26 thoughts on “Andy Jacobs interviews Larry Sharpe at the Libertarian Party of California State Convention, 4/29/18

  1. Anthony Dlugos


    18 minutes of Andy talking libertopia, including issues that appeal to a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction of a tiny fraction, and 18 minutes of Mr. Sharpe trying to bring him back down to reality.

    in what alternate universe is jury nullification, sheriff appointments and cryptocurrency relevant issues to the voters of New York?

  2. Anthony Dlugos

    I agree. Sounds like a great educational mission. I implore anyone interested in that mission to make it a priority.

    No place for it in a campaign for public office, except in the way that Mr. Sharpe referred to: if asked about it, and if he gets elected.

    He’s applying for a job, and the interviewers are the voters. It would make no more sense for him to decide what should be important to his interviewers than it would be if he were to walk into an interview for any private sector job, determined to tell his potential employer what they should be interested in, and what’s worse, make it stuff that they would have no reason to be interested in anyway.

  3. Vicki K.

    A Libertarian candidate should find out what grassroots voters are interested in and provide Libertarian solutions. To use the analogy of a person being interviewed by a prospective employer, that person should research the company and the job he or she is applying for and convince the interviewer that they can do the job.

  4. Vicki K.

    I agree with Anthony. To put it another way, a Libertarian candidate should research what grassroots voters are interested in and provide libertarian solutions.


    Anthony, why are you trying to swim against the current of 45 years of irrelevant campaign issues on the part of perhaps most of the candidates the LP has run??

  6. Anthony Dlugos


    Good question, but in the present case, I was just poking a little fun at Andy, who, to his credit, is the same person he was and ever will be.

    He could interview god and would formulate a question that implies she screwed up when she moved upon the face of the waters, as well as demanding he stop breathing life into the hordes of welfare cheats.

  7. Anthony Dlugos

    Thanks, Vicki K.

    Sadly, a political party that has the hubris to set a goal of “a world set free in our lifetimes,” is unlikely to listen to what anyone has to say, least of all the rabble who haven’t accepted the omnipotent power of the NAP.

  8. Andy

    Jury Nullification is not an irrelavent issue. Lots of people get screwed over by the government in court for things that would not be crimes in a libertarian society. If we had fair jury trials in this country, the government would have a much more difficult time enforcing the War on Drugs and guns and other victimless crimes.

    I like Larry Sharpe, and I am endorsing him for Governor of New York, and I still think that he is a good candidate, but I disagree with him about him not making Jury Nullification a talking point during his campaign.

    Fully informed jurors can make it through the Voire Dire process, and there is nothing that can be done to them if they engage in Jury Nullification, and they are under no obligation to provide an explanation for why they voted the way they did.

    I have told lots of people about Jury Nullification, and I have found that mist people are interested in it after it is explained to them.

  9. Anthony Dlugos

    yes, Anon-Tipper.

    Andy inadvertently demonstrated that Mr. Sharpe is not a dogmatic utopian or a candidate willing to throw away a campaign on a fruitless educational mission.

    When he is on his game, i think Larry is one of the best spokespersons the party has ever had. His own personal story, the story of his political journey, and his focus on the achievable in politics (as demonstrated in this interview when he was imploring Andy to consider the current mindset of the voters of New York) is first rate.

  10. Anon-Tipper

    Yeah I agree. I complained about that Reason interview (I think you an I actually talked about it). I don’t think that he’s sympathetic or would enable anything horrible. But I’m still critical of that, we have to be careful. He definitely has concrete, good ideas with a good enough chance of getting through (MTA definitely needs reform). I wanted to try to gather up some of the interviews he had on local news in NY, he was very clear in his messaging, proposed some big things, but not something that will turn people off.

  11. Anthony Dlugos


    His answer about the white nationalists in the Reason interview was EXTREMELY problematic. That’s a suicidal statement if you are in a significant enough polling position to be a threat.

    Frankly, I think that comes from spending too much time around Libertarians. There are too many born losers in the party. You hang around that too much, you’ll start saying stupid stuff.

    No offense to anyone in particular, but to win as a Libertarian, you’ve got to understand this is an organization that has stumbled upon an incredible product with huge upside that would f*ck up selling a glass of a water to a thirsty man in the Sahara. Someone with Larry’s background should thank this party for giving him our ballot access line then in so many words tell anyone associated with the party to get the hell away from me before the stink self-inflicted wounds rubs off on me.

    Have a nice day!

  12. Andy

    I never said that Larry Sharpe or anyone else had to run the most radical “push the anarchy button” campaign. I do not think that talking about Jury Nullification while on the campaign trail, particularly if the subject of the the War on Drugs or gun control or criminal justice in general comes up in discussion, is overly radical. I disagree with Larry that people who know about Jury Nullification cannot survive the Voir Dire process, as the Fully Informed Jury Association instructs people on how to do this. There is also nothing that can be done to a juror who exercises their right of nullification, and they are under no obligation to explain why they voted the way they did.

    I would be willing to bet that there are many New Yorkers who disagree with the drug laws and gun laws and the prosecution of other victimless “crimes” who would engage in Jury Nullification if they knew about it.

    I also was not suggesting that Libertarians could takeover law enforcement in New York City, and I am more skeptical about Larry getting elected Governor than he apparently is. I was suggesting electing a Libertarian Sheriff, who appoints Libertarians as Deputies, for the parts of New York that are less populated.

    I am endorsing g Larry Sharpe for Governor of New York, but I think he is wrong to not make Jury Nullification one of his talking points while on the campaign trail.

