Penn Jillette on Libertarianism, Taxes, Trump, Clinton and Weed | Best of '16 | Big Think
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Penn Jillette on Libertarianism, Taxes, Trump, Clinton and Weed
Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewV...
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take a deep breath, you're in for a ride. Here is Penn Jillette on Libertarianism, taxes, Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Gary Johnson, sex, drugs and Kurt Cobain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PENN JILLETTE:
Penn Jillette is a cultural phenomenon as a solo personality and as half of the world-famous Emmy Award-winning magic duo Penn & Teller. His solo exposure is enormous: from Howard Stern to Glenn Beck to the Op-Ed pages of The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and the Los Angeles Times. He has appeared on Dancing with the Stars, MTV Cribs, and Chelsea Lately and hosted the NBC game show Identity. As part of Penn & Teller, he has appeared more than twenty times on David Letterman, as well as on several other TV shows, from The Simpsons and Friends to Top Chef and The View. He co-hosts the controversial series Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, which has been nominated for sixteen Emmy Awards. He is currently co host of the Discovery Channel's Penn & Teller Tell a Lie and the author of God, No! and Presto!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Penn Jillette: Let me lay on you what Libertarianism is to me. Once again I’m speaking for myself which is about as Libertarian as you can get. I do not believe I know what’s best for other people. I also don’t believe that other people know what’s best for other people. I can barely make decisions for myself. I do my best to make decisions for my family. Should my ten-year-old son take music lessons? That’s a hard question for our family. Do you want to push him into it or wait until he really wants it? Those are hard decisions. I have trouble making those for my family so making the decision of what someone else’s job in healthcare should be like who is in another part of the country who I’ve never met is not something I’m qualified or desirous to do. That’s Libertarianism. Libertarianism is taking a right on money and your first left on sex and looking for utopia straight ahead. To me the way I was brought up in western Massachusetts, kind of a New England philosophy. We believed in responsibility and keeping your nose out of other people’s business. We believed in live and let live I think to a fault. My mom and dad were older parents too. My mom was 45 when I was born so I was raised by another generation. You see my mom would be whatever - 120 now or 115 now. A whole other generation.
My mom was born - now you’re going to see that my math is wrong. My mom was born in 1909. She’s dead now. So it’s a whole different generation. And my mom’s feeling about absolutely everything was who cares. Her whole feeling on the gay rights movement was who cares who they want to get together with. It doesn’t matter to me. Her whole feeling on drugs. I have never had a sip of alcohol or any recreational drug in my life. That was true for my mother, true for my father, true for my sister. I don’t know how many generations it goes back but never. And yet my mom always thought that sure, any drug should be legal. If you’re living in a free country do whatever you want. Take responsibility for it. When you tell people about Libertarianism you just tell them we think you should take as little from other people by force as possible. And you should be able to do whatever you think is right. Now that’s a pretty heavy thing I’m saying. Because I’m saying that if there’s an 18-year-old girl who is the greatest math whiz that we have in this country, let’s say she’s the smartest person in math we have anywhere. And let’s say we give her a full scholarship to go to whatever school she wants to go to - Stanford, MIT, wherever she wants to go. And she decides she wants to work at McDonald’s and get pregnant at the age of 19. That’s her decision.
Jim Morrison - did he have a worse life because he did an awful lot of drugs and died at 28? I don’t know. I’ve already lived a lot longer than Jim Morrison but were his choices worse than mine? I don’t know. I know I would not have liked to have lived like Jim Morrison although I’d like to look that good in leather pants. But Kurt Cobain. Did I want to live like that? No, not even slightly. Prince? I don’t want to live like that. But they probably don’t want to live like me either. Libertarianism is the strongest sense of please do what you want, try not to hurt me.
Our government has a monopoly on force, they have a monopoly on force. The government is the only organization that is supposed to be able to use force. The government is supposed to be a government...
Read the full transcript at bigthink.com/v...
