The one reason I can't support anarcho capitalism is because we know how it treats people. The invisible hand of capitalism doesn't just apply to markets but to labor as well. When machines replace people there is less jobs the 'invisible hand' fixes this by letting the laborers die off from starvation so you no longer have a surplus. This is not the type of world to live in, a world where human beings are nothing but a commodity to be thrown away.
I enjoy Penn's thought process and his honesty. I find that I agree with him on most things including the libertarian approach to government. God is where I disagree but I fully respect his opinions on the matter. I would love to catch one of his shows someday.
I HATE Atheism. The point of view of an Atheism is the befriending with the DARK SIDE. The Atheism is always wrong. That is the main REASON I HATE Atheism so much. :) :)
Thank Goodness I am very RELIGIOUS. I am proud to be RELIGIOUS. At least I have something to believe in. You have not felt anything miraculously supernatural that's why you are a disbeliever in the super supreme almighty of all beings. :) :)
I HATE Atheism. The point of view of an Atheism is the befriending with the DARK SIDE. The Atheism is always wrong. That is the main REASON I HATE Atheism so much. :) :)
Leena Circle Page I HATE Atheism. The point of view of an Atheism is the befriending with the DARK SIDE. The Atheism is always wrong. That is the main REASON I HATE Atheism so much. :) :)
Leena Circle Page The funny thing is, Penn Jillette has more in common with Jesus Christ than any Christian I know. He stands for what he thinks is right. He lives in Las Vega, though he doesn't drink or gamble. Much like Jesus spending much of his time with drunks and prostitutes. Jesus could walk on water or turn water into wine, well... Penn Jillette is a talented enough magician to make people think he did.
Leena Circle Page Its kind of a hard sell to say atheism is befriending the dark side when you have an atheist acting more like Jesus than Christians. I get it though. I was technically an atheist long before I truly admitted it. In fact, I didn't want to admit it because for a long time I hated atheists too. I just didn't believe in god. Some atheist on the internet are more anti-Christian than they are pro-atheism. They piss me off just as much as they piss you off. But they aren't your common everyday atheist. They are activists that hide behind the anonymity of the internet and are more noticeable because they make themselves so. Why am I an atheist? For one, I can't disprove the existence of God, but when my Christian faith was struggling, I often pondered why God would make this massive universe if humans were the center of it all? I mean, the Bible speaks of humans as if they are God's most prized creation, but our entire solar system is less than a spec of the universe. Plus I found certain Biblical stories like Noah's Arch to be unbelievable. Then I heard the phrase, "Religion exists in the margins of science." That phrase did it for me. If you look historically, everything used to be explained religiously. God(s) were responsible for the weather, for example. But as science discovers things, we rely less and less on religion for explanations. So as society advances, it tends to become more atheist. To me, religion is merely beliefs created through ignorance. Though in a primitive culture, religion actually serves some purpose. It instills tradition and a way of behavior that has proven to work in the past. Most religious beliefs or superstition is based in reality. Most sins in the bible are practical. Don't steal, don't murder, don't rape. God might not really judge you, but if you get caught society will. Most biblical principals work for survival within society, even if they aren't based on science.
I always love going back watching these interviews of Penn back when he was masquerading as a "sketpic" and "libertarian" saying he was for small government or not believing in politicians... now look at him. For those who are confused. I want you to look at Penn's twitter page to discover not only was he not libertarian, but he was a neoliberal. He openly supported Obama, and Gavin Newsom and other democrats who, if we're being honest, held the same beliefs and did some similar things the neocons did during the Bush years, yet Penn never really criticized them while he was pretending to be a libertarian. Funny how he goes from wanting small government when one side in, limiting what they can do in power, then suddenly all for big government when another side is in. I want you to look at all these videos of him being pro liberty and reflect on that as I quote one of his more recent tweets/beliefs. "The idea of freedom, without concen for other people, is not my idea of freedom"
Only in America can you look at Obama and Bush and claim that they don’t ultimately side with an extremely narrow view of the political sphere with different coats of paint and less racism in one camp.
You are quite right --I started on a very very low wage as my boss couldn't afford a living wage for me. (£75 per week in 1988) I made the choice to enter the kitchen trade on a very low wage with the expectation of increasing my salary as I made more money for my bosses business. Now I have been in the trade for 25 years and earn good money. Starting on a low wage doesn't mean you stay on it --most of the workforce get richer as they get older
Penn Jillette is an intelligent and entertaining fellow and a master at his craft. He expresses a compassionate and somewhat tolerant attitude. He seems to be a genuinely likable man. He has displayed some stubbornness and pride as do we all. I applaud his rational embrace of the Libertarian politico, but do not understand how being an atheist is such a large part of who he is. The first question in the interview was about being an atheist. The things I oppose and the things I embrace define me, not the things I believe or do not believe. Like most people, I do not even think about most of the things I believe or do not believe unless some new evidence comes along or someone brings it up in a conversation. For example, I am sure Penn Jillette believes the Pythagorean Theorem. He does not define himself by it as did the mystic society that once existed around it. I don't oppose all the things in which I do not believe; nor do I embrace all of the things in which I believe. Penn Jillette made it clear that he opposed, even hated, "magic," a very big part of his life. If he opposes religion, God, spirituality, and the like or those who embrace them, I could understand the reason his atheism is such a big part of who he is and his need to announce it twice in every performance; but he claims NOT to oppose them. Garth Brooks embraces Christianity. Embracing a disbelief is absurd. I don't believe in "magic" but enjoy watching illusionists perform. I enjoy watching and trying to figure out the "trick", but do not oppose or embrace "magic" like Penn Jillette does; I don't give it much thought. I believe in energy and forces that I cannot see, because I am convinced the evidence or the argument for it is sufficient. I am more interested in learning what is true, rather than wasting energy trying to prove something is not true or that someone else is wrong, unless I embrace or oppose that argument as a primary part of my identity or I feel that my safety and well-being depend upon it. Trying to prove a negative is an exercise in futility. That is why our constitution does not require that you prove you are innocent. I embrace Christianity. I do not oppose atheists. I am convinced the knowledge of God is innate within every human being. It can be repressed, ignored, rejected, etc. The job of Christians is not to criticize or condemn atheists and non-believers. It is to be an example and share the love of God with them, just like Jesus did. It was the hypocrites Jesus criticized, not the uninitiated. If love is not your motivation, you are not a Christian, but a wolf in sheep's clothing. Christians do not hate atheists. They do not wish them harm. They simply love them, because they deserve it.
@CalebMTurberville Penn is referring to the 2nd verse. Perhaps he meant one of the "other" verses that doesn't mention "God." The 4th verse plainly does. The 3rd verse gives some vague references to the "gloom of the grave." Perhaps that's what he meant. On another note, the 2nd verse includes the two words I love most in the "Star Spangled Banner." They are, "haughty host." We just don't write like that anymore.
I am a Christian set in my belief of God. But out of all Atheists Penn is the one whom I respect most. Perhaps the only who may be able to change my mind on many things. His sincerity, and never wavering in what he believes is truth has won me over. His character, and his morality, although I fundamentally disagree with, are deeply researched and pondered.
