I agree with a lot of what Penn says, actually I believe in almost all of it. But taxation and Government; there we differ slightly. If there is no taxation to generate funding for civil infrastructure, who would build roads? Build bridges? provide national protection with and army, navy and air force? Who would provide a fire and police service? Schooling? Would all of this rely upon people with money being able to pay for their own infrastructure, protection and education? I don't mention ambulances, hospitals and doctors because American seem to think only the wealthy should have these things. (Note to those without a sense of humour - I'm making a [albeit poor] joke). I agree that "big government" is bad when it wastes tax-payers money on nonsensical projects that benefit… who exactly? Surely we must be skeptical about the abuses of those in power cloaked in patriotism. But we do need a (small) Government to provide the services and infrastructure that benefit us all, including business.
OldVillain Our world contains over 6 billion people. If even 1% of those people are smart then we have millions of smart people who can figure out a way that every social service can be paid for without tax's or at least the forcing of taking money from people.. In the middle east, the kings make billions selling oil around the world, they in turn use that money to fund social services. Perhaps the USA can do something similar. Switzerland uses the manipulation of the international bank market to fund a lot of their social services. Perhaps the USA can use some sort of mark-to-market investment to abolish tax's, abolish the fed system and go back to the gold standard. Perhaps a manipulation of the fed system can be used as a sort of a final quantitative easing that would turn the bank notes into actual investments that can eventually be used to fund the social services and in turn lower/abolish the deficit and go back to a gold standard without hyper inflation.. Several Ideas and theorems have yet to be tested and I believe that The USA is ready for something new... If it does not work like tax's and the fed system then try something else..
OldVillain There are great answers to all of your questions. One thinker once commented that if the government made all shoes, and someone suggested they stop and we let the private sector do it, people would scream, "but who will make the shoes?! how will poor people ever have shoes?!" But the reality is the private sector handles this extremely well, and shoes are plentiful and cheap (or expensive when you want them to be). Take a look around, read Reason Magaine, or look at some articles on this issue on mises.org, and then you'll see, even if you are not convinced, that there are many reasonable proposals for how a private defense, private roads, can work (and have worked in various situations).
"Pierce Morgan said to me "1 out of 7 people in this country is on food stamps, what does that mean to you?" and i said that means that 6 out of 7 people can help them. and he said "how can we help them?" i said "go help them". he said "we need the government to to help them" i said "go help them". i said "i am, go help them". then he said "well how do we go-" i said "i didn't say we, i said you. you make a pretty good living, there are people who are hungry in L.A., go out thing evening and help them." i love penn, he's great
SinisterSkyline whatever helps you sleep at night:) LIke it or not universal human rights began in the bible.... Chinese proverb: the tears of a stranger are as water Classic Roman and Greek culture put no value of self serving and sacrifice....You can hate the misapplication of religion, you can jump on the neo atheist bandwagon and go on for hours about how God isn't god enough for you...but you can't stick your head in the sand and pretend Christianity didn't impact the way we care for others in revolutionary ways. Or, I guess you can but that would be ignorant and I know how much atheists hate be ignorant...
Pearl schneider First of all, chill. Get the stick out your ass. All I did was say Jesus didn't come up with the idea of caring for the poor, which is true. Anything else you rambled on about is a bullshit speculation on what you think I might think. Calm down and do be so supremely sensitive. But, if you want to bring that in, nope, the universal declaration of human rights had nothing to do with christianity, but all to do with the discontent towards monarchy. That's a fact. Yes, Christianity had an impact the way people interact... all creeds have. They dictate what you should and shouldn't do in life, of course they'll impact the way people interact... and you're calling me ignorant? 'Cause that's the word you parade around when you can't prove your point so you have to attack the credibility of who you argue with, I guess... Anyway, God isn't real, never has been. Jesus didn't invent the concept of caring for the poor. And if you don't like it, all you're doing is seeking pleasure in denial.
The one thing I disagree with him on is Kennedy's quote. "ask what you can do for your country" isn't the same as "ask what you can do for your government"
A god was created from our early history when man thought the sun and stars were hanging from strings inside a dome and clouds were blown in and they thought there has to be someone bigger then us doing these things in a dome and god was created. They thought of a god constantly changing weather as well, we now know better but they did not
***** Nah. It's a very simple evolutionary mechanism. Humans need spirituality. Animals have no spirituality and can live perfectly meaningless lives without giving a damn. Their instincts push them along. When humans started to evolve and their brains were growing so much that they started to really reason, and really question. Humans didn't want to just do everything instinctually anymore. They demanded reason behind the sun shining, behind the dead dying, behind their existence. They started to really need something more to give them a motivation behind what they were doing. Religion is merely a territorial and an organisational element brought to spirituality, which is also an evolutionary mechanism as humans are pack-animals. However, humans finally started to be intelligent enough to also question the existence of a God. Of any spirituality. This is where we reach an evolutionary end-point in intelligence. Anyone who really is the deepest of thinkers would get depressed at the utter uselessness of our existence and everything we do, and get stuck behind this uselessness in everything they do. They lose their drive. This is why the cleverest-thinking of races, the Asians, tend to take their own lives when their family names (which is objectively the only meaning of life: to procreate and to live eternally through your memory and name) get destroyed by some kind of shameful incident. This is also why the African race tends to be happiest, knows how to party and not give a damn, and live in the moment. Their relative cluelessness makes them more accepting of God still. They still buy into all of this without thinking too much about it. This sadly also means that they are an organisational mess in their continent. Believe me, 90% of atheists really haven't thought it through further than on a smug and superficial level, and they tend to subconciously hold many spiritual values. This is a good thing, because it is what keeps us humans moving.
d rexius What? Other animals don't have gods because they have no organic capacity to create a god. They aren't anywhere near our level of intelligence. That is a silly question...
***** Haha, no, I'm afraid *you* are mistaken. Obviously I never said that you had to be depressed if you didn't believe in a God. I also didn't say that the Japanese were religious, in fact I said the opposite. In order for non-spiritual people to feel content and live a fulfilling life, they either have to be less intelligent and more superficial-thinking (people like you, for instance, who say life is in the here and now, you don't need spirituality etc., because you never were able to think deeply enough about what life is and means, to be influenced by its depressing conclusion). Asian people tend to be the most intelligent race and they have basically figured this out, and the way for them to survive is either to force some spirituality, or take on a (well-reasoned) philosophy of working hard and excelling in life so that they are an asset to the world and their family names will carry on, basically being the only purpose in life. Africans in turn don't really think about all that and just chase their more instinctual motivations, and they tend to be more susceptible to religious conjurations, because they're more clueless (hence the chaotic mess in Africa). The further South, the less intelligence, the more religious people, (Africa, India, South America and the South of the US). And the further East and North, the more intelligence and less relgion, yet more depression (Sweden, Russia, Austria, Japan etc). This is undeniable. Even within Europe it's obvious that logistically the South comes up short (Greece, Italy and Spain being the big losers when it comes to the financial crisis, and Denmark and Germany being relatively wellfaring). Caucasians tend to be in the middle, with a lot of pseudo-intelligence and superficial thinking, often being pretentious when it comes to THINKING that they are intelligent and deeply thinking. There is still a very high unconcious level of spirituality here as well in the form of superstition (be it concious or not) and coupled with the superficiality, it makes for a succesful median between being too unintelligent to handle modern society, logistics and demography (Africa, Mexico etc who in turn for their susceptibility to relgion tend to be happier and more content (even though they are poor) than Europeans and North Americans) or becoming too clear-thinking for their own good (Japan, who has less religiousness, with a sky-high rate of suicide).
***** The same trigger is found in most animals, namely the trait of triggering false positives. Example: Bush rustles. a, It was the wind. b, It was a predator/prey. If it was the wind, then running away, checking it out is a slight expense, but no harm done. If it was a predator/prey, the reward is there in the form of survival. The human brain uses the same function (and area of the brain) to visualize a false positive phenomenon, and add a cause in the form of a person, in one way or another similar to him/her. Again, this is not unique to humans. However, humans are the ones who can voice their experience and interpret exotic brain functions "intelligently."
A 'true' christian would admit that they are worse than everyone else, yet you don't see anyone saying that these days. I think the structured religious system is what really killed Christianity in the eyes of many people. Christians today is more about who's right and who's wrong and having the tendency to be more judgmental than preaching repentance and forgiveness like they should be.
8:50 As a liberal, I can say that this is exactly our point. People COULD help others, but they don't. People may not steal that car, but they sure as hell don't give to charity. Especially those that should the most: the rich.
+Surya112 People who need more money have charity as their biggest help, charity still provides more money to welfare than tax money, the only point made here is that there has to be a voluntary basis because we are talking about legally aquired property, the amount of property is irrelevent if this is the case.
how are you in the slightest bit of right to say that the rich don't donate to charity? Being in a conservative, middle-upper-class household, i know that the middle-upper-class donates a ton to charities whether it be clothes, money, or a place to stay. it is really low of you and anyone else to say that the rich don't donate enough to charity. how much have you donated?
Alexander Huebner The rich, those that earn more than $200,000 a year, give only about 4.6% of their income on average to charity. And that percentage goes down as you increase income. Go past $10 million a year, and they average about 0.5%. I make about $15,000 a year, and last year i gave 10% to charity.
Jesus, that needs to be heard by everyone!!! "God is the first one because if you take God away from the right wing, and away from the Tea Party, and by God I mean all that kind of social meddling, their position is pretty sensible."
@@GTSN38 Either you didn't read the title at all, or you didn't complete 10th grade high school. Atheism, means no belief in any type of god. That includes, Buddha, Allah, Satan, the Flying Spaghetti monster. They believe that a higher power never existed. Libertarians are primarily RIGHT winged. They are Pro-capitalism, anti-state. They firmly believe in the individual rights and property rights of the individual. Think that when you purchase a home, that home belongs to you, the things you put into belong to you. The Left wing want you to believe that the home was granted to you by the government, that your property was only possible with the help of the State. Any right-winged person will tell you thats bullshit and libertarianism is the most concentrated of this belief, much more than what conservatives believe. Your income, your sweat and your ownership belongs to you and you ALONE. Not to the government, not to the state, not to the people. That is what libertarians believe in.
I like to send my dad books about atheism. A staunch atheist, he built a very successful business and converted to left wing politics in the process, particularly because of his concerns about social welfare and the environment. This interview with Penn has surprised me. I never knew he was right wing. His book won't be arriving in my Dad's letterbox.
Agnosticism and Atheism are different but one can be both. Agnostic is to say I don't know if there is a god; Atheism is to say I don't believe in a god.
***** So, you have me completely figured out bases on one sentence? You have no idea what I believe. I am not an anti-theist. My entire family and the overwhelming majority of my friends are believers. I don't care I that they believe in a god. I don't care if you believe in a god, as long as you don't use that belief to justify hating other people. I don't think you're stupid for believing in a god. I don't think I was stupid when I believed. You claim I have no integrity because I don't fit into the box you have built for all non-believers, then you sum me up based on a one sentence comment. You tell me which one of us lacks integrity. All I did was answer a question honestly, and then you attack me. I think one of the things that turn simple non-believers into anti-theists are people like you that assume that everyone with whom you disagree are the same. nothing could be farther from the truth. I am sorry for trying to honestly answer your question. I promise I will not make that mistake again
It seems you really like to make generalizations about people and jump to hasty conclusions. I don't do that. Let me explain my previous comment further. First of all, I don't hate anyone. As I stated before, my entire family and the overwhelming majority of my friends are believers, I don't hate them. They never use their religious beliefs to attack homosexuals, musicians, people of other faiths, etc. I never said all Christians use their beliefs to justify hate, but you have to admit that fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians like members of the Westboro Baptist church use their beliefs all the time. Secondly, I am making no claim. Believers always try to say that atheism is a claim. Atheism is not a claim. Atheism is the rejection of a claim. Like Penn, you will never hear me say definitively that there is no god. I simply don't believe that the existence of any gods has been proven. Lastly, I am not a member of a cult. I don't "gladly wear the label of atheist." Most people I know don't even know of my atheism. Before you jump to another conclusion, please understand that it is not because I am ashamed of my position or afraid of defending my position. People don't know I am an atheist, because religion tends not to come up in my daily interactions with people. I hope that clears some things up. Again, I wasn't trying to start an argument. I simply made an attempt to answer your question.