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
no stepe on snek
jezz what the fuck is it with the reuploads? !?! it's annoying
They have bills to pay.
The Heretic 'best of '16'
Maybe they should get a job
It's what they think were the best videos of '16. It would have been easier to just turn it into a playlist, but whatever brings the money in I guess.
'best of 16' seems like an excuse for double dipping. I feel exploited, abused and mentally traumatized. I demand sexual compensation. Fapping material or I sue.
I think the thing many Libertarians in the US don't get about European Style welfare states is that the socialist measures are there to increase peoples freedoms and open up a wider array of choices to them.
Libertarianism works great when everybody is smart and healthy and is presented with the same opportunities.
But that is just not the case, which is why we need to make sure education and healthcare are taken care of, no matter how much money a person/family has.
If you are sick and afford to pay the medical bills, you are not free. If you are dumb and can't afford a good education, you are not free.
Penn said he doesn't know whats best for everyone, so who is he to decide. Thats right, but I think as a society we are able to make out some key things for success: Health, Education, Shelter.
I think we, as a society, should provide these things to everyone.
This makes our society more free, more just and creates true equal opportunity.
At the end of the day the key concept of libertarianism is the American Dream. Let people do what they want, let them work hard and let them succeed. Its possible to work yourself up to the top.
But when we look at the data, we see that social movement(poor people working their way up) can be observed at way higher rates in northern Europe than in the US.
The American Dream is not American anymore and in my opinion thats because of a misguided concept of freedom in the US and because of a powerful top .1% that is exploiting this misconception in order to secure their own wealth.
But the problem most people have with that idea is where the money for all that will come from. Medical bills are very expensive, and to have everybody pay for that, along with other taxes we already have, would increase taxes considerably.
*****
Taxes. I think the benefits outweigh the costs.
Just calculate what you spend every year for the rest of your life for education, healthcare, retirement or unemployment insurance.
Or think about the risks you are dealing with if you don't do it.
And then think about whether you'd be worse off paying more taxes...
Btw: A universal healthcare program is also benefitting from the rules of a the free market, unlike the American system. Which is why the US spends more than double on healthcare per capita compared to most European countries, even though they are not providing quality care for everyone.
So, if the US would actually implement a proper system, costs would go down and coverage would reach 100% and quality of care would increase. But that is another topic.
You're free to voluntarily pay into a fund to help people who can't pay for themselves. If you use aggression to force others to pay for what you want, the pragmatic utility is irrelevant; you're a tyrant.
Meton2526 I am not trying to force anyone. I am trying to convince people that its the better way, with facts.
Americans usually don't know shit about the systems in place in Europe, so they have no factual basis for their disdain of these social programs.
I haven't heard any smart arguments against a well run welfare state so far.
Its citizens are more successful, quality of life is better, its citizens are more free, its safer.
And I'd also argue that its better for the economy.
You are funding your government by theft via coercive force. If you can find a way to pay for all of these social programs without telling people "pay taxes or we'll throw you in prison or kill you for resisting" then you can argue from a moral position. Until then, you're "utopia" is inherently tyrannical. Pragmatism is irrelevant.
"We didn't feel your Bern, let's feel my Johnson"
Libertarian: As long as you do no harm to others, do as you will.
Libertarian: I may think I know what is best for you. After you have grown up I will keep that to myself.
Libertarians do not believe it to be immoral to tell others what is the best thing to do, just they believe it to be immoral to make it mandatory in the form of law; backed by the threat of imprisonment, or ,if you resist arrest, death.
@@thenew4559 Well said. If one does not believe he knows what is best for other people, he is so indifferent and ruthless that he does not care about the people around him. It is perfectly moral to tell other people what is best for them, but it is immoral to coerce others to comply.
Thank you Penn, I love your perspective on politics!
It is so refreshing to hear an honest and insightful explanation of current events, instead of people throwing shit at each other because of party bandwagon.
I agree, try as many different ideas and possibilities until we find what works, I don’t care who the person is or what party they are paid to be in. I just want educated and experienced politicians who will try new things to better our country.
