Skip to comments.Libertarian talk radio surges in New Hampshire
Posted on 05/26/2005 3:25:46 PM PDT by Dada Orwell
Not sure how much to read into this...but in the 9 months since I moved to New Hampshire I've noticed a lot of changes in the talk radio culture, mostly positive for local freedom lovers.
When I first got here to Keene in late August '04, there was apparently only one local libertarian talk show in the state - Gardner Goldsmith's program airing 3-6PM weekdays on WGIR-AM. Now he airs an extra hour each day, and his signal reaches about half the homes in the state.
Southwestern New Hampshire's main radio station had no local libertarian show last year, but now libertarian Eric Scott is on from 10AM-11:30AM every weekday.
Free Talk Live, the syndicated show run by Free Staters was a nearly unknown Internet show when I moved here. Now it airs on two radio stations in New Hampshire and one in Mass; the Mass signal reaches southern NH. Though not technically a local show, Free Talk Live discusses New Hampshire issues on nearly every broadcast (six nights a week 8-10PM EST). These guys are hardcore libertarians and field a lot of calls from New Hampshire residents which air in about 10 markets around the nation.
During the same 9 month time period one major socialist show (Arnie Arneson's) has gone off the air in Concord...though it's still airing in the northern part of the state. The "Bureaucrat Doctor" show - where a local government physician answers questions - has been cut in half on WKBK in Keene. Other things have probably happened that I don't know about, but these are just the changes I'm aware of as a listener.
It's not clear to what extent this minor sea change is connected to the Free State Project (www.FreeStateProject.org), which selected New Hampshire as a target for libertarian migration about two years ago. So far about 150 liberty activists are thought to have moved here, with another 6,500 pledged to follow. This *has* had a disproportionate impact on call-ins to NH talk radio...with more and more freedom activists each "liberating" a few minutes a day on talk shows around the state.
Marijuana needs to be legalized. Nothing else.
Well, then your weakness is your personal problem. It's not my responsibility to keep you "straight".
Don't forget their willingness to have everyone throw away a vote in protests so the Democrats can gain power.
That is a favorite of mine about them.
The ones into their illegal drug lusts are a real hoot as well.
If you're not suffering from "my weakness" then why do you think it is a wonderful idea to make drugs available to everybody? Those of us who grew up with values do not approve of drugs for everybody, prostitution, etc. Making the vices illegal makes people go against their conscience to indulge which means it is never as enjoyable as it would be if they were not breaking the law. Plus being arrested is a big deterrent for reasonable people. Why would you want to live in a society that approves of this stuff? We have enough problems as a society without adding things that are tickets to instant deterioration.
Life snuffed out in the womb qualifies as deprivation. For that reason, as well as others articulated in this thread...libertarians are destined to be 1% or less.
Sorry, I hold the moral highground on this issue.
Oh, that's right...I forgot. The libertarians force women to have abortions. Well, thanks for clearing that up </sarcasm>
I have values too. Alcohol legalization has made fools out of those who support the "war on drugs". Alcohol is THE major drug problem we have in this country. It affects directly and indirectly millions more people than crack,etc. But we do nothing about making alcohol illegal. We tried that, it didn't work to keep people from abusing it or becomiming dependent on it. Moreover it created an underground of crime. There are many places where drugs are legal, but laws are enforced strictly for minors or for behaviors that are criminal of those under the influence. the example I have cited is that Amsterdam is a lot safer than Los Angeles or Atlanta and the use and/or abuse of drugs is the same, with much more opportunities for rehab due to not wasting money on policing drugs. We have REALLY gone off the deep end with filling our prisons with people who are no threat to society for relatively minor drug offenses, yet have out of proportionly long sentences.
Drug abuse and dependence requires treatment options that are sorely lacking because our taxes are spent foolishly on an unwinnable"war on drugs." Criminal behavior should be punished, but smoking marijuana is a personal moral and spiritual problem best left to spiritual, medical intervention.
Certainly you can do better than that.
Engaging in rhetorical excess does not hide the truth. Libertarian "principles" of non-aggression become problematic if both child and mother get counted.
Do you agree that abortion is a state issue...or do you want the mommy state to make the decision so the baby states don't get it "wrong"?
The first rule of holes:
when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
I agree. People who are making wild charges based on emotion rather than fact, should stop digging. Pass it around, okay?
Obviously jess is short for Jessica.
Lots of freepers think libertarianism is a leftist philosophy...so do a lot of leftists, idiotically. Truth is that it's closer to the classical liberalism of our forefathers than most of what's out there today.
Prior to Roe V Wade, it WAS a state issue. Now it is not. Personally I am comfortable with it being either a state's rights option, or as the executive branch's responsibility. With the former, the morality better confronts the populace head-on. The market would choose, and the economy choosing death would suffer disproportionately. The latter may be correct still, but would be additionally divisive.
Do you believe in what you say you stand for? Or do you qualify life's value? Would you support the states which surrounded your own if they outlawed them? Interesting choice of words, by the way..."mommy" state.
You see, it takes digging much deeper than emotion to solve the true problem. Is it a person or not? Was Scott Peterson guilty of two murders? Or just one? If it's wrong for him, or any other man, to kill an unborn child...what makes it right for the mother to do so? Because SHE chooses to?
Situational ethics... Not what I thought the libertarian cause was about. I notice you did not address the conflict about libertarian "non-aggression" on this issue. Why?
William Wallace probably thought something like this about the Nobles. It's not enough to define the larger body absent a moral character. Not caring about that political spectrum is no different than just leaving the gates open and turning your head... same results.
I knew they were political idiots long before that from my home USENET group, pgh.opinion. They are good people, have some good ideas, but seriously misguided. They also to a "t" have the inability to admit they were ever wrong about ANYTHING.
One good thing I have noticed is that more of them are against abortion because of that "initiation of violence" thing. Maybe they will change that in the party platform soon.
It's better to ask yourself if you would be comfortable with a crack house opening up next door to your home and family.
" William Wallace probably thought something like this about the Nobles. It's not enough to define the larger body absent a moral character. Not caring about that political spectrum is no different than just leaving the gates open and turning your head... same results.
What do you even mean by that? That William Wallace thought that nobles were leftists or that he left the gates open and turned his head?
Right now your reply doesn't seem to even address my post. On reading some of your posts on this thread, I notice mostly references to abortion, which I have not addressed at all. I couldn't say what the Libertarian Party's position is on it, but, IMO, it doesn't follow that small L libertarianism favors it. Quite the contrary even.
Neither. You are reading too literally. Wallace trusted men who's principles he thought matched his when in truth they did not. They only agreed in-part and up-to-a-point.
My point (Wallace was a reference, not the point) was that one may think his allies are his allies, when in truth their agendas are only temporarily or partially aligned. My point about turning one's head could be applied to anyone. And again, "turning one's head" just means intentional impartiality or negligence. A neo-conservative (and most Senators) may betray the classic freedoms championed by the libertarian thinker at risk to all. A libertarian may betray the social conservative, who he otherwise aligns with. Inaction or indifference alone is enough and it allows the enemy to win and advance on all fronts.
It is untrue to claim libertarianISM is overtly leftist, although one could fairly argue that the indifference or anti-conservatism on some issues opens the door for liberalism...enabling it's success. It is equally untrue to claim libertarianism as any "true" or classic foundation of this country absent recognition of providence, and an assumed moral basis. If the only thing required,for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing, then morality based upon individual choice is indeed problematic.
That the social liberal or social conservative can equally claim to be libertarian if they wish...is the basis for my assertion that the party will always be less than 1%. It's not a slap. It's just simple fact. The potential voting pool can easily be divided on social issues alone.
Right now your reply doesn't seem to even address my post.
It might be because I was addressing another poster.
On reading some of your posts on this thread, I notice mostly references to abortion, which I have not addressed at all. I couldn't say what the Libertarian Party's position is on it, but, IMO, it doesn't follow that small L libertarianism favors it. Quite the contrary even.
That might be a conversation worth having, but I believe the party is pro-choice. My exchange with the pro-abortion libertarian arose because he/she claimed anything one does (I think it was an anti-drug-war point) is "OK" as long as they aren't hurting anyone else. I may have inserted abortion into the conversation, but it was cogent. For the pro-abort libertarian I see integrity problems. That's all. If you look again at those posts you will see that I take issue primarily with the extent to which the person carries his own standard.