You lost me when you said “even though I just called her a liar, we know she’s a good and honest person” No Penn, no she’s not, she’s not a good person at all And then to attack Trump, you watch too much CNN and think they’re telling you the truth
Is a former soldier I think she is worse than evil. she is derelicting her duties, allowed Americans to die, and seek political gain from the entire process. She is treasonous.
He lost me before that when he said he would give on public schools, welfare and infrastructure. Public schools shouldn't be free, parent should have to pay tuition for the kids they bring into this world it is the result of their decision to have kids I shouldn't have to pay because my neighbord decided to squirt out kids like a Pez toy.... Welfare, sorry but again it isn't my responsibility to pay for someone else's bad decisions in life... get knocked up at 16 and have no way to make a good living, well you should have kept your legs together or used birth control pay the price and serve as a living warning to other people not to make those mistakes... Infrastructure, what do you think a gas tax is, it pays for the roads and that is the way all infrastructure should be dealt with, paid for by those that use it.... He isn't a libertarian he's a damned liberal trying to use the money of everyone for what he thinks is right and not just to keep people safe from others. Libertarians want only to use the government for defense from outsiders and the police to protect individuals - that's it.
Dear Penn, Thank you for the best and most inclusive description of libertarianism I have ever heard. You make it sound so much more sane than others. I have in particular one major agreement with you. About 30 years ago I had a horse riding accident. I lasted until 2009 before needing surgery. The surgery was an abject failure, and I found myself living in searing pain. It took an act of God and signature of the devil to get pain medication. But once they gave it to me, they gave me too much. Now I'm a big guy, 6 ft 4 in and 250 lb. But 84 mg of opiates a day was just too much. I told my doctor I was going to cut down and he looked astounded, surprised, that anyone with a free ticket to la la Land would throw it away. But I did, and went from 84 mg a day to 12 mg a day. Fast forward to the opiate epidemic, and now I'm not allowed any pain medication of any kind. I don't know what I did wrong, and the doctor will not tell me. I see it as a second great prohibition. The first prohibition ended when the same people who had pushed for it realized it was a bad idea. All it did was turn average Americans into criminals, kill them with bad liquor, and put vast amounts of money into the hands of organized crime. How little has changed in almost 100 years. I don't know how long I can stand the pain. Worse, I don't know why other people feel they have the right to slap me in a hurt locker forever, so they can feel better about themselves. Or worse, the same doctors that over prescribed before, are cruelly under prescribing now, fearing that they will be imprisoned for the drug pushers that they really are. They are chasing me off this planet to save their meal ticket. I have only one thought: God save us from those who would save us! I simply don't know what to do. Have any ideas? Peace,
I've suffered from pain for years and years and still in a great amount of pain and I get what you are saying. It's more than unfair. But I do take a pain pill, unlike my 86 yr old mother who still takes Norco, most likely the doc's know she won't abuse it or try to sell it 🤔 💔 so sick of the do-gooders who change things like women's rights to their own health care. Women will die or become infertile over this.because some old white men in congress want votes from Christians. It's madness and the best hope we have is voting blue up and down the ballot to stop the madness. People won't even have pot for pain if Maga madness gets their way.
To summarize: First half = "I don't think anyone should tell anyone else how to live their life." Second half = "This is what the entire country should do."
So you believe that it's okay to tell everyone else how to live their lives? Maybe if everyone believed in the first half, he wouldn't have to talk about the second half.
I THINK that when Penn lost the weight a HUGE chunk of his brain ..evaporated.. BUT in retrospect He has always been a few fries short of a Happy meal. I mean when you SLAM Paul McCartney because "Live and Let die" has a "bad" first verse.. you KNOW he is an ASSHOLE.
This is the inherent flaw with moral relativism. It’s incoherent and self contradictory. Nobody lives this way. They say they believe it, but when you’re relativistic to them, they’ll be the first to object.
His views wouldn't change in 2009, 2019 or 2021. Libertarians have strict moral and ethical standards. Especially one who has never drank or did drugs. He takes his liberty too seriously.
Hes a member of the club that's truly America's enemy. They have activated everyone of their warriors to talk the American citizens into thinking communism is the only way to go or you're a xenophob etc.
Think you missed Penn's point. 17:17 Stop worrying about Capitalism. Stop worrying about Socialism. Start worrying about problems we all agree are problems. Fixing what can be agreed needs fixing *then* fighting about the things we disagree on is better use of time than fighting about the things we disagree on first while nothing gets done.
More accurate title: 7 minutes of Libertarianism followed by nearly 11 minutes of going completely off the rails with no Libertarian thought whatsoever. Then a quick summary going back to Libertarian thought again.
"Laws are rarely passed to keep ourselves from doing something we feel we should not do. The vast majority of laws are passed to prevent other people from doing things we do not want _them_ to do." -Robert A Heinlein (Notebooks of Lazarus Long, I think)
@@Morgothlord47 I don't think you understand my comment. I agree with Penn in this video. I was just adding my own spin on it. Sorry for the confusion....
he's not a socialist, far from it he wants small government and low taxes like the rest of us. he's just a bit more on the left than the typical libertarian.
I was actually just googling to see if I could find any statements or anything from him, seeing how he felt about trump now that Trump has been president for 3 years. :-P
I want to ask him the same question!! He was so incredibly wrong on Trump and I wanna hear Penn admit that POTUS does care about EVERY American no matter who they are, what they'd look like, etc. seems to me he's doing pretty much everything Penn moaned about. Man up, Jillette! th-cam.com/video/KniUNdVZvH4/w-d-xo.html
Corry Burton Exactly.... there is really no need to “try” it again, not even for four years (and then hope that somehow the LP candidate gets voted in instead....).
It's interesting that those with TDS ALWAYS focus on "views on Trump". What about views on the Democrat Party? Is Biden really the best you can come up with?
NarlepoaxIII Because you know Hillary so well personally, and have irrefutable evidence for why that is not the case. Get your head out of ass and think for yourself for once.
I have never seen anyone start off so well and then finish so badly. I used to think Penn was intelligent, what a way to shatter a long standing belief.
Yeah I heard the first 5 minutes and gave him a thumbs up and then he went off the deep end. Hillary Clinton essentially a good, honest person. That made me fall off my chair. Screw you Penn, and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
@@jayeisenhardt1337 Most president graduated from Ivy League/Harvard. Please tell me how Lincoln, Sumner, FDR, TR, Reagan, Bush is somehow dumber than you.
magisterartium I don't like that sentiment. Everyone is capable of it. Its about establishing that more open mindset, and not trying to herd people into a box on what they're capable of in the needed discussions. Basically, trying to demonize groups (even ones you feel sincerely justified to dislike) will only push them farther into their echo chamber. It may even build a larger one around yourself.
LX most of them although have never been tried on something work wonders on other parts of the economy. Just look at china and how they have been pulled out of poverty becouse of free markets
If you dismantle the government, businesses will make a new government. Then the question is, do you want a government that you can vote on, or a government you can't? To me, the latter sounds kinda like a monarchy.
I'm mostly liberal and I fully understand its not racist to criticize islam, for the same reason it's not racist to criticize christianity. However it's xenophobic to criticize all Muslims for the actions of the minority.
No well educated or otherwise thoughtful Liberal would take issue with a well thought out critique of Islam. They regularly do that in regard to Christianity.
Please stop with the criticize Islam, only if you criticise Christianity. They are not equivalent. Sure, criticise both but understand that at this moment in time, one is much worse than the other and yes, people that follow this ideology do need to be criticised
+broadwayat Are you kidding me? You sound like someone who has either never read the Bible or never read the Quran or perhaps both. These Two religions could not be any more similar. They literally share the same characters, same lessons, and same stories to the point where it's difficult to tell whether a verse originated from the Quran or the Bible.
I want to see Johnson in the debates 14% or not. If he makes it to that stage, I feel he has the chance to win over some voters from both sides, and make the other candidates think harder about "the other side's" points when making decisions, should they win.
They won't put 3rd party candidates in debates because the two main parties are paid for. They can't risk hearing outside ideas. Those ideas might actually help our country. We can't have that.
I can assure you that most Berners would rather see Johnson in The White House than Clinton or Trump. Even though I disagree with many of Johnson's positions, at least his heart's in the right place, and that's honestly the most important thing. If he sees his policies failing, I believe he'd make adjustments.
All people need food shelter and healthcare. That is why IMO libertarianism is amoral. I believe that it is the role of government (through progressive taxation) to provide at least basic human needs to those who require it. Do people take advantage? Of course. But the good far outweighs the bad. In a pure libertarian society you would have huge wealth inequalities and eventually instability and chaos.
@@chrismathis4162 The issue is: The money from taxation is not taken by voluntary means, it's slavery. The government is not able to produce any value, they just steal it through the use of force, like any mob. Everything you described as "needs" are, in fact, services. If someone is forced to provide these "needs", they are under force. The only possible morality comes from voluntary acts and charity.
He says one nice thing to soften the blows he has made obviously due to not wanting to be seen as far leaning one way or the other and that is what everyone fixates on. He literally said she was the worst candidate running other than Trump and that she was unrealistic. Did you not get any context it feels as if you did not see the same video I just saw or am I missing somthing.
Nominis yes she is actually. All trump talks about is defending, whether you choose to take certain keywords he’s saying out of context EVERYTHING he has said about isis, North Korea, and Iran has been about responding in defense
@@jimtim1144 Theres too many comments like his. I the same comments often on facebook with some people that do not have decent reading comprehension either.
When he said I'll give ya the roads I guess he never read how they were used like blackmail against states. Fall in line or you don't get that money back and go broke. SSDD Especially with education top to bottom these days.
Me too. Her hearts in the right place??! WTF Bernie Sanders is smart??? He totally went off the rails. Bernie Sanders is a fucking moron, not compared to senators but compared to the person stocking grocery shelves.
Lol you don't get what libertarian is it is not a foundation of beliefs or opinions it's that you prize Liberty overall other fundamental morals that's what a Libertarian is their fundamental moral quality is Liberty if you take a morality test and you scored the highest in care and fairness you're a left-liberal if you score the highest in loyalty Authority purity your conservative and last but not least the big qualifier for libertarian is Liberty to be your highest moral score
Jim Morrison influenced many young people to do drugs. His decisions to do drugs did not only have consequences for him, but for many of his fans. This is true with anything a famous person does.
@@kellycochran6487 I don't listen to him. I look at policy being I'm a libertarian. The DNC has shown their willingness to suppress the poor with handouts and driving the culture of single parent households. While transferring tremendous wealth from the middle class as they too, just like the GOP, enrich the 1 percent. It's time for those of us in the middle to unit and take over a party. It will not be the corrupt DNC. The GOP is vulnerable to be driven to smaller government, less spending and a end to perpetual war.
