Penn Jillette: Why I Am A Libertarian
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Penn Jillette (@pennjillette) is a magician and entertainer known for being half of the comedy duo Penn & Teller.
Why are YOU a libertarian? Tell us in the comments below or on Facebook ( / libertarianism.org .
Video produced by Evan Banks, Austin Bragg, and Caleb Brown.
Watch the other part of this interview at: • Penn Jillette on Capit...
I am a libertarian because if I want to move to the Rocky Mountains and start a pot farm while I snort cocaine and eat foie gras and sit on a couch made out of my own hair.... I should be able to without any government interference. Not that hard of a concept.
How soft is your hair? You might have a market for those couches.
if you need a cleaner in your new found utopia i have a good resume :)
To assume that libertarianism = anarcho-capitalism is fairly ignorant. Hence the nature of your goofy post.
I fail to see why you SHOULDN'T be able to do that. As long as you aren't harming anyone else and enjoy what your doing, you should be able to do whatever you want.
Steven Edelmann
Actually the libertarian party is the fastest growing :)
Separation of Church and State. Separation of Government and Business. Separation of Emotion from Reason.
+xXJAKMACKXx Here Yee.
Separate gov and business? So mafia black market. Lmao this is why I am not a libertarian.
Shawn Cain Ugh, fucking socialists and their blood soaked worship of state, go wear out your gums on some other pro-fascists wank fest youtube channel. For people who support freedom can't see eye to eye with an emotional authoritarian incapable of reason.
Shawn Cain Oh why don't you go to a place that cares like China or North Korea. Idk and I don't care...Go to the moon for all I care. There wouldn't be a black market mafia because the very idea of a black market mafia would violate a libertarian state where everything is allowed as long as it doesn't harm others... So a black market mafia would be illegal. You socialist pigs need to think with your brains every so often...
+xXJAKMACKXx
can i ask
what is the ideal for Christians in a libertarian mind.
or do they not care but just a thought, are there alot of athiest in it OR more religious people
thanks i hope you can answer my question
I'm a libertarian because I believe in:
The founding father of our government,
Small government, SERVING the people,
And, individual LIBERTY!
+chief wiggums Nice show of your religious devotion there, I know you won't actually seek the answers to your points, because your points have been shot to death in the past. This is like a creationist bringing up the missing link.
+Ed Lesperance
YOU FORGOT ONE TINY THING ....
YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN BECAUSE YOU ARE A SHEEP ....JUST TRYIN TO COMPLETE YOUR LIST . NO NEED TO THANK ME .. IT'S THE LEAST I CAN DO .
+THOMAS GIRLMAN
So who isn't sheep, by your definition?
Republicans? Democrats? Trumpists?
Ed Lesperance Trumpists sounds like some kind of musician.
@THomas Girlman: On what are you basing your statements?
The way I read it, those who disagree with you are "LIBERTARIANS ARE OBEDIENT KOCH BROTHERS MONKEYS . GIVE A LIBERTARIAN AN ORGAN GRINDER AND HE WILL WORK FOR PEANUTS " no matter what they believe.
What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
Around 6 months.
Can you limit the power of an institution whose mandate requires a monopoly of it?
Libertarians respect all freedoms and anarchists only care about their own freedoms
Redant23
False. Libertarians think there is such a thing as limited power. Anarchists are honest enough with themselves to admit there is no such thing. It's not anarchists who want to impose their will on others, that would be people who advocate governance.
Namaste1001 most anarchists are clueless
Redant23
Your generalization would indicate that you are.
+Rob Smith I'm a Christian, Libertarian who believes in gay rights...
Libertarian = believes in 'rights'
Gays are individuals. And libertarians believe in freedom and liberty for all individuals.
This is amazing. I really do wish more people had this virtue. Imagine a world full of people who are free thinkers and are open to other's ideas.
This Christian loves Penn Jillette! You are a real patriot!
IMHO, every political philosophy breaks down when take to extremes. I definitely lean libertarian but I also have some conservative views and even some liberal views. To just box yourself into something specific is short sighted. Then there is the practical vs working with what can realistically be done.
This is exactly why I love Penn Jillete. If only all people thought like he does.
holy shit you could not possibly have any more strawmanning in the comments section of this video.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed.
It seems to be a lot of conservatives who are just glad he believes in small government. Me, I love what he said all the way around, especially about open discussion.
Libertarianism isn''t this complicated. You believe in individual liberties over the governing rule. It doesn't have a limit on the size of government.
The Great Pumpkin
Corporations can't exist without a government.
that's a very vague and general statement.
i'd need to assess every individual situation.
in some i do.
in some i dont.
Because I support a gay married couple defending their pot farm with firearms. Neither political party does that. Political parties are similar to religion in that they support continuing a narrative as opposed to critical thinking.
I'm a liberal, but I respect libertarians as principled and intellectual.
You forgot naive, and misanthropic. Seriously, every...single...libertarian I have ever met has been very strange. They are outsiders by nature. I have known a lot of true libertarians and they are all weird. I'll bet there are a lot of only children who are libertarian.
***** I have heard Penn speak a few times and he seems to know quite a bit about it but ultimately, they might not know for sure.
Jim Beam It is a common rhetorical tactic to try to discredit a political philosophy by criticizing the characteristics of its proponents.
