Former Constitution Party VP candidate Herb Titus and former Libertarian Party national director Perry Willis on the air today

Posted at Positive Liberty:

The Wednesday line-up is . . .

* Jon Rowe, college professor, historian, and blogger at PositiveLiberty.com, and Herb Titus, attorney, Constitutional law scholar, and former law school dean, coming on together to debate the religious instincts and motivations of America’s Founders (scheduled for the 3 o’clock hour)

* Perry Willis, Communications Director, DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Call in number 866-2ACCENT (or 866-222-2368), and the email will be CALL at DOWNSIZEDC dot ORG (just type it in as it sounds).

The show is heard on about 15 stations around the country. But everyone can listen live via the Internet from the Accent Radio Network site.

Hardball delenda est.

37 thoughts on “Former Constitution Party VP candidate Herb Titus and former Libertarian Party national director Perry Willis on the air today

  1. Libertarian Joseph

    my platform for when I’m runnin for governor:

    *eliminate all taxes
    *eliminate all subsidies
    *eliminate all police
    *disband the nj state guard/coast guard
    *abandon all military installations
    *eliminate urban development
    *shut down all government buildings
    *walk out of my office and go home

    the end

    mwahaha

  2. Libertarian Joseph

    The people would really be better off. but we can’t go that way because the federal government would intervene. that’s why I would retain a voluntary military and law & order. I would secede before my term is up. So I’d most likely prepare the nj guard for direct conflict with th US army for the duration of my term. I would then turn nj into a anarchic country, completely voluntary and allow legitimate land owners and individuals to secede

  3. LibertarianGirl

    my platform for when I’m runnin for governor:

    *eliminate all taxes
    *eliminate all subsidies
    *eliminate all police
    *disband the nj state guard/coast guard
    *abandon all military installations
    *eliminate urban development
    *shut down all government buildings
    *walk out of my office and go home

    the end

    what party would you be running under , please tell me not the LP:)
    are you sure your name isnt Chuck Geshlider ( another infamous troll)

  4. Libertarian Joseph

    end result

    *economy would be booming
    *margina unemployment levels
    *prosperity
    *innovation
    *true free market

    If the US attacks, we can do nothing but defend our members from all threats, foreign and domestic. I suspect that they would. That’s why we would put alot of emphasis into creating a better and cutting edge voluntary military.

    The roads/general infrastructure would be abandoned, unless, for example, the gov either comes to an agreement with a landowner on improvements or if there is no landowner and the gov decides to do something. That would be legitimate because, as a private organization, you can negotiate with private landowners or choose to do something with land not claimed by anyone. That’s fair game.

    Do my fellow anarchists agree? Jim?

  5. Libertarian Joseph

    Then, as a result, the free market would create so much technology that we would be in the space age in no time.

    The state will do all it can to impede progress of a true free market.

  6. Libertarian Joseph

    Somalia is the best example we have of a free society. Yeah, the state is stirring alot of violence out there, but other than that, Somalia’s telecom industry is unmatched. If the states would just leave Somalia alone.

    They also have infrastructure in better condition than so-called “richer,” statist countries

  7. RedPhillips

    I really think LJ is spoofing. He is playing an anarchist to illustrate the problems with it and/or to poke fun. Somalia? That reference confirmed it for me.

    John Rowe and Herb Titus both know their stuff. This should be good. The problem with Rowe, IMO, is he focuses too much on a few high profile Founders and not enough on all of them and the people at large. And Titus probably carries the Christian Nation thesis too far.

  8. LibertarianGirl

    I really think LJ is spoofing. He is playing an anarchist to illustrate the problems with it and/or to poke fun

    Bingo!

  9. paulie cannoli Post author

    John Rowe and Herb Titus both know their stuff. This should be good. The problem with Rowe, IMO, is he focuses too much on a few high profile Founders and not enough on all of them and the people at large. And Titus probably carries the Christian Nation thesis too far.

    I agree.

  10. Gene Trosper

    Libertarian Joseph // Dec 17, 2008 at 1:52 pm

    Well, I’d like to stay, but I have this thing called a life.. see y’all tonight

    Judging from the sheer number of postings you make here, one is inclined to believe that what little life you have is spent here.

  11. JimDavidson

    @8 Not really sure what I’m being asked to agree to. I think your plan to run for office sounds odd coming from an anarchist.

  12. derkel

    Libertarian Joseph,

    “Yeah, the state is stirring alot of violence out there, but other than that, Somalia’s telecom industry is unmatched.”

    Probably one of the best attempts to justify anarchy I have ever seen.

