d run on that platform if I were a candidate. Part of it would depend on for what office I was running, but the bigger factors to me would be a) what can I best sell to the public, and b) what could I realistically hope to accomplish if elected.

    Harry Browne did not run on a pure anarchist platform, as his platform was to reduce the federal government down to only what is specifically listed in the US Constitution, but he pointed to anarchy by saying that after that was accomplished, he’d head up a fundraiser to rent out a large stadium where people could get together to debate about how much further to go.

    I have no problem with incrementalism, so long as the incrementalism takes some bold steps in the right direction.

  21. Anthony Dlugos

    “I have no problem with incrementalism, so long as the incrementalism takes some bold steps in the right direction.”

    lol.

  22. Andy

    “Anthony Dlugos
    September 11, 2018 at 15:48
    ‘I have no problem with incrementalism, so long as the incrementalism takes some bold steps in the right direction.’

    lol.”

    What is so funny about that?

    I think that incrementalism is fine, but I also think that it would be a waste for a candidate to run on a platform that was going to cut taxes and spending by 1%. If you aren’t going to propose any significant changes that would move the country in the direction of liberty why bother running?

  23. robert capozzi

    more…

    Given the trends, btw, 1% would be a MASSIVE improvement, as I see it. It’s not been better than that since 1946, I think.

  24. Andy

    This interview with Larry Sharpe on the Joe Rogan Experience already has over 501,000 views and it has only been online for 6 days. I think that Larry did a good job overall, in spite of the long, awkward part about education.

    Having said this, just imagine how much more effective Larry could have been if he had talked about jury nullification of victimless crimes, as I suggest when I interviewed him a few months ago (as seen here on IPR: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/05/andy-jacobs-interviews-larry-sharpe-at-the-libertarian-party-of-california-state-convention-4-29-18/ ).

    I’d bet that less than 1%, or probably less than 1/2% of the people who have watched this video know what jury nullification is. Wouldn’t this interview had been more effective if Larry had talked about reestablishing fair jury trials in New York with jury nullification than anything that was discussed in this interview? I would say yes.

  25. Andy

    “robert capozzi
    September 11, 2018 at 23:47
    AJ<

    OK, 1% isn't acceptable to you. What is?"

    It is hard to come up with an exact figure for what would be acceptable and what is a waste of time, so without going into a deeper analysis, I'm just going to say that I'd like to see enough cuts and overall changes in policy to where it would noticeably move New York up on the Freedom Index (the Cato Institute ranking that recently came out ranks New York as the least free state in the country (I don't think that their rating system is perfect, but it is good enough for the purpose of this discussion) a lot on that list.

    Offering paper cut size cuts to government does not really excite me, and I don't think that it would excite most people who might be included to vote for a Libertarian Party candidate.

  26. robert capozzi

    AJ,

    Looks like NYS’s state budget increases at nearly 5%/year. So, a 1% cut would involve a 6% cut year over year.

    That probably would move NY up the Cato list.

  27. Andy

    Robert, it may move New York up on that list, but would it move New York up enough to merit excitement? I doubt it.

  28. Anthony Dlugos

    “I think that incrementalism is fine, but I also think that it would be a waste for a candidate to run on a platform that was going to cut taxes and spending by 1%. If you aren’t going to propose any significant changes that would move the country in the direction of liberty why bother running?”

    A waste to whom? To radical/purist/NAPist libertarians and anarchists?

    Maybe, but who gives a crap?

    Those groups are the fringe of the fringe, and I do mean that as strictly mathematics, not as an insult.

    As RC alludes to, a 1% budget cut would be significant in a relative sense, and would matter A LOT at the margins, where millions of voters exist.

    Even a scatterbrain like Trump is having a SIGNIFICANT impact slowing down the growth of federal regulations, and that will make a difference for economic growth and capital formation, a far greater difference than any radical/purist/NAPist Libertarian could ever hope to achieve garnering .5% of the vote and entertaining fantasyland vision about building the party that way.

    Meanwhile:

    https://reason.com/blog/2018/04/26/jeff-sessions-now-making-up-reasons-not

    “The attorney general claims that approving new producers of cannabis might violate anti-drug treaties…I’ve spoken to half a dozen of those applicants, and none of them has heard from the DEA in almost a year. This obstruction is outrageous. There are dozens of recreational marijuana products available to tens of millions of Americans that researchers can’t legally study in human subjects because they weren’t grown at the University of Mississippi.”

    Excoriate J-W all you want for their lack dogmatic adherence to the NAP, and for not dying on hills like the “Bake the Cake” issue, but there is no way a J-W administration would be dragging their feet the way Sessions is on blocking medical marijuana research.