The reason health insurance denies people with pre-existing conditions coverage is because of the way they evaluate people, their risk. Someone with a pre-existing condition is exponentially more likely to have something go wrong, the insurance agency is protecting itself so it can help other people. If they accepted everyone one, their funds would be stretched so thin, over a small portion of he patients, that few people would be able to get the care they need.
Penn has very much changed me in the last 6 months. I've stopped the Cop-out thing of calling myself agnostic when I knew i was an atheist. I stopped beating around the bush about it.
There will always be things for people to do, provided the government lets them do it. The government ordered farmers to destroy their crops during the great depression, they also took measures to drive production down in order to prevent prices from falling. The price of labor was not allowed to fall, meaning that there was surplus labor, but you could not hire them without breaking the law.
(Part 2) Since you did not want to be explicit, I will ask detailed questions: Q1: Is this correct: "rights are what is morally deserved by virtue of being"? Q2: If Q1 is correct, how/who determines what is is morally deserved by virtue of being?
The problem I have with that quote is that it implies that trying to make sure that people are healthy and have food to eat is a reward. Parents reward their children when they are good and punish them when they are bad to try to get their kids to behave properly. But if a child acts badly, the parent is still going to feed him and take care of him if he gets sick. I don't consider that a reward. I think there are some things that all people have a right to.
(Part 1) The very reason that I called 1 & 2 irrelevant is because no "supporting arguments of which to speak" was provided to link them to 3 The link is the definition of "rights" which you are using to contrast 3 vs 1 & 2, and i have been asking for it since 3 posts ago. If there is no definition, there is no way to contrast them and all we have are plain assertions (or in your words "wishes") Please first do that which you ask of others
Three different possible reasons: 1.It means he once shot a man for asking personal questions. 2.When Jillette first began performing, his mother told him to get a manicure because people would be looking at his hands. In response to this, he had all of his nails painted red as a joke. The one remaining red fingernail is in honor of his mother. 3.It's just cool and can also sometimes provide excellent misdirection.
Speaking as a liberal, I think that is logically sound reasoning and I can't say there is a convincing argument that negates that. My problem with that is that it abdicates the responsibility of society to look after the poor and unfortunate. It says if you are poor, uneducated, sick, old, unlucky etc, we (as a society) are going to let you die in a ditch and you better pray that some rich person takes pity on you and helps you, because we're not going to. And morally I cannot accept that.
Penn remains an absolute stand up guy and I really like the classy and eloquent philosophy on what makes him and Garth Brooks secular entertainers. Well said.
The great depression was the inevitable outcome of the fed's easy credit policy during the 1920s,a policy which led to a credit driven boom. The inflation of the money supple during this period led to an unsustainable boom in both asset prices & capitol goods. The fed belatedly tightened monetary policy in 1928,but too late to avoid a significant contraction. Afterwards,the economic interventionism of both Hoover and FDR lenghtened(17years)this depression. History repeats itself.
I would also remind you that that was a period of mass use of child labour, over exploitation of resources both natural and human, urban squalor, corruption, social injustice and generally not caring if the poor lived or died. Then we introduced socialised medicine, education, welfare, market regulations and labour unions which hugely improved standard of living and life expectancy for those who needed it most. Would you look at that, government is more effective than unconnected individuals.
Dude, Ron Paul, Penn Jillette, Jesse Ventura, and on and on...so many real, human, critically thinking individuals in this country, some make a real stand for change, some just put themselves in the spotlight occasionally...can we not just get them together and form a real American political party that we can all get behind? They're saying the things most Americans can agree with, a real common ground that can provide stability and progress!
There is nothing wrong with helping people. There is something fundamentally wrong about the government coercing someone into helping another. As in, taxing someone in the name of someone else. Helping someone on your own free will is vital to society, yes, but it shouldn't be forced on you. What if someone came to your door with a gun and said, "Give me all your money and I will give it to charity on your behalf?" You'd say no, I'll give it away on my own.
I've had major problems getting a job as a student. Nobody wants anyone anymore. When I was in middle school I worked for $4 an hour. high school I worked for $7 an hour. Now, about 80% of high school kids make $0. Businesses CAN'T hire. You're proposing SOME people should be paid more and we should pick winners and losers, rather than having a more free, and more opportunity system. I'm a hard worker. I wish I could work 2 jobs for $5 an hour to support my school instead of 0 jobs for $0.
The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.
"Done nothing right" does not mean "done something wrong." What a logical fallacy! It means quite simply what it says. It means, in context of Penn's sentence, "having done nothing to deserve reward."
To Penn's point at 4:10. I agree to an extent, but more important than awakening your opponent to suspected condescension is the possibility of invoking his ego. Once you've insulted your opponents (or allow him to think you've insulted him), that puts up just as strong a wall.
If one of two people have commited a crime and we don't which one did it, do we punish both of them or non of them? If one of two people hasn't been doing his job, but the other one has and we don't know which is which, do we reward both of them or none of them?
2.The other error you might make is to say that the employee is responsable for his own life, and that if he doesn't want to be an employee, and make money, then he just shooudl work harder to arrive at that. In reality, your life is not determine by your «free will», and other similar philosophical myths, but by your global environnement (family, upbringing, social class at birth) combined with the chances (people you meet, opportunities you get) life throws randomly at you
I wouldn't refer to "having cancer" as something a person has done wrong. Is it fair that a person should have to struggle to even help himself simply because the institutions that claim they are there to help refuse to? It's more complex than just the simple incident you use as an example for insurance, which I actually do agree with. As for employment, I don't consider illness or poverty to be things people have done wrong. If a man can't afford nice clothes it shouldn't be held against him.
3.In essense, the potential of any given kid can be entirely sullied by a society where he doesn't get the same equal chances than any other person, regardless of class, race, sex, etc. The role of a society is ideally to allow equal chances for the most important things that allow a human being to thrive (health, education, a place to stay, etc), for everybody. This allows for more «best-ones» to arise, rather than just a bunch of lucky ones.
1) Police and fire department are Constitutional, and also are locally funded, not nationally. 2) You make life better for some, by sacrificing others. You raise one by lowering another. That's the problem. It's not as much rewarding the person who hasn't succeeded, that's not always their fault. But to pay for stuff like that they want to raise taxes on the rich, which is basically punishing those who have succeeded.
Lower prices doesn't matter if you can't find somewhere to work for money. The fact is there will be times when the supply of labor is greater than it's demand and anarcho capitalism's cure for this is to let them die off. If we're supposed to rely on the charity of the rich and the 90% of working people who will barely be making enough to support their own families then I'm not holding my breath.
No. It's about profit. Insurance is a business, not a charity. They are not out to help other people, they are out to make a profit. Though they inevitably help some people in doing so, they are basically making most of their profits through fear. Get it, get it now, before something happens and it's too late and you're left to wither and die alone because you weren't "responsible" enough to give us your money before something happened. This is not always the case, though it often is.
1.The error you make in that estimation is that you value money as something rightfully earned through work and effort, whereas in reality, money is something that you can gather in great quantities BEACAUSE of the effort of others, those working for you. The salary the employees earn is fundamentally disproportional to the earnings of the CEO. The time and effort, objectively, is almost the same, but for a lesser result in the case of an employee.