Taxation isn’t voluntary, but it is necessary. Excluding a relatively small number of philanthropists, the only people going around voluntarily giving large sums of money away are rich people donating to political parties that promise to lower wealthy people’s already low taxes… Libertarianism is a very comforting philosophy to fantasize about, but in practice it’s just a synonym for anarchy. If we counted on people voluntarily offering up their own money to pay for infrastructure to be used by the general public and public schools we’d still be living in the 1800s.
He's fine, he just realized that he was carrying way too much weight on his 60-year-old knees (a lot of it was unavoidable, the guy's 6 and a half feet tall) and lost as much of it as he could.
Yes! I love Penn, great dude, and while I'm Bernie Sanders kind of liberal, Penn's made the best case for libertarianism I've heard, and is a generally smart guy.
agreed, and technically he's not as economically right wing as he implied at the start. Seems what I'd call central between the left right economic debate these days.
Most libertarians are terrible selfish people. Penn is not. The problem with libertarianism is the same as the problem with communism. it works great on paper, but when you involve real people, it falls apart.
dragdragon23 I very much agree with you!!! I’d like to hear what Penn has to say today?? I bet he would be eating his words about Trump because I know Penn is smart but he is completely off about some of the things he talked about!!!
@@tnatstrat7495 … It’s much more about him thinking Hillary Clinton as a good person… Do you know Hillary personally?… And how many people don’t exist on this planet any more because of her.
@@jeffchandler283 I do agree he's being a bit over charitable. But it is more intellectually honest to assume good intentions in the absence of information. You could say that about any American politician with that amount of power really. Yet there have been presidents, generals, and decision makers who are "generally" good people.
This comment section is cancerous. Everyone putting labels on everything and everyone. Just stop and think for a moment maybe we should listen to what he has to say (don't have any prior notions of what's right or wrong) and make an educated opinion on the topic. Labels is whats wrong with this country we don't need a democrat, republican, libertarian, socialist, or whatever label you can come up with we just need people with good ideas and that care enough about the people of the United States to approach topics without any preconceived notions of what's right or wrong but objectively what needs to get done.
Which kinda proves we will inevitably face the same issues under any 'system'. 'people' are flawed themselves. It would/will take generations to swing the balance. Mind you there are ways we could try; only today I was discussing with the better half, "they have never had news that is happy news" They always informed us that people don't watch happy news, they watch tragedy and that drives emotion.. (ironically the emotion was drawn from a happy bit of news I had seen where in my home town of Birmingham a local caring person had arranged through charities to refurb and make livable a poor girls home where she was bringing up her ill child)
***** www.dictionary.com/browse/cancerous Read the second line. P.S. Individuals shape our language every day language itself isn't permanent but ever changing. You should really learn to speak your point without insulting other people especially when you're wrong.
"It's one of those cases where reality is simpler than theory" that's an epic quote, and a slam to every other political theory, whose problems meet precisely at the theory vs reality point.
No, you misunderstood the entirety of the 2nd part of the video. He was supporting sanders because while he may disagree with the core ideas of a larger government, he believes that Bernie genuinely cares about the future of the country. Penn acted as a third party narrating the process of the president position over the next 8 years, assuming that Bernie and Johnson were the two candidates. His only opinion in this half was that presidential nominees (and all elected officals) should have the people's interests in mind, not selfish ones.
this is the first time I've seen this and I just lost nearly all respect for this guy. He is discussing something here as if he's done his research and he has proved he hasn't.
I'm glad someone noticed besides me... Penn: "I'm libertarian, I believe in the NAP." Also Penn: "It's ok for the government to use a gun to take money from people."
I disagree with a lot of what Penn says in the second half, but even then he lays out his viewpoints fairly well, and his opinions are respectable, even when I don't agree.
_"Should my 10-year-old son take music lessons? [...] Those are hard questions."_ No, Penn, the hard question would be _"can we afford it?"._ Thank you for reminding me that people indeed cannot properly think about what's best for other people, _because we don't think about the actual difficulties that we just happen to be fortunate enough to _*_not_*_ have._
You do not know if he thought about such things or not. For you to come to that conclusion is an assumption of character. You fight a strawman with your argument.
@@Danielle_1234 whatever is the highest-ranking in-demand skill that _you can afford to learn._ nothing is free, especially not learning. Investing time in learning a skill is time you're not putting elsewhere, like on getting income. A lot of people can't/shouldn't spare that time.
“even though I just called her a liar, we know she’s a good and honest person” Penn has always been the person that I couldn't agree more with....unless you let him speak more then 5mins, and says something so bat shit insane, its mind blowing . No dem, even that voted for her, would even say that....
I don't agree with the statement about Hillary being honest person, if I may posit a hypothesis, I think he may have meant that you can see right through her not that she was honest, I don't know I'm not in Penn's head but that's just my guess.
i feel the exact same way, there is alot of really bad rumors about hillary, but how much of that is actually true? i mean we know she is definitely out to ban all guns so i strongly dislike her for that. but i think he was just trying to be really humble and say nice things about people. not everyone shares a viewpoint that you should be allowed to own whatever guns you want as long as your a responsible adult and not a complete idiot or psychopath. i was a republican because my family, but i definitely know i am a libertarian now. trump was a republican and as pro gun as he was, he still banned bump stocks and talked with some people about banning so called assault weapons.
You shouldn't be forced to learn something that isn't mandatory knowledge for the real world the child should have a choice for things that you don't need to survive in the real world whether that choice ends well or not.
9:50 ish: "A true free market would not create huge companies" I think I disagree. Monopolies are a logical consequence. Maybe the default is every one has equal money. At some point a few will stand out for great decisions and get a little bit more money than the others. Now they suddenly can invest more money and get even more. How can you prevent that in a free market?
Nope. The logical consequence of a free market is continuous division of labor and specialization. Large monopolistic corporations suffer from the same problem governments have: transactions become internalized and impossible to efficiently price. This leads to shortages and surpluses of production.
Partially correct, and partially not at the same time. Yes, some companies will clearly take the forefront and trample competition. However, in our current system that tries to prevent that, it simultaneously and hypocritically promotes it as well - any lobby big enough to have extreme influence in gov't can use that influence to enforce their monopoly indirectly. Look towards big tobacco and big pharma for examples. It's clear we need something different, but 100% free market isn't the answer either, though I believe that would be a step in a BETTER direction than we have at present.
A true free market would've had competition long ago. Industries become huge when they're protected by the government. Look at the taxi industry, they had a straight up monopoly in their respective states and that industry lacked competition so there was price fixing, bad customer service, bad experience, no innovation. Then the free market brought us UBER/LYFT and it finally shattered the government monopoly. Once you understand that corporations pay for government to shield their profits and risk, you will see a clearer picture that free markets isn't the villain but the government you seek to protect you as well.
monopolies are a result of control over exclusivity, usually with help from the government through legislation, subsidies and over-regulation. Ideally the government is there to maintain the competition in the market and allow those who feel they can provide a better service or product to try, rather than being stopped at the first hurdle.
Penn got up to bat 5 times in this game and went 1 for 5. Hit a home run on his first at bat then whiffed badly with loaded bases the rest of the game.
To be fair I was with him half way through, and then slowly further more confused each passing moment. In 5 at bats I would score: Home run Hit by pitch Strike out swinging Strike out looking Strike out looking again and ejected for nonsensical argument
I feel like this disregards the idea behind democracy. It’s not about one person making decisions for other but the group making the best decision for the group. Still an interesting discussion and he presents some good ideas. I’m a big fan.
@@colt45peacemaker I'm not seeing that as much on the right as I am on the left. That being said, there are other aspects of the right, that I'm not in favor with.
Penn has to revisit this. I think his views on Trump will have improved, while become less charitable to Hillary. As staunchly independent as he was here, this was mid 2016, and he was still subjected to a tidal wave of Kool-Aid by the MSM against Trump. I'm not a "Trump guy." I didn't vote for him. I didn't trust him as far as I could throw him with regards to Russia. I'm fairly liberal, even radically progressive on a couple critical issues. Yet I can concede that virtually everything they said about Trump was a lie. Not just a lie, but a projection of their own corruption. Trump may never get his "Great Wall." But he's already achieved a miracle. He is a Great Mirror. All the corruption projected from the establishment and Deep State is being exposed, one week at a time. 2019 has been surreal. Everyone who claimed "Racism!" in lieu of a substantive argument has been revealed to be a racist. Everyone who claimed "Sexism!" has been exposed as a sexist. Every myth has fallen apart. CNN has been exposed as just as much the platform of partisan propaganda as Fox. Buzzfeed has already had 2 major implosions with their narrative backfiring right into their own face, in just the first 2 months of this year. The Covington Kids were vindicated. Jussie Smollett undermined the left with incalculable damage. We're not even 3 full months into the year. And "Trump Russia" - the ONE thing I believed to be enough of an concern (in my view nothing short of an existential threat) - appears to be on the precipice of being debunked.
For way too much of my life, national politics has been more of a popularity contest than a job interview. I am not Trumps biggest supporter, but he stated what he would do for us. Hillary stated what she would do to us. The candidates for 2020 are lining up at the starting gate, the DNC has refused to allow Fox to host a debate, but you can bet your beppy than CNN will get one. So the Democrats will get softball questions designed to make them look good rather than address their goals for their terms, and impacts on Americans. The Republicans will not get the same consideration. Neither party is gonna change their current practices because, what they do now keeps getting them reelected. It's time to THROW THE BUMS OUT! Republican and Democrat both. If reelected Trump has only four more years to accomplish anything. The Democrats will fight him at every turn. If we want to keep him then give him a congress that he can work with. If a Democrat is elected, everything we hold dear in this country is in danger, depending on the ability of the Republicans to stall and delay. The age of two party politics needs to come to a close. The monopoly of Democrat or Republican being the only choice as long past its prime. It's time to upset the Apple Cart. We, as a people, need more competeing ideas in Washington DC. The way to do that is for national recognition of several more parties. Since the Libertarian party is already recognised in most all states let's start there. Find a Candidate that can best expound on the ideas and policies that best explain what Libertarians stand for and aganist, and why it's time for new blood in Washington.
Very true. I wouldn't trust either Hillary or Trump to be around my kid sister, both of them might try to rape her... but Hillary would end up trying to kill her so she couldn't tell anybody what had happened. No comparison between the two, neither are nice but Hillary is pure evil personified.