Bernie Sanders has done a lot to promote that so he is who I support.
Everyone stay safe and keep going until we realize our dreams!!!
lol American libertarianism aka anarcho-capitalism makes no sense. yh the government infringes my rights. yet he who owns capital doesnt? ...just looking for a shit show hehe
But your lovely government has the law on his side to do whatever he pleases.
Anyway, classic libertarianism and anarchocapitalism are two different things, sir.
private property is theft. you can't own land or means of exploitation.
Sam Davies Exactly. They don't care who there is to ruin your life as long as it's not government.
Well Penn did talk for a good while about the corruption of the rich. Maybe you should watch the video before writing comments.
This a repeat? I swear I watched it last year.
myriadcorp Mandela effect confirmed
The title says "Best of '16".
DOH!
I guess sarcasm stayed in 2016 too
I didn't realize how much I had in common with Penn. That's my feelings in a nutshell.
Penn Jillette is amazing! He has so much more to say than Teller!
Of all the videos in 16, this one was my favorite. Thanks for the reminder BT.
> i don't know what's best for me
> i don't know what's best for you
> taxes are BAD for you
> government is BAD for you
billy bob that's exactly the point, the state is bad because it makes decisions for everyone
gustavrsh But what if i believe the state is good for me? What if i believe that when i lose my job and i'm starving on the street, it's the state that will come to my aid not McDonalds. Am i wrong to believe that? Do you know what's best for me and everyone else? Should we all be forced to believe in the Libertarian ideas about taxation and government?
Billy Bob, sweety that is your choice, but does you making that choice give anyone else the right to demand i help pay for your life? I might be willing to voluntarily give to a small extent, but does your choice give anyone the right to take away my freedom because i chose NOT to give constantly?
Don't belittle him with bullshit like 'sweety'. You're not some doting mother-figure here.
Who do you think pays for emergency room visits from the dying uninsured? It's still taxes. It's still you. It's just more taxes because the ER is far more expensive than fixing the problem with proper healthcare beforehand. Maybe you should complain about the military, they're where half of your tax money goes. Stop fucking complaining that you have free roads to drive on, a safety net when things go poorly, and subsidies for things you need. That's taxes. It's far more effective per dollar than whatever naive libertarian bullshit you believe would make the world better. Libertarianism isn't a bad ideology in moderation, it's just incredibly nearsighted.
Unfortunately this is how most conversations with Libertarians tend to go lmao.
12:27 outstanding monologue regarding Bernie and Gary.
You have been a major influence in my life. A few years back a friend introduced me to your show “bullshit”. You have helped craft me into a better person. I love you and can’t thank you enough.
In my opinion the government should provide better tax incentives for charitable donations. The issue with libertarianism is that there are greedy people out there that just want to pay less in taxes so they have more money to themselves and they could care less what happens to the rest of society. Society cannot succeed for long when the class divide reaches a boiling point. There needs to be some form of redistribution of wealth, but we should have more control over where that wealth is distributed. I should either be willing to pay my fair share in taxes or I should have the option of helping the causes that I believe in.
"Feel my Johnson"
-Penn
Hay you guys, did you know that we can take on the power of big business by getting rid of all government regulations that keeps big business in line? What could go wrong if we get rid of all environmental protections, all worker protections, all barriers to exploitation, and abolish taxation and wealth redistribution?
Michael Black do you really believe the only reason corporations don't dump crap in the river is because of government fines? That's what the government pretends. It's actually because in a free market share holders run a mile and the law suits pile in from every single person near the river for its entire length. The same is true for air. In a free market polute the air get sued by the entire country. Don't keep swallowing the government nonsense that they use to convince you you need them
How am I supposed to sue MegaCorp Inc. if I've got no money? They'll send their expensive lawyers in and bully me into submission. Think it through.
What a great view and ideas, wonderful talk, love everything you talked about!!!!