How come I never hear anyone complaining about the fact that this situation is already present when it comes to the police and the fire department? I understand the rhetoric of reward and punishment, how it's deeply, chemically inherent within us as a species. What I don't understand is why making life better in general for everyone is necessarily rewarding them. Regardless of where the money is coming from, the doctor doesn't ask you if you've been naughty or nice before he sews your wounds.
if you look and notice; he's been in show buissness SOOO LONG (basicly since childhood), that when the camera switchs angles, he naturally like compulse, changes his head over to talk to the camera, not the speark. :p amazing. really engages me more then a typical
The only way an insurance company can make a profit is if their insurance is good enough to entice people to buy it. If it wasn't, they would crash and burn. So in the end, they are completely beholden to the public. So they have to make sure the majority of people are happy with their insurance. And the only way to do that is to make sure they don't cover people with huge risk factors, or if they do make sure they charge them enough to make up their losses. That's how it works.
I agree with you. Maybe you meant to reply to the same person that I responding to? I pointed out the same thing that you did: "Done nothing right" does not mean "done something wrong."
My argument isn't against the machines, it's about how a capitalist society would deal with increasing automation. In capitalism you need capital to trade to get the things you need, usually by getting a job. But if machines replace the labor of the middle and working class what are they supposed to do? Yes there will be operator jobs, but there will be far less jobs created than were phased out through technology. What does capitalism do when the supply of labor is greater than the demand?
1. The "etc" part gives the sentence its context. Don't cut it out: "done nothing sporty" does not mean "done nothing" 2. The government created the problem of poverty/bad medical care/bad education. Their goal is not to solve them, but to keep them or make them worse 3. Politicians are already bought by special interests. Don't think for a minute that any money will go to solve social problems 4. You and I have no control over the state. When we stop being delusional we can start being rational
Yes, because greedy CEOs don't want to spend an extra buck to ensure that the people who operate their company get a living wage, so they ship the jobs oversees. It's not the minimum wage that harms the economy -- it's greed. Plain and simple.
"I never said it was the only goal. Stop putting words in my mouth." & I never said that you said it was the only goal. "So you mean to tell me that all the people that were building carriages to be pulled behind horses just shriveled up and died when the automobile was created?" You wouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth would you?
Well I think the most important thing to realize is that today, we do not have capitalism in either the EU or USA (or for that matter pretty much anywhere in the world). I guess the best name to describe the current euroatlantic system is corporate socialism. We have markets, but they are hardly free. What is capitalist about goverment bailouts? What is capitalist about state business licences and regulation? It only helps the big corporations and the politicians.It is NOT free market capitalism
Exactly. You mentioned earlier that raising taxes on the rich, basically requiring them to pay more, was a form of punishment. Now, do you believe it is right to punish people for being unlucky enough to have poor health through no will of their own? You have a proper understanding of the system. I am merely trying to point out how such a system can breed immoral behavior like punishing the sick for their sickness.
File your Claim of Right and you can do that bullet catch trick anywhere in the USA, in Canada as well. We are not members of the Law Society and therefore are not subject to their incomprehensible statues.
... What's strange to me is that he says he doesn't see himself as an Atheist if he hadn't met James Randi... but that's contradictory to the nature of atheism. It's about self-thought. I'm an atheist and I arrived at that believe by my own reasoning, other authorities simply confirmed that I wasn't alone in thinking that.
It's a mischaracterization to imply that Randi simply says "psychic phenomena are impossible" and then looks for others to falsify his belief. That's akin to Christian saying "you can't prove god doesn't exist". Randi doesn't have the burden of proof, the psychics do. And, he has made it very easy on them. Not only does he offer money, but he also shows the rest of the world the trick behind what it is they are claiming. There has yet to be ANY verifiable evidence for psychic phenomena.
What the government is good at is certainly subject to debate. Personally I think they're fine for funding things like education as long as there's also a private option. Economy is complicated; there are certainly many things they shouldn't do, but some regulations (like worked safety) are clearly necessary. Some morals are more subjective than others. Are taxes "theft," and immoral? Or is forced competition immoral? Depends on your personal values. That's why democracy is so important.
When your infront of thousands of people everyday as your job (Vegas) so much emphasis is put on appearance (because its part of the show/act) that in your rare time off, you literally sometimes avoid those little appearance details, just to feel human again. Subconsciously rejecting (or taking a break from) the materialism you must swim in daily. Its not something every person experiences or understands. But its part of the celebrity life none the less.
There are no "rational policies" that aren't grounded in ethics and moral philosophy. What kind of policy we should have is a normative question, not a positive one, and can not be answered using science. Economics can teach us what the best policy is once we specify the aim, but it can not decide what the aims ought to be. And besides, I've never met anyone talking about "rational politics" who actually has any clue whatsoever about economics.
at 4:40, what does he mean by 'rewarding' in the question'why do I think it is morally right to reward someone who had done nothing right? I think I understand what is meant by the rhetorical question ;'is it morally right to punish someone who has done nothing wrong?'
To go back to what I said originally, people have a right to certain things. There's a big difference between giving some of your money so that people can have these things and giving them so much money that you have the same amount of wealth as them. Also, the whole point of laws is to FORCE things. You could say that the law FORCES you not to kill people or that if you don't have a license to carry firearms it allows for your guns to be taken by FORCE.
Then you need to ask the question "why doesn't this person want to do anything?" If you delve into the subject, you'll find that people aren't "lazy" simply because they have the option. This should be apparent in how many socialist countries have a very low unemployment rate.
i never said anything about people starving. Basically my view is this: If someone can help, they should. If someone is unable to help (eg. disabilty), they have to at least work with the system providing them welfare. The people who don't deserve help are those who wont support the system, those are the people we send to jail. I think we are in agreement, but just coming from different angles :)
They choke out smaller businesses by offering the same good at a lower price, and then offering the jobless and homeless of the area jobs that they otherwise would not have. Does not sound so bad to me.
No we make fun of him because what he meant was moronic. Penn Jilette was arguing against tyranny, not for it. The idea that we need to violate rigths to avoid "tyranny" has led to massive corporate and government power.
To you personally Mr. Jillete, I would like to have the opportunity to have a one on one conversation with you. Not to try to change your mind, but as a young adult, Christian, Libertarian, who's views are still forming, to learn from you.
@SuperIllusiveman I forgot exactly what Penn said, but I think they wanted to stop the show, but not cancel it forever, just take an extended break, but Showtime ended up canceling it because they went on to do the show "tell a lie" on discovery.
I know the French Revolution quite well. However, I meant "burn it" figuratively. I simply was adding some flare to my statement. To be serious though, there would, in an ideal situation be a GA, where by direct democracy issues can be dealt with. But then again if a corporation did try to enslave the people what would be bad about dismantling it? Anarchism is a highly organized society unlike the French revolution, which was mostly chaos under the leadership of a madman.
Randi lies in the service of what he *thinks* is the truth. He has a preconceived notion of reality and refuses to have his mind changed. This is what sets him apart from scientists, who have the humility to confront their own fallibility.