Gurimbom
*" It is a common rhetorical tactic to try to discredit a political philosophy by criticizing the characteristics of its proponents."*
-
Yes, it's a common fallacious tactic used by people who are either afraid to think or unable to think, and typically angry and cynical because they ultimately know that their world views are undefendable and contradictory.
Diginess Unknown
Yeah I believe Capitalism can work. Same with left and right politics.
It's people that always screw it up(God Damn People)
If we could just find a way to get rid of them.
my favorite libertarian and Atheist*
Atheist*
Thx
Ancap master race.
Tyler Hurson ancap is different from traditional libertarianism and anarchism. And its stupid. Ask Noam Chomsky
"Libertarian only when it suits him." Which is almost always.
Meaning?
Uhh Can someone explain?
Penn Jillette is a cool dude but I don't see how what he is describing has anything to do with libertarianism? ''Be open to the other person's heart'' ??? Property rights? the NAP? He mentioned none of those
It might make more sense to you if you catch what I think is a much longer interview with Caleb Brown. It was in the daily podcast some years ago in Nov/Dec, my memory wants to say. It's a very interesting conversation; I kept a copy on my iPod until it died.
The rules that PJ lays out for himself in the interview are based on using only moral means to the end of advancing and communicating truth.
Penn first discusses how he sees the truth in his job, because lying to an audience is basic to magic, maybe more than any other performance art. Penn says that he and Teller try to fuse their worldviews into their act as to keep it truthful to some respect.
He explains that to him, that service to truth needs to spill into other parts of your life, especially when you explore issues with your social and work life. "Don't preach" you'll hear him say; that means being upfront with what you believe. DON'T falsely equivocate or present squishy versions of your beliefs to advance your worldview. Penn has better real life examples, but the method is like this: a preacher will ask a new person what they believe on the topic of the preacher's choice, than when they get an answer and are expected to reciprocate with an answer, the preacher will coach and calculate their response so as to make the tent they represent in politics, religion or philosophy
*calculate their answer to bring that person into the preacher's tent, whether that tent is a political, religious or otherwise philosophical view. Penn points out that if you preach, you register at some degree of sliminess and dishonesty.
I also think that you may lose track of your own principles if you're always trying to adapt them to who(m)ever you meet, and the practice turns real people into points in a game that only desperate people play.
Being honest makes you a better communicator, a better thinker and helps you keep within ethical boundaries.
The parallels to libertarianism are not only to how to discuss your principles with everyday people, but also realizing that libertarian principles can' be violated to reach its goals.
At least that's what I got from it.
MRCKify Thanks for the explanation, I get what he is talking about now
+MrUbister - Exactly. I clicked on this because I thought he was actually going to explain libertarian ideas in an understandable way. No such luck.
No offense intended to Mr. Jillette, I like the guy, but this video's contents doesn't match the title.
Every time someone asks the age old question, "if you could go to dinner with three people, who would it be?" Penn Jillette is always on my list.
Well I couldn't disagree w/Penn more on the atheism part more BUTT thats ok its a free country. We don't have to agree on everything. Let's respectfully agree to disagree and move on to what we do agree on. Which is allot actually. Good Word Penn.
I like penn jillette - but if he honestly believes libertarianism is the answer - he hasn't really thought deeply on the issue.
I think the whole theme of changing people's minds deserves to be in the limelight. Generally, Libertarians utilize logic and facts to arrive at truths (Is their reasoning always right and without holes? no.) People who have a propensity towards this kind practice tend to want to debate and convince others because Libertarian counter-arguments are many times absent of reasoning/truth. The problem is that most people are vested in their belifs (especially the older they get). Opponents of Libertarianism can argue that Libertarians too are just defending a dogma. Still, I would disagree with Penn and say that a Libertarian should still try to persuade not because they want to change others people's minds, but so they can also to find truths and strengthen ideas. It's fun too >:)
"Your goal, without condescension and without manipulation, is to tell the truth as you see it."
...hmm, no. I assert that the truth IS more important than my ego. And since my ego is no more or less than any other ego, then so too is the truth more important than any ego. Therefore, condescension remains an available tool, IF it achieves the goal of transmitting the truth. Manipulation, of course, remains unacceptable.
Basically when I argue, I may be an asshole, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. If you reject my "correctness" because your "ego" was "bruised" then all I'm going to do is laugh at how pathetic and weak your ego is anyway.
I believe we have an obligation to each other, a social contract. Alot of these right wing ideas on freedom are glorified versions of social Darwinism. I don't fear government nor do I think it is the problem. Corruption of government by lobbyists and dark money is not the same as Government. I don't think the free market is always the best decider and often a terrible way to reallocate resources being exploitive of vulnerable people whilst over compensating many on rank or undue privilege.
Above all of these considerations is the repugnance of reducing freedom to mean freedom in the consumer sense, the economic incentive context alone and all too often a double standard on the role of government and individual Liberty. Where Regulation of a woman's womb is pushed along with what chemicals I can ingest but background checks for some Firearms is the hand of big government.
Credit however where credit is due. During the 1980's Conservatives destroyed the image of Liberalism and progressive politics by reducing complex ideas into cookie cutter sound bites and paying little regard to factual evidence. The left still can't compete when it comes to messaging and the packaging of ideas..