Huh, it's been awhile since I last favorited a video. First one of the last year!
Video should have started at 11:30
Sad that more people haven't seen this
A little late for a comparison between the candidates huh?
The scientific consensus knows a lot more about you or anyone else than any single individual does. Laws should be based in scientific consensus. These kind of laws are actually beneficial for the vast majority. I think libertarianism is a good direction, but don't go too far.
Pretty much agreed with everything else he said, if you don't take into account his slightly racist and sexist remarks towards the end.
But science isn't governed by consensus, and any observation of modern politics shows how any amount of evidence doesn't matter if you don't have the political capital
Scientific Consensus says you're a weenie
I'm not saying all laws ARE based on scientific consensus, but that laws SHOULD be based on it.
I'm not saying the scientific consensus is TRUE, but that it's the BEST KNOWLEDGE AVAILABLE.
Mikko Haavisto I know you're not. But then you also have principle as a boundary. Just because science says we should execute people for petty crimes would best help the economy doesn't mean we should do it, pure teleology is disastrous
Science gives the facts, for example "If we start executing people for petty crimes, the crime rate is estimated to drop 20% per year."
But science doesn't make any claims about values. Do we value the lives of petty thieves, or the drop in crime rate? There are no objective empirical truths about values.
"Remember that our own system of law isn't based on truth: it's based on who is the best arguer."
Actually the best arguer method is based on truth. It's a way of getting as close to the truth as possible with available resources.
Penn might see the numbers better than I do, but I totally disagree that the biggest issue in Libertarianism is stopping corporate welfare. Corporations are powerful enough to have lawyers to try and keep government off their back. That is the natural selection of human beings. Every single person is not powerful- nor should we want that. Sort of dissapointed Penn even said that.
It's a nice idea at first, but you quickly grow out of it.
I'm a social librarian, and a democratic socialist all in one package
You're a social librarian? Never met one of those before.
I organize books for people. Whoever needs it, I'm there to organize your books.
Pretty much everything you say Libertarianism is not, is exactly the kinds of things you see in its party platform and from its "intellectual" leaders like Ayn Rand and such. In practice it's entirely about the rich getting richer and leaving the poor in the dust to fend for themselves while they get exploited by the rich for profit. That's the main reason I ended up leaving the ideology behind a long time ago, when it seemed more appealing and more like what you are trying to say it is. Liberalism just ends up working better in practice for all those things.
27 years Jim Morrison
that's what in thought. all the cool kids die at 27
Im 28 so I guess I wasn't cool
***** hey bruv don't jinx yourself on my comment.
0:21 "I do not believe that other people know what is best for other people."
You mean like doctors, scientists, lawyers, psychiatrists, educators, and on and on? I hope libertarians realize how ridiculous that is. Vaccinations alone trump this argument.
I wonder how this other timeline worked out. 🙂
Everyone knows Libertarian "leave others alone, but few know rule #2 - "No self-enslavement."
No self-enslavement means addictive drugs illegal and suicide illegal. If you believe in self-enslavement, you are not a Libertarian.
The reality is simpler than the theory. Most important statement. This applies to all political views.
No matter the "side" you're on, we can all agree that all these labels are defined differently by everyone. And when you use a label, the other person has a different definition for it.
I think the only way you should use a label (to call yourself or others) is the original definition of the word. Whoever came up with the word first and defined it. If you don't think the original definition applies, then make a new word.
I agree but it won't change in my lifetime. I was happy when AT&T was broken up and the cell phone industry exploded but even that has returned to corporate control.
Seems the argument here is taxes.
Taxes are a necessary part of society. We pay taxes in exchange for education, infrastructure, law enforcement and military protection, and the cost of governing. -- In my not so humble opinion, lawmakers (congress) should get minimal pay and not be allowed outside moneys. But that's a whole other conversation.
I'm all for individual freedom. But we also have a responsibility to our fellow man. We have a responsibility to ensure the country in which we live is successful so that we may continue our way of life, whatever that may be for each of us. Without adequate education, healthcare, and employment, the next generation will fail. The country will fail with it.