It's not a word I'm using as an insult. Capitalism is free trade. Communism uses central controlled trade. In America we use a heavy mix. Some people would like a totally government controlled trade, while others want an entire free trade. If you argue that capitalism is evil, well I suspect you would like communism. Considering there really is no other options. The problem is some kids use the word "capitalism" too freely. If you hate capitalism, you are either ignorant or like communism.
The whole history of the industrial revolution disputes your point. Mechanization has increased the number of jobs and the wages paid by to those holding those jobs.
It does not imply that at all. It might be what you felt as you heard it, but feelings are not tools of cognition. Parents have the responsibility to feed their child and sure as hell should not punish a child for something they have failed to teach him. Psychopaths (people benefiting from the state - politicians, etc) use the "state solves social problems" claim as a justification to acquire the means to play out their psychological sickness. Nothing in the state solves social problems.
It's good that people who are well off can continue to be well off and even make each other more well off, and I mean that sincerely. You are okay, I am okay, but there are many who are not. Focusing on the successes of a system will do nothing to rectify its failures, though. I could just as easily say the miracle of socialism is that people who may dislike each other on a personal level can still work together for the sake of the collective. That doesn't make it any less of a failure.
It would depend on how it is set up. If it's like Obamacare, it's non-constitutional because it gives you no option of opting out. As an option though, things like Medicare are bankrupt, and there's so much bureaucracy that many physicians don't accept it because of all the restrictions. We exist because of our hard work. Not someone else's. Even large corporations require the hard work of CEO's, late nights huge risks. To deny them the product of that work is theft, no matter the reason.
1. "do you think its morally right to punish somebody whos done nothing wrong" - "no" - agreed. 2."then why do you think its morally right to reward somebody who's done nothing right?" If "done nothing right" means "having done something wrong" then (2) becomes obvious. If "done nothing right" is neutral then "done nothing right" means the same as "done nothing wrong" i.e. "nothing". Thus (2) becomes "do you think its morally right to reward somebody?" - neither right nor wrong Wats profound?
The absence of a "social safety net" has nothing to do with involuntary servitude. Americans already spend billions of dollars each year to charities, without a doubt, it would increase far more with less taxes. So no, it is not unjust. In fact, stealing money is never the just thing to do. But it's the last option some people feel. It is not morally wrong if you have a medical condition. As charities exist now for almost anything, and a very low amount of the population need them.
If an amendment regarding health care equivalent to the provisions for fire and police were proposed, including local funding, would you support it? We are not all equal, yet we are all born into servitude under the social, legal, and economic rules of our region's society. Wouldn't you agree that those who are capable of more have a responsibility to help those who are not so capable? That's an inherent part of capitalism we seem to be forgetting. We subsist thanks to the hard work of others.->
No, but that's not because of outsourcing. It's because of massive malinvestment caused by loose monetary policy that results in a lot of investment needing to be liquidated and the resources (including labor) reassigned to other purposes. That takes time and in the meantime the resources (including labor) are not being employed.
Most people have the ability to change their lot in life.The problem is when certain groups within society intentionally set out to restrict other groups within society's opportunities to change their lot in life. Capitalism has the potential to benefit everyone within society but it gets too easily distorted and perverted.
China's government is extremely communist, but not nearly as communist as the USSR for example. Very similar to our school systems. We have an entire nationwide socialist school system but there are few private schools, doesn't mean our school system is privatized. It is very socialized, people some how think that private school costs too much, when it costs way less than public school, it costs much now because they're competing for quality against a "free" ($45k a student) school system.
Yes, government is force. but what are the laws that it enforces based on? The point of government is to protect your rights, not to violate them for the sake of society.
In the end, that all still boils down to trying to find ways to MAKE people care about each other, all of which so far seem to fall prey to the selfish tendencies of those involved. The kind of change we truly need is not legal nor political. Individuals must learn to care about one another, which is something I have begun to doubt can ever happen in the majority of humans as they are now. I can't really comment yet on the second part because I have not yet looked into the book you mentioned.
Whether or not you believe people deserve the money is your opinion, but to deny that government money can solve problems is ridiculous. I think universal health care is a pretty good example. And to say that all people that receive money from the government are psychopaths is completely ludicrous. Just because somebody is poor and receives food stamps doesn't make them a psychopath.
as a side note, then, many of the fastest and most impressive periods of economic growth in human history were under various forms of Fascism. Soviet Russia, Weimar Germany, Colonial Japan, present-day China, etc. So using growth in GDP as an indicator of quality of life or the morality of government is of course very suspect. The discussion is more complex than what can be done in youtube comments.
Value ? Then why do we have an advertising industry ? What does it achieve exactly ? Billions spent on conning dummys into buying overpriced crap ? Surely not.
"If they make a valid and intelligent point that is factually based, then you should be intellectually honest and admit defeat." What point was so obvious that you would like me to concede?
Personally, I think of myself as a centrist, and I feel that capitalism and socialism are both flawed ideas in their pure form, but work best when balanced by each other. I think some things are better handled by the government, like military, healthcare, infrastructure; many things are better handled by private; and some things it makes sense to have both options like schools.
Noam Chomsky explains anarchism and libertarian-socialism very well. I am not sure he is a statist after reading his works. He is a realist I would say because he believes Anarchism is simply not possible in our society.
Apparently you misconstrued something that I said. I am a Libertarian as well as Penn, one of my Libertarian idles. I was replying to saleemisgod, who stated that a capitalist nation is a third world country, even though the definition of a first world country is a developed Capitalist society. A second world is a Communist, followed by high infant mortality rates and high poverty as a third world.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin It all comes down to what is worse. A totalitarianistic communist society that every single family will be poor, or some poor, some rich, and the wide majority is middle class. North Korea is your perfect world, even though none of them can have a life of liberty and die of malnutrition. Communism never works.
I agree. Basic human RIGHTS, for being puked into this world unknowingly, should include food, not Gourmet, clothing, not Gucci / Versace and shelter, not a mansion and YES basic health care. Some of us were born into upper-middle class and high class families, and some of us were not. Basic human RIGHTS, which translate into "needs" should be met for everyone. "eyeammi" should take a lesson from Penn Jillett and not be so condescending, and perhaps work on his / her people skills.
I don't agree with Penn on everything, but he's a smart guy and very refreshing.
The one reason I can't support anarcho capitalism is because we know how it treats people. The invisible hand of capitalism doesn't just apply to markets but to labor as well. When machines replace people there is less jobs the 'invisible hand' fixes this by letting the laborers die off from starvation so you no longer have a surplus. This is not the type of world to live in, a world where human beings are nothing but a commodity to be thrown away.
"How can Bribery not work in New York City?" LOL! Gotta love Penn.
I enjoy Penn's thought process and his honesty. I find that I agree with him on most things including the libertarian approach to government. God is where I disagree but I fully respect his opinions on the matter. I would love to catch one of his shows someday.
I HATE Atheism. The point of view of an Atheism is the befriending with the DARK SIDE. The Atheism is always wrong. That is the main REASON I HATE Atheism so much. :) :)
Thank Goodness I am very RELIGIOUS. I am proud to be RELIGIOUS. At least I have something to believe in. You have not felt anything miraculously supernatural that's why you are a disbeliever in the super supreme almighty of all beings. :) :)
GOOD. So do I about you. ;) ;)
My atheist hero and my libertarian hero.