You say: _"I believe we have an obligation to each other, a social contract."_
- Yet I haven't ever signed one, nor seen evidence that _any_ historical state was ever started by social contractual agreement. If one still takes the premise as correct however, one could potentially use this 'obligation' to justify literally any gruesome act, whether it be forced sex, forced labor, or forced suicide. Hence, it is a very strange moral method to try and justify anything if its implications run counter to your own ethical beliefs.
Gurimbom fuck you must be bored to try to turn a youtube comment into a lawful contract.
12from121 Congratulations in failing to comprehend my argument.
Gurimbom lol I understood it fine it was completely irrelevant.
12from121 I will respond with an equally valid retort: yes it was.
.....EXACTLY, AND THIS APPLIES TO ANY POV. IF YOUR VIEW IS TRUE / TRUEST THEN IT SHOULD BE INTRINSICALLY WIN OUT WITHOUT NEEDING TO COERCE OR PERSUADE OTHERS. AND BY LISTENING TO OTHERS POINTS OF VIEW YOU WILL SHARPEN AND SOLIDIFY YOUR OWN. IF THE PERSON OPPOSITE GOT IT TOTALLY RIGHT THEN LISTEN IF THEY ARE UNEQUIVOCALLY WRONG THEN LEARN FROM THEM TOO.
You shouldn't have to use caps-lock to get your point across either.
A very good comedian, libertarian, atheist, optimist, humanitarian, husband and father. What more can you ask for?
he could be a pansexual dragonkin with pronouns xir xerxxezfg and ftbrgs
If Libertarians succeed, the result will be hunger for millions. There are 80 million people drawing some sort of assistance. End gov''t support and flood the job market, depressing wages for the existing force. It would be a return to the poverty of the 30's, political instability, unrest, and repression. As a system it wouldn't last, and it would be replaced with a less freer system. The history of revolution is a sad , repetitive one. We have 3 hots and a cot, the system works.
You sir are confused with LIBERALS.
bruceduece1 You're forgetting the part where the government would take less of our tax money... since they don't need to fund all of these support programs, they wouldn't need as much.
That would let people get more money from their paychecks, which would allow them to spend more money, which would bolster the economy, which would create more jobs.
I agree, but if you reject the assumptions of Murray Rothbard or Ron Paul, you will be called a statist and/or a socialist by our compassionate libertarian friends online. Their ideology ignores the basic human tendency to fail: in the libertarian world, if you make poor investments or have bad timing in stocks, or fail to save enough money for retirement because you have to pay for short-term living expenses, you are deemed careless and are shunned for not taking personal responsibility in life. Libertarians argue that those who do manage to fall between the cracks will be taken care of by charity, absent the fact that such a fanciful world never existed. They erroneously point to the world before state welfare, when the church essentially forced peasants to forgo a significant portion of their harvests for crusades and almsgiving programs (tithes). They seem to forget that no state-level society (Mesopotamia, Ancient Greece, Qin China) has functioned without taxes and “immoral government robbery” of income. I am very upset with this notion that we supposedly have to dismantle every government program dating back to the Progressive Era to preserve their notion of freedom. And I’m sorry for their ambition to see the best in mankind, but the mere manner people on both the political left and right treat others around them is enough proof that we are not as caring or loving as we think we are. To that end, I like paying into Social Security and Medicare, in part, because I understand that no actual “Ponzi scheme” would dare cut payments to current beneficiaries or tighten age and eligibility requirements to stabilize its supposedly “broken” model, which has been declared bankrupt by libertarians for a number of decades now.
Another major flaw with libertarianism is that they seem to refute the very concept of a “public good.” Roads and clean air, for example, are two arguments that can be seen easily within the flimsy libertarian economic model. They say that infrastructure can be fully privatized, as they are apt to hand everything over to their invisible hand, and they point to the success of toll highways as evidence their ideas are valid. They conveniently forget that other roads are “non-excludable”, such as back alleys and streets within rural areas. Moreover, the central-planning they fear so much of has facilitated the construction of Manhattan’s street grid and the interstate highway system, which is undoubtedly so efficient and advanced, no single corporation could have paid or planned to build it. Also, It is understandable that rivers and some coasts can be sold off to various businesses, but libertarianism’s weakest argument lies within regulation of clean air. They refer back to their classical liberal theorist Locke, and argue that government serves a legitimate purpose protecting property rights. If someone pollutes the air, they (I’m literally not kidding) believe the person who has been harmed by pollution must take the business to court. They are not capable of acknowledging the obvious imbalance in legal funding and resources that large companies have over individual people, and it places a larger burden on the victim to prove wrongdoing, rather than admit that industry has an inherit tendency to emit pollutants. Rather than subscribe to the conservative “cap-and-trade” model that has already been endorsed by economists from across the ideological spectrum, they would prefer to flood the courts with “property rights” cases which supposedly will end the phenomenon of pollution. Therefore, if I turn on my car, or mow my lawn, I already have a right under the libertarian legal system to sue the polluter. Yes: it’s that ridiculous. Anyone with a disposition towards accepting modern society could argue for days on end against this broken theory.
I don’t disagree with everything they put forward, especially when it comes to imperialism and the federal reserve, but I strongly believe most of the ideology is paper-bound; not practical. I’m looking forward to the inevitable rebuttals.