I don't agree with everything my tax money funds but it's part of the deal.
When I said, "Seems 'the argument here' is taxes" I was referring to the argument in the comments section, which seems to equate the paying of taxes with being robbed.
Perhaps I should have been clearer.
To your point though, what does "smaller government" mean? Should we have no regulations? Should the EPA be eliminated? Dodd-Frank? These agencies weren't created in a vacuum.
BTW- The GOP House just gutted the independent ethics committee. They've stated their desire to eliminate financial regulations. Among them, Dodd-Frank. Have we forgotten the 2007/08 recession already?
Just sayin.
Taxation is theft and all gov' services are provided and super cost & low quality. I'M NOT EVEN MRNTIONING the terrible waste of resources they cause
Nothing is free. You pay taxes in exchange for services, like education, police, fire dept, military, roads, scientific and medical advancement, and a myriad other service I just don't have the time or interest in listing.
Don't like taxes? Leave! Go find an island somewhere and fend for yourself.
i agree with everything he's saying up to about 7:40. He's basically saying we shouldn't use force to control people but the government still needs to take money from people, against their will, to pay for roads, schools and welfare. That doesn't make sense. True libtertarianism goes hand-in-hand with right wing economics, otherwise it doesn't make sense.
Didn't know I was something of a libertarian. It just seems so un-American to not having someone infringing on someone else's rights.
Gotta love Penn jillete.
Re-uploadie but goodie.
Styxhexenhammer666 is also a Libertarian 😃
That gun analogy was confusing to me.
Major disconnect between the initial description of libertarianism (I don't know what's best for you so each should decide) and his prescriptive form of government and police enforcement based on what he wants and thinks best for others.
Very nice, but this entire argument goes to shit when you consider things like vaccination. It is a provable fact that rejecting vaccination is not only a bad choice for a individual, but also for everybody around you. This is the area where experts actually do know what is better for the individual and the group and where the layman should simply accept his inability to pass a different judgement on the matter.
Well nice argument there. From what I know people are suspicious of vaccinations only because of governments and rightfully so sometimes.
I don't really see the logic in the idea that a smaller government makes corporations smaller. Wouldn't a free market and a weak government just pave the way for corporations to grow?
Nice ending
I agree with you my firend penn
atheism and Libertarianism all the way!
makk agnostic nihilism is far superior.
leslucas I'm an Agnostic Atheist Christian Buddhist. I'm the best of all worlds!
be careful not to cut yourself on that edge, leslucas
You didn't notice how it seems kind of like he was indoctrinated with Libertarianism by his parents?..
*atheism and Feudalism all the way!
There, fixed that for you.
Libertarians 101 - Ideology of 2 year-olds: "Mine Mine, all Mine!"
CarbonAtom14 not even close. It's the ideology of mind your own business.
Socialists ideology: what's yours is mine, I don't care you worked hard for it. I deserve it because we are all snowflakes.
henoch44 Not at all. You don't understand socialism, or reality.
inov8ve You mean mind your own business so the bourgeoisie can mind theirs, while they exploit everyone else and siphon off their production value, while they do nothing. Wake up.
Actually, according to many socialist schools of thought (Including Marx himself), a worker is entitled to the fruits of their labour. AKA, MORE money than they would receive under capitalism, where the employer takes a sizeable chunk of the worker's economic value for himself.
but where is aleppo
Guess +Big Think doesn't realize you can make playlists from past videos.
Nah, they probably just want more views with less content.
I'm still not complaining though, this video was worth watching again.
Herion ruins lives. How should it be legal.
If someone want's his life to be "ruined" by heroin - who are You to deny him that right?
Alex Endr, alcohol ruins lives, how should it be legal? Smoking ruins lives how should it be legal? Car crashes ruin lives, how should cars be legal?
I agree with him on religion bur not on libertarianism
Penn should run for president.