Financial libertarianism would not make poor people's situation better, it'd just mean the government wouldn't provide any protections to labor against corporatism, ultimately American libertarianism would be a more extreme corporatist stare then we already are
This is literally false, our spending on the poor DWARFS corporate welfare- Medicaid, Medicare, SS, etc. are all a far larger proportion of the budget than any corporate welfare
You do understand social security is deducted separately from income tax and medicare. Originally SS was supposed to be put in an acount for retirement or disability where you would get back what you put in. Basically a government account to ensure americans had retirement funds available. That was supposed to be seperate from tax income and medicare funds. The government wouldn't use it for anything other than Social Security payments to recipients.
Oh... You should also include any gov. Grants, subsidies, and tax breaks, ect. As corporate welfare if they are granted to a buisness entity. This can also include waivers of licensing fees and regulatory fees for certain companies (i.e. big oil, pharma, military industrial, ect...)
Well, yes. You cannot budget what you don't take in. Corporate Welfare is a decrease in income, not an increase in expenditure. Put another way, if you only work one day a month and eat at a restaurant that day, it's hardly fair to blame the food policy for being poor.
You don't recognize intelligence. You recognize people who are good at articulating your own opinions. Now that an intelligent person WHO YOUVE ALWAYS KNOWN IS INTELLIGENT is saying things contrary to your own opinions, you're convincing yourself that he isnt actually intelligent.
Penn's explanation is the best I've heard. Up till now, almost every other person who has described Libertarianism to me just made it sound like a never ending chorus of , "Yeahhh...that's not our problem" to any world issue that might be occurring.
Asserting a label invites debate on the label rather than the issue. What do you object to? "The comunism part" Which part is that? "The part with comunism". Why is "comunism" and freedom incompatible? Is your definition of Communism the only valid one? In my experience, discussion devolves into what is and isn't Communism. e.x. The USSR isn't the only form a Communist State can take. A clearer argument, imo, would be: 7:05 you cannot be free while someone uses a gun to establish welfare.
@@MrIDONTKNOW01 Toothpaste contains sodium laurel sulfate which binds to the taste buds that respond to sweetness. Therefore, you can no longer experience sweetness from orange juice, however, you can still experience all its other flavors that are usually masked such as bitterness. Hence, why OJ and toothpaste aren't compatible. Knowing why is helpful, imo, because you could use a toothpaste that doesn't contain SLS or unbind the taste buds first -- bang: orange juice and toothpaste are compatible. My point is I have no idea why you think Penn supports Communism, nor why you find Communism and Freedom incompatible. You can define Communism so that Penn is a Communist; you can define Communism so Penn isn't a Communist. Just labeling it as Communism doesn't tell me anything. There are communes that seem free. Gandhi's Tolstoy Farm for example. Perhaps you would argue parental authority means children can never be thought of as free -- okay, that tells me something, and naturally leads to questions of Tacit Consent and the loss of particular freedoms in any society.
@@CharacterString Parents and Government are not meant to have the same association. It's really really simple. True freedom is libitarian. No government is ideal. We should be able to take care of our own without forcing people to pay for things they don't consent to.
Love the ideas but companies would pollute out the wazoo and there would be zero regulations to stop them. I like the government keeping companies in line.
But they're not doing that at the moment...quite the opposite. We have companies that have a complete lock down on politics, on tax evasion...it's insane. A good American example is the NRA...but also the Oil industry the world over. These are companies that at this point may as well have sitting members on parliaments in the west for all the power they wield and how little responsibility they have.
+Guy Guisbane The NRA is an association of like minded Americans and doesn't take tax money from the government. This is a valid form of lobbying even if you don't agree with their message. The oil industry does take tax money from the government, so there is a conflict of interest with them lobbying the government.
The Libertarian party need better branding. So many people claim to be Libertarian , but don't behave like it. Penn Jillete, Lary Elders, Harry Browne. Gary Johnson, Bill Maher are not.
You can't reason with irrational, and the second you have a team you've become less rational, because having a team by its very nature is irrational. However, to those who have a team, it appears perfectly rational to them. It's very hard to tell when we're being irrational. It's an interesting phenomenon. When is the last time you've been irrational?
Why would you not want to help the less fortunate. Why not say I choose to help other's so paying my taxes is something I will do. I get your point and yes big corporate welfare has got to stop. My children all 4 of them paying taxes. And we need more people in the IRS to make sure that the very richest of Americans pay their taxes. So funding the IRS IS A MUST.
Love this guy. He actually does his homework and does his absolute best to be truly fair in his judgements. Best quote from this video is "we don't feel your burn(Bernie), now feel my Johnson (Gary). 🤣
If he actually did his homework, he would understand that government being a monopoly on violence means that govt. violates the non aggression principle. You can't be a libertarian who believes in the NAP and be a statist. It's a contradiction and anyone who claims to be both is a hypocrite.
@@livewire2759 Yeah I agree but I'm pretty sure he is an anarcho-capitalist (he's said he might be before) he's just trying to convince the pragmatists and people who aren't even close to libertarianism about some libertarian principles
@@averagegenius7212 He's a leftist. He voted for Johnson back then, and he continues to vote mostly for democrats, which means he continues to be a statist. If he considered himself to be anarcho-capitalist, he wouldn't vote. The truth is that he's very articulate and eloquent, but he's just as confused as most swing voters. He's nowhere near anarchistic and damn sure not voluntarian or anti-authoritarian. He's a beginner libertarian at best.
@@livewire2759 I don't know much about him I've just seen a bit of what he's said. If you're an anarcho-capitalist you SHOULD vote just not nationally because third party doesn't have any chance there but locally you should vote libertarian especially in NH.
@@averagegenius7212 I don't think you understand what an anarcho-capitalist is... The first word, "anarcho", as in, anarchy or anarchist, means that we are anti-authoritarian... anti government... anti voting. People who call themselves "libertarian" and vote, don't understand what libertarianism is. The cornerstone of libertarian ideology is the non-aggression principle, or NAP. All forms of govt. use aggression, they all violate the NAP and therefore are not compatible with libertarian ideology. When you vote, you're saying, "I want THIS candidate to write/pass laws that will be enforced by violence and/or threats of violence if people disobey". That's aggression... indirect, but still aggression. So, if someone like Penn here says they believe in the NAP and they vote... they're being hypocritical. The libertarian party and all of it's members are massive hypocrites. Government is evil and I refuse to actively participate with it.
I like Penn's vision of libertarianism however, what I think we've seen in practice, particularly during this pandemic is what I've learned to dislike about libertarianism: libertarians tend to believe in libertartianism like Ayn Rand - it's all about me. I think Penn's version of libertarianism has a moral quality that most libertarians do not share - let's face it, most libertarian-minded people voted for and support Trump. Still. After a coup attempt no less. Trump is an authoritarian and should be, from a libertarian perspective, should be antithetical to a libertarian's belief system. I've often said that nobody with any sense should be a libertarian after the age of 25. I understand the compunction but, in practice, it's a selfish ideology, And we've seen that during the pandemic where libertarian types act as if they're freedom fighters when, in reality, they are selfish and uncaring. They have no problem killing Grandma as long as their view of not being told to what to do, even if it is temporary (a slightly ill-defined temporary), is infringed. They have no problem sacrificing Grandma on the alter of "their" freedom because their rights are more important. Incidentally, I don't think Penn Jillette necessarily conforms to this version of libertarianism. I think he views libertarianism within the strictures of a moral environment. I'm most libertarian on free-speech. My view is that this is the most inviolable of rights. But, I must say, the last four years have made me reconsider to an extent. I still don't particularly care how one expresses oneself: that neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. However, constant lies or disinformation does damage discourse and democracy. And, frankly, I don't have a good solution for how we maintain a libertarian view on free speech while stamping out dangerous lies - democracy and policy don't work well with lies. Lies are the ace in the hole of the authoritarian or fascist, not of democracy. In other words, you can free-speech the truth all you want but the lies seem to win. How do we stamp out the lies while maintaining one of our most precious rights - freedom of speech? One man's lie is another man's political philosophy. How do we protect the best of freedom of speech while trampling the lowest and most worthless of free speech without damaging the best?
this was 2016 give Penn a chance to repent Trump has done an amazing job but it could all disappear if we vote the Communist Party of the Democrats in office.
I don't believe Hillary gives a $#@! about anyone but herself, and I don't believe she is competent enough to hold any public office. I would cast my vote for Hitler before I'd vote for that woman.
I am genuinely, truly afraid that Trump's ego would start World War 3. I honestly believe that if Trump becomes president, it might the last election the U.S. ever has. Yeah, I'll choose bad choice over dangerous choice every time.
"I would cast my vote for Hitler before I'd vote for that woman." Since I don't think many people are that stupid, you are probably joking but incase you aren't: If you are serious that you would vote for Hitler over Hillary, you have a very skewed moral compass. As bad as Hillary would be, how corrupt she is and how she is going to be if she becomes president, I don't see it likely that she's going to run a dictatorship and genocide an entire group of people.
Exactly how I feel. I don't like either candidate, but at least Hillary has some ideas and some experience. Trump is essentially a 5 year old in a toupee throwing a temper tantrum, and middle america eats it up for some reason. I need to educate myself on Gary Johnson a bit more. I was a staunch Bernie supporter, but even I realized that many of the things Bernie wanted to accomplish were pipedreams in 2016 America. I mean every decent European nation has those things, but yeah... not in America. Helping the poor is somehow seen as superfluous here.
So close to being so right.. but you definitely lost me at Hillary is a good person. Then you said Bernie Is experienced at Government.. both of these are absolutely false.
I think he only said that to keep the people who voted for Hillary on his side and to calm the masses and if you disagree with that than you must also disagree with Trump because they day after Trump got in office he did something similar. Also he roast Hillary more times in this video than supported her so I think you are another person taking one line out of context.
I agree with the consensus of these posters.. He starts off GREAT, and then goes completely off the rails. First part- "Keep govt. small to prevent corruption." Second part- "We need big govt to take care of everybody." Speaking as a Libertarian, I love ya, man, but you can't have it both ways.