+HumanNoideStudios BioShock is a video game with a neat plot. It's about a libertarian society on the ocean floor and its complete failure and collapse.
I haven't played the game so I don't know if it's truly libertarian or not, but I didn't realise video games were supposed to be accurate representation of reality. :P
People seem to think atheists and agnostics are selfish and immoral. What do you base that on? Humans don't need god as a moral compass. Basic human compassion. Where does that come from? Empathy. Your in a restaurant, about to get some food and you see a little box for an whatever charity they sponsor. You think to yourself, "Hey, I'd want help if I was in that position. I should donate", and you do. Empathy and compassion aren't exclusive to god.
About 2 months ago I was a firm believer of the Divine Spirit known as God when I was told by an Atheist to look at science that argues against God to get a new view. It is funny that when Penn Jillette says if you read the bible you could become an Atheist because watching scientific views and listening to Penn's view I actually became stronger in my believe for God. I am glad that I can get a view on both sides to understand more about my believe. God exists but not to the atheist.
"We're not being chased down by animals in the night...unless you're a Vegas magician." LOL. I'm captivated by the entire interview, but that really made me chuckle, even though it's somewhat of a non sequitur.
Freedomz Well I didn't mean he was _devoid_ of stress. I meant that trying to please a "creator" is a huge amount of stress he does not have to deal with.
I highly respect Penn as a thinker, but I am shocked to learn he is a Libertarian. With the example he gave... "Go help them" I agree with, but the entire purpose of the government is to help and protect the people. Bill Gates can't help everyone that needs help. Everyone that needs help doesn't know someone that can help. It astounds me that he lacks the logic to see that.
I would like to start by saying that I am a libertarian and an atheist. I believe, like most libertarians, that the ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the people. It is not the government's responsibility to help anyone do anything. I will explain later in the post. Also a person does not have to believe in any gods to be kind and charitable. In a purely libertarian system it is no solely up to the wealthy to help the less fortunate; it is up to everyone to help the less fortunate. People should not, however, be forced by the government to do so. I am far from wealthy, my father and I run a small construction company. Our business has annual revenue of approximately $900,000. This would lead many people to believe that we are wealthy. What people don't understand is that by the time we pay for things like material, payroll, trucks, maintenance, and especially taxes, there isn't much left. Last year I made fifty thousand dollars while my father made close to seventy thousand. I am not saying that we are poor, but we are far from wealthy. We both, however, still manage to donate thousands to charities such as The American Red Cross, Goodwill Industries, and The Wounded Warrior Project every year. In a purely libertarian system it would be people like us that would be most responsible for helping people, not only people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. It amazes me when I hear people on the left call conservatives and libertarians greedy and evil. They say that we think the worst of people. I disagree. I believe that in order to be a libertarian or fiscal conservative you must believe that the overwhelming majority of people are kind and generous. You must believe that they will help people purely out of kindness not because of government force. No matter what you believe or have been taught, libertarians and conservatives don't want Grandma to die or children to be homeless and starve. I realize that that makes for a great soundbite, it is just simply not true. We simply believe that it is the responsibility of individuals to keep these things from happening. It is not the governments responsibility. When these things are done through government it is done inefficiently and wastefully. Most of your money ends up in the hands of greedy politicians and bureaucrats before it reaches the people it is intended to help. Normally when the money is disbursed through a private charity a much higher percentage of the money goes to the people it is intended to help. I know that there are charities out there that might be greedy and wasteful. It is up to us to research the charities to which we donate to to make sure that our money is being spent in the best way possible. It seems to me that those on the left believe that people will only be kind and charitable if forced by government to do so, and I find this truly sad.
You seriously think that? You actually think that the state is a benevolent entity that is looking out for your best interest? Nothing could be further from the truth. The only interest of the government is to expand its power and fulfill its own interests. These programs that the government creates are not designed to aid people. They are designed to put people in debt and become financially enslaved. The idea behind libertarianism is for people to maintain the most amount of individual freedom as possible and to function in a world where everyone cooperates with each other while pursuing their personal interests. There are already plenty of people who engage in charitable works through voluntary action, but the amount of charities is completely restricted because of government intervention. So don't tell me that more government involvement is somehow a plausible solution.
Jim Brooks I agree with everything you said except one thing. You should not put conservatives in the same category as libertarians. Conservatives actually do prefer government intervention. Basically, their logic is: government isn't very good at doing things, so we need government to control the most important things.
danynumero6 You want to see Libertarianism in action? Check out Somalia. They haven't had a central government since -I think- 1991. Lovely country there. Full of Liberty...and anarchy and death. American Libertarianism is the result of a minority of people frustrated that they have to be subjected to rules made by leaders they didn't vote for and the majority they don't relate with. Welcome to reality. That's how a democracy works. While your liberty is important, its not the most important part of this or any modern society. Its at least equal to safety, security, healthiness, and fairness. Every Libertarian I debate has a very immature, simple minded naïve, and limited view of the world. Their utopia would actually mean the destruction of America, millions of deaths, starvation, endless civil war, and lawlessness and most of them think that's ok or too oblivious to understand the long range impacts of their ideas. Government is not some diabolical entity looking to grow its power over its minions. That would be corporate America. No, government is made up of our elected officials, and people like you and I. Those elected officials are put in power by us because the majority of us feel he represents the best interest of all of us. If they overstep their bounds, we can remove them from office, as witnessed in Colorado in 2013, when the state congressmen were removed from office for the gun laws they implemented that went against what their constituents wanted. WE control government.
Jim Brooks Jim, Lets just strike out atheism from this conversation, as its a moot point. I am as hardcore atheist as we come. Libertarianism is unconstitutional. Our government's purpose, is pretty clearly laid out in the preamble of the constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Right there it tells you the purpose is MORE than just protecting the people. Its also to create laws and a justice system, promote the general welfare of ALL Americans, protect our freedom, and provide a successful country for future generations. American Libertarianism is meant to bring us closer to anarchy than to unify a nation. Truthfully Libertarianism in America is born out of a child like frustration of a minority of people who feel subjected to the rules made by the majority they don't relate to. Ever been in a group and you all voted for something? Majority rules. That is fair. The constitution empowers Congress to make laws, control the budget, create taxes, control currency, set the standards for weights and measurements, etc etc, with the best interest of the country in mind. So anything that impacts Americans across the nation can and should be addressed by our congress. That's why currency is regulated at the federal level. That's why telecom, mail, the military etc is regulated at the federal level. That is also why programs to feed the starving, help the poor, save for retirement, and to ensure at least a minimum level of healthcare has been put into place at the federal level. A person's life should never be dependent of if someone is able, willing and available to help them, especially with the massive population we have today. So we all chip in for the best of the country and what ever that may mean. If it means taking a few dollars of my taxes to create a place to feed and cloth the poor, so be it. If you can do more to help, then do it. But to live in this country, and enjoy our freedoms and security, and to protect it for future generations, you put a little in the pot. You want to know why people on the left call Libertarians greedy and evil? Its because you make this a rich vs. poor argument when the conversation is about survival. You should contribute and be happy about it because it makes our country better. Instead, you are all more worried about the good of the individual, than the good of the whole. That's greed. Does Libertarianism work? Lets look at a country without a centralized government...Somalia. That country is a wreck. While they have loads and loads of liberty, they also have endless civil wars, starvation, poverty, death, little to no education, short life expectancy. Honestly I am surprised its still a country at this point. Is that the way forward for America? That's not the America I want. In summary, Libertarianism is flawed on many levels. It goes against the constitution, it's anti-utilitarian, its greedy, short sighted, and it would be absolutely devastating to the welfare, security, and posterity of this country.
Ultimately, the deep seeded reason for not believing in GOD is MAN does not want to be accountable to GOD, for all the wrongs, pain and suffering, he has cause to himself and others in this life. This is the unspoken truth: GOD I don't need you or want you in my life, because I want to be the god of my life.
well maybe man would be more accountable to God if he proved he existed and trully cared for us, but so far only clues and ancient scrips and churches that make him look bad. So how can you blame man? You cant.
Okay now kids, do we realize that we're fighting about a difference of opinion? Do we realize that this is essentially crying about someone else spilling milk ON THEMSELVES... Seriously, stop acting like children...
I admit--I formerly associated qualities such as coldness, unfeeling, absence of emotion, vacuousness of personality, etc. with atheism. But, people like Penn show that one can openly talk about goodwill, compassion, friendship, charity, humility, and the like, with just as much passion and empathy and heart as any other religious devotee.
Why are those qualities bad if you are honest about them? Christians claim they love Christ and don't follow his ways. They judge eachother, they killed each other for years and years, they constantly contradict themselves. It goes on.
I love Penn Jillette but he assumes about humanity way too much. Sorry Penn, but while 6/7 people can help those 1/7 people who are on food stamps, that doesnt mean that THEY ARE. Those 1/7 people did not ask to go hungry or volunteer to go hungry in this mixed economy (regulated and FREE) we live in, so they need help. Faith in people is not a solid economic strategy, especially when the income inequality in the US is huge where CEOs make 300% more than the average worker now.
Income inequality is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much more someone makes than you, it only matters if you make enough to provide the necessities for you and your family. Worrying about the inequality of income will only lead to making everyone poor, instead of looking for ways to elevate the poor.
Pen said: If you park a Ferrari in front of a random Starbucks, walk in and give the key to a random person asking them to park it for you, they are not gonna steal that car. Fascinating. I wonder if Pen can perform a small social experiment demonstrating his faith?
'Now that you're parents aren't here I think someone has to step in' I don't know about penn's life but if his parents are dead then that was a very cold comment at 6:50
There is NO evidence for any god, not even a teeny, tiny, little, weak god. There CAN'T be even one logically. Claims of things existing with no evidence, can be dismissed with no evidence.
12dollarsand78cents That's a logical fallacy my friend. Just because there is no evidence for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's literally the same thing as saying that nothing exists until you know about it. By the way, there is plenty of evidence for god, but if you are not open to the idea then you will deny his existence even when the evidence is right in front of your face.
scartissue454 There is as much evidence for a god as there is for unicorns. Atheism is based on the probability factor. On that note, discovering a fossil of a horse with a horn protruding from it's head is more probable then any evidence for a god to be revealed. God's a notch below unicorns.
scartissue454 Ha ha, "logical fallacy" my ass, you don't even know the definition of word the "logical", obviously. By the way I put a Billion dollars in your account, you won't see any evidence of it, and you must do exactly as I say, or you will never be able to use or spend it. When I feel you are ready for it, I'll revile it to you. If I deem that you have enough faith it's there, I will then choose to reveal it when I see fit. Not a minute earlier.
To add to what I posted, we can reason for justifying whatever beliefs we hold to. A perspective I would rather urge to be taken is curiosity. Not as an approach to reasoning. Curiosity wholly in attitude, apart from knowledge. Its making efforts for establishing impartiallity within thinking. In deeper discussions being impartial in the sense personabley within, and not arguementally without, is crucial.
It seems, quite often, Libertarians tend to be intellectual, quite wealthy and rather of the opinion that they need or require nothing from others (including God) From this stance, comes an inherent belief and confidence in little else except for themselves. Yet Libertarians drive on roads, cross bridges, live on an electric grid, drink water from public utilities....all provided for them by others, working in harmony...paying taxes...all for the common good. Oddly, Libertarians will not reject their Social Security check, refuse to be taken for medical service in Medic Alert vehicles and when true universal healthcare for all is finally in place...to be sure, they will gladly partake. When they need a policeman, a fireman or a soldier to defend them...they will partake of that, as well. Perhaps actually expecting & demanding these society based services. Truth is, Libertarians don't like Democratic Socialism at all....but they partake of all that our Quasi-Socialism provides. Socialism is simply "all the folks working together for the common good, of all the folks" Here's a bit of a silly lesson, but the point is profound: Little boy says to his Mother..".Mom when I grow up, I wanna be a Libertarian" Mom responds to her boy: Well make up your mind. Son, you can do both" Should Libertarians be taken seriously? You be the judge! Observer Jules
Your opinion ignores the fact that libertarians, like everybody else, are forced to use certain services provided by a gang of professional demagogues in control of some geographical area, who use the threat of force. They invoke wacky ideas like "democracy" to justify this nonsense. When everybody knows that your vote is statistically insignificant. Democracy only matters in small numbers and is just a very popular logical fallacy. You mention more propaganda like "the common good". Let's skip all that crap, we all know it's just made belief, secular cosmological arguments to justify servitude to the gang of thugs. Then there's the fact that the gang of thugs take far more from libertarians, and everybody else (above certain income) than what any libertarian is gonna take from the state in their life time. So there is no hypocrisy / logical inconsistency here. Seems like you are really confused. You repeat this misunderstandings of libertarians over and over again. Seems like you don't understand or know how the world you live in, actually operates. Things are not black and white. You need to think and be critical. Specially of power. To me seems like you are just a sheep. Start reading the founding fathers. That would be a good start.