TicoMachi he's an outspoken Atheist as am I. The American people hate us more than rapist.
If you don't tax the rich they will 1) hoard their money 2) have all the power. BUT: they could pay their workers with that money instead of paying taxes. That's how I would set it up. Don't want to give all that money to your workers? Then give it to the government.
The rich horde and sequester their wealth because they are afraid that they will have a gun put to their heads and have it taken away by "the government". The rich will always want to be more rich, but if you let them be free to use their money without fear, they will.
ChaosmanOne
I call double bullshit.
Yeah, that's massive bullshit. They horde it because they're thinking about all the things they can get for themselves.
+ChaosmanOne how do you want to make rich be fearless with their money? also every business regulation is a potential loss of money, should we than abolish all taxes for rich and all regulations?
that's a gr8 idea 2 people fighting what he's talking is super America
Jillette 2024
Reupload?
Does anyone have a clue why did Peter Thiel support Trump?
Penn I wonder what you think 3 years later.....
Has anyone attempted to force an 18 year old girl to go to college?
The government IS NOT the only entity allowed to use force. Ask George Zimmerman.
Taxation is not "volentary". However, it is legal. Assuming you accept that the United States is a legitimate nation state. Plus, you are free to leave and set up shop in a more "friendly" country?
Penn, surely no one can know what is good for other people. But we surely can know what is bad for people. It's our responsibility to limit that particular thing so our society can be healthy and safe. For example I am all for legalization of marijuana. But anything heavier than that must be heavily debated and though out. We can't legalize drugs which intake is not only damaging the body and mind but also gives a moral pass for others to use them.
Same thing with guns. No matter what some might say I am a strong anti gunner. I believe any society is much safer if nobody has guns. However I would concede the point that some people might be armed. Some sort of a trained militia. These people will undergo severe background and psychological tests and then will learn all the aspects of having arms. Then they will be given some sort of a position and they should be paid a bit from the government. So if there is a mass shooting those people will be able to protect others. But to give guns to everybody is insanity to me.
Moving to another topic, are we to force people to wear helmets while on bikes? It might seem like a simple premise, like. let them do what they want. But people are morons, they will neglect wearing the helmet and then they die on the road leaving their kids fatherless. Are we, libertarians, to look out for those kids?
Open borders is another mistake of libertarianism. Overall this ideology seems very dangerous to me. Maybe at some point when people get more civilized we might go for it. But now it's suicide. So anyway that makes me a liberal I guess. Cheers everybody and thanks for reading. And correct me if I'm wrong.
***** what do you mean no government? How is it supposed to work?
Daniel Korolev deciding what is good or bad isn't the point. The point is that no one should have control over someone's decision to do good or bad things to their self.
***** in what way is it limited? what is the biggest difference in other words.
inov8ve I argued exactly against that point in my comment. Of course we can say what is bad. Surely we can.
I'm sorry but I live in area with lots of firearms and we have barely any crime. Your thesis that we would be safer with no guns is laughable.
So Penn is basically for Centre-Right?
The problem with guns is that people discredit their own moral and psychology and using gun for what us believed as a bad thing. It's not the matter of the object, but how we use it....
I've been a hard line anti libertarian for years and I'm not converted for lack of a better word this is the best argument i've hard
She's essentially a good person * citation needed.
I love the ideology of objectivity people. Sounds like social Darwinism.
why the red nail polish on one finger?
Andy Zwright it is for his mother
Weirdos look cool in the eyes of other weirdos.
wtf, he says he doesn't know how to make decisions, this is equal to say that he doesn't know how to think by himself
He didn't say that. And even if he did that viewpoint isn't 'equal' to what you say it is.
humans need to teach more logic and ethics, but many teachers in america are too dumb, what a bless we have the internet which fixes this problem a bit, or maybe even massive
I agree with most of what Penn is saying (especially the early parts) but one thing i don't get is 16:18
why is it so important to get a woman and/or a black person? Why even make that statement? I mean, shouldn't the president be the person with the best plan for the nation according to the population? Why should anyone be more entitled to the presidency just because of their gender or skin color (and wishing that is even more fucked up IMO). Again, individualism, best person for the job. I don't care if the person being elected is a banana, as long as they've got something in mind to change the country for the better.