So Libertarianism is saying, "I don't know, and I can't know, so I won't." Though the first part is accurate, to make this world a better place it's the job of political figures to figure out the answer to the middle point, so the latter point is not the issue. The problem currently is that politicians think they know, and don't. We won't get any further by not knowing and not fixing problems, but at the same time we won't get further by fixing nothing because we "don't know." You need to get involved in other people's lives to figure out what's wrong and help them fix what is. You can't be a helpful human being by sitting idle and saying, "Oh, I'm just going to fix what problems have a directly foreseeable affect on me," because the problem with that logic is that 1. That's a selfish mode of thinking, and 2. Everything anyone does has an affect on someone else, and so on until the affect reaches you. For instance if we have a bunch of morons who are so blind to logic have the ability to vote we'll have a moron for president, and this country will fall further into a hole. If we take the time to educate those people then you as well as I will be much better off since we won't have a bunch of dullards with pulling power. It's an overly simplistic example, but you get the point. The whole apathetic viewpoint is good to an extent, but not everything. Yes, "who cares" about gays, because there's nothing inherently wrong about two adult men or women hooking up because there's a connection/whatever you want to call it. There is a problem however, with people's values amounting to being prideful about it. There comes a problem when the value of being gay takes precedence over the people IE "Gay Pride" or whatnot. It's how we get to transgressive points, so in retrospect we need things to be moderate, not apathetic. The problem with freedom is that people take it a little too far. You have Colorado for example. Suicide rates went way up since weed legalization. Some people can't handle the responsibility freedom entails, so saying, "Yeah, go ahead and do crack" is an incredibly bad idea - a good idea to have addicts spring up all over the place because they can't find the money to get their fix? No sir. "Whatever you think is right" problem with that is, a lot of people *aren't* right.The teenage girl example is one of someone who doesn't know what's best for them - they cannot be responsible - you can't be responsible for something you do not know. When I was 19 - knew how to maintain a 180 gallon aquarium, honor student in college, walked a dog, took care of a cat, a bearded dragon, had a part time job washing dishes - sure, I was knowledgeable, but that does by no means mean I know what's best for me. Shit - compared to myself just three years ago I was a fucking dullard. If I decided to drop out and go work at a gas station that would've been a huge mistake, because I didn't know what was best. Just because someone makes an off decision and it works doesn't mean it's best for them - so I got a manager position. Great, but that doesn't beat out my scholarship to a private university now. Point being a lot of time people don't know what's best for them, and if you know and they don't it's a common human decency to inform them of their better opportunity and make sure they understand what they're missing. If they still continue to choose the not so great option then that's their prerogative, but at least you did your part in informing them. The whole argument of "is my life better" makes this man look like a value-neutral cur to be honest. Yes, your life was better. How? Considering that a life of drugs (materialism driven by addiction), sex (materializing human beings as sex objects) doesn't constitute happiness yeah - I'd say the guy with a wife and kids is "happier" - has a better life - than the rock singer who died at 27. At that age you don't even know what the good life is shown clearly by his decisions. You judge the value of something to figure out who had what. Saying "I don't know" is just sidestepping around the bush that everyone should be looking in: judge it. I don't know why people are so afraid to judge the actions of other people - it's how everything functions. I mean, for God's sake how did you pick out your shirt in the morning? Did you just reach in and grab the thing and slap it on, even if it's backwards? No - you looked at what you had to choose from and your brain automatically started making a decision - a judgement - on which outfit would work best for the day. You do the same thing with cereal, road directions, and especially *people* since they're the most influential parts of our lives. Don't be afraid to say, "Yeah, my life is better than a drug addict" or what not, especially if it is. Libertarianism is apathy, and apathy doesn't solve problems. i.huffpost.com/gen/1542573/thumbs/o-BODY-EMOTIONS-900.jpg?2 This is the body on infrared. You tell me which is the "best" since, as human beings we're emotional creatures. Telling me that the blackest one (neutral AKA apathy) is the best stance to take is *wrong.* Yes, *wrong.* That's a judgement based on a fact. If you say being apathetic is correct then I'm obligated to inform you of as to why you're incorrect (life is lived through emotion, not the neglect of them/an uninvolvement in the world around you) and hope that you'll understand as to why. I'm not going to put a gun to your head and make you understand (because you won't that way anyway) but I'm not going to allow falsity to spread and "not care", because falsity existing in the society that I'm a part of is *my responsibility* as well - it's *my* society too, and it affects *me* just as much as anyone else, so why would I - a person that values truth - allow falseness to exist in my home? I wouldn't.
Hate to break it to you too, but rich people aren't fundamentally reliant on *just one form of government* either. You do some taxy, no-rich guy shit here? Off to China. The problem currently is that rich people have money, and money is power. You're not taking the power they already have, and you won't even if you make the government smaller - the bribes they're giving will just get bigger to the fewer people you have set up in office. It's a predicament - the more people you have in office the more people that can get corrupted, but the less people you have in office the more crucial each member is, thus if they're all pocketed by a company, you're fucked even more. So you either have a huge government regulating the economy, or you have a small government unable to regulate big business. You're fucked either way. The problem with the Hillary argument is that no matter what she says she's not honest, and she's not a good person. 1. Killing people just to kill them is unjust. Unjustified killing isn't good, so she's not good. 2. Lying and saying you're honest isn't honesty. Actions > words. Showing that you're a liar makes you a liar, saying you're not doesn't change it. Bam. Problem solved. Trump wants to deport people from different countries. Bigoted. There's no logical deduction as to how he'll fix anything. There's no proof - the same with Hillary. We have two tyrants running in office. It's not going to end well. Hillary and Trump both have that idealistic "I know what's best" theory, but they're completely impractical with it, so they really don't. If you had a man that could *prove* that he knew what was best for people (or women, or what the fuck ever) then I'd be inclined to vote for them. But this? This is just a bunch of power-hungry politicians wanting to fabricate the world into their own little warped image. This is not progress, but then again neither is being apathetic. Sanders will not work either. You can't have an emotional paradigm guide anything. You can't have a government run on by what's "fair" because fair doesn't exist - it's a concept created by people to use for a social advantage. If someone else gets a banana leaf and someone else doesn't, "it's not fair!" and behold as they split the leaf. It's a tactic that's been evolved as a biased means for survival, nothing more. It's a flawed concept to base your ideology off of, and it's not how the world works, hence why socialism never will. Everyone "getting the same" isn't the same - 2,000 calories to a body builder isn't the same as 2,000 calories to a petite woman in her 60's. Bernie won't work, Trump won't work, Hillary won't work, Libertarianism won't work. You need a candidate who's involved enough to know what's best, but at the same time know when they're crossing a personal line into people's lives. Another issues with your Bernie problem is that a lot of people capitalize off welfare and government aid. So you'd effectively be supporting people who are corrupt, which was the problem you had with supporting big business IE corruption. You're either supporting corruption one way, or the other. We've heard all sides of the argument - libertarianism, liberalism, conservative - and none of it works. A new ideology that's *moderate* needs to be put in place. We can't have apathy, but we can't have over involvement. We can't have all drugs be legal because there are plenty of people who'll abuse them and cause many more problems than we already have, but completely eliminating them isn't going to stop them from coming in either. Giving people random checks = corruption. What do you think they'll use it for? Themselves in most cases. So you're just effectively supporting the thing you're standing against, or effectively supporting them contributing nothing because, let's face it, if they're getting enough money to support themselves *for free* why the fuck would they put forth any work if their goal is to make money to sustain themselves? They wouldn't and that would be a burden on society. We can't have that. You want individuals to have more money in their pockets, but individuals more often than not spend it on selfish things that *you will then legalize* IE drugs etc., or will donate to charities that are anything but - yeah, a good majority of charities dip into those funds - over payed employees, straight up stealing from their funds - so in retrospect that'd just be feeding to the problem as well. To boot, if you give people more money, they'll buy more shit. Where's the shit come from? Corporations mostly, so you'd effectively be funding the people your perspective originally stood against. People at the base level are the problem - not corporations directly. All these problems now exist because *the common man has allowed them to.* We bought from Wal-Mart, we went to Costco - we fund these big businesses, we vote for these political idiots, we give donations to charity which are then used for personal gains on both sides (because charity corruption, as well as it not being charitable on our account as saying, "I donate to charity" isn't charitable at all - it's exchanging currency for reputable gain IE "Look how good I am! I donated to charity!"). The problems we see today are created because people like us allowed them to exist - people like us *were apathetic to other people's issues.* We wouldn't have people in office like this if we all did our part, spoke out, and said, "No dude, your viewpoints are shit and *here's why:* " If color and gender isn't a big deal for you, then why does it matter if a President is black, white, or female? It doesn't. Take a page out of your own book and stop being a hypocrite. To boot, what makes Bernie "good"? Because he's a socialist? There's plenty of reasons as to why that's not a good value - supporting those who don't want to contribute, idealistic theories that are disastrous in practice, entitlement, and much, much more - so that "good person" argument is out the window. Don't use subjective terms in a logistical debate when you're trying to make a point, because that's not how a perspective is proved to be fact and correct, it shows a lack of supporting evidence when you make a subjective clam. This is political - we need objectivity. Why do we have two tyrants? Because money is the driving factor that produces candidates. Money is power apparently, so when your value is currency - power - who are the people that are going to get elected? Those people who have money. You're effectively setting up the kind of people you want to run for office when you set cash as a prerequisite, not actual value that constitutes more than materialism. The reason we don't have Bernie in office is because we know socialism does not work, and all it produces is entitled people who act like children as adults, feeling like they "deserve" free things when in reality the reason they don't have anything is because they were never taught to work. Yeah, it sucks having no money - I'm a college student for God's sake - but handing it out for free so that uneducated people can do with it what they will? That's a bad fucking idea. Having two tyrants running for election? Again, bad fucking idea. Being apathetic and legalizing everything? People are irresponsible, and a vast majority of the time don't know what's best for them, so again - bad idea. This whole video is just... a bad idea. If you want a society of good people you have to start *with the person.* You can't just eliminate all these checks and balances without eliminating the negativity on the personal level. How do you do that? Education in morals, ethics, history, science, psychology - an *actual well rounded education and not this calculus for high school students - the thing that they'll never use again.* You want people to be happy? Teach them that freedom is a great value, but also teach them how to fucking use it - teach them that happiness isn't materialism IE smoking dope, having sex with whoever they want, and eating until their fat, and that they shouldn't do it just because they can. You're going to have a society of tyrannical degenerates, or a society of materialistic degenerates in the former or the latter version. None of this is going to work and that's that. The fundamental question that your perspective asks is wrong, Mr. Penn. "Should I care?" is horrifically flawed - of course you should - about everyone in society and every event that happens, because in some way it all comes back to you. The real question is "Out of all the other things, is this worth caring more about?"
I actually took the time to read-through both of your posts, and understand what you're saying. Are you voting this November 8th? I hope you are, and by the time you enter that booth - you will cast your vote for the person you come to realize, will be the best (at this moment in time) for America. Another question for you ...you malign Mr. Trump by saying he's a bigot, and as a reason for not being a good candidate for president. However, you've posted nothing else to discredit the man, except to acknowledge the derogatory propaganda-spin we've all endured throughout this election run-up - and of course you despise that he is wealthy - although he's become wealthy because of the very reasons you've described as making us all good Americans, and good people in general - through hard work, self-reliance, work ethic, etc. What I'd like to know, what are the defining reasons you will give for your vote selection, and will you ignore that rectangle-box in the livingroom long enough to make YOUR OWN decision?