I HATE Atheism. The point of view of an Atheism is the befriending with the DARK SIDE. The Atheism is always wrong. That is the main REASON I HATE Atheism so much. :) :)
Leena Circle Page I HATE Atheism. The point of view of an Atheism is the befriending with the DARK SIDE. The Atheism is always wrong. That is the main REASON I HATE Atheism so much. :) :)
Leena Circle Page The funny thing is, Penn Jillette has more in common with Jesus Christ than any Christian I know. He stands for what he thinks is right. He lives in Las Vega, though he doesn't drink or gamble. Much like Jesus spending much of his time with drunks and prostitutes. Jesus could walk on water or turn water into wine, well... Penn Jillette is a talented enough magician to make people think he did.
yes i see yeah i understand. so what does it makes him then. you explain about him. we would all like to hear your point of view. :) :)
Leena Circle Page Its kind of a hard sell to say atheism is befriending the dark side when you have an atheist acting more like Jesus than Christians.
I get it though. I was technically an atheist long before I truly admitted it. In fact, I didn't want to admit it because for a long time I hated atheists too. I just didn't believe in god. Some atheist on the internet are more anti-Christian than they are pro-atheism. They piss me off just as much as they piss you off. But they aren't your common everyday atheist. They are activists that hide behind the anonymity of the internet and are more noticeable because they make themselves so.
Why am I an atheist? For one, I can't disprove the existence of God, but when my Christian faith was struggling, I often pondered why God would make this massive universe if humans were the center of it all? I mean, the Bible speaks of humans as if they are God's most prized creation, but our entire solar system is less than a spec of the universe. Plus I found certain Biblical stories like Noah's Arch to be unbelievable. Then I heard the phrase, "Religion exists in the margins of science." That phrase did it for me. If you look historically, everything used to be explained religiously. God(s) were responsible for the weather, for example. But as science discovers things, we rely less and less on religion for explanations. So as society advances, it tends to become more atheist. To me, religion is merely beliefs created through ignorance.
Though in a primitive culture, religion actually serves some purpose. It instills tradition and a way of behavior that has proven to work in the past. Most religious beliefs or superstition is based in reality. Most sins in the bible are practical. Don't steal, don't murder, don't rape. God might not really judge you, but if you get caught society will. Most biblical principals work for survival within society, even if they aren't based on science.
I always love going back watching these interviews of Penn back when he was masquerading as a "sketpic" and "libertarian" saying he was for small government or not believing in politicians... now look at him.
For those who are confused. I want you to look at Penn's twitter page to discover not only was he not libertarian, but he was a neoliberal. He openly supported Obama, and Gavin Newsom and other democrats who, if we're being honest, held the same beliefs and did some similar things the neocons did during the Bush years, yet Penn never really criticized them while he was pretending to be a libertarian. Funny how he goes from wanting small government when one side in, limiting what they can do in power, then suddenly all for big government when another side is in.
I want you to look at all these videos of him being pro liberty and reflect on that as I quote one of his more recent tweets/beliefs.
"The idea of freedom, without concen for other people, is not my idea of freedom"
Only in America can you look at Obama and Bush and claim that they don’t ultimately side with an extremely narrow view of the political sphere with different coats of paint and less racism in one camp.
You are quite right --I started on a very very low wage as my boss couldn't afford a living wage for me. (£75 per week in 1988)
I made the choice to enter the kitchen trade on a very low wage with the expectation of increasing my salary as I made more money for my bosses business.
Now I have been in the trade for 25 years and earn good money.
Starting on a low wage doesn't mean you stay on it --most of the workforce get richer as they get older
Penn Jillette is an intelligent and entertaining fellow and a master at his craft. He expresses a compassionate and somewhat tolerant attitude. He seems to be a genuinely likable man. He has displayed some stubbornness and pride as do we all. I applaud his rational embrace of the Libertarian politico, but do not understand how being an atheist is such a large part of who he is. The first question in the interview was about being an atheist.
The things I oppose and the things I embrace define me, not the things I believe or do not believe. Like most people, I do not even think about most of the things I believe or do not believe unless some new evidence comes along or someone brings it up in a conversation. For example, I am sure Penn Jillette believes the Pythagorean Theorem. He does not define himself by it as did the mystic society that once existed around it.
I don't oppose all the things in which I do not believe; nor do I embrace all of the things in which I believe. Penn Jillette made it clear that he opposed, even hated, "magic," a very big part of his life. If he opposes religion, God, spirituality, and the like or those who embrace them, I could understand the reason his atheism is such a big part of who he is and his need to announce it twice in every performance; but he claims NOT to oppose them. Garth Brooks embraces Christianity. Embracing a disbelief is absurd.
I don't believe in "magic" but enjoy watching illusionists perform. I enjoy watching and trying to figure out the "trick", but do not oppose or embrace "magic" like Penn Jillette does; I don't give it much thought. I believe in energy and forces that I cannot see, because I am convinced the evidence or the argument for it is sufficient. I am more interested in learning what is true, rather than wasting energy trying to prove something is not true or that someone else is wrong, unless I embrace or oppose that argument as a primary part of my identity or I feel that my safety and well-being depend upon it. Trying to prove a negative is an exercise in futility. That is why our constitution does not require that you prove you are innocent.
I embrace Christianity. I do not oppose atheists. I am convinced the knowledge of God is innate within every human being. It can be repressed, ignored, rejected, etc. The job of Christians is not to criticize or condemn atheists and non-believers. It is to be an example and share the love of God with them, just like Jesus did. It was the hypocrites Jesus criticized, not the uninitiated. If love is not your motivation, you are not a Christian, but a wolf in sheep's clothing. Christians do not hate atheists. They do not wish them harm. They simply love them, because they deserve it.
13:42 "The state of New York City"
Hey! There is a whole state called NY.
The state as the in the condition.
@CalebMTurberville Penn is referring to the 2nd verse. Perhaps he meant one of the "other" verses that doesn't mention "God." The 4th verse plainly does. The 3rd verse gives some vague references to the "gloom of the grave." Perhaps that's what he meant. On another note, the 2nd verse includes the two words I love most in the "Star Spangled Banner." They are, "haughty host." We just don't write like that anymore.
I am a Christian set in my belief of God. But out of all Atheists Penn is the one whom I respect most. Perhaps the only who may be able to change my mind on many things. His sincerity, and never wavering in what he believes is truth has won me over. His character, and his morality, although I fundamentally disagree with, are deeply researched and pondered.
The reason health insurance denies people with pre-existing conditions coverage is because of the way they evaluate people, their risk. Someone with a pre-existing condition is exponentially more likely to have something go wrong, the insurance agency is protecting itself so it can help other people. If they accepted everyone one, their funds would be stretched so thin, over a small portion of he patients, that few people would be able to get the care they need.
Penn has very much changed me in the last 6 months. I've stopped the Cop-out thing of calling myself agnostic when I knew i was an atheist. I stopped beating around the bush about it.
What Penn said at the end reminds me of Johnny Cash's quote: I'm not a christian artist, I am an artist who is a christian.
What does he say at 7:35 ?