To clarify: eg. A woman has a great idea, but a man has an even better, should the woman be president just because she is a woman? All gender-politics have contributed to is fucking with your brain Penn, like for real, think clearly...
I know people are making a bad decision when they buy lottery tickets instead of healthcare. So I can know what's good for someone better than they do. Libertarianism debunked.
"Penn for President?"
Not my ideology. Even further to the right than the GOP on economics.
"Everyone knows what's best for them" No, there will always be idiots who don't know what's best for them. And you can let em screw themselves up, but what about their kids? The question is whether we think it's worth it to give up some liberties to build a more idiot proof society.
America: Where Reality TV Stars Become President
America, where corporatist criminals run for president.
I couldn't find the comment to reply to on "who will pay for the military" so I'll post a new comment. Firstly, imagine you are mega rich. You have 20 billion. How much of that would you contribute to protect your locality from a marauding army come to steal it? Probably 19 billion and change. So in a libertarian society those with the most to lose will contribute the most. Further, with no centre of power you can't take a place over. To impose your will you would have to literally somehow install an entirely new power structure over the heads of whatever people are there going house to house and subjugating them. There is no motivation to do that and it would be supremely difficult to achieve. Currently if you want to take a country you head to the capital, take it, instal a government, job done. Exactly how would you do that with 300 million individuals with 10 times the wealth generation. They have now? And what could you hope to achieve?
is doesn't sound like libertarianism to me tbh, libertarianism is funded for and by big business currently.
I kinda have a simplistic view this. I mind my business and you mind yours. If you want to spark up and get blitzed out of your gourd on weed then by all means do so as long as you are not endangering the lives of others. It's none of my business. Or another way of putting it, I'm gonna live my life, you live yours. Do not try to make me live the life that you want. Read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine, especially the first few paragraphs. He kinda laid it out there in words that I personally cannot. Ron Paul also does a good job of explaining it. More or less I personally have the mindset that your rights begin where mine end. If I want to own an armory and visit brothels and smoke my brain cells to oblivion, as long as I am not harming another person with my vices/lifestyle then who is anyone else to judge/care as they are just as free to enjoy whatever vices or lifestyle they chose to or not to partake of. We have a society that is hellbent on groups of people deciding that other groups of people should or shouldn't have or be able to have the things that they might enjoy simply because the first group doesn't approve of the second group's decision. What is it about our society that we cannot simply butt out of other people's lives. Why do we have this need to govern through force other people's morality. Is it that some people have too much time on their hands? I have this vision in my mind of some neighborhood hens gossiping to each other and then brow beating their spouses into becoming "crusaders" for the causes of the hens if for no other reason than to shut the hens up. Again, these just my simple opinions. They may or may not be reality but I think it is at least food for thought.
I hear if you comment early, you get into the Magic Circle
this dude has over 150+ million dollars. how is he not another capitalist crony...
I agree with a lot of what Penn says here, but I do have some problems with libertarianism as a whole, because it tends to run counter to the wishes of people like Penn, and they end up acting against their own interests.
The problem with libertarianism is that once government becomes smaller than corporations, the corporations just become a de facto government. The only difference between a democratic government and a corporation (Both are large organizations with official control over lands, means of production, and to a certain extent, people) is that one is supposed to act on the will of the people - ALL of the people, while the other only has to take into account the will of its owner, shareholders and the money of its consumers.