    “Come to Somalia. You can be kidnapped, raped, and murdered without consequence, but hey, we have a great telecom industry.”

    With that platform, it will be a victory if you get more than 5 votes. I’d think your family would even find it difficult to vote for that.

    I also see a basic contradiction in an anarchist running for political office.

  13. Catholic Trotskyist

    Red and others, you always seem to think that LJ and I are spoofing and are trolls, when we really are just passionate about our beliefs, and we may not really act this way in real life.

    Joseph, it’s ok to be an anarchist running for office, but the problem with both of our philosophies is that the people don’t actually support them. 99% of people would rather have some government control over some issues. Catholic Trotskyism would actually work in practice, but people don’t know much about it yet.

  14. Steven Druckenmiller

    Could you all please consider banning LJ? Half of the posts right here are his and they’re almost all nonsense.

    Come now. A troll really can infect a board to the point of ruination.

  15. Catholic Trotskyist

    No, don’t ban LJ. As the first non-spam commenter to be banned, it could lead to a slippery slope. Aren’t you afraid that you’ll be banned, Steven?

  16. Steven Druckenmiller

    If I am, I am. IPR should be concerned with the fact that LJ populates half the threads with mindless drivel, especially since he uses the label “libertarian”, not as a philosophical or a political one, but as a purity test (and badly; he makes libertarians look like morons).

  17. Trent Hill

    “Could you all please consider banning LJ? Half of the posts right here are his and they’re almost all nonsense.”

    Consider it? Sure.

    ….

    Well that was fun. No, no banning.

  18. Trent Hill

    “IPR should be concerned with the fact that LJ populates half the threads with mindless drivel, especially since he uses the label “libertarian”, not as a philosophical or a political one, but as a purity test (and badly; he makes libertarians look like morons).”

    ….so? Why should we at IPR be concerned with that? Only 4 of the bloggers are libertarians, only 3 would openly identify themselves as such. We are NOT a libertarian site–we are a third-party news site.

    Besides, in my humble opinion, libertarians do just fine making themselves look like morons. It is one of the reasons I identify myself as an “Individualist” far more often than “libertarian”–despite my affinity for both historical labels.

  19. paulie cannoli Post author

    Once again my advice:

    Do not ban anyone. But please do ignore the troll, do not respond to his drivel. I haven’t been perfect on this, but I’ve been trying.

    The only things I would recommend banning would be, e.g., credible death threats or revealing people’s personal information against their wishes. I like that everyone can have their say here, no matter how ridiculous.

    And thanks for going to 15 articles per page – better IMO.

  20. paulie cannoli Post author

    Two points were brought up above

    1. Anarchists running for office: no contradiction here IMO. The system exists, and has to be dismantled one way or another (if you believe it should be dismantled). From within is one legitimate approach to do so. Also, winning office is not necessarily the only or main objective of running, since winning is in most cases extremely unlikely; but it does present the opportunity to present one’s views to people who would otherwise never hear them, and would not be reached by any other method an anarchist might have ready access to.

    2. Age as a proxy for maturity – there is a rough correlation, but it is far from perfect. We have a number of teenage commenters and at least one IPR writer who generally conduct themselves in a mature “adult fashion.” On the other hand, we have a number of people here who are well past voting and legal drinking age who act “like children.”

    Getting back to topic: did anyone here listen to the broadcast? If so, any thoughts?

  21. JimDavidson

    @23 The Boston Tea Party rather proudly has had at least one officer, and many candidates for party positions, who were below the “age of majority.” I think age requirements are based on a mysticism about “magic numbers.”

  22. JimDavidson

    @26 I’m against banning anyone. Obviously, calling Libertarian Joseph a troll is easy to do. Then again, Mr. Drunkenmiller has called me a troll many times. Since getting to know him a bit better, I’ve found a number of Joseph’s comments to be worth reading, especially his engaging research beyond the mainstream media on Somalia.

    @27 No, if Drunkenmiller succeeds in getting LJ banned, he’ll want to ban me next.

    The fact is that comments are easily scrolled past. Nobody has to read them. Just as nobody has to click on any of Paulie’s chosen video accompaniments. Seeking to deny someone the opportunity to say stupid things is a prior restraint on speech, which has over the years been a very slippery slope.

    Yes, there is a taste of irony here that a Catholic and a Trotskyist, in the same person, are pointing out the dangers of prior restraint on free speech. Neither the Catholic church nor the Red army were ever especially noted for their support for free expression.

  23. Steven Druckenmiller

    No, if Drunkenmiller succeeds in getting LJ banned, he’ll want to ban me next.

    The only reason I call you that is because you insist on deliberately getting my name wrong.

Leave a Reply

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