  13. Anthony Dlugos

    Please point to one poll of likely voters anywhere in this country, let alone New York, where jury nullification
    came up as an important issue. One poll, anywhere, at any time, in any election, at any point in this country’s history. Anywhere, on any crosstab, gender/race/religion/education breakdown. Any poll at all, even if it was taken by a 6-year old using crayons to tally results.

    If you can point to one poll like that I’ll donate $1000 to Adam Kokesh 2020.

  14. Andy

    Most people do not know what Jury Nullification is, so it is up to libertarians to inform people about it. I can tell you that marijuana legalization and protecting gun rights are two of the most popular libertarian issues among the public. Jury Nullification gives those who agree with libertarians about marijuana and guns a way to fight back against the state.

    Your comments remind of those who back in 2007 and 2008 did not think that Libertarians should not make talking about ending the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency to be an issue that libertarians should talk about much, because most of the public did not understand it. Ron Paul made this a major talking point during his campaigns for President, and he greatly increased public awareness of this subject, and he was able to get large crowds of people to chant, “END THE FED! END THE FED! END THE FED!” These crowds included lots of young people. I encounter a lot more people who know about this issue thanks yo Ron Paul than I encountered prior to the Ron Paul r3VOLution of 2007-2012.

    Part of the reason to run as a Libertarian Is to talk about things that the major party establishment candidates will not mention.

  15. Andy

    Should read, “said that libertarians should not making ending the Federal Reserve System and fiat currency….” above.

  16. Anthony Dlugos

    “Most people do not know what Jury Nullification is, so it is up to libertarians to inform people about it.”

    libertarians? Maybe.

    Libertarians running for office? That is ridiculous. Libertarians running for office should give libertarian solutions to the issues the voters in that particular campaign care about. The office a Libertarian is running for exists at the pleasure of the voters. The voters does exist for the purposes of getting an education from us about stuff they should care about (according to you).

    As esoteric as End The Fed is, Ron Paul is not the first candidate for the presidency that attacked a national bank to popular effect. No one in their right mind thinks jury nullification has any sort of constituency.

  17. Andy

    More people pay attention to Libertarians running for office as compared to most Libertarians who are not running for office. Running for office is a great way for Libertarians to get a message out to the public, and that message will be more effective if it includes Jury Nullification of victimless crimes.

  18. Andy

    Jury Nullification has a huge potential constituency, which includes everyone who disagrees with drug laws and/or gun control laws and/or other things that would not be crimes in a libertarian society.

    Most people I have informed about Jury Nullification were interested after I explained it to them.

  19. Anon-Tipper

    Anthony: “Reason interview was EXTREMELY problematic.”

    Yeah, fuck idk if there’s anything they can do about it. Does the party even have experience with something like this (i.e. negative press)?

  20. Anthony Dlugos


    It’s not likely he’ll get to the sort of polling where an opponent will have to pull it out. [the comment about welcoming white nationalists].

    Here’s hoping he achieves ballot access. That in and of itself would be an accomplishment.

    And as far as the party having any experience with negativie press…the answer is no. You actually have to have won elective office or be a threat to do so to have experience with negative press.

    We have the opposite problem: sizable factions who COURT negative press, either as proof that the messaging is getting out, or as a way of proving they are tough guys immune to vitriol, or, by instructing the party to ignore negative press, they think it’s a way to demonstrate how a libertarian society would work. (Which is of course conflating a private entity decides to deal with offensive comments, and how the state should).

    As an aside, don’t take my comments as pessimism. At heart, I’m an optimistic person. Our product is so dynamite, and our competitors products are so disliked, even we can’t mess this up.

    Victory is inevitable.

  21. Andy

    Anthony Dlugos said: “in what alternate universe is jury nullification, sheriff appointments and cryptocurrency relevant issues to the voters of New York?”

    Jury Nullification is something that everyone who opposes prosecutions for any so called “crimes” where there are no victims.

    Electing Libertarians as Sheriffs, who appoint libertarians as Deputies, is important to anyone who is concerned about abuses and corruption from law enforcement. I never implied that this would be possible in New York City, or any place with a high population. It could be possible in a less populated part or New York. Larry Sharpe could theoretically take control of the state police if he were to become Governor, but I do not think that this is realistic. I appreciate Larry’s “can do” attitude, but I don’t think that he can win the office of Governor with $2 million, and even if he had as much or more money than the incumbent Democrat, I doubt that he’d win. The system is extremely corrupt, and New York is one of the most big government states. Major changes would have to take place in order for anyone who is a Libertarian to get elected to a high office like Governor, especially in a state like New York.

    Cryptocurrency is relevant to anyone who wants to gain wealth, and I’d say that it is the future of money. I specifically brought up cryptocurrency because a lot of people in the cryptocurrency community are libertarian, or libertarian leaning, and given the rise of the cryptocurrency market, a lot of these people have made a lot of profit. The rise of cryptocurrency is creating a new class of millionaires and billionaires, and this could be a game changer for the Libertarian Party and movement, as it means that it could give us the money necessary to finally compete with the Democrats and Republicans.

  22. Anon-Tipper

    I’m expecting ballot access levels of votes at the most. Turn out will be low, NY threshold is 50k which I think could happen. I’m looking at the qualified parties in NY (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_New_York_political_parties) looks like the Green Party got over 180k running their own candidate, not fusion in 2014. If you’re optimistic about it, I’ll try to be. Very on edge lately, feel like we’re either turning a corner or about to get sucked in.

Leave a Reply

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