***** I agree with your sentiments on pollution and road tax...
However, On your first point, I don't think we should force people to help somebody else if they've failed. Playing the stock market is a risk, and it should be treated like one. Saving for retirement is a nice thing to do, to be able to not have to work anymore and rest on your laurels, but I don't think it should be some kind of human right... so I feel like those are both somewhat weak examples.
Helping people out shouldn't be a government mandate, something along the lines of KickStarter would be much more appropriate. It should be an individual's choice if they want to help out somebody in need. You underestimate the good will of people, just because we see so many uncharitable and greedy people in the world... and this is coming from somebody who only makes about 60 bucks per month as an entrepreneur.
Tax dollars shouldn't be going to people as handouts, they should be going into roads, schools, and things that will undoubtedly make our society better.
Some libertarians would disagree with me on that last statement, but that's okay... I'm not entirely libertarian, myself. I just feel like there's a bunch of pointless government programs that tax dollars are being wasted on that should probably get shut down, so taxes can be lowered, so that people can choose how to spend their money on their own.
***** I agree with you on all points, which can be summed as Libertarians demand anarchy. Their position has 2 major flaws. The first is that the power vacuum created by dismantling gov't would be filled by corporations and the wealthy. The 2nd flaw is that an aristocracy of wealth would result with separate laws for different classes. Who would defend the constitution after gov't was stripped of power? You're right about roads, too. Libertarianism is disguised elitism and outright fascism in a very pure sense.
Any consistent libertarian has to also be an anarchist #selfownership #voluntaryism #taxationistheft
I don't mind being an inconsistent libertarian. Civil liberties are for the people. Regulate corporations and government strictly.
And name me one time throughout history that governments have actually done what they are suppose to? There is no consistency in being a libertarian as you must support usage of immoral acts to get what you want. See you still vote and voting is enforcing your will/opinion over people with a threat of violence, nothing moral about any belief in government.
No, the use of force is necessary for self-defense and to resolve civil disputes. Consistent libertarianism acknowledges that government should have a monopoly on the use of force, and that it must be subordinate to an objective rule of law. Rather than allowing individuals or mobs to use force according to their own subjective idea of justice. The best example of anarchy is the wild west where civil disputes were resolved with a duel or someone getting shot in a bar, and that kind of justice and use of force is far from desirable.
@@chris135x I apparently have to keep saying this. Capitalists are not libertarian or anarchists. Theyre tyrants trying to appeal to the youth.
@@chris135x lol
I'll say it from where I stand. In the E. U.
For a society to be successful there are three ingredients :
1. Atheism
2. Capitalism
3. Civil Liberties.
Idk about atheism that is interfering with peoples right to religious freedom
@@46_and28
First of all I didn't imply atheism by force. In fact I didn't imply capitalism or civil liberties by force either.
This would be like - fall in love with me or I'll kill you. Good luck with that.
I meant atheism as a choice of an enlightened society, one that has passed the point of believing fairy tales written hundreds or thousands of years ago and switched to a science based worldwiew. Just like an enlightened society would also choose the second and third points as well.
Maybe. Perhaps. How about the following adjustment:
1. Atheism
2. Capitalizing our Wants
3. Socializing our Needs
4. Civil Liberties (which, let's face it, would, by definition, be intrinsically extrapolated from the previous 3 reasons)
@@corinnepowers9646
Are you talking about some sort of universal basic income nonsense or what?
@@LV-426... *ponders* Mathematically speaking, universal basic income IS feasible. So, what do you mean, "nonsense"?
Oh, I see, the idea of "universal basic income" pisses off your ego, and triggers your short sighted survival instincts. Even though it would work, you don't "like" it, so you call it nonsense to protect your fragile emotions.
Ugh.
The unstated appeal of libertarianism is a desire for people to avoid taxes almost completely. Many see taxes as simply a reallocation of wealth, taking from the worthy and giving it to the lazy and undeserving. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of us derive benefits from taxes. Taxes are used to promote the general will, create infrastructure, and accomplish the great things that great nations do. To stop this so that some may have more "stuff" is pure, destructive greed. Also, while our welfare system could be improved, completely eliminating it in favor of voluntary charity would create millions of beggars. That's the legacy of the past.
I'm not Libertarian, but I'm not gonna hate because I love Penn and Teller and you shouldn't let political views get in your way.
Smart man.
You sir, deserve a high five. Thank you for having a brain.
I used to be a Libertarian but then I realized just how much society is going to shit and only caring for yourself will not fix this country
Penn is so fucking cool
A pig isn't a bad person. Just saying. It seems that Penn Jillete is only always right on when it comes to atheism. Anarcho-capitalism? Seriously? To believe in a contradiction is not the atheist way.
Well,... There's one good thing about Penn....
(he's an atheist)
Penn, why do so many people who call themselves "Libertarian" had silly head-hair and silly facial-hair?
Because they want the look to match the ideology?
why would you listen to someone named after a shaving cream?
or someone who can't spell. ahhh SNAP!
good one
I can buy Penn's Libertarianism.This guy is talented.He can kick Trump's.....
William Ball
As an Ancap, I was for Trump.
I'm an ancap which is someone that is against the initiation of force which includes all forms of government.