    And that’s on just that issue. Image the difference…at the margins…a practical Libertarian administration would have across the board?

    It would be significant. And it would be a far better demonstration of the advantages of libertarianism than endless theoretical discussions are.

    I guarantee you the “significant changes” you think you are giving up by accepting incremental incrementalism is sh*t only YOU and the fringe of the fringe of the fringe of the libertarian movement care about. They are fantasyland changes that don’t have a snowball’s chance of happening anyway, so drop them.

  29. Anthony Dlugos

    Drop them, that is, or get out of electoral politics, because the arena of electoral politics is a battle entirely prosecuted between the 40-yard lines, where a yard gain in our direction would be, and has to be considered a great success.

    You don’t have to like that reality, You can take up any number of ramparts in the libertarian movement where votes counted don’t matter, where you can take up the educational mission of, say, jury nullification. Its a worthwhile goal, and you’d be far more effective in your mission if you stop trying to pound the square peg of your pet fringe cause into the round hole of electoral politics.

  30. Chuck Moulton

    Robert Capozzi wrote:

    I’m not sure how you think that’s relevant here. We WERE talking about education, not war or drugs.

    It is relevant because Ron Paul took bold, principled positions in 1988, then you implied his support in 2008 was larger because (supposedly) he did not take bold, principled positions then. In fact, you are fead wrong. Ron Paul took bold, principled positions in 2008 as well. And even if his 2008 campaign was less bold than 1988, another explanation for his increased support was the impact of the Internet.

    For some reason I cannot fathom, you use every comment thread here to attack natural rights libertarianism and radical libertarianism in favor of moderate pragmatism unanchored to any political philosophy. I happen to be a utilitarian anarcho-capitalist because outcomes appeal more to me than philosophy, but I don’t constantly attack natural rights libertarians for their beliefs like you do.

    You are essentially going to a church and trying to get everyone to convert to judaism. Dlugos is essentially going to a church and trying to get everyone to leave, and give all of the church’s accumulated wealth to an atheist society. It’s nuts. If you guys actually believe your political theories are better than Libertarianism, then go try building something rather than tearing something down. Go show people your ideas are better through results. But no — of course you guys don’t want to actually do any work. You guys want to seize the fruits of the labor of many who you disagree with, force then out of their own party, and use what they built for ends antithetical to their beliefs (electing scruple-less statists). It’s disgusting.

  31. dL

    You are essentially going to a church and trying to get everyone to convert to judaism.

    um, no. It’s just plain ole trolling. No need to resort to poor analogies that will just feed the trolls.

  32. Andy

    I doubt that Robert and Anthony are trolling. I suspect that they believe what they say they believe in regard to how the LP, and LP campaigns, should operate.

  33. Anthony Dlugos

    “You are essentially going to a church and trying to get everyone to convert to judaism. Dlugos is essentially going to a church and trying to get everyone to leave, and give all of the church’s accumulated wealth to an atheist society.”

    In other words, I don’t have to convince you that you want a church with its dogma and not a political party, because apparently that is a feature to you, not a bug.

  34. robert capozzi

    cm: It is relevant because Ron Paul took bold, principled positions in 1988, then you implied his support in 2008 was larger because (supposedly) he did not take bold, principled positions then. In fact, you are fead wrong. Ron Paul took bold, principled positions in 2008 as well.

    Me: RP1 was “bold” in 08 and before. My sense was he didn’t change his positions, by and large, throughout his political career. I think a measure of bold, along with triangulation, guided by the North Star of lessarchism MIGHT be a winning formula for turning the political tide toward more freedom. I don’t think that RP1’s formula of a constitutionalist personality cult was the best approach. I would have been pleasantly surprised if I’d been incorrect.

    CM: For some reason I cannot fathom, you use every comment thread here to attack natural rights libertarianism and radical libertarianism in favor of moderate pragmatism unanchored to any political philosophy.

    Me: As you knew me a bit back in the day, I’m surprised by this statement. Mostly, I like kicking around ideas with fellow travelers. As I’m a former NAPist myself, I note that current-day NAPists strike me as disconnected from reality, which leads them all to often to anger about the state of the world. That anger leads them too often to be alienating toward what Keaton calls “the Normals.”

    I appreciate your feedback, but I feel I have a serviceable political philosophy, one that I continue to fine-tune as evidence and perspective is refined further and further.

  35. Eric Sundwall

    During the final weekend of the petition cycle a large group of volunteers were diligently collating the incoming sheets. Former LPNY chair, Jeff Russell asked me what office I would run for, if we got 50K. My immediate response was “nothing”, I would never run for office again. I hope that pleases AD & RC, after all, my radical stances would simply be unpalatable to the “normals”.