I would like to read what he talks about but I can't find it.
There will always be things for people to do, provided the government lets them do it.
The government ordered farmers to destroy their crops during the great depression, they also took measures to drive production down in order to prevent prices from falling.
The price of labor was not allowed to fall, meaning that there was surplus labor, but you could not hire them without breaking the law.
(Part 2)
Since you did not want to be explicit, I will ask detailed questions:
Q1: Is this correct: "rights are what is morally deserved by virtue of being"?
Q2: If Q1 is correct, how/who determines what is is morally deserved by virtue of being?
The problem I have with that quote is that it implies that trying to make sure that people are healthy and have food to eat is a reward. Parents reward their children when they are good and punish them when they are bad to try to get their kids to behave properly. But if a child acts badly, the parent is still going to feed him and take care of him if he gets sick. I don't consider that a reward. I think there are some things that all people have a right to.
(Part 1)
The very reason that I called 1 & 2 irrelevant is because no "supporting arguments of which to speak" was provided to link them to 3
The link is the definition of "rights" which you are using to contrast 3 vs 1 & 2, and i have been asking for it since 3 posts ago. If there is no definition, there is no way to contrast them and all we have are plain assertions (or in your words "wishes")
Please first do that which you ask of others
Three different possible reasons:
1.It means he once shot a man for asking personal questions.
2.When Jillette first began performing, his mother told him to get a manicure because people would be looking at his hands. In response to this, he had all of his nails painted red as a joke. The one remaining red fingernail is in honor of his mother.
3.It's just cool and can also sometimes provide excellent misdirection.
Speaking as a liberal, I think that is logically sound reasoning and I can't say there is a convincing argument that negates that. My problem with that is that it abdicates the responsibility of society to look after the poor and unfortunate. It says if you are poor, uneducated, sick, old, unlucky etc, we (as a society) are going to let you die in a ditch and you better pray that some rich person takes pity on you and helps you, because we're not going to. And morally I cannot accept that.
Penn remains an absolute stand up guy and I really like the classy and eloquent philosophy on what makes him and Garth Brooks secular entertainers. Well said.
The great depression was the inevitable outcome of the fed's easy credit policy during the 1920s,a policy which led to a credit driven boom. The inflation of the money supple during this period led to an unsustainable boom in both asset prices & capitol goods. The fed belatedly tightened monetary policy in 1928,but too late to avoid a significant contraction. Afterwards,the economic interventionism of both Hoover and FDR lenghtened(17years)this depression. History repeats itself.
I would also remind you that that was a period of mass use of child labour, over exploitation of resources both natural and human, urban squalor, corruption, social injustice and generally not caring if the poor lived or died. Then we introduced socialised medicine, education, welfare, market regulations and labour unions which hugely improved standard of living and life expectancy for those who needed it most. Would you look at that, government is more effective than unconnected individuals.
Dude, Ron Paul, Penn Jillette, Jesse Ventura, and on and on...so many real, human, critically thinking individuals in this country, some make a real stand for change, some just put themselves in the spotlight occasionally...can we not just get them together and form a real American political party that we can all get behind? They're saying the things most Americans can agree with, a real common ground that can provide stability and progress!
There is nothing wrong with helping people. There is something fundamentally wrong about the government coercing someone into helping another. As in, taxing someone in the name of someone else. Helping someone on your own free will is vital to society, yes, but it shouldn't be forced on you. What if someone came to your door with a gun and said, "Give me all your money and I will give it to charity on your behalf?" You'd say no, I'll give it away on my own.
I've had major problems getting a job as a student. Nobody wants anyone anymore. When I was in middle school I worked for $4 an hour. high school I worked for $7 an hour. Now, about 80% of high school kids make $0. Businesses CAN'T hire. You're proposing SOME people should be paid more and we should pick winners and losers, rather than having a more free, and more opportunity system. I'm a hard worker. I wish I could work 2 jobs for $5 an hour to support my school instead of 0 jobs for $0.
The Constitution does not authorize the President to use signing statements to circumvent any validly enacted Congressional Laws, nor does it authorize him to declare he will disobey such laws (or parts thereof). When a bill is presented to the President, the Constitution (Art. II) allows him only three choices: do nothing, sign the bill, or (if he disapproves of the bill) veto it in its entirety.
Penn really is a fascinating and brilliant guy, I could listen to him all day
"Done nothing right" does not mean "done something wrong." What a logical fallacy! It means quite simply what it says. It means, in context of Penn's sentence, "having done nothing to deserve reward."
To Penn's point at 4:10. I agree to an extent, but more important than awakening your opponent to suspected condescension is the possibility of invoking his ego. Once you've insulted your opponents (or allow him to think you've insulted him), that puts up just as strong a wall.
If one of two people have commited a crime and we don't which one did it, do we punish both of them or non of them? If one of two people hasn't been doing his job, but the other one has and we don't know which is which, do we reward both of them or none of them?
2.The other error you might make is to say that the employee is responsable for his own life, and that if he doesn't want to be an employee, and make money, then he just shooudl work harder to arrive at that. In reality, your life is not determine by your «free will», and other similar philosophical myths, but by your global environnement (family, upbringing, social class at birth) combined with the chances (people you meet, opportunities you get) life throws randomly at you
I always learn something from Penn
I wouldn't refer to "having cancer" as something a person has done wrong. Is it fair that a person should have to struggle to even help himself simply because the institutions that claim they are there to help refuse to? It's more complex than just the simple incident you use as an example for insurance, which I actually do agree with.
As for employment, I don't consider illness or poverty to be things people have done wrong. If a man can't afford nice clothes it shouldn't be held against him.
3.In essense, the potential of any given kid can be entirely sullied by a society where he doesn't get the same equal chances than any other person, regardless of class, race, sex, etc. The role of a society is ideally to allow equal chances for the most important things that allow a human being to thrive (health, education, a place to stay, etc), for everybody. This allows for more «best-ones» to arise, rather than just a bunch of lucky ones.
1) Police and fire department are Constitutional, and also are locally funded, not nationally.
2) You make life better for some, by sacrificing others. You raise one by lowering another. That's the problem. It's not as much rewarding the person who hasn't succeeded, that's not always their fault. But to pay for stuff like that they want to raise taxes on the rich, which is basically punishing those who have succeeded.
Lower prices doesn't matter if you can't find somewhere to work for money. The fact is there will be times when the supply of labor is greater than it's demand and anarcho capitalism's cure for this is to let them die off. If we're supposed to rely on the charity of the rich and the 90% of working people who will barely be making enough to support their own families then I'm not holding my breath.
No. It's about profit. Insurance is a business, not a charity. They are not out to help other people, they are out to make a profit. Though they inevitably help some people in doing so, they are basically making most of their profits through fear. Get it, get it now, before something happens and it's too late and you're left to wither and die alone because you weren't "responsible" enough to give us your money before something happened. This is not always the case, though it often is.
Penn openly admits that Teller is smarter than him. Imagine what profound eloquence Teller might utter IF HE WOULD ONLY SPEAK!!!