I don't think there should be a government period even if it's really small.
Why? Because government is inherently forceful and funded by force. Men and women in suits don't have the right to rule over me even with minimal power and I don't owe them money either. It's not acceptable to take even a little bit of people's money through taxation to fund people with a little bit of power over you.
The only acceptable society is one with anarcho-capitalism because nobody is ruling over anyone. It's just people being in charge of their own lives which is true freedom.
Another problem with minarchy is that it'll just grow into any form of statism above that whether moderate statism or severe to absolute statism.
The U.S. government used to be small, sure there was still slavery and unequal rights among certain other demographics too but other than that the government was so much smaller than it is today.
If you want true freedom you can't even have a little bit of government. Minarchy is basically a game of having the right people do the right amount of violence to be considered just but violence is violence of course.
Don't waste your time with the Libertarian Party. Just go out there and invest in the free market with bitcoin for instance and make real change happen rather than wait for some political party to do it.
You can't vote for freedom, you have to just grab it!
I am a libertarian because I am an edgy teenager
I am a hardcore Libertarian and a catholic i am very much agree with penn on open minded think, even when he seeks against religion of all kind i seek for rational religion and i m agaist fanatism promote freedom of religion i m for christian libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism but only minarchism is likely in a close-future
I just wish that more libertarian activists would actually read the LP's free 40 page campaign manual found on LP dot org. Most of them have read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead's 1700 total pages. But few lib activists have ever looked at an actual campaign manual. You can buy them used on amazon or barnes&noble for $4.
Bad people can do the right things. Hitler was a governor, Saddam Hussein loved his family, Satan loves his demons and cares about their needs. The right thing is perspective, the true spiritual essence of life is that we are bad in nature, and that nature proceeds everything we decide to do in our lives. What i mean is what Jesus said. A bad tree brings forth bad fruit and a good tree good fruit. This means that the ned result of what i mentioned in the beginning is counterproductive to what these people, Hitler, Saddam and Satan did is actually negatively inspired. Jesus was good and completely good, and everything He did was good and everything He will do will be just, even when He judges and condemns people for their actions in this life.
LOL, notice how "Peter M" just below, ended up the conversation superciliously pretending that others are dolts and disabled his reply links in the thread. Which of course means (a) he's a coward, and (b) he found himself outclassed in the conversation and threw in the towel.
'Loser.
I was a libertarian until I saw that one of his fingers was painted red, and realized that the government should enforce laws against men painting their nails.
Tristen, Libertarians know that tgere are private charities, church groups, etc. that do much better, much more, more efficient and much cheaper than the government. Plus... Libertarians would make it so for every dollar given to charity... you'd write off in taxes. Thus.. this would easily spur millions of dollars to charities that would provide for the people. This would allow the government to cut all their wastful spending on welfare that has clearly failed us.
The problem with you along with many Americans today is that you feel entitled to things (welfare, food stamps, health care, government bailouts, ect). We need to get away from this mentality and start making sacrifices for our country. JFK (a Democrat) said that it's not what your country can do for, but what you can do for your country.
Penn Jillette is a wonderful human being.
The initiation of force is immoral. Apply this Libertarian principle on an individual level, and then apply it on a national level.
Individuals will see that yes, I don't have the right to infringe on your natural rights to Life, Liberty, and Property because I hold these natural rights as well. Now when applying this to the government, we can see that the state consistently infringes on these rights for all individuals at all times. If I can't kill, enslave, or steal from people why should the government be allowed to? All Libertarians want is a consistent ideology that can be applicable and universally true. Saying that we should be free from the initiation of force in one case, but should be forced to act in another way is inconsistent. The solution is to educate one another about force and why it is wrong. Once we are comfortable with our natural rights and can figure out when someone is using force, we can always tell when someone is acting immorally, instead of having a divided nation trying to determine which acts of force are acceptable and which ones are unacceptable.
We want consistency, not bullshit...
A very difficult question for libertarian:
What do you think about the American sport?
In Belgian we don't have something like “The Draft”.
In Belgian soccer is the choice from the wage, and who plays in which club a negotiation from the club and the player.
In European soccer is NO minimum wage and NO maximum wage.
Or is the question about economies and sport a little bit too difficult for you? :)
I'm curious.
This isn't even remotely a difficult question. Sports leagues are private enterprises which can set up whatever rules they want about how they're run. There is no "libertarian" opinion about sport, other than that the government shouldn't be involved in it at all.
Ryan Posly
American football is not good for the competition, European football is much better for the competition.
If you believe in the libertarian religion.
There isn't any libertarian religion. Libertarianism is a political philosophy and doesn't pretend to be anything else.
PS: BTW, in English the name of the country is Belgium, you should know this, especially if you live there.
Zephyr López Cervilla Perhaps you wrecked him a bit _too_ hard, Zephyr.
What's difficult for me is to make any sense of your second-rate broken English.
Jillette's mention of more freedom as it relates to rape and murder illustrates a larger point. Everyone gets sidetracked by this undefinable notion of "freedom". We need to ditch freedom as a concept and go with "explicit consent".
Rape by definition lacks explicit consent. Freedom doesn't enter the equation. There is freedom when everyone, including the state, operates under the absolute notion of participation with all through explicit consent.