Does an oil company care about climate change? NO. And they won't stop drilling until climate change is so bad that the people (through the government/"boycotts" that will never happen) MAKE them stop. Does a food company care that their food contains poisonous materials/rotten meat/rat meat/feces? Not if it's profitable. And in the absence of a government to give them standards, it IS profitable! In fact, the meat industry of the early 1900s outlined in Upton Sinclair's The Jungle was absolutely HORRIBLE, and only through government intervention did their disgusting practices stop. "Boycotts" did nothing to diminish their sales, because what were people going to do, just stop eating sausage for good? In the presence of monopolies, which naturally form with time and power, there is no reason to change - ever.
And to the question about whether I would use a gun... Actually, yes. To give healthcare/housing/food/clean water/infrastructure/jobs to millions of Americans, I WOULD point a gun at a billionaire, or two, or sixty. If it were the only way to make them pay for it. Because it's absolutely immoral for a select few people to have billions of dollars while others starve in the streets. Money = Power in a capitalist society, and that we allow some to have so much economic power that they can influence entire elections, while others can LITERALLY not pay for medical bills and rent, is absolutely ridiculous. But before we can have discussions on how much power/money somebody should reasonably have, I think ensuring basic standards of living for ALL people should be top priority for us, and the government. Once that's done, we can talk about the merits of an unregulated market, private property, and the like.
What a bunch of platitudes lol
the only reason taxation is violent is because you can't live without money in the US, if you live in a welfare state money is a competitive game/sport in a full capitalist state taxation is violent true...
corruption will be there whether in the market in the form of misleading advertisement cartels and monopolies and their effect on the government itself in overly capitalist state, or in the civil services/elected officials in a overly social state.
an ethically compromised player(""corruption"") got more opportunities he is willing to exploit than a ethically bound player
no matter what the competency that's just the way things are.
ethically compromised players win more games
only way that seem to stop corruption is transparent and reliable documentation
wiki leaks seem to give that so far, post's on facebook about businesses customer service seem to do that more than they not
product reviews on youtube fail to deliver that most of the time ....
cameras in the street's do that no ideology is as good as transparent and reliable documentation
game theory. nice guys won't win.
Would you use a gun to enforce, say, intellectual property rights?
No. There is no such thing as "intellectual property" without a state.
Your gary vs bernie debate seems a little too much like a bastardchild of libertarianism and communism. I agree with cultural libertarianism, but communism is pretty much guaranteed to make a failed state.
The woman and color thing is a little stupid too. It's not about what you look like or what gender you are, it's about having the most optimal human for the position, regardless of gender or color.
Disagree with your opinion on Clinton and Trump. Clinton is power hungry.
Good video but stop double dipping on the add revenue please.
fyi... its never been "two people"
They had 5. JESUS
OH wow this sounds like a wonderfull argument we should totally follow and...OH SHUT DONAL TRUMP IS ALREADY PRESIDENT...
TL;DW 17:25
does he have a red painted nail on his left ring finger?
Yup
Penn is usually great but he a a self hating non libertarian trying to sell people that electing a socialist is good for libertarians. He contradicts himself when he says he wouldn't use a gun to take money for public use, but says give Bernie a try (even though he will take all of Penns money with the gun). The beginning is a good representation of libertarian philosophy, but he lost it in the end. Its like he ate Ron Paul and shit out Bernie Sanders
tread'nt S
I'm just going to start un-subbing if the new content is just re-uploaded vids
Then according to them, you are not smart and your thought is small. They say they are smart with big thought.
I like you Penn, I really do. But the central premise "I don't know how to let you live your life" is a deeply flawed premise in the realm of economics.
I take hat back, the rest of his argument is shit-tier also
sounds familiar..."lets try four years with Lenin" bro, we already tried socialism...
I don’t care what any atheist libertarian says, embracing this ideology indicates you believe in libertarian free will, which makes absolutely no sense
What is "libertarian free will"?
I'm a libertarian, and I've never heard of this term.
it's easy to be a libertarian when you are one of the have's
this is quite short-sighted thinking
I’m reminded of the Voltaire quote - “We must cultivate our own garden.”
I know people are making a bad decision when they buy lottery tickets instead of healthcare. So I can know what's good for someone better than they do. Libertarianism debunked.