+Grimm Tale He is not smarter than anyone, he is not a good honest person. He is a known sociopath and alleged billionaire. Willful ignorance and thin skin are more bad qualities he has. I'm a republican but I'll be voting Johnson, maybe Clinton, but never for that loser who litigates rather than pays his debts.
Grimm Tale Bigotry implies ignorance. Making money and being "successful" in a monetary standard isn't at all proving to be a good person. The standard with which we get candidates is contradictory to the value we want out of them - you want just people, but just people aren't materialistic bigots, so again, Trump isn't a good candidate by any stretch of the imagination. He's been shown saying things like "Mexicans are rapists" as well as believing that we should deport all illegals. First off, the former is just ignorant. Second, if you deport all illegals there will be so many job voids to fill - that most people don't want to do in the first place - that the economy will suffer. Second, American workers require more pay to do the same job, so you're effectively supporting less people *by* eliminating illegals. Do I like people illegally crossing the border? Nope. Do I like that our hospitals pay for them to have children here? No. Is there a way for us to stop them from avoiding taxation like they are now? Yes. As for voting, it's my freedom as an American citizen not to. I don't support either candidate, so I won't.
Matthew Sobke What is good actually *is* everyone's business and isn't subjective. Is it good to be an addict? Nope. That's not subjective. You're trying to remain value-neutral and look at this as if there's no legitimate "good" or "bad" - like the world is not a biased place, but sadly for your point of view that's not how it works. Yes, there are ultimate goods and bads, and the fact that you think otherwise doesn't change this. "Do what you will" is literally apathy. It's to not care about the actions of others unless the effect is direct which, news flash, the indirect effects are the ones that produce direct effects, so stating that people shouldn't care about the indirects are consequently saying that people shouldn't care about any effects, as that's where they all originate. Read through the full post and maybe you'll catch that example. Based on feelings? That's not how logic works. That's not how objectivity works. You're acting as if there's no objectivity in politics which is extremely ignorant. *The* problem we have right now is that we have two candidates giving subjective snippets rather than objective fact. We have yet to hear anything truthful from either candidate. As for me? Being a drug addict isn't good. That's objective. There's a whole collection of books as to why that statement is true if you really want to get into it. As far as I'm concerned it seems that I'm more objective and truthful with my statements than both candidates, so in retrospect why am I not president? Oh, right - money. So you're saying that letting a bunch of drug addicts steal goods to sell at chop shops for money because they can't get their fix is a good thing? Yeah, no. Freedom isn't inherently bad, but the people - who of the vast majority will - abuse it are. You're relying on the majority of humanity being decent, which is a horrible oversight to make because the majority of humanity is not, hence why we're in this situation in the first place. Yes, a lot of people know better than others, but it's weeding out those people that actually do from the people that think they do that's the problem. The fact that you think there's no "good" or "bad" and that everyone should just be allowed to do things free of consequence or value-based judgement is ludicrous. There's not even a system there - there's "do what you want" which isn't a way of functioning at all - it's the absence *of* a system, which is why we have government - a system - in the first place. Lack of = apathy. You're literally supporting an apathetic system, which will cause nothing but problems.
@@tylersizelove7521 So it's the Socialist that are bad but not Socialism itself? That literally makes absolutely no sense. Socialism is Socialism no matter how you slice it. Not only that, but Socialism can not exist without Capitalism.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
I appreciate how clearly Penn can articulate his position. It's interesting to follow the reasoning of a different viewpoint.
You lost me when you said “even though I just called her a liar, we know she’s a good and honest person”
No Penn, no she’s not, she’s not a good person at all
And then to attack Trump, you watch too much CNN and think they’re telling you the truth
you lost me on sanders and the rest of the lake scum.honest sanders good hearted clinton you cannot see whats before you
Is a former soldier I think she is worse than evil. she is derelicting her duties, allowed Americans to die, and seek political gain from the entire process. She is treasonous.
He lost me before that when he said he would give on public schools, welfare and infrastructure. Public schools shouldn't be free, parent should have to pay tuition for the kids they bring into this world it is the result of their decision to have kids I shouldn't have to pay because my neighbord decided to squirt out kids like a Pez toy.... Welfare, sorry but again it isn't my responsibility to pay for someone else's bad decisions in life... get knocked up at 16 and have no way to make a good living, well you should have kept your legs together or used birth control pay the price and serve as a living warning to other people not to make those mistakes... Infrastructure, what do you think a gas tax is, it pays for the roads and that is the way all infrastructure should be dealt with, paid for by those that use it.... He isn't a libertarian he's a damned liberal trying to use the money of everyone for what he thinks is right and not just to keep people safe from others. Libertarians want only to use the government for defense from outsiders and the police to protect individuals - that's it.
“Lied a lot less than other people”???? Who does he hang out with?😂😂🤣🤣🤣😂 wow, he started so well. Really off the rails now😂😂😂.
Lost me on, essentially, voting on chromosomes, identity politics, genitalia and skin pigmentation over merit, ability, competency
To sum up the comments section..
The stuff u agree with = right
The stuff u disagree with = he's so wrong
That sums up everybody's mindset.
Thats the entire history of the world in a nutshell. And even that can be disagreed upon.
Dear Penn,
Thank you for the best and most inclusive description of libertarianism I have ever heard. You make it sound so much more sane than others. I have in particular one major agreement with you. About 30 years ago I had a horse riding accident. I lasted until 2009 before needing surgery. The surgery was an abject failure, and I found myself living in searing pain. It took an act of God and signature of the devil to get pain medication. But once they gave it to me, they gave me too much. Now I'm a big guy, 6 ft 4 in and 250 lb. But 84 mg of opiates a day was just too much. I told my doctor I was going to cut down and he looked astounded, surprised, that anyone with a free ticket to la la Land would throw it away. But I did, and went from 84 mg a day to 12 mg a day. Fast forward to the opiate epidemic, and now I'm not allowed any pain medication of any kind. I don't know what I did wrong, and the doctor will not tell me. I see it as a second great prohibition. The first prohibition ended when the same people who had pushed for it realized it was a bad idea. All it did was turn average Americans into criminals, kill them with bad liquor, and put vast amounts of money into the hands of organized crime. How little has changed in almost 100 years. I don't know how long I can stand the pain. Worse, I don't know why other people feel they have the right to slap me in a hurt locker forever, so they can feel better about themselves. Or worse, the same doctors that over prescribed before, are cruelly under prescribing now, fearing that they will be imprisoned for the drug pushers that they really are. They are chasing me off this planet to save their meal ticket. I have only one thought: God save us from those who would save us!
I simply don't know what to do. Have any ideas?
Peace,
I've suffered from pain for years and years and still in a great amount of pain and I get what you are saying. It's more than unfair. But I do take a pain pill, unlike my 86 yr old mother who still takes Norco, most likely the doc's know she won't abuse it or try to sell it 🤔 💔 so sick of the do-gooders who change things like women's rights to their own health care. Women will die or become infertile over this.because some old white men in congress want votes from Christians. It's madness and the best hope we have is voting blue up and down the ballot to stop the madness. People won't even have pot for pain if Maga madness gets their way.
You hadddd me and then you lost me
Same here man. Started out libertarian then went full libtard
Yup
Never go full libtard lol
Him talking about bernie sanders I just face palmed.
Liberal, Libertarian basically just the same. Libertarians are fence riders on occasion, but stand on the Liberal side of the fence.
To summarize:
First half = "I don't think anyone should tell anyone else how to live their life."
Second half = "This is what the entire country should do."
So you believe that it's okay to tell everyone else how to live their lives? Maybe if everyone believed in the first half, he wouldn't have to talk about the second half.
I THINK that when Penn lost the weight a HUGE chunk of his brain ..evaporated.. BUT in retrospect He has always been a few fries short of a Happy meal. I mean when you SLAM Paul McCartney because "Live and Let die" has a "bad" first verse.. you KNOW he is an ASSHOLE.
I really don't think you listened to this.
@@jared8411 LOL and YOUR idiocy gets a HIGHLIGHT. Teller is THAT you??
This is the inherent flaw with moral relativism. It’s incoherent and self contradictory. Nobody lives this way. They say they believe it, but when you’re relativistic to them, they’ll be the first to object.
I'd like to hear how Penn feels about these same topics in 2019.
I'd like a 2020 revamp😂
2021 edition please lol
There show Bullshit for 2021
The exact same, because libertarianism is a truthful ideology that uses logical reasoning so it wouldn’t change. Truth is truth.
His views wouldn't change in 2009, 2019 or 2021. Libertarians have strict moral and ethical standards. Especially one who has never drank or did drugs. He takes his liberty too seriously.
you went from libertarian to socialist/enabler wtf man
Ikr this guy doesn't know what he's talking about....
Hes a member of the club that's truly America's enemy. They have activated everyone of their warriors to talk the American citizens into thinking communism is the only way to go or you're a xenophob etc.
@David Tomyn He lost me when he started talking about the schools and roads and said I wont take money from the poor and give it to the rich
Yeah, me thinks he doesn't actually know what a libertarian is.
Think you missed Penn's point. 17:17 Stop worrying about Capitalism. Stop worrying about Socialism. Start worrying about problems we all agree are problems. Fixing what can be agreed needs fixing *then* fighting about the things we disagree on is better use of time than fighting about the things we disagree on first while nothing gets done.
Finally a good speaker. No stuttering. Clear points.
you should check out his podcast Penn's Sunday School.
+Daniel Escobar thank you!
Penn does that for a living. He'd be a pretty terrible stage act if he couldn't keep himself straight while talking.
+Spencer Sawyer you say that but then I look at others and... well, let's just say it shows why this guy is great.
Indeed. I think Penn is one of the most successful people they've had.
More accurate title: 7 minutes of Libertarianism followed by nearly 11 minutes of going completely off the rails with no Libertarian thought whatsoever. Then a quick summary going back to Libertarian thought again.
This seems legit.
Sounds about right :-P LMAO
Libertarians are a blight.
@@euphoricatheist6694 lol, I think you mean Leftists/Liberals are a blight.
@@themannameddan8876 Yes, that's what I said.
This just makes so much sense to me. Till the second half.
you gotta realize we have the luxury of hindsight, I wonder what he would say now tho.
Hahaha. True.