I have no problem with freedom of choice. When it comes to purchasing, we should all be given the right to make our choices based on HONEST information. So, if I'm defrauded, is it "too bad, so sad", or will businesses perpetrating fraud be held accountable? Other than that, I'm pretty much on board.
Libertarianism does not necessarily mean anarchy.
Dave Denton Libertarians explicitly say that the purpose of government is to protect people from force and FRAUD. So yes, people who perpetrate fraud WILL be held accountable.
I think the reason I'm a libertarian, ultimately, is because I trust individuals to know what is best for themselves, in general. In my mind, government is unavoidable, but it's purpose is really to solve *intractable and serious* problems of the commons, with the primary one being defense against warlord types and foreign aggressor nations. But it's legitimate to use government to solve other serious problems of the commons that voluntary interaction can not reasonably solve.
I'm a Right-Wing Libertarian, I think. I'm not a liar (any more than the average human, at least).
Peter M. I think we can introduce a new rule. If you have a conversation with someone in youtube comments, post a final comment and then cowardly disable reply links for the entire thread, then you lose the debate and concede the issue. I accept your surrender.
Yours,
Lucifer
What's the difference between your style of Right Libertarianism and other Property Rights Extremists' variously labelled forms of tyranny , bully boy?
In America, libertarians are called fascists by those on the left and communists by those on the right.
I tend to think if you're upsetting most of the people, you're probably just being rational.
In a weird way, its because I don't trust that I'm a libertarian.
I don't believe people can be trusted with enormous amounts of power, over enormous amounts of their fellow people.
That's why I want individuals to have more power over their own lives and governments to have less.
Libertarian's argument is chiefly over taxes. They see a graduated income tax as wealth redistribution, which it is not. What they fail to recognize is that people once worked a lot harder for a lot less, and in an age when government was much smaller.
I see that Penn is a libertarian with a small "L." There are many hardline Libertarians who'll quickly lambaste non-believers and will never change their minds no matter what evidence negates their arguments.
Question, and to put it like you said Penn, offer the answer with 'more freedom", why do you HAVE to be an atheist in order to be a Libertarian?
Libertarianism is on the rise. 2014 & 2016 are gonna be good years for the party & 2-party politicians with Libertarian-leaning views.
He probably knows a great deal of it (criticism of Libertarian economics) since in this video he says that he would rather listen to people preach to him than he would try to convert people. That tells me he's listening to others' viewpoints which would include criticisms of libertarianism. But I like the quote from the German billionaire you posted.
No need to answer my question. I see from other comments you've posted that you worship Supreme Mommy State, as a collectivist/leftist. And no doubt you vociferously condemn those who worship Supreme Daddy State, because you imagine their bogus beliefs to be fundamentally different from your bogus beliefs. They aren't.
So if we abided by the non-aggression principle (the foundation of libertarianism), people would be violent? And the way to achieve real freedom is to initiate violence via "taxation"? Um, yeah. Sure. Don't forget to add these: freedom is slavery, war is peace, and ignorance is strength. Gack.
A private business can OFFER to sell you something. It can OFFER to pay you for doing work for it. It can't force anything on you, unless it does it via "government." The fact that you hallucinate free exchange as being "authoritarian" is a little odd.
From the way you just stated it, you seem to think--for example--that if you rationally conclude that a high-fat diet is unhealthy, you would be justified in violently forcing people (by yourself or via "government") to eat less fat.
Whiny insults + no substance = standard statist apologist bunk. (So, which flavor of authoritarian control do you subscribe to, that you didn't enjoy having literally described for you? Which version of the "government" lie did you fall for?)
The funny thing is, I'm a Christian libertarian and I feel the same way about that as he does about being an Atheist libertarian. ^_^ Gotta love the libertarian philosophy!
So you think freedom leads to poverty, and a parasitic, coercive ruling class leads to wealth. Um, okay. I guess this discussion just got completely pointless. Some time step outside into the real world and look around.
The fundamental failing of libertarianism is that it only works with the presumption that people are good by nature. They are not. In fact, the very views and policies of libertarianism encourage and sometimes even force people to behave in evil ways.
I admire most libertarians. They are generally very good people by nature who have trouble understanding why someone would act with evil intent. That is why they're libertarians.
But that doesn't make them right. It makes them naive.
Care to give some examples how libertarian policies force people to act in evil ways?
If you're the academic type, Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" sums it up nicely. It's a difficult read though. It was written on the subject of the environment, but the concepts apply to all free market trade.
Essentially here's the problem. Libertarian policies promote extreme competition. In theory, through unfettered capitalism with little to no government regulation, our economy will become its most efficient, guided by the invisible hand of the free market.
However, under these policies, individuals and companies must exploit every possible advantage to stay ahead of the competition. Only the strongest, most efficient companies can survive in this extreme capitalist environment. This includes exploiting advantages that have long term negative consequences, and exploiting advantages that have negative consequences for the whole of society, but positive benefits that affect only you and/or your company. Even if the negative benefits outweigh the positive benefits, you must still exploit these or be run out of business. If you don't do it, someone else will, and your business will fail. Not only will you fail, but your refusal to do the wrong thing has no benefit to society, because the competition who came along did not do the right thing. Your responsible business was run out of town, while the irresponsible competitor did all the damage you would have done had you not been responsible in the first place. Now, for being responsible, you get all of the negatives and none of the positives.