1.The error you make in that estimation is that you value money as something rightfully earned through work and effort, whereas in reality, money is something that you can gather in great quantities BEACAUSE of the effort of others, those working for you. The salary the employees earn is fundamentally disproportional to the earnings of the CEO. The time and effort, objectively, is almost the same, but for a lesser result in the case of an employee.
How come I never hear anyone complaining about the fact that this situation is already present when it comes to the police and the fire department?
I understand the rhetoric of reward and punishment, how it's deeply, chemically inherent within us as a species. What I don't understand is why making life better in general for everyone is necessarily rewarding them. Regardless of where the money is coming from, the doctor doesn't ask you if you've been naughty or nice before he sews your wounds.
if you look and notice; he's been in show buissness SOOO LONG (basicly since childhood), that when the camera switchs angles, he naturally like compulse, changes his head over to talk to the camera, not the speark. :p amazing. really engages me more then a typical
The only way an insurance company can make a profit is if their insurance is good enough to entice people to buy it. If it wasn't, they would crash and burn. So in the end, they are completely beholden to the public. So they have to make sure the majority of people are happy with their insurance. And the only way to do that is to make sure they don't cover people with huge risk factors, or if they do make sure they charge them enough to make up their losses. That's how it works.
I agree with you. Maybe you meant to reply to the same person that I responding to? I pointed out the same thing that you did: "Done nothing right" does not mean "done something wrong."
My argument isn't against the machines, it's about how a capitalist society would deal with increasing automation. In capitalism you need capital to trade to get the things you need, usually by getting a job. But if machines replace the labor of the middle and working class what are they supposed to do? Yes there will be operator jobs, but there will be far less jobs created than were phased out through technology. What does capitalism do when the supply of labor is greater than the demand?
1. The "etc" part gives the sentence its context. Don't cut it out: "done nothing sporty" does not mean "done nothing"
2. The government created the problem of poverty/bad medical care/bad education. Their goal is not to solve them, but to keep them or make them worse
3. Politicians are already bought by special interests. Don't think for a minute that any money will go to solve social problems
4. You and I have no control over the state. When we stop being delusional we can start being rational
Yes, because greedy CEOs don't want to spend an extra buck to ensure that the people who operate their company get a living wage, so they ship the jobs oversees. It's not the minimum wage that harms the economy -- it's greed. Plain and simple.
"I never said it was the only goal. Stop putting words in my mouth."
& I never said that you said it was the only goal.
"So you mean to tell me that all the people that were building carriages to be pulled behind horses just shriveled up and died when the automobile was created?"
You wouldn't be trying to put words in my mouth would you?
Well I think the most important thing to realize is that today, we do not have capitalism in either the EU or USA (or for that matter pretty much anywhere in the world). I guess the best name to describe the current euroatlantic system is corporate socialism. We have markets, but they are hardly free. What is capitalist about goverment bailouts? What is capitalist about state business licences and regulation? It only helps the big corporations and the politicians.It is NOT free market capitalism
That does nothing for food safety, pollution, financial manipulation, etc.
I was not talking about the government itself.
Exactly.
You mentioned earlier that raising taxes on the rich, basically requiring them to pay more, was a form of punishment.
Now, do you believe it is right to punish people for being unlucky enough to have poor health through no will of their own?
You have a proper understanding of the system. I am merely trying to point out how such a system can breed immoral behavior like punishing the sick for their sickness.
File your Claim of Right and you can do that bullet catch trick anywhere in the USA, in Canada as well. We are not members of the Law Society and therefore are not subject to their incomprehensible statues.
... What's strange to me is that he says he doesn't see himself as an Atheist if he hadn't met James Randi... but that's contradictory to the nature of atheism. It's about self-thought. I'm an atheist and I arrived at that believe by my own reasoning, other authorities simply confirmed that I wasn't alone in thinking that.
It's a mischaracterization to imply that Randi simply says "psychic phenomena are impossible" and then looks for others to falsify his belief. That's akin to Christian saying "you can't prove god doesn't exist". Randi doesn't have the burden of proof, the psychics do. And, he has made it very easy on them. Not only does he offer money, but he also shows the rest of the world the trick behind what it is they are claiming. There has yet to be ANY verifiable evidence for psychic phenomena.
No, it has a dual nature. It is run by public federal employees appointed by the president, but it operates as a private bank.
What the government is good at is certainly subject to debate. Personally I think they're fine for funding things like education as long as there's also a private option. Economy is complicated; there are certainly many things they shouldn't do, but some regulations (like worked safety) are clearly necessary.
Some morals are more subjective than others. Are taxes "theft," and immoral? Or is forced competition immoral? Depends on your personal values. That's why democracy is so important.
When your infront of thousands of people everyday as your job (Vegas) so much emphasis is put on appearance (because its part of the show/act) that in your rare time off, you literally sometimes avoid those little appearance details, just to feel human again. Subconsciously rejecting (or taking a break from) the materialism you must swim in daily.
Its not something every person experiences or understands. But its part of the celebrity life none the less.
There are no "rational policies" that aren't grounded in ethics and moral philosophy. What kind of policy we should have is a normative question, not a positive one, and can not be answered using science. Economics can teach us what the best policy is once we specify the aim, but it can not decide what the aims ought to be. And besides, I've never met anyone talking about "rational politics" who actually has any clue whatsoever about economics.
at 4:40, what does he mean by 'rewarding' in the question'why do I think it is morally right to reward someone who had done nothing right? I think I understand what is meant by the rhetorical question ;'is it morally right to punish someone who has done nothing wrong?'
To go back to what I said originally, people have a right to certain things. There's a big difference between giving some of your money so that people can have these things and giving them so much money that you have the same amount of wealth as them. Also, the whole point of laws is to FORCE things. You could say that the law FORCES you not to kill people or that if you don't have a license to carry firearms it allows for your guns to be taken by FORCE.
Then you need to ask the question "why doesn't this person want to do anything?" If you delve into the subject, you'll find that people aren't "lazy" simply because they have the option. This should be apparent in how many socialist countries have a very low unemployment rate.
i never said anything about people starving.
Basically my view is this:
If someone can help, they should.
If someone is unable to help (eg. disabilty), they have to at least work with the system providing them welfare.
The people who don't deserve help are those who wont support the system, those are the people we send to jail.
I think we are in agreement, but just coming from different angles :)
why not show the video of the entire interview? podcast is only ~7min longer
They choke out smaller businesses by offering the same good at a lower price, and then offering the jobless and homeless of the area jobs that they otherwise would not have. Does not sound so bad to me.
No we make fun of him because what he meant was moronic. Penn Jilette was arguing against tyranny, not for it. The idea that we need to violate rigths to avoid "tyranny" has led to massive corporate and government power.
Even after PennSays ends, we can't get away from Penn looking at multiple cameras.
To you personally Mr. Jillete, I would like to have the opportunity to have a one on one conversation with you. Not to try to change your mind, but as a young adult, Christian, Libertarian, who's views are still forming, to learn from you.
@SuperIllusiveman I forgot exactly what Penn said, but I think they wanted to stop the show, but not cancel it forever, just take an extended break, but Showtime ended up canceling it because they went on to do the show "tell a lie" on discovery.
I still have my Video Toaster!