"Laws are rarely passed to keep ourselves from doing something we feel we should not do. The vast majority of laws are passed to prevent other people from doing things we do not want _them_ to do." -Robert A Heinlein (Notebooks of Lazarus Long, I think)
based Heinlein enjoyer
I don't agree with everything. But thats the beautiful part of being American. 😁
Y tho
@@Morgothlord47 why what?
@@MFM_Gaming why don't you agree with Penn?
@@Morgothlord47 I don't think you understand my comment. I agree with Penn in this video. I was just adding my own spin on it. Sorry for the confusion....
@@MFM_Gaming its 5 am. That's what happens
When explained by a nice guy, libertarianism almost sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that.
+SSmotzer Because today, with the way things are, you'd wind up with Detroit from Robocop. I have no desire to live in OCCP's city.
***** The OP said libertarianism, not liberalism. My comment was about why a libertarian society would not work today.
+SSmotzer hilarious misread or sweet troll?
misread it is...
The Unbox Troll That's been my assessment as well.
I liked the build up until he revealed his trick involved possible socialism. Worst magic trick I've ever seen Penn perform.
Good to know we can't find a gray area.
he's not a socialist, far from it he wants small government and low taxes like the rest of us. he's just a bit more on the left than the typical libertarian.
@@soggyherman7454 He definitely says he would be open to socialism. Did you not watch the same video, or not watch the whole thing?
@@fondilmabols Yeah.. he's 'open to the idea' not saying we should outright convert to socialism. Props to Penn for being open to change.
@@alexbc7493 😂👌
To hold the belief that "you do not know what's best for other people" also means that you have a certain sense of humbleness about you.
I want to see a second video with the facts 3 years later😀 man up penn.
I was actually just googling to see if I could find any statements or anything from him, seeing how he felt about trump now that Trump has been president for 3 years. :-P
Red fingernail polish honey that was manned up
I want to ask him the same question!! He was so incredibly wrong on Trump and I wanna hear Penn admit that POTUS does care about EVERY American no matter who they are, what they'd look like, etc. seems to me he's doing pretty much everything Penn moaned about. Man up, Jillette! th-cam.com/video/KniUNdVZvH4/w-d-xo.html
@@timefoolery
He has a conflicted view of things in here. It appears he crawled back under the rock. Apparently a NPC now.
🤔
Yes...Things are much better now...who would have thought!
I would like to know what Penn's view on Trump now that it's 2019.
Ditto.
EXACTLY.
Sadly he is one of the sufferers of TDS and he just can't get out of his bubble.
Corry Burton Exactly.... there is really no need to “try” it again, not even for four years (and then hope that somehow the LP candidate gets voted in instead....).
It's interesting that those with TDS ALWAYS focus on "views on Trump". What about views on the Democrat Party? Is Biden really the best you can come up with?
I laughed so damn hard when Penn said that Hillary was honest at heart.
NarlepoaxIII Because you know Hillary so well personally, and have irrefutable evidence for why that is not the case.
Get your head out of ass and think for yourself for once.
Because you need irrefutable evidence in order to Get your head out of ass and think for yourself for once.
Go back to playing in your mud puddle John Carter. The adults are talking!
NarlepoaxIII I bet he regrets his assessments of both Clinton and Trump now.
Maybe he regrets some of what he's said regarding Clinton. I doubt he regrets anything he had said on Trump.
I have never seen anyone start off so well and then finish so badly. I used to think Penn was intelligent, what a way to shatter a long standing belief.
Me too
When he said he thought people in politics were smarter than him you knew he was a dumbass.
Yeah I heard the first 5 minutes and gave him a thumbs up and then he went off the deep end. Hillary Clinton essentially a good, honest person. That made me fall off my chair. Screw you Penn, and your Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Sad to see such an awesome guy be full blown infected with TARDs. (Trump acceptance rejection derangement syndrome)
@@jayeisenhardt1337 Most president graduated from Ivy League/Harvard. Please tell me how Lincoln, Sumner, FDR, TR, Reagan, Bush is somehow dumber than you.
First half was great, second half took a nnnnooooosseeee diiiiiivvvvveeee.
I respect Penn, I think he's a smart guy.
But most of this video was delusional.
Dude needs to eat more. Lost a lot of brain cells as well as fat.
Great argument, mag.
I agree. Read Hillary's Emails about what she thinks about most people.
Maybe this was a magic trick
I certainly do not hate people that think they know what’s best for me (or everyone for that matter). I simply believe in liberty.
dang. I'm not libertarian, but this was so well articulated. That's dope. Anyone logical and ethical has my respect despite the label. Awesome.
I really like Penn, but I disagree with his views on Trump. I loved his 2nd amendment clip
Life ,liberty and the pursuit of happiness--absolutely
I disagree with quite a few of your points, but I respect the passion and thought you've put into them.
That means you can have a good discussion with the man. You are already light years ahead of the average politician.
magisterartium I don't like that sentiment. Everyone is capable of it. Its about establishing that more open mindset, and not trying to herd people into a box on what they're capable of in the needed discussions.
Basically, trying to demonize groups (even ones you feel sincerely justified to dislike) will only push them farther into their echo chamber. It may even build a larger one around yourself.
what do you disagree with
MEll Mainly the merit of his libertarian concepts.
LX most of them although have never been tried on something work wonders on other parts of the economy.
Just look at china and how they have been pulled out of poverty becouse of free markets
If you dismantle the government, businesses will make a new government. Then the question is, do you want a government that you can vote on, or a government you can't? To me, the latter sounds kinda like a monarchy.
Yes.
I was wondering how long it would take for him to inform liberals that it's not racist to criticize Islam.
I believe he's talked on the subject a couple times
I'm mostly liberal and I fully understand its not racist to criticize islam, for the same reason it's not racist to criticize christianity. However it's xenophobic to criticize all Muslims for the actions of the minority.
No well educated or otherwise thoughtful Liberal would take issue with a well thought out critique of Islam. They regularly do that in regard to Christianity.
Please stop with the criticize Islam, only if you criticise Christianity.
They are not equivalent. Sure, criticise both but understand that at this moment in time, one is much worse than the other and yes, people that follow this ideology do need to be criticised
+broadwayat Are you kidding me? You sound like someone who has either never read the Bible or never read the Quran or perhaps both. These Two religions could not be any more similar. They literally share the same characters, same lessons, and same stories to the point where it's difficult to tell whether a verse originated from the Quran or the Bible.
I want to see Johnson in the debates 14% or not.
If he makes it to that stage, I feel he has the chance to win over some voters from both sides, and make the other candidates think harder about "the other side's" points when making decisions, should they win.
Not this late in the game.
Couldn't disagree more. This is the PERFECT time to pounce.
HILLARY CLINTON'S TICKET INTO THE WHITE HOUSE...TRUMP *fixed that for you*
They won't put 3rd party candidates in debates because the two main parties are paid for. They can't risk hearing outside ideas. Those ideas might actually help our country. We can't have that.
I can assure you that most Berners would rather see Johnson in The White House than Clinton or Trump. Even though I disagree with many of Johnson's positions, at least his heart's in the right place, and that's honestly the most important thing. If he sees his policies failing, I believe he'd make adjustments.
You said that right... You really don't know whats best for other people.
All people need food shelter and healthcare. That is why IMO libertarianism is amoral. I believe that it is the role of government (through progressive taxation) to provide at least basic human needs to those who require it. Do people take advantage? Of course. But the good far outweighs the bad. In a pure libertarian society you would have huge wealth inequalities and eventually instability and chaos.
@@chrismathis4162 So when you say those who require it, are you talking about the elderly, children, or the disabled?
@@chrismathis4162 The issue is: The money from taxation is not taken by voluntary means, it's slavery. The government is not able to produce any value, they just steal it through the use of force, like any mob. Everything you described as "needs" are, in fact, services. If someone is forced to provide these "needs", they are under force. The only possible morality comes from voluntary acts and charity.
The idea of having Gary Johnson and Berny sanders converse is absolutely genius
After seeing him talk about drivers licenses, I'm glad he was representing the libertarians.
I don't agree with everything he said, but appreciate his CRITICAL THINKING on the matter - Rare these days!
Thumbs up!
"feel my johnson" am i the only one laughing
Adel Issa Lol no....it cracked me up for a good few minutes 😂😂
Feel the Burn, on my Johnson :))
nope, you're not the only one laughing. "We don't feel the Bern..."
You need to shut the fuck up!
I had to look down in the comments after I stopped choking..... yeah I know that sounds even worse.
But it's still hilarious.
I was on board until you suggested it was possible for Hillary to have "her heart in the right place".
Please.
He was trolling
He didn't want to wake up one day to discovered that he'd shot himself in the back of the head, twice.
why isn't that possible? because people on the internet have told you that hillary is evil?
@@skoda10 lol or she has proven herself to be a piece of shit.
@@jonnybgoode7742 because somebody told you so? But if more than half the country voted for her i don't think it has been proven
Was with you 'till "she's essentially a good honest person". Sorry Penn, but we don't 'know' that & everything I've seen points to the contrary.
go look up bad jacketing.
Wow, someone who actually thought through their own beliefs, that's rare.
And now we all get to pretend that we've thought through our own beliefs.
Saying a war mongering psychopath is "good at heart" is when you lost me
Is this cause she voted for the Iraq war?
Yeah she's totally more war mongering than Donald Trump. 100% you really know what you're talking about
He says one nice thing to soften the blows he has made obviously due to not wanting to be seen as far leaning one way or the other and that is what everyone fixates on. He literally said she was the worst candidate running other than Trump and that she was unrealistic. Did you not get any context it feels as if you did not see the same video I just saw or am I missing somthing.
Nominis yes she is actually. All trump talks about is defending, whether you choose to take certain keywords he’s saying out of context EVERYTHING he has said about isis, North Korea, and Iran has been about responding in defense
@@jimtim1144 Theres too many comments like his. I the same comments often on facebook with some people that do not have decent reading comprehension either.
He literally simulated a whole discussion and presidential election of Bernie and Gary
I am watching this in 2019 Penn missed the mark by a lot.
First half was fantastic, then there is the second half.........................And went full retard.
When he said I'll give ya the roads I guess he never read how they were used like blackmail against states. Fall in line or you don't get that money back and go broke. SSDD Especially with education top to bottom these days.
Yep, he started out good then went into snowflake land.
Me too. Her hearts in the right place??! WTF Bernie Sanders is smart??? He totally went off the rails. Bernie Sanders is a fucking moron, not compared to senators but compared to the person stocking grocery shelves.