If a company (or individual) chooses to be responsible and sacrifice short term gains for long term benefits, that company will be driven out of business by other companies that do not take this responsible stance.
Let me try to quantify this by reducing companies to numbers.
Company A is worth $1000/month
Company B is worth $1000/month
They are perfectly competitive.
Company A develops a technological advancement that gives it an advantage over company B. +$250
Company A is worth $1250
Company B is worth $1000
Company A could leave things as is and simply make an additional $250/month
However, it is more beneficial for company A to now lower their prices 20% to where they are worth, let's say, $1000, matching their competitor. This benefits consumers, who abandon company B. Not having the technological advantage, company B cannot compete with company A and loses all their customers to company A for lower prices.
Company A is worth $1600
Company B is worth $0
Company B goes out of business. Company A is more profitable than if they had not lowered their prices.
This is great. This is how capitalism should work in theory. Consumers get the same amount of goods for $1600 that they were getting for $2000. The economy has become more efficient. Company A is thriving because of their ingenuity.
Now let's look at another result that is not so great.
Company A is worth $1000
Company B is worth $1000
The are perfectly competitive.
Company A learns of an opportunity to increase their efficiency by $250, however, it will pollute the environment, costing $800. This is a net loss of $550. They opt not to do it. Company B learns of this and sees an opportunity. Company B exploits this opportunity, increasing their worth by +$250.
It also decreases total worth by $800, but Company B does not have to bear that cost alone. Company A must split that cost with Company B. -$400 to company A, -$400 to company B
Company A is worth $600
Company B is worth $850
Company B did not see any gains from this, and in fact lost money, but they became more competitive. They can now lower their prices 30% and still be as profitable as Company A. Company A will lose their customers to Company B.
Company A is worth $0
Company B is worth $1200
Company A did the right thing, but went out of business. They were hurt by making the right choice. Company B did something evil that hurt everyone, including themselves, but they still came out ahead by +$200.
But only in the short run. With company A out of business, company B must now absorb the additional costs from their initial bad decision.
Company B -$400
Company A is worth $0
Company B is worth $800
Everybody loses. So why would Company B make that choice? It doesn't make sense.
The answer is Company C. If both Company A and Company B decide to be responsible, that creates an opportunity for someone else. In a country filled with 300 million people all looking for opportunities, someone is going to see this and realize that starting with a situation where...
Company C is worth $0
They can exploit this to drive Company A and Company B out of business and end up with a final result of
Company A worth $0
Company B worth $0
Company C worth $800
That's still a +$800 result for Company C who had nothing going in. They hurt everyone in doing it, but they created a thriving business.
The only way Company A and Company B can stay competitive is if they both exploit the environment. This has twice the environmental cost and leaves
Company A $1000 + $250 -$800 = $450
Company B $1000 + $250 -$800 = $450
So we lost $1100 in profit with no gains in efficiency to consumers, but both companies were forced to accept this because if they do not they can be driven out of business entirely by new competitors, eager to exploit any advantage.
This is a mathematical representation of a market failure that arises from libertarian policies that seek to limit government 'interference' in the marketplace.
To solve this problem, the government must ban these types of exploits, or fine the company causing the environmental damage so that their costs equal the costs of the damage they are doing to the environment so that they cannot exploit such evil things for their own gain.
Remember, these policies are not in place to damage company A and company B, they are there to protect them from company C.
It's not that Company A and Company B are evil. It's that they are forced into making evil decisions against their will by the market.
I'm not a libertarian because like socialism, it has never worked in practice. While the most successful countries in the world are based around large government.
I was shocked that you aren't allowed to name your company something horrendously offensive, coz I mean as bad as it is I still want to and should have the freedom to call it that utter bs
Either you want to use aggression on someone who is not harming you or others, or you don't. Either you are evil or not. Pretty simple to me. As a Christian I really enjoy listening to Penn. I wish all Atheists acted as he does.
I really like what he's saying... But I can't exactly believe him due to his anti-vaccine campaigns.
Because its platform reflects the bill of rights and the constitution. And as a Christian I believe God gave man free will
So advocating a complete ABSENCE of authoritarian control is ... um ... authoritarian? Can't get much more idiotic than that.
i'm not probably not that much of a Libertarian when it comes to environment or gun rights
Optimism and trust/love of people being the most important part sounds an awful like a christian missionary mr atheist magician
Mr mash I think you misunderstood libertarianism less gov. More freedom these are the values this country was founded on
Right, real libertarians are socialist or anarchist. Anarchists called themselves libertarians to differentiate themselves from authoritarian or state socialism. That's where you get the term libertarian socialism. Anarchism/Libertarian socialism has a rich, long history.
Now this American libertarianism is not socialism, It's propertarianism, and they are not libertarians-they are propertarians. Real Libertarians are non-propertarian. Sorry, I am high.
I am not a libertarian
There may be poor farmers, but I bet they are not starving, and the only reason they are poor is because they need to pay the taxes and mortgage on the land.
I am not saying that you have to be a farmer, or that all land is equal. What I am saying is... Just because you want to remain dependent on some sort of nanny system that takes care of you, dont force it down the throat of others who can take care of themselves like big boys. Freedom is nothing to be scared of...