***** You accuse libertarians of being selfish while lying about Ayn Rand. That's pretty funny. "I was asked by someone about a new attack on Rand, which some of the rabid haters on the Left were doing, alleging some sort of hypocrisy by Rand for "taking social security." Some childish writer at the rather unreliable AlterNet wrote an article @149721: "Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them." Rand clearly didn't "grab" any such benefits but fought her own attorneys about doing so and they, not she, were the ones pushing it. Third, there is no indication she actually got any benefits because Pryor doesn't say. And, fourth, Pryor makes it clear that she acted as Rand's attorney on health issues even when Rand didn't agree with her. And fifth, there is no indication that Rand knew all of the decisions that Pryor made on her behalf. Perhaps she did, but perhaps she didn't. I found this odd since Rand had commented that people who are forced to fund government programs are not immoral for taking the benefits for which they paid. For instance, it is not wrong for people to attend government schools, which are funded with their tax monies, whether they like it or not. They have to start with a false premise: that Rand said receiving Social Security, that one is forced to pay for, was wrong. Without that false claim they have no charge of hypocrisy. They pretend she took a position she never took and then accuse her of violating the position she didn't take. Quote "...the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money-and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration." According to AlterNet one Evva Joan Pryor, "who had been a social worker in New Yorker" said that "I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory." What job was that? Well, if you believe AlterNet she was "social worker" during this period. The implication being that Rand had to seek out a social worker to help her. Some smear-mongers of Rand have argued with me that she died penniless as the result of the evils of capitalism and that was why she sought out this social worker. Pryor was NOT a social worker. She worked for the law firm of Ernst, Crane Gitlin & Winick which handled all legal matters for Rand. Nor was Rand penniless or in need. She was penniless when she arrived in America but during this period she had cash reserves of a few hundred thousand dollars and a steady income from book royalties." Pryor's full interview in 100 Voices: Oral History of Ayn Rand, shows Rand fighting with her attorneys and telling them that she didn't want to do this. She signed a power of attorney and Pryor said that she acted "whether [Ayn] agreed or not." Pryor never actually says what actions she (Pryor) took in spite of whether Ayn "agreed or not." What we have is the rabid Left jumping to numerous conclusions not warranted by evidence. Pryor argued with Rand because Ayn did not want Social Security, nor did Rand go out and seek it, or Medicare, even though doing so was entirely consistent with her own ethics. What Pryor said was that she tried to convince Rand to sign up and they argued. Pryor says Rand "was never involved other than to sign the power of attorney. I did the rest." Beyond that Pryor said nothing else. There is no indication that such benefits were ever used. There is simply no evidence to show Rand "Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them."
Jules Rensch "Yet Libertarians drive on roads, cross bridges, live on an electric grid, drink water from public utilities....all provided for them by others, working in harmony...paying taxes...all for the common good." It's not anti libertarian to get as much as you can from what you have forced to pay. But it still be better if we wouldn't _force_ people to give their money.
Jules Rensch I guess there's just gray areas in life where you can't pick an choose one side of the argument(being liberal, conservative ect.). That's the way i see it that is. Sometimes you can identify as one but have certain independent views at the same time. I lean toward libertarian, but i don't always agree with all the agendas and views of libertarians.
"I don't know whats best for other people" as a reason to be a libertarian is so stupid. I can tell you what is not best for other people. Social Darwinism.
So? Libertarianism is NOT Social Darwinism. Libertarianism means people are allowed to cooperate to mutual self-interest, engage in a division of labor, choosing their careers as they wish, allowing them to prosper by producing more and more efficiently, beinging down prices and increasing supply till even the least skilled worker can earn a decent living, simply because the lower prices mean his real wages have risen. This is cooepration, not survival of the fittest. Under other systems, its survival of whoever can kiss butt the longest and deepest.
Saulius Muliolis And what in your mind is to stop exploitation in this system exactly? Even with government regulations we have corporations buying politicians to suit their bottom line via the exploitation of the unwealthy. Libertarianism eventually becomes social darwinism. Its just the way it is. Even with regulated capitalism it becomes this way. As for your "under other systems its survival of whoever can kiss butt the longest" thing, what are you 12? Have you studied at all any other systems of government? Under some systems it is survival of all because life and health are inherent rights as a citizen. Unlike libertarianism where it is basically the wealthy prosper and the poor get used up and tossed out. If you are any older than the age of 14 and are not some sort of Nietzsche fan nutcase, you really just need to study up on reality.
The whole driving principle which protects Libertarianism is the republic system of government. It is law which holds firm the anchor of civil and human rights, and is the least likely of the big three forms of government to violate these rights. I disagree that society is destined to descend into chaos just as much as I disagree that a libertarian republic is guaranteed to be successful. On the macro level of the world economy there are numerous examples of adversarial countries who maintain diplomatic ties to promote healthy trade rather than pursuing open conflict due to social, ideological or religious differences. I do not disagree that some form of "the strong survive" is not evident in numerous systems (to include capitalism), but it is not the hard rule.
Corpse Party Lol. You've gotta be joking. You said you're worried about people exploiting each other in a governmentless system and the only example of exploitation you mention is something that is both inevitable in the current system, and impossible in his proposed system: bribing politicians.
jollyjollyO I never said the current system is good. However, there are systems that can be set up that work. It's not either crony capitalism, communism, or libertarianism. A good mixture of socialism and capitalism with some strong regulations on how people are decided to be leaders as well as consequence for any misdoings, and a strong untouchable set of basic human rights as citizens would be a great extremely basic outline. Expand from there, and social darwinism and rampant exploitation can be avoided. However, with the current system in Murica at least, and definitely in a libertarian system, it is social darwinism and exploitation.
What Penn misses in his argument for Libertarianism is that he lives in a first world nation that would not be a first world nation if our predecessors took a Libertarian approach. Sure we have a lot of resources but so does Africa. There is a clear and positive effect when government takes a proactive role in the strengthening of a society. FDR, through government intervention, made this a strong, prosperous country. Eisenhower, T. Roosevelt, Lincoln, all made us stronger with government.
JoM80 Eternity is not something you can experience. But I am sure you will spend it the same place i will, in the ground to become food for something else.
***** I actually decided to watch some of his videos to understand him. Keep in mind there is a difference between knowing what's in the Bible and actually understanding it.
Paul Tellini well there is understanding it from a christian point of view, and there is understanding it from an atheist point of view. both hold important information and both show different sides of the same coin. because seeing as there are so many different interpretations of the bible, to say his interpretation is wrong is kinda silly, because that means that there must be one single correct way to understand the bible, which i and many other people would say isn't true. also, he does understand the bible, even from a christian perspective, but looking at the bible from an atheistic standpoint, he may not be able to understand it in that sense.
Imagine you see a kid in water drowning, he chose to go swimming where the currents where bad. Do you rescue him or let him die? He made his own choice and it was a bad one, do you know whats best for him? Is saving him so he can learn from his mistakes and go on to do better things deciding that you know whats best for him? Or should you respect his choices and leave him to drown. Thats my best argument against Penns form of Libertarianism.
You68688 oh Yes, I am absolutely sure that I am not retarded. Atheism is based on a rational world view - rational thinking. It's therefore not only about a "god " or "gods". but since what libertarianists demand is absolutely unachievable it is a bleive as well - that's why Penn Teller is using this word again and again (like Sarah Palin as well btw) Think about it! A world without government is impossible! It's just a dream - like a "paradise" !
Penns' opening statement is something I struggle with as a libertarian. "I don't know what's best for other people" Penn also says "You should never go into an argument without the knowledge you could be wrong" But... libertarianism and the Constitution is what is best for people. It's freedom to do what they see as best for themselves. Penn would probably have an issue with my thinking. :(
He's got a point about human nature. I lost my mobile phone on a coach last week. As luck would have it, I got to speak to somebody at the coach station lost property office BEFORE that happened and he told me that very few people try to make claims because they always ASSUME either what they lost was stolen, or that somebody will steal what they've lost when they find it. I called up the lost property office after and my phone had been handed in. It's just arrived back to me in the post :-)
This is a great topic, to be sure....interestingly from the many derogatory comments (with some of them being downright disrespectful), one only wonders how the problems of America can be worked out in a meaningful dialogue... This I offer to all, on all sides of the issue: “We habitually erect a barrier called blame that keeps us from communicating genuinely with others, and we fortify it with our concepts of who's right and who's wrong. We do that with the people who are closest to us and we do it with political systems, with all kinds of things that we don't like about our associates or our society. It is a very common, ancient, well-perfected device for trying to feel better. Blame others....Blaming is a way to protect your heart, trying to protect what is soft and open and tender in yourself. Rather than own that pain, we scramble to find some comfortable ground.” ― Pema Chödrön Respectfully, Observer Jules .....salaam alaikum
Same here, I didn't fear death so much from thinking there is hell, you believe you are safe in your own family rather than someone watching over you all the time. And generally it made me a lot happier in life.
You know, it's kind of amazing -- you have atheists, you have Mormons, Christians, Muslims. Normally these people are all at each others' throats, often because each is attempting to impose its morals and values on all of the others. Want to know how I've seen them all get along perfectly? Libertarianism. I swear to god (sorry if that offends any of the above groups), I can go to a Libertarian gathering and find all of these people hanging out and respecting each others' liberty to believe and (non-injuriously) do as they will. It blows me away. If you really value both reducing violence and avoiding one or more of these groups taking control of society, you should give Libertarianism another look.
The thing about moral judgment calls is that once you make one, you are in effect saying "there is a way man is meant to live," which, if true, implies intentionality behind our existence. Thus, morality without religion becomes a difficult (or at least strange) position to hold. You end up appealing to an intention behind the universe, but not a mind behind that intention.
I'm not libertarian, but I think Penn has a beautiful point about the goodness of people. Though people do awful, awful things, I think pretty much everybody does what they think is best. They just have different scopes of who and what's important. I have little trust in other people, but I think perhaps one day we could get to a world where libertarianism is viable if people open-mindedly seek out more knowledge and differing viewpoints rather than clinging to the beliefs they currently hold.
Well, I hope at least no one here will ridicule you (and so far, no one has, yay!) because what you're doing here is awesome. You chose to listen to someone who doesn't agree with everything you're thinking, thus proving you have an open mind. And that is pretty damn cool if you ask me, carry on bro.
"The fundamental concept here is “faith.” “Faith” in this context means belief in the absence of evidence. This is the essential that distinguishes religion from science." -Leonard Peikoff-1986
By saying there is no evidence of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and savior, can we start with there is no denying the historically documented evidence of the figure Jesus Christ? Rome, Israel, Greece did not deny His existence. As was the crucifixion and resurrection, recorded not only by the apostles but also by historians and government officials. The question is, what will you do with this evidence? You have every right to reject or deny it, but wholly inaccurate to say this evidence only exists in our hearts or imaginations.