Lol you don't get what libertarian is it is not a foundation of beliefs or opinions it's that you prize Liberty overall other fundamental morals that's what a Libertarian is their fundamental moral quality is Liberty if you take a morality test and you scored the highest in care and fairness you're a left-liberal if you score the highest in loyalty Authority purity your conservative and last but not least the big qualifier for libertarian is Liberty to be your highest moral score
Jim Morrison influenced many young people to do drugs. His decisions to do drugs did not only have consequences for him, but for many of his fans. This is true with anything a famous person does.
Need to change the title to, "Team with huge lead before the half, blows it."
how did he "blow it"? after experiencing a trump presidency I think everything in the second half was really spot on
Every word he said about Trump is perfectly true.
@@FernieCanto LOL. Adorable.
TDS is treatable.
@@rolandwoltman7835 Yeah. All you have to do is stop listening to that bloviating grifter and you'll see just how deranged you were..
@@kellycochran6487 I don't listen to him. I look at policy being I'm a libertarian.
The DNC has shown their willingness to suppress the poor with handouts and driving the culture of single parent households.
While transferring tremendous wealth from the middle class as they too, just like the GOP, enrich the 1 percent.
It's time for those of us in the middle to unit and take over a party.
It will not be the corrupt DNC.
The GOP is vulnerable to be driven to smaller government, less spending and a end to perpetual war.
He is a very awesome human. I love listening to him.
Taxation isn’t voluntary, but it is necessary. Excluding a relatively small number of philanthropists, the only people going around voluntarily giving large sums of money away are rich people donating to political parties that promise to lower wealthy people’s already low taxes… Libertarianism is a very comforting philosophy to fantasize about, but in practice it’s just a synonym for anarchy. If we counted on people voluntarily offering up their own money to pay for infrastructure to be used by the general public and public schools we’d still be living in the 1800s.
Penn lost some serious weight, hope all is well.
He did some serious dieting and wrote a book about it. He's doing great as far as I gather.
+OrangeVision Fantastic! Thank you.
Read the title of his book in the header info. "How I made 100 lbs. disappear"....Sounds like he's okay.
He's fine, he just realized that he was carrying way too much weight on his 60-year-old knees (a lot of it was unavoidable, the guy's 6 and a half feet tall) and lost as much of it as he could.
+Dont Worry or your dumbass could read the fucking comments before talking to the spaghetti monster.
Yes! I love Penn, great dude, and while I'm Bernie Sanders kind of liberal, Penn's made the best case for libertarianism I've heard, and is a generally smart guy.
agreed, and technically he's not as economically right wing as he implied at the start. Seems what I'd call central between the left right economic debate these days.
I live in the UK.
I'd personally suggest those that want a real alternative on the ballot look further down at the local level elections.
his argument was basically "trickle down economics", but he did argue it well
I could be wrong, but Penn's version of Libertarianism is far more realistic and pragmatic then the version I typically hear about today.
Most libertarians are terrible selfish people. Penn is not. The problem with libertarianism is the same as the problem with communism. it works great on paper, but when you involve real people, it falls apart.
you lost me when you said deep down Hillary is a good person
Penn, Trumps action proved you wrong. Sanders is more like what you said Trump was, I feel sorry for you Penn!
Sanders is what this nation needs. Trump is the embodiment of everything wrong.
@@CrazyBear65Your nuts, Sanders promise socialism which does not work, He is so two faced he's unbelievable and Your kind is falling for it.
dragdragon23 I very much agree with you!!! I’d like to hear what Penn has to say today?? I bet he would be eating his words about Trump because I know Penn is smart but he is completely off about some of the things he talked about!!!
@@mumblyjoe6724He's surrounded by leftist in his field, This is why he may of gone off course a bit.
@Tin TizzyThe extreme of both are the same, But right now the left are a danger to us all.
you disappoint me I thought you would be a better judge of character than you actually are.
I know...supposedly, magicians are supposed to be hard to fool!!!
That was my reaction too.
The dude knows Donald personally.
Do you?
@@tnatstrat7495 … It’s much more about him thinking Hillary Clinton as a good person… Do you know Hillary personally?… And how many people don’t exist on this planet any more because of her.
@@jeffchandler283 I do agree he's being a bit over charitable. But it is more intellectually honest to assume good intentions in the absence of information.
You could say that about any American politician with that amount of power really. Yet there have been presidents, generals, and decision makers who are "generally" good people.
Penn, you have respect.. one of the most precious things I own
You should look up the non aggression principle and rewatch this video... Afterword, you might want to rethink your feelings.
This comment section is cancerous. Everyone putting labels on everything and everyone. Just stop and think for a moment maybe we should listen to what he has to say (don't have any prior notions of what's right or wrong) and make an educated opinion on the topic. Labels is whats wrong with this country we don't need a democrat, republican, libertarian, socialist, or whatever label you can come up with we just need people with good ideas and that care enough about the people of the United States to approach topics without any preconceived notions of what's right or wrong but objectively what needs to get done.
yayyy i just said summat like that so you must be right.. tho id change " care enough about the people of the United States" to "Planet"
Which kinda proves we will inevitably face the same issues under any 'system'. 'people' are flawed themselves. It would/will take generations to swing the balance.
Mind you there are ways we could try; only today I was discussing with the better half, "they have never had news that is happy news" They always informed us that people don't watch happy news, they watch tragedy and that drives emotion.. (ironically the emotion was drawn from a happy bit of news I had seen where in my home town of Birmingham a local caring person had arranged through charities to refurb and make livable a poor girls home where she was bringing up her ill child)
***** www.dictionary.com/browse/cancerous
Read the second line.
P.S. Individuals shape our language every day language itself isn't permanent but ever changing. You should really learn to speak your point without insulting other people especially when you're wrong.
+
Well said.
"It's one of those cases where reality is simpler than theory" that's an epic quote, and a slam to every other political theory, whose problems meet precisely at the theory vs reality point.
"Do what you want, try not to hurt me."
Personally I would reword it as, "Do what you want, do NOT hurt me"
april 1 2019 ,what's your experience now ?
@@DrBrainTickler "Religious fanatic"
Of all the retarded shit you stated that one's the funniest.
I am from the government and I am here to help you.... RIGHT!!
Video started off with a libertarian, ended with a regressive leftist literally screaming for the opposite. And it's the same guy. I'm very confused.
No, you misunderstood the entirety of the 2nd part of the video. He was supporting sanders because while he may disagree with the core ideas of a larger government, he believes that Bernie genuinely cares about the future of the country. Penn acted as a third party narrating the process of the president position over the next 8 years, assuming that Bernie and Johnson were the two candidates. His only opinion in this half was that presidential nominees (and all elected officals) should have the people's interests in mind, not selfish ones.
Ron Paul/John McAfee 2020!
Might end up just being Rand Paul by that time sadly.
+chimneyface Then John McAfee/Thomas Sowell 2020!
Thomas Sowell is even older! John McAfee will be 75 at the next election, which is pushing it, but Thomas Sowell will by 90 at that time.
+Loathomar I did not think that through.
2016*
Did this guy just say that Hillary has a good heart? He must have meant physically.
this is the first time I've seen this and I just lost nearly all respect for this guy. He is discussing something here as if he's done his research and he has proved he hasn't.
I'm glad someone noticed besides me...
Penn: "I'm libertarian, I believe in the NAP."
Also Penn: "It's ok for the government to use a gun to take money from people."
"she has a good heart"
I've got a hoard of leaked emails to show you that is not the case.
I disagree with a lot of what Penn says in the second half, but even then he lays out his viewpoints fairly well, and his opinions are respectable, even when I don't agree.
_"Should my 10-year-old son take music lessons? [...] Those are hard questions."_ No, Penn, the hard question would be _"can we afford it?"._ Thank you for reminding me that people indeed cannot properly think about what's best for other people, _because we don't think about the actual difficulties that we just happen to be fortunate enough to _*_not_*_ have._
💜
You do not know if he thought about such things or not. For you to come to that conclusion is an assumption of character. You fight a strawman with your argument.
What's an even harder question is, "What skill do I learn to get a better paying job?"
@@Danielle_1234 whatever is the highest-ranking in-demand skill that _you can afford to learn._ nothing is free, especially not learning. Investing time in learning a skill is time you're not putting elsewhere, like on getting income. A lot of people can't/shouldn't spare that time.
“even though I just called her a liar, we know she’s a good and honest person”
Penn has always been the person that I couldn't agree more with....unless you let him speak more then 5mins, and says something so bat shit insane, its mind blowing .
No dem, even that voted for her, would even say that....
I don't agree with the statement about Hillary being honest person, if I may posit a hypothesis, I think he may have meant that you can see right through her not that she was honest, I don't know I'm not in Penn's head but that's just my guess.
i feel the exact same way, there is alot of really bad rumors about hillary, but how much of that is actually true? i mean we know she is definitely out to ban all guns so i strongly dislike her for that. but i think he was just trying to be really humble and say nice things about people. not everyone shares a viewpoint that you should be allowed to own whatever guns you want as long as your a responsible adult and not a complete idiot or psychopath. i was a republican because my family, but i definitely know i am a libertarian now. trump was a republican and as pro gun as he was, he still banned bump stocks and talked with some people about banning so called assault weapons.
This went 180, real quick 🧐
I really enjoyed this one. Because it gets me thinking and looking at different prospectives.
i was forced into music lessons as a ten year old and it was the best thing my parents ever did for me
You shouldn't be forced to learn something that isn't mandatory knowledge for the real world the child should have a choice for things that you don't need to survive in the real world whether that choice ends well or not.
9:50 ish: "A true free market would not create huge companies" I think I disagree. Monopolies are a logical consequence.
Maybe the default is every one has equal money.
At some point a few will stand out for great decisions and get a little bit more money than the others. Now they suddenly can invest more money and get even more.
How can you prevent that in a free market?
Nope. The logical consequence of a free market is continuous division of labor and specialization. Large monopolistic corporations suffer from the same problem governments have: transactions become internalized and impossible to efficiently price. This leads to shortages and surpluses of production.
I disagree, in a continuously computerized world, it is never been an issue.
Partially correct, and partially not at the same time. Yes, some companies will clearly take the forefront and trample competition. However, in our current system that tries to prevent that, it simultaneously and hypocritically promotes it as well - any lobby big enough to have extreme influence in gov't can use that influence to enforce their monopoly indirectly. Look towards big tobacco and big pharma for examples. It's clear we need something different, but 100% free market isn't the answer either, though I believe that would be a step in a BETTER direction than we have at present.
A true free market would've had competition long ago. Industries become huge when they're protected by the government. Look at the taxi industry, they had a straight up monopoly in their respective states and that industry lacked competition so there was price fixing, bad customer service, bad experience, no innovation. Then the free market brought us UBER/LYFT and it finally shattered the government monopoly. Once you understand that corporations pay for government to shield their profits and risk, you will see a clearer picture that free markets isn't the villain but the government you seek to protect you as well.
monopolies are a result of control over exclusivity, usually with help from the government through legislation, subsidies and over-regulation.