Contrary to what you may believe there is PLENTY of land for every person to take care of their own food and shelter. If you do not want to do that for yourself why should that effect me in anyway.
You and I are both very capable of doing these basic things and leading happy fulfilling free lives. Why is it that after 12 years of "schooling" the only way 99% of humans know how to survive is by laboring for money? Doesnt that seem a bit odd to you considering other men print this money at wil
I will put it to you a bit simpler so you can understand...
How long would it take for the population of an area to empty a wallmart for free without the protection of governemt mercenaries... AKA police and prison guards.
Also, without the laws and police how do corps keep people from living in their establishments, or reclaiming the stolen land that the corps would never would have been able to "own" in the first place had there not been a government to give them a title for it.
How is it that private business would be able to claim ownership of land and resources without governemt enforcing Royal Admiralty law.
I dont know how many times I have to explain this to you... it really shows your true nature and masters. Humans who want true freedom do not want to work for money for a corporation, or as you say "private business", for privilege to survive on our planet... the fact that this is what you are trying to sell to people is laughable.
Fascists call themselves anything they please them. That doesn't mean they are. Libertarians fought fascism in the Spanish revolution. Libertarianism is related to anarchism. You like working 8 hour shifts? You can thank an anarchist for that. Anarchists are peaceful and tolerate progressive-collectivists and most kinds of similar statists. Anarchists oppose force. The US government is not Libertarian at all no matter how much they call themselves Libertarians...
My take on the 2nd Amendment: Allow anyone ANYWHERE to be armed, regardless of whether or not its concealed. We should learn to live with the real and imagined consequences of such a society, just like they did back in the 1800's. And we should strictly enforce laws with heavy penalties for those that cause wrongful injury or death as a result of misuse of a firearm. Not only would crime go way down, but civility would go WAY up!
My take on the first Amendment: Abolish the FCC. Also, we all have a freedom to worship our religion and display our religion IN PUBLIC PLACES. The government should simply guarantee the right of ANY religion doing the same. Also, POLITICIANS have a right to serve their elected position with their religion as their guide. If you don't like it, elect someone else. Anyone that doesn't agree is wrong, because mine is the proper interpretation of the Constitution.
I prefer democratic market socialism. Government that is truly by the people is a good thing. We have the technology, to have a technological direct democracy where anyone can propose, alter, and vote on ideas. In my opinion, capitalism uses plenty of force and reduces "freedom". After all, competition is just another word for force.
Ok, well let's look at what socialism has resulted in... Stalin, Hitler, Holocaust. Nice thinking there.
And yet, according to their oh so precious social contract argument, wouldn't they be in full agreement of that even if it were true and libertarianism took over?
Statists, one set of rules for them and one set of rules for everyone else. The arrogance truly knows no bounds.
All systems have flaws...but few have as many freedoms as libertarianism.
this video once again makes me think..rapists should be put to death, it's misogyny or lust which leads one to do this, but the reason the death penalty is best is because.. invading the body of someone else should be a justifiable reason to put one to death, murderers should be put in prison.. for a long time and rapists to death so they never rape again, simply put, murderers are unlikely to be afraid of death, but rapists are...lol This seems like a pretty good solution to me.
well this shit is confusing, i'm a pessimist in the sense that i always see the negative side of things so very easily these days, but i understand what he means, by looking on the bright side instead of believing we need to start over, things gradually get better .. when mankind is ready2take the big step, like the end of slavery&racism, but then you got to see my side of this situation,Which is.. that stuff isn't really ended yet, i will however say its all played out, nothing2learnfrom it now
Rights are a social construct. There is no reason why I shouldn't take your stuff outside of the social construct put forth by a community. You seem to have forgotten this with all your privileged whining. Without the state you have no rights. How do you plan on enforcing the right to keep your stuff if I decide I want it? What right does a lion have to eat a mouse? What right does a bear have to take honey from bees? Property is a figment of your imagination.
Coercive extraction of wealth? Are you really this simple and spoiled? How exactly do you expect a country to function without revenue? Roads are also not merely transportation. If you were to blockade every road to a city that city would quickly starve and die. You don't want the government to have that power but what happens when an individual gets the ability to control whether a city lives or dies without representation? You've heard the term Highway Robbery?
Taxes are the cost of doing business for the general upkeep of a country. If you don't like what the taxes are spent on complain to your representative or run for congress. It isn't a matter of morality. If someone refuses to pay taxes they are a thief and a parasite. I don't see you building any symbiotic farms. Every major city is 3 days away from starvation. Taxes pay for the infrastructure that keeps that from happening. With enough symbiotic farms people would have free food and energy
I don't get into the market bit of it because I don't know anything about it yet; but laissez faire seems like it would have its benefits and drawbacks. It's more free, but less fair, so far as I understand it.
I'm a Libertarian because I'm against Government interference in most everything except: I'm also a conservative because I believe all Citizens should have a one year mandatory Military service.
what would the liberatarians have done when germany and japan declared war on us, also if i had penns money i could be a liberatarian or a fool or maybe even a magician. i do like you Penn saw you on several interviews and you are a pretty smart guy. just like me. my problem is i cant spell very good and my grammar sucks. to all, have a nice Christmas or winter soltice or whatever.