As someone who is far more sympathetic to religion in general than Penn is, I think it is incredibly fucking stupid to say "The 10 commandments transcend religion." Just reading down the list: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Right from the get go, we see this is about religion, not morality. If there is no God (or a different "God" is correct, one that has no law) in what way is it "moral" to say you cant put another god first? "Thou shalt not make graven images" Same as the first. This is specific only to the Judeo/Christoan religion, there are plenty of religions where this is not a problem. "Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain." I'm noticing a theme here, and it isn't "morality". "Remember the Sabbath, keep it holy." I'm beginning to repeat myself "Honor thy father and mother." Ok, we're getting away from the purely religious ones at least... What if your parents are terrible people, deserving no honor? "Thou shalt not kill." Finally, one I think most of us would agree is purely about "morality," but seeing as how every civilized country in the world has at least *some* laws on the books about killing... yeah. "Thou shalt not commit adultery," I personally would never engage in adultery, but is this always universally bad? What if one has the permission of their spouse? There's a reason this isn't a criminal offense in most of the civilized world. "Thou shalt not steal," Ok, theft is bad, I agree with that. What are we at, 2/8? "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Ok, this is bad too, 3/9. "Thou shalt not covet," isn't this pretty much the exact same as thou shalt not steal? It's at least the *reason* most people steal, and pretty damn hard to prove until it crosses over into theft. I'm not counting it. So we have.. 4 of them which have nothing at all to do with morality... 3 that I think most people would agree are things you shouldn't do, 2 that are in pretty dubious moral territory, and 1 duplicate. I think the western world can (and has) found something better to base it's laws upon.
"You advocate for "small" government" No I don't, I advocate for no government. And, by your logic, Government could be replaced with a royal family, a religious leadership or anything that tells people to be good and do no harm.
wrapping up watching the video, but pausing it 11 minutes. Penn's got an active introspective mind. Here's something I'll say. I think there's a depth of discussion and sharing I think could exist in the realm of belief and philisophical undertones, but seemingly widely isn't. It's interesting to talk about what we discover; or faith, its interpretations; other beliefs etc. The deeper we dwell in things to ask ourselves, I think it must be said differences don't constitute for division.
Penn's whole thing is that we don't know what's best for each other. The girl could have consciously chosen to work at McDonald's instead of pursuing further education. Some people will see it like she wasn't offered enough opportunities and so she was "forced" to stay where she was. So people would petition and pass bills and such. Hope I helped clear that up a bit.
To Matt Freitag, I've read the works of Bastiat, von Mises and the mysogynistic Rothbard as well as the Ayn Rand's reverence towards wealth in Atlas Shrugged. Libertarianism is just neo feudalism where those with the most success make the rules and sell poverty as the lack of effort not not economic inequality. Rothbard hatred of the Womens Movement in 1960-70s showed the level of ignorance that is shocking because he didnt see it as equal rights but some puesdo gender based nanny state. Its not progressive to allow businesses to deny you employment or fire you based on race, gender, religion, and even your country of origin in US did in 1800-1930s and returning to those times isn't about Freedom at all......
You are absolutely correct. Listening to Penn say that if we get rid of food stamps, then everyone else who isn't on them will help out those now starving people is complete nonsense. Humans are inherently selfish. They are going to look out for themselves. Sure if they see someone lying in the street bleeding they will help him out (out of the selfish nature that they may be in that position one day and will want someone to help them out), but to say that they will make sure poor people will have an equal shot at an education, or that there isn't any need for regulations in order that businesses don't cheat the system and sell dangerous or defective products is complete nonsense.
Leaving your car with a stranger in an emergency is one thing but trusting people not to let greed get the better of them when given access to power over others (through office or employment) is something else entirely.
I met Penn in person once and he's a hoot in person as much as in public. And a smart guy! I let him have a book he'd love: "What Do You Do with a Chocolate Jesus?" found in Amazon.com. It's a very funny but historically accurate deconstruction of traditional Christianity--the whole 2000 year history. It's more directly about the Bible story than Penn's books, which tend to ruminate about what people do today with these ideas--always to hilarious effect.
It's really funny but Penn describes with precision what happened to me. I gradually became an atheist after deciding to read the Bible from front to back. I think I got to Numbers when I finally realized I couldn't applaud what I was reading. After about a year or so I was identifying as an atheist. It took a lot of soul searching, reading and listening to other views. The trip was very rewarding and I can't say I miss anything about my Christian past.
+faultroy That's odd, I would wager you know absolutely nothing about me and yet somehow you know exactly what my frame of mind was when I reading the Bible years ago. What I want to know is what makes you think you have a slightest clue where I'm coming from now or where I was coming from back then. Instead of jumping to conclusions or making wild assumptions maybe you should actually engage people and try to understand where they're coming from.
i agree it is higher, but that, doesnt mean that an impoverished person is going to steal the car. in fact i think that even if a poor person would be more likely to steal a car, the vast majority of poor people would still recognize another person's problems and be much more helpful and trust worthy than you give them credit for.
Morality has nothing to do with religious views, "if someone is good they will do good things and vice versa." I for one being a atheist have proudly helped people without reward or knowledge of their background.
The thing is, we're all afraid of the dark, even us atheists. The biggest distinction between the religious and the atheists is simply that the religious spend their entire lives denying the dark and worrying about the end, whereas us atheists try to spend our lives enjoying the time we have, because we know we only have one shot
You're right, he has said that he doesn't want power nor does he want to change major mainstream movements. He would never want to be that guy. He just wants people to be themselves.
I don't respect people going on a crusade telling people who know no better, no to use condoms, but they are of course entitled to their beliefs. Porn stars are usually tested for STD's on a regular basic so that they don't need to use condoms. And no, i don't want to force people to do (or not do) anything as long as they only hurt them selves. Thus I'm not imposing anything in this case.
I became an atheist under great stress. I was an idiot who believed everything I heard, and caused myself great pain by being so weak minded. I started to look stuff up on the internet and cling to inspirational figures such as hitchens, to the point where I started to be able to think critically.
I don't go around acting like I know all, like I said as an atheist I'm aware that I do NOT know everything, far from it. However, I cannot disprove a god because you CAN'T prove the non existence of something, but you CAN (or should) be able to prove the existence of it if you believe in it. It's fine if your belief in a god does not step on the rights of others, so in a secular country I have no problem with theists, and am glad to let you believe what you believe. :)
What I wrote was that what you perceive as the benefits of Libertarian based economics cannot take place under the current power structure created by the overwhelming power of corporations.
As much as I bitch about the present, I do have a certain amount of faith in the future. As worldwide religion seems to be decreasing, life as a whole seems to be getting better. Lack of belief in gods has almost rid this world of slavery. Racial oppression fades more each decade, even homosexuality isn't a dirty little secret that nobody talks about anymore. America may have a longer way to go than many other nations, but I think this is slowly leading to some sort of paradise.
Often times people ask if you can have morals without religion. I believe in God but I also you can have morals without religion. All you do is declare that everyone has the right to do anything they want, so long as it does not restrict the rights of others. If we limit governing to protecting peoples rights to Life, Liberty, Property, Pursuit of Happiness, and Free Will, then we would have a free society. The most complex problem is agreeing when rights shall be applied to human life.
I agree w/Heikki's comment on the interviewers skill. Agree with Penn on many points, but I think he undervalues group action and overemphasizes individualism.
Here's some Merriam Webster's definitions: 2.b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs. Number 2 needs no comment from me. Number 3 is belief in something with strong conviction, it goes on to say especially a system of religious belief, but does not mean religious belief is required.
No idea who I was supposedly quoting. And yes, Penn is Penn... not sure how that changes anything. What I am saying is that in such a society the weak lead terrible lives. I would actually also add the unlucky to this group, since being born rich or poor will greatly affect your future. The problem is that Penn seems to think that somehow this wont happen - that people are "good" and will help each other. The only point I was making is that this is false.
I agree with Penn about his philosophy that people are genuinely, overall, good. I take Marshall's point of view: 'Treat a man as honest and he will be honest, treat a man as dishonest and he will be dishonest.' People mirror so many behaviors: black, white and more often, grey. Fundamentally, I think that we want for black and white in our simple dealings with other people, never having to guess for negative intent, so why not espouse this in our very dealings with people?
I agree with Penn Jillette: Reading the Bible does make you an Atheist, but I think if you take the time to understand it, rather than just read it, you'd give the road to Atheism a second thought.
I'm hardcore Christian and hardcore libertarian. I approach life in a very similar way as Penn and a lot of the things he say are absolutely compatible with the Christian faith. Also we should remember the deadliest century on Earth was the XX century at the hands of all atheists.
Not at the hands of all atheists, only some bad ones that were dictators. People can be corrupted by power regardless of religious conviction, and that's exactly what happened to them.
The problem starts NOT with the opinion, but in the acts that follow, based on that opinion When your opinions become facts, and you start imposing those facts onto others, then it becomes a problem If a person understands that their opinions are just that, nothing but opinions, then there is no need to force other people to believe them, because they understand that the opinion only applies to them Respect needs to be given to others with opposing opinions, or say "I don't know"
Saying that the heavens and the earth were joined is not the same as saying "The entire universe expanded outwards from a singularity in which all the fundamental forces were unified" and you have to recognize that living things aren't just made from water, but a whole host of proteins and other complex amines and carbohydrates.
I don't agree with everything the man says, but I would buy him a beer in a heartbeat.
He wouldn't drink it, bro.
Sorry, he's a teetotaler. Hasn't touched a drop of alcohol in his life.
I agree with a lot of what Penn says, actually I believe in almost all of it. But taxation and Government; there we differ slightly.
If there is no taxation to generate funding for civil infrastructure, who would build roads? Build bridges? provide national protection with and army, navy and air force? Who would provide a fire and police service? Schooling? Would all of this rely upon people with money being able to pay for their own infrastructure, protection and education? I don't mention ambulances, hospitals and doctors because American seem to think only the wealthy should have these things. (Note to those without a sense of humour - I'm making a [albeit poor] joke).
I agree that "big government" is bad when it wastes tax-payers money on nonsensical projects that benefit… who exactly? Surely we must be skeptical about the abuses of those in power cloaked in patriotism.
But we do need a (small) Government to provide the services and infrastructure that benefit us all, including business.
OldVillain Our world contains over 6 billion people. If even 1% of those people are smart then we have millions of smart people who can figure out a way that every social service can be paid for without tax's or at least the forcing of taking money from people.. In the middle east, the kings make billions selling oil around the world, they in turn use that money to fund social services. Perhaps the USA can do something similar. Switzerland uses the manipulation of the international bank market to fund a lot of their social services. Perhaps the USA can use some sort of mark-to-market investment to abolish tax's, abolish the fed system and go back to the gold standard. Perhaps a manipulation of the fed system can be used as a sort of a final quantitative easing that would turn the bank notes into actual investments that can eventually be used to fund the social services and in turn lower/abolish the deficit and go back to a gold standard without hyper inflation.. Several Ideas and theorems have yet to be tested and I believe that The USA is ready for something new... If it does not work like tax's and the fed system then try something else..
OldVillain There are great answers to all of your questions. One thinker once commented that if the government made all shoes, and someone suggested they stop and we let the private sector do it, people would scream, "but who will make the shoes?! how will poor people ever have shoes?!" But the reality is the private sector handles this extremely well, and shoes are plentiful and cheap (or expensive when you want them to be). Take a look around, read Reason Magaine, or look at some articles on this issue on mises.org, and then you'll see, even if you are not convinced, that there are many reasonable proposals for how a private defense, private roads, can work (and have worked in various situations).
Wow, I could listen to him talk for hours.
What a brilliant person.
15:36 - PENN JILLETTE's motto for the future:
1 - "Things always get better"
2 - "People always think they're getting worse"
8 years later, pandemic, ww3 around the corner, rise in crime, rise in school shootings, nothing is any better. This world fucking sucks
Steven Pinker would concur.
@@thomasulatowski3012 ...too few people know Steven Pinker...! 😞
Jillette makes SO much sense!
LMAO! to silly people yes :)
@@clarkkent2220 anyone who thinks they know what is best for others are called authoritarians.
@@Sublime- I thought they were just called assholes.
I just discovered Reason a year ago, I had no idea they used to actually have reasonable people on their shows.
Yeah, love him as an entertainer, but when he uses his mind, he becomes even more interesting.
"Pierce Morgan said to me "1 out of 7 people in this country is on food stamps, what does that mean to you?" and i said that means that 6 out of 7 people can help them.
and he said "how can we help them?" i said "go help them". he said "we need the government to to help them" i said "go help them". i said "i am, go help them". then he said "well how do we go-" i said "i didn't say we, i said you. you make a pretty good living, there are people who are hungry in L.A., go out thing evening and help them."
i love penn, he's great
Thats awesome
yep, wonder who came up with the idea of taking care of the poor even before we care for ourselves?
Pearl schneider Not Jesus, that's for sure.
SinisterSkyline whatever helps you sleep at night:)
LIke it or not universal human rights began in the bible....
Chinese proverb: the tears of a stranger are as water
Classic Roman and Greek culture put no value of self serving and sacrifice....You can hate the misapplication of religion, you can jump on the neo atheist bandwagon and go on for hours about how God isn't god enough for you...but you can't stick your head in the sand and pretend Christianity didn't impact the way we care for others in revolutionary ways. Or, I guess you can but that would be ignorant and I know how much atheists hate be ignorant...
Pearl schneider First of all, chill. Get the stick out your ass. All I did was say Jesus didn't come up with the idea of caring for the poor, which is true. Anything else you rambled on about is a bullshit speculation on what you think I might think. Calm down and do be so supremely sensitive.
But, if you want to bring that in, nope, the universal declaration of human rights had nothing to do with christianity, but all to do with the discontent towards monarchy. That's a fact.
Yes, Christianity had an impact the way people interact... all creeds have. They dictate what you should and shouldn't do in life, of course they'll impact the way people interact... and you're calling me ignorant? 'Cause that's the word you parade around when you can't prove your point so you have to attack the credibility of who you argue with, I guess...
Anyway, God isn't real, never has been. Jesus didn't invent the concept of caring for the poor. And if you don't like it, all you're doing is seeking pleasure in denial.
Like Penn, I'm a libertarian and an atheist.
I fucking love this guy.
Beliefs are merely conditioned patterns in the mind.
me too!
The one thing I disagree with him on is Kennedy's quote. "ask what you can do for your country" isn't the same as "ask what you can do for your government"
I agree, plus also he supports hitlary .
Yeah you guys, thank god we were smart enough to elect someone who literally tried to end the peaceful transfer of power instead.
My only hero in the world. Finally someone who I agree 100% with (so far).
A god was created from our early history when man thought the sun and stars were hanging from strings inside a dome and clouds were blown in and they thought there has to be someone bigger then us doing these things in a dome and god was created. They thought of a god constantly changing weather as well, we now know better but they did not
But why do you think we have the desire for a God. Who put it there? Why would it come up and not in other animals?
*****
Nah. It's a very simple evolutionary mechanism. Humans need spirituality.
Animals have no spirituality and can live perfectly meaningless lives without giving a damn. Their instincts push them along.
When humans started to evolve and their brains were growing so much that they started to really reason, and really question. Humans didn't want to just do everything instinctually anymore. They demanded reason behind the sun shining, behind the dead dying, behind their existence. They started to really need something more to give them a motivation behind what they were doing. Religion is merely a territorial and an organisational element brought to spirituality, which is also an evolutionary mechanism as humans are pack-animals. However, humans finally started to be intelligent enough to also question the existence of a God. Of any spirituality. This is where we reach an evolutionary end-point in intelligence. Anyone who really is the deepest of thinkers would get depressed at the utter uselessness of our existence and everything we do, and get stuck behind this uselessness in everything they do. They lose their drive. This is why the cleverest-thinking of races, the Asians, tend to take their own lives when their family names (which is objectively the only meaning of life: to procreate and to live eternally through your memory and name) get destroyed by some kind of shameful incident.
This is also why the African race tends to be happiest, knows how to party and not give a damn, and live in the moment. Their relative cluelessness makes them more accepting of God still. They still buy into all of this without thinking too much about it. This sadly also means that they are an organisational mess in their continent.
Believe me, 90% of atheists really haven't thought it through further than on a smug and superficial level, and they tend to subconciously hold many spiritual values. This is a good thing, because it is what keeps us humans moving.
d rexius
What? Other animals don't have gods because they have no organic capacity to create a god. They aren't anywhere near our level of intelligence. That is a silly question...
*****
Haha, no, I'm afraid *you* are mistaken.
Obviously I never said that you had to be depressed if you didn't believe in a God. I also didn't say that the Japanese were religious, in fact I said the opposite. In order for non-spiritual people to feel content and live a fulfilling life, they either have to be less intelligent and more superficial-thinking (people like you, for instance, who say life is in the here and now, you don't need spirituality etc., because you never were able to think deeply enough about what life is and means, to be influenced by its depressing conclusion). Asian people tend to be the most intelligent race and they have basically figured this out, and the way for them to survive is either to force some spirituality, or take on a (well-reasoned) philosophy of working hard and excelling in life so that they are an asset to the world and their family names will carry on, basically being the only purpose in life. Africans in turn don't really think about all that and just chase their more instinctual motivations, and they tend to be more susceptible to religious conjurations, because they're more clueless (hence the chaotic mess in Africa). The further South, the less intelligence, the more religious people, (Africa, India, South America and the South of the US). And the further East and North, the more intelligence and less relgion, yet more depression (Sweden, Russia, Austria, Japan etc). This is undeniable. Even within Europe it's obvious that logistically the South comes up short (Greece, Italy and Spain being the big losers when it comes to the financial crisis, and Denmark and Germany being relatively wellfaring).
Caucasians tend to be in the middle, with a lot of pseudo-intelligence and superficial thinking, often being pretentious when it comes to THINKING that they are intelligent and deeply thinking. There is still a very high unconcious level of spirituality here as well in the form of superstition (be it concious or not) and coupled with the superficiality, it makes for a succesful median between being too unintelligent to handle modern society, logistics and demography (Africa, Mexico etc who in turn for their susceptibility to relgion tend to be happier and more content (even though they are poor) than Europeans and North Americans) or becoming too clear-thinking for their own good (Japan, who has less religiousness, with a sky-high rate of suicide).
***** The same trigger is found in most animals, namely the trait of triggering false positives.
Example:
Bush rustles.
a, It was the wind.
b, It was a predator/prey.
If it was the wind, then running away, checking it out is a slight expense, but no harm done.
If it was a predator/prey, the reward is there in the form of survival.
The human brain uses the same function (and area of the brain) to visualize a false positive phenomenon, and add a cause in the form of a person, in one way or another similar to him/her.
Again, this is not unique to humans. However, humans are the ones who can voice their experience and interpret exotic brain functions "intelligently."
What's not to love about this man? He's the best.
😋 he is a hero in a sort of sense
A 'true' christian would admit that they are worse than everyone else, yet you don't see anyone saying that these days.
I think the structured religious system is what really killed Christianity in the eyes of many people. Christians today is more about who's right and who's wrong and having the tendency to be more judgmental than preaching repentance and forgiveness like they should be.
Penn, will you adopt me?
+Gnurt :*(
From Penn's book:
'Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby...'
No, atheism is a belief system all is here by chance.
...or 'bald' is a hairstyle...! ;-)
@@davidc4408 Wrong, atheism is a lack of belief in gods. It doesn't attempt to explain how things came about.
@@NibbleIT its is by default. A militant atheist does not believe in gods
@@davidc4408 It is what by default?
I'm a Christian, but I always like hearing Penn's point of view. He is always honest and he specifies what he believes and why he believes it.
8:50
As a liberal, I can say that this is exactly our point. People COULD help others, but they don't. People may not steal that car, but they sure as hell don't give to charity. Especially those that should the most: the rich.
+Surya112
People who need more money have charity as their biggest help, charity still provides more money to welfare than tax money, the only point made here is that there has to be a voluntary basis because we are talking about legally aquired property, the amount of property is irrelevent if this is the case.
how are you in the slightest bit of right to say that the rich don't donate to charity? Being in a conservative, middle-upper-class household, i know that the middle-upper-class donates a ton to charities whether it be clothes, money, or a place to stay. it is really low of you and anyone else to say that the rich don't donate enough to charity. how much have you donated?
Alexander Huebner
The rich, those that earn more than $200,000 a year, give only about 4.6% of their income on average to charity. And that percentage goes down as you increase income. Go past $10 million a year, and they average about 0.5%.
I make about $15,000 a year, and last year i gave 10% to charity.
+Surya112 AT $15,000 a year, no question you also received charity. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it's true.
+stevemcgee99 ooooooohhhhhh nice one m8 and surya, the percentage goes down but the amount still goes up
I share his views completely. It's amazing how similar we are in our outlook.
So you like hitlary ?
10 year update. Penn Jillette’s Libertarian card has been revoked. 2020 revealed him to be a liberal statist.
Jesus, that needs to be heard by everyone!!! "God is the first one because if you take God away from the right wing, and away from the Tea Party, and by God I mean all that kind of social meddling, their position is pretty sensible."
You know Mo Tucker from the Velvet Underground is in the Tea Party, right?
I think most atheist are on the left because the left is a bunch of satan worshippers
@@GTSN38 Either you didn't read the title at all, or you didn't complete 10th grade high school.
Atheism, means no belief in any type of god. That includes, Buddha, Allah, Satan, the Flying Spaghetti monster. They believe that a higher power never existed.
Libertarians are primarily RIGHT winged. They are Pro-capitalism, anti-state. They firmly believe in the individual rights and property rights of the individual. Think that when you purchase a home, that home belongs to you, the things you put into belong to you. The Left wing want you to believe that the home was granted to you by the government, that your property was only possible with the help of the State.
Any right-winged person will tell you thats bullshit and libertarianism is the most concentrated of this belief, much more than what conservatives believe. Your income, your sweat and your ownership belongs to you and you ALONE. Not to the government, not to the state, not to the people. That is what libertarians believe in.
Penn is my spirit animal
I like to send my dad books about atheism. A staunch atheist, he built a very successful business and converted to left wing politics in the process, particularly because of his concerns about social welfare and the environment.
This interview with Penn has surprised me. I never knew he was right wing.
His book won't be arriving in my Dad's letterbox.
Damn good interview.
Agnosticism and Atheism are different but one can be both. Agnostic is to say I don't know if there is a god; Atheism is to say I don't believe in a god.
***** No, their belief is based on what they understand the evidence most strongly indicates.
***** I'm not making any statement about my belief, only what Atheists believe and the reasons they give for doing so.
***** If a person does not have enough evidence to make a judgment, non-belief is the default position.
***** So, you have me completely figured out bases on one sentence? You have no idea what I believe. I am not an anti-theist. My entire family and the overwhelming majority of my friends are believers. I don't care I that they believe in a god. I don't care if you believe in a god, as long as you don't use that belief to justify hating other people. I don't think you're stupid for believing in a god. I don't think I was stupid when I believed.
You claim I have no integrity because I don't fit into the box you have built for all non-believers, then you sum me up based on a one sentence comment. You tell me which one of us lacks integrity. All I did was answer a question honestly, and then you attack me.
I think one of the things that turn simple non-believers into anti-theists are people like you that assume that everyone with whom you disagree are the same. nothing could be farther from the truth. I am sorry for trying to honestly answer your question. I promise I will not make that mistake again
It seems you really like to make generalizations about people and jump to hasty conclusions. I don't do that. Let me explain my previous comment further.
First of all, I don't hate anyone. As I stated before, my entire family and the overwhelming majority of my friends are believers, I don't hate them. They never use their religious beliefs to attack homosexuals, musicians, people of other faiths, etc. I never said all Christians use their beliefs to justify hate, but you have to admit that fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians like members of the Westboro Baptist church use their beliefs all the time.
Secondly, I am making no claim. Believers always try to say that atheism is a claim. Atheism is not a claim. Atheism is the rejection of a claim. Like Penn, you will never hear me say definitively that there is no god. I simply don't believe that the existence of any gods has been proven.
Lastly, I am not a member of a cult. I don't "gladly wear the label of atheist." Most people I know don't even know of my atheism.
Before you jump to another conclusion, please understand that it is not because I am ashamed of my position or afraid of defending my position. People don't know I am an atheist, because religion tends not to come up in my daily interactions with people.
I hope that clears some things up. Again, I wasn't trying to start an argument. I simply made an attempt to answer your question.
He is just so...happy. He is happy and optimistic, and it's contagious.
Penn Jillette obviously hasn't played BioShock.
what does that mean?
+HumanNoideStudios BioShock is a video game with a neat plot. It's about a libertarian society on the ocean floor and its complete failure and collapse.
ah ill check it out
I don't think you understand the game.
I haven't played the game so I don't know if it's truly libertarian or not, but I didn't realise video games were supposed to be accurate representation of reality. :P
People seem to think atheists and agnostics are selfish and immoral. What do you base that on? Humans don't need god as a moral compass. Basic human compassion. Where does that come from? Empathy. Your in a restaurant, about to get some food and you see a little box for an whatever charity they sponsor. You think to yourself, "Hey, I'd want help if I was in that position. I should donate", and you do. Empathy and compassion aren't exclusive to god.
About 2 months ago I was a firm believer of the Divine Spirit known as God when I was told by an Atheist to look at science that argues against God to get a new view. It is funny that when Penn Jillette says if you read the bible you could become an Atheist because watching scientific views and listening to Penn's view I actually became stronger in my believe for God. I am glad that I can get a view on both sides to understand more about my believe. God exists but not to the atheist.
Penn, stop ignoring me. Please adopt me.
least synical and most skeptical. that is a good place to be at. hover around this frequency.
"We're not being chased down by animals in the night...unless you're a Vegas magician." LOL. I'm captivated by the entire interview, but that really made me chuckle, even though it's somewhat of a non sequitur.
He does not look 56!
Perhaps it's the lack of stress he deals with (being someone who does not subject themselves to mental slavery)
Eru Illuvatar
I doubt his life was devoid of stress when he was a performer, though.
Freedomz Well I didn't mean he was _devoid_ of stress. I meant that trying to please a "creator" is a huge amount of stress he does not have to deal with.
Eru Illuvatar
Ahh, the meaning of lack can be quite ambiguous. I agree that the idea of an interventionist overseer is pretty stressful.
Freedomz He looks 56 stones (that's 392 lbs in American).
I highly respect Penn as a thinker, but I am shocked to learn he is a Libertarian. With the example he gave... "Go help them" I agree with, but the entire purpose of the government is to help and protect the people. Bill Gates can't help everyone that needs help. Everyone that needs help doesn't know someone that can help. It astounds me that he lacks the logic to see that.
I would like to start by saying that I am a libertarian and an atheist. I believe, like most libertarians, that the ONLY legitimate function of government is to protect the people. It is not the government's responsibility to help anyone do anything. I will explain later in the post. Also a person does not have to believe in any gods to be kind and charitable.
In a purely libertarian system it is no solely up to the wealthy to help the less fortunate; it is up to everyone to help the less fortunate. People should not, however, be forced by the government to do so.
I am far from wealthy, my father and I run a small construction company. Our business has annual revenue of approximately $900,000. This would lead many people to believe that we are wealthy. What people don't understand is that by the time we pay for things like material, payroll, trucks, maintenance, and especially taxes, there isn't much left. Last year I made fifty thousand dollars while my father made close to seventy thousand. I am not saying that we are poor, but we are far from wealthy. We both, however, still manage to donate thousands to charities such as The American Red Cross, Goodwill Industries, and The Wounded Warrior Project every year.
In a purely libertarian system it would be people like us that would be most responsible for helping people, not only people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.
It amazes me when I hear people on the left call conservatives and libertarians greedy and evil. They say that we think the worst of people. I disagree. I believe that in order to be a libertarian or fiscal conservative you must believe that the overwhelming majority of people are kind and generous. You must believe that they will help people purely out of kindness not because of government force. No matter what you believe or have been taught, libertarians and conservatives don't want Grandma to die or children to be homeless and starve. I realize that that makes for a great soundbite, it is just simply not true. We simply believe that it is the responsibility of individuals to keep these things from happening. It is not the governments responsibility. When these things are done through government it is done inefficiently and wastefully. Most of your money ends up in the hands of greedy politicians and bureaucrats before it reaches the people it is intended to help.
Normally when the money is disbursed through a private charity a much higher percentage of the money goes to the people it is intended to help. I know that there are charities out there that might be greedy and wasteful. It is up to us to research the charities to which we donate to to make sure that our money is being spent in the best way possible.
It seems to me that those on the left believe that people will only be kind and charitable if forced by government to do so, and I find this truly sad.
You seriously think that? You actually think that the state is a benevolent entity that is looking out for your best interest? Nothing could be further from the truth. The only interest of the government is to expand its power and fulfill its own interests. These programs that the government creates are not designed to aid people. They are designed to put people in debt and become financially enslaved.
The idea behind libertarianism is for people to maintain the most amount of individual freedom as possible and to function in a world where everyone cooperates with each other while pursuing their personal interests. There are already plenty of people who engage in charitable works through voluntary action, but the amount of charities is completely restricted because of government intervention. So don't tell me that more government involvement is somehow a plausible solution.
Jim Brooks I agree with everything you said except one thing. You should not put conservatives in the same category as libertarians. Conservatives actually do prefer government intervention. Basically, their logic is: government isn't very good at doing things, so we need government to control the most important things.
danynumero6 You want to see Libertarianism in action? Check out Somalia. They haven't had a central government since -I think- 1991. Lovely country there. Full of Liberty...and anarchy and death.
American Libertarianism is the result of a minority of people frustrated that they have to be subjected to rules made by leaders they didn't vote for and the majority they don't relate with. Welcome to reality. That's how a democracy works. While your liberty is important, its not the most important part of this or any modern society. Its at least equal to safety, security, healthiness, and fairness. Every Libertarian I debate has a very immature, simple minded naïve, and limited view of the world. Their utopia would actually mean the destruction of America, millions of deaths, starvation, endless civil war, and lawlessness and most of them think that's ok or too oblivious to understand the long range impacts of their ideas.
Government is not some diabolical entity looking to grow its power over its minions. That would be corporate America. No, government is made up of our elected officials, and people like you and I. Those elected officials are put in power by us because the majority of us feel he represents the best interest of all of us. If they overstep their bounds, we can remove them from office, as witnessed in Colorado in 2013, when the state congressmen were removed from office for the gun laws they implemented that went against what their constituents wanted. WE control government.
Jim Brooks Jim, Lets just strike out atheism from this conversation, as its a moot point. I am as hardcore atheist as we come.
Libertarianism is unconstitutional. Our government's purpose, is pretty clearly laid out in the preamble of the constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Right there it tells you the purpose is MORE than just protecting the people. Its also to create laws and a justice system, promote the general welfare of ALL Americans, protect our freedom, and provide a successful country for future generations. American Libertarianism is meant to bring us closer to anarchy than to unify a nation. Truthfully Libertarianism in America is born out of a child like frustration of a minority of people who feel subjected to the rules made by the majority they don't relate to. Ever been in a group and you all voted for something? Majority rules. That is fair.
The constitution empowers Congress to make laws, control the budget, create taxes, control currency, set the standards for weights and measurements, etc etc, with the best interest of the country in mind. So anything that impacts Americans across the nation can and should be addressed by our congress. That's why currency is regulated at the federal level. That's why telecom, mail, the military etc is regulated at the federal level. That is also why programs to feed the starving, help the poor, save for retirement, and to ensure at least a minimum level of healthcare has been put into place at the federal level. A person's life should never be dependent of if someone is able, willing and available to help them, especially with the massive population we have today. So we all chip in for the best of the country and what ever that may mean. If it means taking a few dollars of my taxes to create a place to feed and cloth the poor, so be it. If you can do more to help, then do it. But to live in this country, and enjoy our freedoms and security, and to protect it for future generations, you put a little in the pot.
You want to know why people on the left call Libertarians greedy and evil? Its because you make this a rich vs. poor argument when the conversation is about survival. You should contribute and be happy about it because it makes our country better. Instead, you are all more worried about the good of the individual, than the good of the whole. That's greed.
Does Libertarianism work? Lets look at a country without a centralized government...Somalia. That country is a wreck. While they have loads and loads of liberty, they also have endless civil wars, starvation, poverty, death, little to no education, short life expectancy. Honestly I am surprised its still a country at this point. Is that the way forward for America? That's not the America I want.
In summary, Libertarianism is flawed on many levels. It goes against the constitution, it's anti-utilitarian, its greedy, short sighted, and it would be absolutely devastating to the welfare, security, and posterity of this country.
"You never hear
'In the news today, 140 dead as Atheist rebels take heavy shelling from Agnostic stronghold in the North.'
Do ya?" -Doug Stanhope
Ultimately, the deep seeded reason for not believing in GOD is MAN does not want to be accountable to GOD, for all the wrongs, pain and suffering, he has cause to himself and others in this life. This is the unspoken truth: GOD I don't need you or want you in my life, because I want to be the god of my life.
absolutely, completely the best comment I have seen on one of these sites EVER
I'd rather be accountable to the people around me than to a god that may or may not exist.
well maybe man would be more accountable to God if he proved he existed and trully cared for us, but so far only clues and ancient scrips and churches that make him look bad. So how can you blame man? You cant.
Okay now kids, do we realize that we're fighting about a difference of opinion? Do we realize that this is essentially crying about someone else spilling milk ON THEMSELVES...
Seriously, stop acting like children...
I admit--I formerly associated qualities such as coldness, unfeeling, absence of emotion, vacuousness of personality, etc. with atheism. But, people like Penn show that one can openly talk about goodwill, compassion, friendship, charity, humility, and the like, with just as much passion and empathy and heart as any other religious devotee.
Why are those qualities bad if you are honest about them? Christians claim they love Christ and don't follow his ways. They judge eachother, they killed each other for years and years, they constantly contradict themselves. It goes on.
is this how all atheists look?
Yup every single one.
Billy Bublitz Really? You judge people by looks? You already lost, sorry.
lookhowlongmyusernam en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm you need new drivers for your detector.
I wish I did, my friend. Sadly, no.
Billy Bublitz i wish i had a detector, but I'm too much of a socially awkward pinguin for that.
I love Penn Jillette but he assumes about humanity way too much. Sorry Penn, but while 6/7 people can help those 1/7 people who are on food stamps, that doesnt mean that THEY ARE. Those 1/7 people did not ask to go hungry or volunteer to go hungry in this mixed economy (regulated and FREE) we live in, so they need help. Faith in people is not a solid economic strategy, especially when the income inequality in the US is huge where CEOs make 300% more than the average worker now.
Income inequality is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how much more someone makes than you, it only matters if you make enough to provide the necessities for you and your family. Worrying about the inequality of income will only lead to making everyone poor, instead of looking for ways to elevate the poor.
Pen said: If you park a Ferrari in front of a random Starbucks, walk in and give the key to a random person asking them to park it for you, they are not gonna steal that car.
Fascinating. I wonder if Pen can perform a small social experiment demonstrating his faith?
'Now that you're parents aren't here I think someone has to step in' I don't know about penn's life but if his parents are dead then that was a very cold comment at 6:50
I'm a Gnostic atheist, not a Agnostic atheist.
I'm know you don't understand what I am, but I'm 100% certain there is no god.
There is NO evidence for any god, not even a teeny, tiny, little, weak god. There CAN'T be even one logically. Claims of things existing with no evidence, can be dismissed with no evidence.
12dollarsand78cents That's a logical fallacy my friend. Just because there is no evidence for something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That's literally the same thing as saying that nothing exists until you know about it.
By the way, there is plenty of evidence for god, but if you are not open to the idea then you will deny his existence even when the evidence is right in front of your face.
scartissue454 There is as much evidence for a god as there is for unicorns. Atheism is based on the probability factor. On that note, discovering a fossil of a horse with a horn protruding from it's head is more probable then any evidence for a god to be revealed. God's a notch below unicorns.
scartissue454
Ha ha, "logical fallacy" my ass, you don't even know the definition of word the "logical", obviously. By the way I put a Billion dollars in your account, you won't see any evidence of it, and you must do exactly as I say, or you will never be able to use or spend it. When I feel you are ready for it, I'll revile it to you. If I deem that you have enough faith it's there, I will then choose to reveal it when I see fit. Not a minute earlier.
12dollarsand78cents Absolutely it's a logical fallacy. I just proved it to you too. If you can't see it, then I don't what else to say. Sorry man!
To add to what I posted, we can reason for justifying whatever beliefs we hold to. A perspective I would rather urge to be taken is curiosity. Not as an approach to reasoning. Curiosity wholly in attitude, apart from knowledge. Its making efforts for establishing impartiallity within thinking. In deeper discussions being impartial in the sense personabley within, and not arguementally without, is crucial.
It seems, quite often, Libertarians tend to be intellectual, quite wealthy and rather of the opinion that they need or require nothing from others (including God)
From this stance, comes an inherent belief and confidence in little else except for themselves.
Yet Libertarians drive on roads, cross bridges, live on an electric grid, drink water from public utilities....all provided for them by others, working in harmony...paying taxes...all for the common good.
Oddly, Libertarians will not reject their Social Security check, refuse to be taken for medical service in Medic Alert vehicles and when true universal healthcare for all is finally in place...to be sure, they will gladly partake.
When they need a policeman, a fireman or a soldier to defend them...they will partake of that, as well. Perhaps actually expecting & demanding these society based services.
Truth is, Libertarians don't like Democratic Socialism at all....but they partake of all that our Quasi-Socialism provides.
Socialism is simply "all the folks working together for the common good, of all the folks"
Here's a bit of a silly lesson, but the point is profound:
Little boy says to his Mother..".Mom when I grow up, I wanna be a Libertarian"
Mom responds to her boy: Well make up your mind. Son, you can do both"
Should Libertarians be taken seriously? You be the judge!
Observer Jules
Your opinion ignores the fact that libertarians, like everybody else, are forced to use certain services provided by a gang of professional demagogues in control of some geographical area, who use the threat of force. They invoke wacky ideas like "democracy" to justify this nonsense. When everybody knows that your vote is statistically insignificant. Democracy only matters in small numbers and is just a very popular logical fallacy. You mention more propaganda like "the common good". Let's skip all that crap, we all know it's just made belief, secular cosmological arguments to justify servitude to the gang of thugs. Then there's the fact that the gang of thugs take far more from libertarians, and everybody else (above certain income) than what any libertarian is gonna take from the state in their life time. So there is no hypocrisy / logical inconsistency here.
Seems like you are really confused. You repeat this misunderstandings of libertarians over and over again. Seems like you don't understand or know how the world you live in, actually operates. Things are not black and white. You need to think and be critical. Specially of power. To me seems like you are just a sheep. Start reading the founding fathers. That would be a good start.
***** You accuse libertarians of being selfish while lying about Ayn Rand. That's pretty funny.
"I was asked by someone about a new attack on Rand, which some of the
rabid haters on the Left were doing, alleging some sort of hypocrisy by
Rand for "taking social security." Some childish writer at the rather
unreliable AlterNet wrote an article @149721: "Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them."
Rand clearly didn't "grab" any such benefits but
fought her own attorneys about doing so and they, not she, were the
ones pushing it. Third, there is no indication she actually got any
benefits because Pryor doesn't say. And, fourth, Pryor makes it clear
that she acted as Rand's attorney on health issues even when Rand didn't
agree with her. And fifth, there is no indication that Rand knew all of
the decisions that Pryor made on her behalf. Perhaps she did, but
perhaps she didn't.
I found this odd since Rand had commented that people who are forced to
fund government programs are not immoral for taking the benefits for
which they paid. For instance, it is not wrong for people to attend
government schools, which are funded with their tax monies, whether they
like it or not. They have to start with a false premise: that Rand said
receiving Social Security, that one is forced to pay for, was wrong.
Without that false claim they have no charge of hypocrisy. They pretend
she took a position she never took and then accuse her of violating the
position she didn't take.
Quote "...the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund
of their own money-and they would not advance the cause of freedom if
they left their money unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state
administration."
According to AlterNet one Evva Joan Pryor, "who had been a social worker
in New Yorker" said that "I remember telling her that this was going to
be difficult. For me to do my job she had to recognize that there were
exceptions to her theory." What job was that? Well, if you believe
AlterNet she was "social worker" during this period. The implication
being that Rand had to seek out a social worker to help her. Some
smear-mongers of Rand have argued with me that she died penniless as the
result of the evils of capitalism and that was why she sought out this
social worker.
Pryor was NOT a social worker. She worked for the law firm of Ernst,
Crane Gitlin & Winick which handled all legal matters for Rand. Nor
was Rand penniless or in need. She was penniless when she arrived in
America but during this period she had cash reserves of a few hundred
thousand dollars and a steady income from book royalties."
Pryor's full interview in 100 Voices: Oral History of Ayn Rand, shows Rand fighting with her attorneys and
telling them that she didn't want to do this. She signed a power of
attorney and Pryor said that she acted "whether [Ayn] agreed or not."
Pryor never actually says what actions she (Pryor) took in spite of
whether Ayn "agreed or not." What we have is the rabid Left jumping to
numerous conclusions not warranted by evidence.
Pryor argued with Rand because Ayn did not want Social Security, nor did
Rand go out and seek it, or Medicare, even though doing so was entirely
consistent with her own ethics. What Pryor said was that she tried to
convince Rand to sign up and they argued. Pryor says Rand "was never
involved other than to sign the power of attorney. I did the rest."
Beyond that Pryor said nothing else. There is no indication that such benefits were ever used.
There is simply no evidence to show Rand "Grabbed Social Security and
Medicare When She Needed Them."
Jules Rensch
"Yet Libertarians drive on roads, cross bridges, live on an electric grid, drink water from public utilities....all provided for them by others, working in harmony...paying taxes...all for the common good."
It's not anti libertarian to get as much as you can from what you have forced to pay. But it still be better if we wouldn't _force_ people to give their money.
Alex Kozliayev Good point Alex, sometimes it's difficult to be a good citizen.
Jules Rensch I guess there's just gray areas in life where you can't pick an choose one side of the argument(being liberal, conservative ect.). That's the way i see it that is. Sometimes you can identify as one but have certain independent views at the same time. I lean toward libertarian, but i don't always agree with all the agendas and views of libertarians.
"I don't know whats best for other people" as a reason to be a libertarian is so stupid. I can tell you what is not best for other people. Social Darwinism.
So? Libertarianism is NOT Social Darwinism. Libertarianism means people are allowed to cooperate to mutual self-interest, engage in a division of labor, choosing their careers as they wish, allowing them to prosper by producing more and more efficiently, beinging down prices and increasing supply till even the least skilled worker can earn a decent living, simply because the lower prices mean his real wages have risen. This is cooepration, not survival of the fittest.
Under other systems, its survival of whoever can kiss butt the longest and deepest.
Saulius Muliolis
And what in your mind is to stop exploitation in this system exactly? Even with government regulations we have corporations buying politicians to suit their bottom line via the exploitation of the unwealthy. Libertarianism eventually becomes social darwinism. Its just the way it is. Even with regulated capitalism it becomes this way. As for your "under other systems its survival of whoever can kiss butt the longest" thing, what are you 12? Have you studied at all any other systems of government? Under some systems it is survival of all because life and health are inherent rights as a citizen. Unlike libertarianism where it is basically the wealthy prosper and the poor get used up and tossed out. If you are any older than the age of 14 and are not some sort of Nietzsche fan nutcase, you really just need to study up on reality.
The whole driving principle which protects Libertarianism is the republic system of government. It is law which holds firm the anchor of civil and human rights, and is the least likely of the big three forms of government to violate these rights. I disagree that society is destined to descend into chaos just as much as I disagree that a libertarian republic is guaranteed to be successful. On the macro level of the world economy there are numerous examples of adversarial countries who maintain diplomatic ties to promote healthy trade rather than pursuing open conflict due to social, ideological or religious differences. I do not disagree that some form of "the strong survive" is not evident in numerous systems (to include capitalism), but it is not the hard rule.
Corpse Party Lol. You've gotta be joking. You said you're worried about people exploiting each other in a governmentless system and the only example of exploitation you mention is something that is both inevitable in the current system, and impossible in his proposed system: bribing politicians.
jollyjollyO
I never said the current system is good. However, there are systems that can be set up that work. It's not either crony capitalism, communism, or libertarianism. A good mixture of socialism and capitalism with some strong regulations on how people are decided to be leaders as well as consequence for any misdoings, and a strong untouchable set of basic human rights as citizens would be a great extremely basic outline. Expand from there, and social darwinism and rampant exploitation can be avoided. However, with the current system in Murica at least, and definitely in a libertarian system, it is social darwinism and exploitation.
What Penn misses in his argument for Libertarianism is that he lives in a first world nation that would not be a first world nation if our predecessors took a Libertarian approach. Sure we have a lot of resources but so does Africa. There is a clear and positive effect when government takes a proactive role in the strengthening of a society. FDR, through government intervention, made this a strong, prosperous country. Eisenhower, T. Roosevelt, Lincoln, all made us stronger with government.
Jesus loves you
The tree down there on the corner...see it? That tree loves you.
evolvedtg Where will you spend eternity?
JoM80
Eternity? I'll be at the club! Dancing, having drinks, sexy women, a good old time.
JoM80 Eternity is not something you can experience. But I am sure you will spend it the same place i will, in the ground to become food for something else.
Corpse Party I guess you're only concerned with temporary pleasure instead of what really matters, eternal life.
I find two things certain.
1: He does not understand the Bible.
2: I might get along with due to his libertarian stance.
He isn't a dick about it is what makes Penn different than most atheists. He isn't mad at religious people, he just thinks they are wrong.
That is nice for once lol
He understands the Bible. Look at some of his other videos...
***** I actually decided to watch some of his videos to understand him. Keep in mind there is a difference between knowing what's in the Bible and actually understanding it.
Paul Tellini well there is understanding it from a christian point of view, and there is understanding it from an atheist point of view. both hold important information and both show different sides of the same coin.
because seeing as there are so many different interpretations of the bible, to say his interpretation is wrong is kinda silly, because that means that there must be one single correct way to understand the bible, which i and many other people would say isn't true.
also, he does understand the bible, even from a christian perspective, but looking at the bible from an atheistic standpoint, he may not be able to understand it in that sense.
Imagine you see a kid in water drowning, he chose to go swimming where the currents where bad. Do you rescue him or let him die? He made his own choice and it was a bad one, do you know whats best for him? Is saving him so he can learn from his mistakes and go on to do better things deciding that you know whats best for him? Or should you respect his choices and leave him to drown.
Thats my best argument against Penns form of Libertarianism.
I believe ... I believe... i don't believe ... I really believe ... I believe - Mr Jilette, are you sure you are an atheist?
You68688
oh Yes, I am absolutely sure that I am not retarded. Atheism is based on a rational world view - rational thinking. It's therefore not only about a "god " or "gods". but since what libertarianists demand is absolutely unachievable it is a bleive as well - that's why Penn Teller is using this word again and again (like Sarah Palin as well btw) Think about it! A world without government is impossible! It's just a dream - like a "paradise" !
FidelKastrat Atheism is just about god and what it entails. It doesn't matter on what it is based. It is a stance on belief - on a particular believe.
Penns' opening statement is something I struggle with as a libertarian. "I don't know what's best for other people" Penn also says "You should never go into an argument without the knowledge you could be wrong"
But... libertarianism and the Constitution is what is best for people. It's freedom to do what they see as best for themselves. Penn would probably have an issue with my thinking. :(
He's got a point about human nature. I lost my mobile phone on a coach last week. As luck would have it, I got to speak to somebody at the coach station lost property office BEFORE that happened and he told me that very few people try to make claims because they always ASSUME either what they lost was stolen, or that somebody will steal what they've lost when they find it. I called up the lost property office after and my phone had been handed in. It's just arrived back to me in the post :-)
This is a great topic, to be sure....interestingly from the many derogatory comments (with some of them being downright disrespectful), one only wonders how the problems of America can be worked out in a meaningful dialogue...
This I offer to all, on all sides of the issue:
“We habitually erect a barrier called blame that keeps us from communicating genuinely with others, and we fortify it with our concepts of who's right and who's wrong. We do that with the people who are closest to us and we do it with political systems, with all kinds of things that we don't like about our associates or our society.
It is a very common, ancient, well-perfected device for trying to feel better. Blame others....Blaming is a way to protect your heart, trying to protect what is soft and open and tender in yourself. Rather than own that pain, we scramble to find some comfortable ground.”
― Pema Chödrön
Respectfully, Observer Jules .....salaam alaikum
+Jules Rensch the meaning of TRUE cooperation isn't people being " made to do something" at threat of violence. THINK ABOUT IT.
Penne Gillette is 6"8 inches tall, and one of the greatest intellectual thinkers we have left. I love to hear him AND Teller speak.
Same here, I didn't fear death so much from thinking there is hell, you believe you are safe in your own family rather than someone watching over you all the time. And generally it made me a lot happier in life.
You know, it's kind of amazing -- you have atheists, you have Mormons, Christians, Muslims. Normally these people are all at each others' throats, often because each is attempting to impose its morals and values on all of the others. Want to know how I've seen them all get along perfectly? Libertarianism. I swear to god (sorry if that offends any of the above groups), I can go to a Libertarian gathering and find all of these people hanging out and respecting each others' liberty to believe and (non-injuriously) do as they will. It blows me away. If you really value both reducing violence and avoiding one or more of these groups taking control of society, you should give Libertarianism another look.
The thing about moral judgment calls is that once you make one, you are in effect saying "there is a way man is meant to live," which, if true, implies intentionality behind our existence. Thus, morality without religion becomes a difficult (or at least strange) position to hold. You end up appealing to an intention behind the universe, but not a mind behind that intention.
I'm not libertarian, but I think Penn has a beautiful point about the goodness of people.
Though people do awful, awful things, I think pretty much everybody does what they think is best. They just have different scopes of who and what's important.
I have little trust in other people, but I think perhaps one day we could get to a world where libertarianism is viable if people open-mindedly seek out more knowledge and differing viewpoints rather than clinging to the beliefs they currently hold.
Well, I hope at least no one here will ridicule you (and so far, no one has, yay!) because what you're doing here is awesome. You chose to listen to someone who doesn't agree with everything you're thinking, thus proving you have an open mind. And that is pretty damn cool if you ask me, carry on bro.
that's probably the best interviewer i've ever seen. killer interview.
" I don't know what's best for other people" Exactly...............
Maybe in broad strokes
"The fundamental concept here is “faith.” “Faith” in this context means belief in the absence of evidence. This is the essential that distinguishes religion from science."
-Leonard Peikoff-1986
By saying there is no evidence of Jesus Christ as personal Lord and savior, can we start with there is no denying the historically documented evidence of the figure Jesus Christ? Rome, Israel, Greece did not deny His existence. As was the crucifixion and resurrection, recorded not only by the apostles but also by historians and government officials. The question is, what will you do with this evidence? You have every right to reject or deny it, but wholly inaccurate to say this evidence only exists in our hearts or imaginations.
Which official recorded jesus coming back to life.....
As someone who is far more sympathetic to religion in general than Penn is, I think it is incredibly fucking stupid to say "The 10 commandments transcend religion."
Just reading down the list:
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Right from the get go, we see this is about religion, not morality. If there is no God (or a different "God" is correct, one that has no law) in what way is it "moral" to say you cant put another god first?
"Thou shalt not make graven images" Same as the first. This is specific only to the Judeo/Christoan religion, there are plenty of religions where this is not a problem.
"Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vain." I'm noticing a theme here, and it isn't "morality".
"Remember the Sabbath, keep it holy." I'm beginning to repeat myself
"Honor thy father and mother." Ok, we're getting away from the purely religious ones at least... What if your parents are terrible people, deserving no honor?
"Thou shalt not kill." Finally, one I think most of us would agree is purely about "morality," but seeing as how every civilized country in the world has at least *some* laws on the books about killing... yeah.
"Thou shalt not commit adultery," I personally would never engage in adultery, but is this always universally bad? What if one has the permission of their spouse? There's a reason this isn't a criminal offense in most of the civilized world.
"Thou shalt not steal," Ok, theft is bad, I agree with that. What are we at, 2/8?
"Thou shalt not bear false witness." Ok, this is bad too, 3/9.
"Thou shalt not covet," isn't this pretty much the exact same as thou shalt not steal? It's at least the *reason* most people steal, and pretty damn hard to prove until it crosses over into theft. I'm not counting it.
So we have.. 4 of them which have nothing at all to do with morality... 3 that I think most people would agree are things you shouldn't do, 2 that are in pretty dubious moral territory, and 1 duplicate. I think the western world can (and has) found something better to base it's laws upon.
"You advocate for "small" government"
No I don't, I advocate for no government.
And, by your logic, Government could be replaced with a royal family, a religious leadership or anything that tells people to be good and do no harm.
A very inspirational interview.
I don't think libertarians hate religions, Penn Jillette was just making his choice.
" For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God, no explanation is possible."
wrapping up watching the video, but pausing it 11 minutes. Penn's got an active introspective mind. Here's something I'll say. I think there's a depth of discussion and sharing I think could exist in the realm of belief and philisophical undertones, but seemingly widely isn't. It's interesting to talk about what we discover; or faith, its interpretations; other beliefs etc. The deeper we dwell in things to ask ourselves, I think it must be said differences don't constitute for division.
I know I'm going to get ridiculed for saying this but, I'm no Atheist and I really love Penn and agree with almost everything he has to say.
Penn's whole thing is that we don't know what's best for each other. The girl could have consciously chosen to work at McDonald's instead of pursuing further education. Some people will see it like she wasn't offered enough opportunities and so she was "forced" to stay where she was. So people would petition and pass bills and such. Hope I helped clear that up a bit.
Funny, I had a slow gradual rise to believing in God. I still love ya Penn. Love your Libertarianism and your Good Natured personality!
To Matt Freitag, I've read the works of Bastiat, von Mises and the mysogynistic Rothbard as well as the Ayn Rand's reverence towards wealth in Atlas Shrugged. Libertarianism is just neo feudalism where those with the most success make the rules and sell poverty as the lack of effort not not economic inequality. Rothbard hatred of the Womens Movement in 1960-70s showed the level of ignorance that is shocking because he didnt see it as equal rights but some puesdo gender based nanny state. Its not progressive to allow businesses to deny you employment or fire you based on race, gender, religion, and even your country of origin in US did in 1800-1930s and returning to those times isn't about Freedom at all......
You are absolutely correct. Listening to Penn say that if we get rid of food stamps, then everyone else who isn't on them will help out those now starving people is complete nonsense. Humans are inherently selfish. They are going to look out for themselves. Sure if they see someone lying in the street bleeding they will help him out (out of the selfish nature that they may be in that position one day and will want someone to help them out), but to say that they will make sure poor people will have an equal shot at an education, or that there isn't any need for regulations in order that businesses don't cheat the system and sell dangerous or defective products is complete nonsense.
Leaving your car with a stranger in an emergency is one thing but trusting people not to let greed get the better of them when given access to power over others (through office or employment) is something else entirely.
I don't disagree with Penn on any front. To me it is a voice of pure reason.
I met Penn in person once and he's a hoot in person as much as in public. And a smart guy! I let him have a book he'd love: "What Do You Do with a Chocolate Jesus?" found in Amazon.com. It's a very funny but historically accurate deconstruction of traditional Christianity--the whole 2000 year history. It's more directly about the Bible story than Penn's books, which tend to ruminate about what people do today with these ideas--always to hilarious effect.
It's really funny but Penn describes with precision what happened to me. I gradually became an atheist after deciding to read the Bible from front to back. I think I got to Numbers when I finally realized I couldn't applaud what I was reading. After about a year or so I was identifying as an atheist. It took a lot of soul searching, reading and listening to other views. The trip was very rewarding and I can't say I miss anything about my Christian past.
+faultroy That's odd, I would wager you know absolutely nothing about me and yet somehow you know exactly what my frame of mind was when I reading the Bible years ago. What I want to know is what makes you think you have a slightest clue where I'm coming from now or where I was coming from back then. Instead of jumping to conclusions or making wild assumptions maybe you should actually engage people and try to understand where they're coming from.
+faultroy Haha +oneznzeroz fucking owned you!
Hey man, 6 years later any progress in life? Have your views changed?
i agree it is higher, but that, doesnt mean that an impoverished person is going to steal the car. in fact i think that even if a poor person would be more likely to steal a car, the vast majority of poor people would still recognize another person's problems and be much more helpful and trust worthy than you give them credit for.
Morality has nothing to do with religious views, "if someone is good they will do good things and vice versa." I for one being a atheist have proudly helped people without reward or knowledge of their background.
The thing is, we're all afraid of the dark, even us atheists. The biggest distinction between the religious and the atheists is simply that the religious spend their entire lives denying the dark and worrying about the end, whereas us atheists try to spend our lives enjoying the time we have, because we know we only have one shot
Penn; I think you are cool! I met you and shook your hand at the Pentagons Theatre at your show there in 1990.
Loved you guys ever since!
Dale
You're right, he has said that he doesn't want power nor does he want to change major mainstream movements. He would never want to be that guy. He just wants people to be themselves.
I don't respect people going on a crusade telling people who know no better, no to use condoms, but they are of course entitled to their beliefs.
Porn stars are usually tested for STD's on a regular basic so that they don't need to use condoms.
And no, i don't want to force people to do (or not do) anything as long as they only hurt them selves.
Thus I'm not imposing anything in this case.
I became an atheist under great stress. I was an idiot who believed everything I heard, and caused myself great pain by being so weak minded. I started to look stuff up on the internet and cling to inspirational figures such as hitchens, to the point where I started to be able to think critically.
I don't go around acting like I know all, like I said as an atheist I'm aware that I do NOT know everything, far from it. However, I cannot disprove a god because you CAN'T prove the non existence of something, but you CAN (or should) be able to prove the existence of it if you believe in it. It's fine if your belief in a god does not step on the rights of others, so in a secular country I have no problem with theists, and am glad to let you believe what you believe. :)
I’m a Christian AnCap Libertarian and love Penn he is a very bright man and would love to Have a Drink and Cigar with him.
What I wrote was that what you perceive as the benefits of Libertarian based economics cannot take place under the current power structure created by the overwhelming power of corporations.
As much as I bitch about the present, I do have a certain amount of faith in the future. As worldwide religion seems to be decreasing, life as a whole seems to be getting better. Lack of belief in gods has almost rid this world of slavery. Racial oppression fades more each decade, even homosexuality isn't a dirty little secret that nobody talks about anymore. America may have a longer way to go than many other nations, but I think this is slowly leading to some sort of paradise.
I am a libertarian and an atheist.But in my opinion a libertarian should support religious freedom too
"that's just a sign we've given up"
Often times people ask if you can have morals without religion. I believe in God but I also you can have morals without religion. All you do is declare that everyone has the right to do anything they want, so long as it does not restrict the rights of others. If we limit governing to protecting peoples rights to Life, Liberty, Property, Pursuit of Happiness, and Free Will, then we would have a free society. The most complex problem is agreeing when rights shall be applied to human life.
I agree w/Heikki's comment on the interviewers skill. Agree with Penn on many points, but I think he undervalues group action and overemphasizes individualism.
Here's some Merriam Webster's definitions:
2.b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.
Number 2 needs no comment from me. Number 3 is belief in something with strong conviction, it goes on to say especially a system of religious belief, but does not mean religious belief is required.
No idea who I was supposedly quoting. And yes, Penn is Penn... not sure how that changes anything.
What I am saying is that in such a society the weak lead terrible lives. I would actually also add the unlucky to this group, since being born rich or poor will greatly affect your future. The problem is that Penn seems to think that somehow this wont happen - that people are "good" and will help each other. The only point I was making is that this is false.
I agree with Penn about his philosophy that people are genuinely, overall, good. I take Marshall's point of view: 'Treat a man as honest and he will be honest, treat a man as dishonest and he will be dishonest.' People mirror so many behaviors: black, white and more often, grey. Fundamentally, I think that we want for black and white in our simple dealings with other people, never having to guess for negative intent, so why not espouse this in our very dealings with people?
I agree with Penn Jillette: Reading the Bible does make you an Atheist, but I think if you take the time to understand it, rather than just read it, you'd give the road to Atheism a second thought.
"I only know that I know nothing" - The Socratic Paradox
I'm hardcore Christian and hardcore libertarian. I approach life in a very similar way as Penn and a lot of the things he say are absolutely compatible with the Christian faith.
Also we should remember the deadliest century on Earth was the XX century at the hands of all atheists.
Not at the hands of all atheists, only some bad ones that were dictators. People can be corrupted by power regardless of religious conviction, and that's exactly what happened to them.
The problem starts NOT with the opinion, but in the acts that follow, based on that opinion
When your opinions become facts, and you start imposing those facts onto others, then it becomes a problem
If a person understands that their opinions are just that, nothing but opinions, then there is no need to force other people to believe them, because they understand that the opinion only applies to them
Respect needs to be given to others with opposing opinions, or say "I don't know"
An atheist and a libertarian it don't get any better than that.
Saying that the heavens and the earth were joined is not the same as saying "The entire universe expanded outwards from a singularity in which all the fundamental forces were unified" and you have to recognize that living things aren't just made from water, but a whole host of proteins and other complex amines and carbohydrates.