How much are you "on board" with the show?

Perfect match

7 (15.9%)

Mostly on target

31 (70.5%)

Moderately so

6 (13.6%)

Occassional match

0 (0%)

Not even close

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 28

[Osborne]

How can one be on board with the hosts when there are 2+ hosts who have totally different views?

[hellbilly]

How can one be on board with the hosts when there are 2+ hosts who have totally different views?

C'mon dood.. previous posters have adequately determined what was inferred in the proposition!

[freeAgent]

I'm between moderately and mostly matching.  I only say moderately because I frequently disagree some of the things the hosts either say or argue in order to back up certain beliefs.

[KDus]

How can one be on board with the hosts when there are 2+ hosts who have totally different views?

Because we're comparing them to Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Reagan, Noory, S.Miller, D.Miller, Prager, Left Right and Center, Maddow.......

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

How can one be on board with the hosts when there are 2+ hosts who have totally different views?

Because we're comparing them to Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Reagan, Noory, S.Miller, D.Miller, Prager, Left Right and Center, Maddow.......

I like Larry Elder too...

[Harry Tuttle]

I like Larry Elder too...

I used to like Larry Elder. The first time I heard his show he was interviewing Harry Browne.

Now, as far as I can tell, he's been "Hannitized".

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Now, as far as I can tell, he's been "Hannitized".

He went neo-con with 911.

[Kevin Freeheart]

I consider myself a voluntaryist and agorist. I agree with Ian's about 99% of the time, though I believe that some of the ideas he (and Tannehill) tossed out about the justice system would be dramatically different. I also disagree with Ian on the "non-cooperation" thing in two regards. Firstly, I see "belief in government" as a social issue. It is raising awareness and discrediting this belief that will lead to liberty. The purpose of civil disobedience and non-cooperation is to raise that awareness. On the other ends of that, I believe that the political world can reach people and help correct the belief in government social issue. Neither is a means to an end in and of themselves. Secondly, I think that Ian gives lip service to "market based activism" but really does very little support of true market based activism. Agorism is about establishing alternate outlets for government influenced, regulated and prohibited goods and I think this is key to establishing a sustainable, liberty-centric society. Civil disobedience is worlds away from "Market Activism".

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

I don't like Ian's position on artificial intelligence. I think Mark's 100% correct on that one.

Then by your logic every father should fear his son.

[MacFall]

I went with mosty on target. I tend to be even more extreme than Ian in opposing political action (i.e., I believe it is morally wrong to vote for the lesser of two evils when you can simply not sanction either). Also, I'm a Christian.

[DogOn]

In terms of libertarianism, its pretty much a 99% match, but between Marks Landmark bullshit and Ians magical thinking shit (I can't remember the name), I'm pretty detached from the hosts in other aspects.

Ian quite often makes poor or even incorrect arguments for why liberty and the NAP are both moral and useful. Also theres alot of I'm right, you're a filthy statist kind of debate, which is a really bad way of trying to get a reasonable point across.