    My concern would actually be winning however. I could conceive a campaign that would appeal to my long time neighbors and friends who trust me as a local business person, community coach and a generally savvy dude with an eye to the hypocrisy which currently dominates the show. Thoughtful discussions with all political persuasions is always my hope when out and about.

    If I won, on some reasonable stance like “Stop Wasting Money” or the likes, I’d have to serve however. That seems like a horrifying prospect. My father served two four year terms as a local councilman and the meetings and supplicants that followed would drive me nuts as I kept a tight lip in order to advance my own ambitions up the political food chain. I can only imagine the personal opportunity cost in terms of business and family in that scenario. All for the purpose of advancing milquetoast notions of liberty that might be possible some day.

    I’ve spent thousands of dollars and hours (my billable hours aren’t cheap, btw) attempting to protest illegal foreign occupations, to educate media types about the Federal Reserve and to promote a “better” democracy (ie ballot access, parliamentary bodies, ranked voting systems, Open Source digital solutions etc.). I was happy to spend that time and money on such matters with the full knowledge that my campaigns weren’t going to “win”. Not once would I ever conceal my preference for a voluntary relationships or disbelief in the supernatural being (a bigger bugaboo than plain old anarchy).

    The idea that this society or electorate can be inched into the ideas of freedom in an Age of Cradle to Grave Collectivism is ABSURD on a Camus-que level. I spoke with thousands of people this summer who would never consider cracking a book by Rothbard. Nor did I even consider such prosthelytization, unless a smarmy hippy started touting Rawls. Most only know the reality of either/or politics. It’s an uneasy relationship that they manage to live with as they get the kids to school and dinner on the table.

    As someone with a political science and history degree I know little will change this default American condition and am happy to view third parties as a vehicle of protest, not significant electoral change. To hold otherwise is more delusional in my estimation than any moral reasoning or logic that holds the State in dubious regard, let alone outright disdain.

    Watching the same two commentator’s constantly devolve every LP post on IPR into the same idea, over and over again . . . . makes this last ten minute tirade moderately worthwhile, but never a difference maker. Neither is a Joe Rogan interview, with any candidate. Stop with the damn “NAPists” this, “NAPist’s” that. It’s tiresome. It’s unnecessary. If you want success in the American System, hitch up with the Red & Blue, it’s that simple. Madison hated English factions,

    Good luck Larry, good luck LPNY. I’ll grab another 1000K+ sigs in two years again for anyone crazy enough to run. That’s the only absurdity I can stand anymore.

  36. paulie

    I’ll grab another 1000K+ sigs in two years again for anyone crazy enough to run. That’s the only absurdity I can stand anymore.

    Thank you for your service.

  37. robert capozzi

    ES: If you want success in the American System, hitch up with the Red & Blue, it’s that simple.

    Me: I suspect that perhaps 70% of my comments mention NAPism.

    While I appreciate your feedback, I don’t see the Rs and Ds offering a path of success, not at all. Both offer slightly different strains of morearchism. I believe that “success” requires lessarchy. Winning is not the same thing as success. Somehow, you don’t seem to understand that. NAPists tend to cleave to such either/or thinking, a fatal flaw that bears repeating.

  38. Anthony Dlugos

    ES,

    That’s a well-written, heartfelt, 500 word essay basically explaining why electoral politics is not for you. I can appreciate that.

    As for me, I’m not much interested in “significant” (i.e. much greater than the general public is willing to accept) change, the dream of a voluntary society, or the ideas of radical freedom. I know “Stop Wasting Money” doesn’t have the same silvery sound as “Taxation is Theft,” but you know, I’ve never see the value of onanism as a tactic for electoral politics. I try to think of where the voters are at on any particular issue.

    What I am interested in (and something I’ve not ever concealed either) is finding out exactly how many and which of our principles we have to sell down the river in order to get the Koch brothers to write us a check that makes ballot access obstacles a permanent part of our past, and thus just maybe, just maybe, (via a greater electoral politics presence) get those 12,000 migrant kids out of the detention centers they are stuck in, get the federal government off the backs of the folks who want to expand and improve the marijuana industry, and reverse course on the growth of the regulatory state such that natural hair braiders in various parts of the country are no longer hassled when they try to open up their modest little businesses, among other lessarchist ideas. I know that stuff doesn’t warm the cockles of the radical heart, but that sh*t’s got teeth, and it can change the lives of millions in a positive way.

    Because of those aforementioned people suffering under the boot of state overreach, I won’t leave the party to a faction that explicitly admits it is happy utilizing the LP as a vehicle for vacuous protest.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *