How did you find out about Free Talk Live?

Found via a Radio Station or other terrestrial radio show

I was told about FTL by a friend (I first listened by Radio)

I was told about FTL by a friend (I first listened online)

Found via PodcastAlley.com

Found via iTunes

Found via the Free State Project

Found via a Libertarian News Site

Found via a Libertarian Blog

Found via an ANTI-Libertarian Post or Article

Found via some other podcast directory

Found via a news press release or video

Found via MySpace

Found via Streaming Radio - Redragon365

Found via Streaming Radio - Rant Radio

Found via Streaming Radio - GCN Live

Found via DownsizeDC

Found via another Libertarian Activist Organization

Found via a mention on another Podcast or Internet Radio Show

Found via a mention on some non-liberterian, non-news website

[zebraflood]

They friended me on myspace? Of all ridiculous things. The rest, as they say, is history.

[mark_mnc1]

I found FTL off listening to 1430 WXNT on a Saturday afternoon/evening.  After listening for a few minutes i was appauled at the anti-military/government positions against the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and war on terror overall.  I knew their political identity as libertarians but thought one of the hosts (Ian) was absurd to be an anarcho-capitalist and believed the state had to survive for certain reasons....However after being daring enough to listen for a few Saturday afternoons, i took their smaller, less intrusive government opinions to their logical conclusions.  Doing this I totally understood their positions against the military and the ongoing US foreign adventures that the US govt has imposed on foreign individuals and states for "the common good of our country."  I was a more statist libertarian before (disaffected republican) but have turned into a minarchist who only believes in a minimal military with a court system-thats it!!.. along with no "public" representatives whatsoever.  Ive been telling all of my friends about this and that libertarians really arent that absurd at all.  We just believe in a highly de-centralized, more free society.  Plus i would like to hear from any Republican or Democrat on how the government does not take away our rights.  Its very clear that any government whatsoever, whether necessary or not, takes away some form of our rights-whether civil liberties or INVULUNTARILY through taxes.  FTL rules and i wish they became the next "Rush Limbaugh" of the libertarian air waves, without compromising libertarian ideals.  

Mark

[RAnthony]

Boortz is one of those annoying people who keeps calling himself a libertarian and yet isn't. Kind of like Mahr, Severin, and a couple of others.

Libertarian purists are as much of a problem as (if not more) the overly pragmatic types who like the ideas of freedom, but don't want to endorse them all.

If someone wants to call themselves "libertarian" and work for liberty, more power to them.  I (or you) don't own exclusive rights to the word.

-RAnthony

[RAnthony]

They friended me on myspace? Of all ridiculous things. The rest, as they say, is history.

Lucky dog.  I've had a friend request pending for more than a week now...

-RAnthony

[Lindsey]

I totally lied.  I actually found Ian on a street corner in downtown Sarasota.   

[ck]

Nah, ck, most of us are pedophiles too.

Actually, I only enjoy molesting people that are of age. 

LMAO. We are the same age!

I swear to God. Like, what are the odds?

Are you going to molest me now? ;P

Would you like me to?   

Would I!? O_O

sadly though it's a 16 hour drive

[zebraflood]

They friended me on myspace? Of all ridiculous things. The rest, as they say, is history.

Lucky dog.  I've had a friend request pending for more than a week now...

-RAnthony

Females just come first with Free Talk Live. Consistency is key!

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Libertarian purists are as much of a problem as (if not more) the overly pragmatic types who like the ideas of freedom, but don't want to endorse them all.

If someone wants to call themselves "libertarian" and work for liberty, more power to them.  I (or you) don't own exclusive rights to the word.

-RAnthony

That's fine then the word loses meaning to people who think libertarian means anything that anyone can attach it to. Mahr can call himself a libertarian all he wants but that doesn't make him one. Words mean things...and if you're pro-offensive war policy than that means you're not a libertarian. If that makes me a purist than so be it. I guess I'll have to offend all those poor people out there who think I'm a radical because I like to stand on principles.

[RAnthony]

That's fine then the word loses meaning to people who think libertarian means anything that anyone can attach it to. Mahr can call himself a libertarian all he wants but that doesn't make him one. Words mean things...and if you're pro-offensive war policy than that means you're not a libertarian. If that makes me a purist than so be it. I guess I'll have to offend all those poor people out there who think I'm a radical because I like to stand on principles.

Yes, you are a radical.  Not because of a principled stand, but because you would subject others to a purity test in order to prove themselves Libertarians. 

Without getting into the minutia of the why's and wherefores of the current mess that the Middle East is, there is room to argue that some wars are defensive in nature, and that the Iraq war was presented as such.  There are those who believe that this is so, and they argue from that perspective. (Boortz and his ilk)  There are others who think otherwise, and they have their arguments that provide their proof.  But, neither of them are absolutely RIGHT.  None of the war propaganda, pro- or anti- contains the whole truth.  Both sides have bits of truth scattered amongst the pointless posturing. 

...and none of it gets us out of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East without creating another 'Nam.  (it's possible that we could "win hearts and minds" as we did after WWII, and so avoid a technical defeat, but that requires an investment of a completely different nature than we have seen so far in the region.  It may, in fact, be too late for that http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-10240665920.htm) Which is the only way we can 'win' anything at this point.

Always it's the idealists want to cast out those who don't toe the line on all the philosophical points that they deem important.  But what does it mean to be a Democrat?  A Republican?  A Liberal?  A Conservative?  There isn't a broad range of ideas that tie any of those groups together.  Libertarians aren't any different. 

...Or they won't be if they ever manage to gain any power in the political arena.

For myself, I don't have time for idealists, radicals or utopians of any stripe.  I joined the LP in order to make a difference in the US politically; and that means building bridges, not staking out territory and removing those people I don't agree with.

-RAnthony

[sillyperson]

i was appauled at the anti-military/government positions against the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and war on terror overall.
....However after being daring enough to listen for a few Saturday afternoons, i took their smaller, less intrusive government opinions to their logical conclusions.  Doing this I totally understood their positions against the military and the ongoing US foreign adventures that the US govt has imposed on foreign individuals and states for "the common good of our country."  I was a more statist libertarian before (disaffected republican) but have turned into a minarchist

Ditto... except, having listened longer (and having read The Machinery of Freedom), I've become an Anarcocapitalist
Oh, and I've moved to NH (but that was planned long before I heard of FTL)


<<edited to fix URLs>>

[sillyperson]

I totally lied.  I actually found Ian on a street corner in downtown Sarasota.   

What was he charging back in those days?

[Lindsey]

I totally lied.  I actually found Ian on a street corner in downtown Sarasota.   

What was he charging back in those days?

Not yet.  This was before the idea of hosing money from listeners was put into his head.   

[Johnson]

RAnthony, If there is no purity test for anything, then from this point forward, I'm going to call you a socialist. I'm not a radical for doing so, becuase there is no purity test, and your principles and beliefs do not matter. Since you are partly a socialist, becuase you believe the government needs to intervene on some issues, I can just fill in the rest... after all, the relative purity of your belief in those principles doesn't really matter right?

If that's true, you are as much a socialist as you are a Libertarian, as you are a Democrat, as you are a Republican, and labels become entirely meaningless. I generally believe that if you aren't going to play the game, then you probably shouldn't be attempting to define the rules. Since you aren't trying to stake out territory and "remove the people you disagree with" then you might as well join a party led by
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice, Delay, Sessenbrenner, and any other fascist asshole you can name... Oh wait.. I shouldn't label them "fascists" becuase... "what does it mean" to be a socialist?  A Colectivist?  A Racist?  A NeoCon?  "There isn't a broad range of ideas that tie any of those groups together."  Fascists "aren't any different" right?

[sillyperson]

I totally lied.  I actually found Ian on a street corner in downtown Sarasota.   

What was he charging back in those days?

Not yet.  This was before the idea of hosing money from listeners was put into his head.   

You r mind is nowhere near the filthy gutter level mine was at

[RAnthony]

then from this point forward, I'm going to call you a socialist.

...and I can't stop you.  Which was my point.  It's irrelevant what you call me, because it has not effect on what I beleive, or what I call myself.  We all carry internalized definitions of what the different labels we apply mean, but no two definitions are exactly the same.  Ergo the problem with a 'purity' test.

...and labels become entirely meaningless.

They are entirely meaningless, except as an internal shorthand.  90 percent of the population believes in this thing they call god.  If you quiz the population further, you'll find varying definitions of what god is; some of the definitions will contradict the other definitions.  Does that mean that less than 90 percent of the population believes in god?  If so, how do you determine who's god is the right god? 

BTW, they tried that before.  It's called the Inquisition, look it up sometime.

I generally believe that if you aren't going to play the game, then you probably shouldn't be attempting to define the rules. Since you aren't trying to stake out territory and "remove the people you disagree with" then you might as well join a party led by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice, Delay, Sessenbrenner, and any other fascist asshole you can name...

Building a political party is like making sausage.  Most people wouldn't eat sausage if they knew what went into it.  Most people aren't happy about the breadth of opinion encompassed by their party, but they are powerless to influence it in any direct way.  That is the nature of politics.

A certain amount of agreement with the general goals of a party are necessary for the party to productively support a candidate for office.  Are the Democrats happy having Lieberman in their midst?  Republicans with Dr. Paul hanging around?  Do you think they would be allowed to participate if the Dems and Reps had purity tests?  Would we be better off without them?

-RAnthony