I know the French Revolution quite well. However, I meant "burn it" figuratively. I simply was adding some flare to my statement. To be serious though, there would, in an ideal situation be a GA, where by direct democracy issues can be dealt with. But then again if a corporation did try to enslave the people what would be bad about dismantling it? Anarchism is a highly organized society unlike the French revolution, which was mostly chaos under the leadership of a madman.
Randi lies in the service of what he *thinks* is the truth. He has a preconceived notion of reality and refuses to have his mind changed. This is what sets him apart from scientists, who have the humility to confront their own fallibility.
It's not a word I'm using as an insult. Capitalism is free trade. Communism uses central controlled trade. In America we use a heavy mix. Some people would like a totally government controlled trade, while others want an entire free trade. If you argue that capitalism is evil, well I suspect you would like communism. Considering there really is no other options.
The problem is some kids use the word "capitalism" too freely. If you hate capitalism, you are either ignorant or like communism.
The whole history of the industrial revolution disputes your point. Mechanization has increased the number of jobs and the wages paid by to those holding those jobs.
They have a low unemployment rate because they literally give people jobs, whether or not the jobs are needed or productive.
It does not imply that at all. It might be what you felt as you heard it, but feelings are not tools of cognition.
Parents have the responsibility to feed their child and sure as hell should not punish a child for something they have failed to teach him.
Psychopaths (people benefiting from the state - politicians, etc) use the "state solves social problems" claim as a justification to acquire the means to play out their psychological sickness.
Nothing in the state solves social problems.
Society should strive for liberty, equality and fraternity. Unfortunately libertarianism conflicts with two of those.
Actually Penn specifically says that he supports the right to proselytise and thinks genuine believers should do it.
It's good that people who are well off can continue to be well off and even make each other more well off, and I mean that sincerely. You are okay, I am okay, but there are many who are not. Focusing on the successes of a system will do nothing to rectify its failures, though. I could just as easily say the miracle of socialism is that people who may dislike each other on a personal level can still work together for the sake of the collective. That doesn't make it any less of a failure.
It would depend on how it is set up. If it's like Obamacare, it's non-constitutional because it gives you no option of opting out. As an option though, things like Medicare are bankrupt, and there's so much bureaucracy that many physicians don't accept it because of all the restrictions.
We exist because of our hard work. Not someone else's. Even large corporations require the hard work of CEO's, late nights huge risks. To deny them the product of that work is theft, no matter the reason.
1. "do you think its morally right to punish somebody whos done nothing wrong" - "no" - agreed.
2."then why do you think its morally right to reward somebody who's done nothing right?"
If "done nothing right" means "having done something wrong" then (2) becomes obvious.
If "done nothing right" is neutral then "done nothing right" means the same as "done nothing wrong" i.e. "nothing".
Thus (2) becomes "do you think its morally right to reward somebody?" - neither right nor wrong
Wats profound?
The absence of a "social safety net" has nothing to do with involuntary servitude. Americans already spend billions of dollars each year to charities, without a doubt, it would increase far more with less taxes. So no, it is not unjust. In fact, stealing money is never the just thing to do. But it's the last option some people feel.
It is not morally wrong if you have a medical condition. As charities exist now for almost anything, and a very low amount of the population need them.
If an amendment regarding health care equivalent to the provisions for fire and police were proposed, including local funding, would you support it?
We are not all equal, yet we are all born into servitude under the social, legal, and economic rules of our region's society. Wouldn't you agree that those who are capable of more have a responsibility to help those who are not so capable? That's an inherent part of capitalism we seem to be forgetting. We subsist thanks to the hard work of others.->
No, but that's not because of outsourcing. It's because of massive malinvestment caused by loose monetary policy that results in a lot of investment needing to be liquidated and the resources (including labor) reassigned to other purposes. That takes time and in the meantime the resources (including labor) are not being employed.
Most people have the ability to change their lot in life.The problem is when certain groups within society intentionally set out to restrict other groups within society's opportunities to change their lot in life.
Capitalism has the potential to benefit everyone within society but it gets too easily distorted and perverted.
China's government is extremely communist, but not nearly as communist as the USSR for example. Very similar to our school systems. We have an entire nationwide socialist school system but there are few private schools, doesn't mean our school system is privatized. It is very socialized, people some how think that private school costs too much, when it costs way less than public school, it costs much now because they're competing for quality against a "free" ($45k a student) school system.
Yes, government is force. but what are the laws that it enforces based on? The point of government is to protect your rights, not to violate them for the sake of society.
In the end, that all still boils down to trying to find ways to MAKE people care about each other, all of which so far seem to fall prey to the selfish tendencies of those involved. The kind of change we truly need is not legal nor political. Individuals must learn to care about one another, which is something I have begun to doubt can ever happen in the majority of humans as they are now.
I can't really comment yet on the second part because I have not yet looked into the book you mentioned.
Whether or not you believe people deserve the money is your opinion, but to deny that government money can solve problems is ridiculous. I think universal health care is a pretty good example. And to say that all people that receive money from the government are psychopaths is completely ludicrous. Just because somebody is poor and receives food stamps doesn't make them a psychopath.
as a side note, then, many of the fastest and most impressive periods of economic growth in human history were under various forms of Fascism. Soviet Russia, Weimar Germany, Colonial Japan, present-day China, etc.
So using growth in GDP as an indicator of quality of life or the morality of government is of course very suspect. The discussion is more complex than what can be done in youtube comments.
Value ? Then why do we have an advertising industry ? What does it achieve exactly ? Billions spent on conning dummys into buying overpriced crap ? Surely not.
"If they make a valid and intelligent point that is factually based, then you should be intellectually honest and admit defeat."
What point was so obvious that you would like me to concede?
Personally, I think of myself as a centrist, and I feel that capitalism and socialism are both flawed ideas in their pure form, but work best when balanced by each other. I think some things are better handled by the government, like military, healthcare, infrastructure; many things are better handled by private; and some things it makes sense to have both options like schools.
ok. So what is the difference between a moral action and a moral obligation?
There is not one person who can say they have done nothing wrong.
Noam Chomsky explains anarchism and libertarian-socialism very well. I am not sure he is a statist after reading his works. He is a realist I would say because he believes Anarchism is simply not possible in our society.
Apparently you misconstrued something that I said. I am a Libertarian as well as Penn, one of my Libertarian idles. I was replying to saleemisgod, who stated that a capitalist nation is a third world country, even though the definition of a first world country is a developed Capitalist society. A second world is a Communist, followed by high infant mortality rates and high poverty as a third world.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
― Benjamin Franklin, Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin
It all comes down to what is worse. A totalitarianistic communist society that every single family will be poor, or some poor, some rich, and the wide majority is middle class. North Korea is your perfect world, even though none of them can have a life of liberty and die of malnutrition. Communism never works.
I agree. Basic human RIGHTS, for being puked into this world unknowingly, should include food, not Gourmet, clothing, not Gucci / Versace and shelter, not a mansion and YES basic health care. Some of us were born into upper-middle class and high class families, and some of us were not. Basic human RIGHTS, which translate into "needs" should be met for everyone. "eyeammi" should take a lesson from Penn Jillett
and not be so condescending, and perhaps work on his / her people skills.
There is a difference between a necessity and a reward.