Ideally the government is there to maintain the competition in the market and allow those who feel they can provide a better service or product to try, rather than being stopped at the first hurdle.
Penn got up to bat 5 times in this game and went 1 for 5. Hit a home run on his first at bat then whiffed badly with loaded bases the rest of the game.
T.M. Edgar nailed it
To be fair I was with him half way through, and then slowly further more confused each passing moment.
In 5 at bats I would score:
Home run
Hit by pitch
Strike out swinging
Strike out looking
Strike out looking again and ejected for nonsensical argument
I feel like this disregards the idea behind democracy. It’s not about one person making decisions for other but the group making the best decision for the group. Still an interesting discussion and he presents some good ideas. I’m a big fan.
I like Penn but if he really thinks that Trump is worse than Clinton.....
What would it take for you to reconsider?
They're both pieces of shit.
I'd prefer someone in office, who doesn't think I should be criminalized for simply owning an AR-15.
@@brentsealy9623 yes, and both parties would send the police to kill you because you own it.
@@colt45peacemaker I'm not seeing that as much on the right as I am on the left. That being said, there are other aspects of the right, that I'm not in favor with.
Penn, that system you are describing has a name. It's called Canada.
And most European countries.
I will concede that Trump is not a good person. However I think you're being a bit too charitable to Hillary. Her heart is in her pocketbook
Penn has to revisit this. I think his views on Trump will have improved, while become less charitable to Hillary. As staunchly independent as he was here, this was mid 2016, and he was still subjected to a tidal wave of Kool-Aid by the MSM against Trump. I'm not a "Trump guy." I didn't vote for him. I didn't trust him as far as I could throw him with regards to Russia. I'm fairly liberal, even radically progressive on a couple critical issues. Yet I can concede that virtually everything they said about Trump was a lie. Not just a lie, but a projection of their own corruption. Trump may never get his "Great Wall." But he's already achieved a miracle. He is a Great Mirror. All the corruption projected from the establishment and Deep State is being exposed, one week at a time. 2019 has been surreal. Everyone who claimed "Racism!" in lieu of a substantive argument has been revealed to be a racist. Everyone who claimed "Sexism!" has been exposed as a sexist. Every myth has fallen apart. CNN has been exposed as just as much the platform of partisan propaganda as Fox. Buzzfeed has already had 2 major implosions with their narrative backfiring right into their own face, in just the first 2 months of this year. The Covington Kids were vindicated. Jussie Smollett undermined the left with incalculable damage. We're not even 3 full months into the year. And "Trump Russia" - the ONE thing I believed to be enough of an concern (in my view nothing short of an existential threat) - appears to be on the precipice of being debunked.
For way too much of my life, national politics has been more of a popularity contest than a job interview.
I am not Trumps biggest supporter, but he stated what he would do for us. Hillary stated what she would do to us.
The candidates for 2020 are lining up at the starting gate, the DNC has refused to allow Fox to host a debate, but you can bet your beppy than CNN will get one. So the Democrats will get softball questions designed to make them look good rather than address their goals for their terms, and impacts on Americans. The Republicans will not get the same consideration.
Neither party is gonna change their current practices because, what they do now keeps getting them reelected.
It's time to THROW THE BUMS OUT!
Republican and Democrat both. If reelected Trump has only four more years to accomplish anything. The Democrats will fight him at every turn. If we want to keep him then give him a congress that he can work with.
If a Democrat is elected, everything we hold dear in this country is in danger, depending on the ability of the Republicans to stall and delay.
The age of two party politics needs to come to a close. The monopoly of Democrat or Republican being the only choice as long past its prime. It's time to upset the Apple Cart.
We, as a people, need more competeing ideas in Washington DC. The way to do that is for national recognition of several more parties.
Since the Libertarian party is already recognised in most all states let's start there. Find a Candidate that can best expound on the ideas and policies that best explain what Libertarians stand for and aganist, and why it's time for new blood in Washington.
Very true. I wouldn't trust either Hillary or Trump to be around my kid sister, both of them might try to rape her... but Hillary would end up trying to kill her so she couldn't tell anybody what had happened. No comparison between the two, neither are nice but Hillary is pure evil personified.
Financial libertarianism would not make poor people's situation better, it'd just mean the government wouldn't provide any protections to labor against corporatism, ultimately American libertarianism would be a more extreme corporatist stare then we already are
This is literally false, our spending on the poor DWARFS corporate welfare- Medicaid, Medicare, SS, etc. are all a far larger proportion of the budget than any corporate welfare
You do understand social security is deducted separately from income tax and medicare. Originally SS was supposed to be put in an acount for retirement or disability where you would get back what you put in. Basically a government account to ensure americans had retirement funds available. That was supposed to be seperate from tax income and medicare funds. The government wouldn't use it for anything other than Social Security payments to recipients.
Oh... You should also include any gov. Grants, subsidies, and tax breaks, ect. As corporate welfare if they are granted to a buisness entity. This can also include waivers of licensing fees and regulatory fees for certain companies (i.e. big oil, pharma, military industrial, ect...)
@@TheSatyrblue "where you get back what you put in"
What's the debt at now?
If you get out what you pay in then it's just a strictly worse version of a savings account
Well, yes. You cannot budget what you don't take in. Corporate Welfare is a decrease in income, not an increase in expenditure. Put another way, if you only work one day a month and eat at a restaurant that day, it's hardly fair to blame the food policy for being poor.
The 2nd half lost me, but "we don't really feel your Bern, now feel my Johnson" made it worth watching
Wow, I used to think this guy was smart. Obviously I was wrong.
You don't recognize intelligence. You recognize people who are good at articulating your own opinions. Now that an intelligent person WHO YOUVE ALWAYS KNOWN IS INTELLIGENT is saying things contrary to your own opinions, you're convincing yourself that he isnt actually intelligent.
Penn's explanation is the best I've heard. Up till now, almost every other person who has described Libertarianism to me just made it sound like a never ending chorus of , "Yeahhh...that's not our problem" to any world issue that might be occurring.
Why can't I like this ten times.
IKR
You're kidding right???! Yikes
+
Because TH-cam, in this case, will use force to keep you from harming yourself.
Good one.
So... what I'm getting is that Penn supports comunism and freedom... Umm... Dude started strong, but went down a lane that goes into oncoming traffic.
Oncoming traffic 😀lol
Asserting a label invites debate on the label rather than the issue. What do you object to? "The comunism part" Which part is that? "The part with comunism". Why is "comunism" and freedom incompatible? Is your definition of Communism the only valid one? In my experience, discussion devolves into what is and isn't Communism. e.x. The USSR isn't the only form a Communist State can take.
A clearer argument, imo, would be: 7:05 you cannot be free while someone uses a gun to establish welfare.
@@CharacterString Communism and Freedom are as compatible as orange juice and toothpaste bud.
@@MrIDONTKNOW01 Toothpaste contains sodium laurel sulfate which binds to the taste buds that respond to sweetness. Therefore, you can no longer experience sweetness from orange juice, however, you can still experience all its other flavors that are usually masked such as bitterness. Hence, why OJ and toothpaste aren't compatible. Knowing why is helpful, imo, because you could use a toothpaste that doesn't contain SLS or unbind the taste buds first -- bang: orange juice and toothpaste are compatible.
My point is I have no idea why you think Penn supports Communism, nor why you find Communism and Freedom incompatible. You can define Communism so that Penn is a Communist; you can define Communism so Penn isn't a Communist. Just labeling it as Communism doesn't tell me anything.
There are communes that seem free. Gandhi's Tolstoy Farm for example. Perhaps you would argue parental authority means children can never be thought of as free -- okay, that tells me something, and naturally leads to questions of Tacit Consent and the loss of particular freedoms in any society.
@@CharacterString Parents and Government are not meant to have the same association. It's really really simple. True freedom is libitarian. No government is ideal. We should be able to take care of our own without forcing people to pay for things they don't consent to.
I don't want to give up my freedom for 4 years for any reason.
Mike Biro I hear ya me neither my friend me neither👍
@@Veterman2 , I don't think these people get, once they give it up then they never get it back. History shows that!
Mike Biro No no they don’t at all I’m afraid.
Hillary would want to take every right away forever
Bernie is the opposite of libertarianism
"We don't really feel your Bern now feel my Johnson"...lol
I have always been a huge fan of Penn's. Not just as a performer but as a person. He is an example of how folks priorities should be.
Love the ideas but companies would pollute out the wazoo and there would be zero regulations to stop them.
I like the government keeping companies in line.
But they're not doing that at the moment...quite the opposite. We have companies that have a complete lock down on politics, on tax evasion...it's insane.
A good American example is the NRA...but also the Oil industry the world over. These are companies that at this point may as well have sitting members on parliaments in the west for all the power they wield and how little responsibility they have.
+Guy Guisbane I live in Canada. I should have wrote that in the comment. My mistake.
He did say people should be taken care of, and I believe stopping pollution would go under that heading.
Walter Strong It is...total lock down on politics, evades taxation...
+Guy Guisbane The NRA is an association of like minded Americans and doesn't take tax money from the government. This is a valid form of lobbying even if you don't agree with their message. The oil industry does take tax money from the government, so there is a conflict of interest with them lobbying the government.
The Libertarian party need better branding. So many people claim to be Libertarian , but don't behave like it. Penn Jillete, Lary Elders, Harry Browne.
Gary Johnson, Bill Maher are not.
I think that is his point is lets get out of the left vs right camps and look at what we agree on. It's much more than you think.
You can't reason with irrational, and the second you have a team you've become less rational, because having a team by its very nature is irrational. However, to those who have a team, it appears perfectly rational to them. It's very hard to tell when we're being irrational. It's an interesting phenomenon. When is the last time you've been irrational?
hilly cleenton is a GOOD person? Shirley you jest
"We don't really feel your burn. Now feel my Johnson." - Pen Jillette 2016
lol
Why would you not want to help the less fortunate. Why not say I choose to help other's so paying my taxes is something I will do. I get your point and yes big corporate welfare has got to stop. My children all 4 of them paying taxes. And we need more people in the IRS to make sure that the very richest of Americans pay their taxes. So funding the IRS IS A MUST.
Finally a refreshing reasonable person. Thanks Penn!
Making a decision if your child should or should not take music lessons is not a big decision.
Love this guy. He actually does his homework and does his absolute best to be truly fair in his judgements.
Best quote from this video is "we don't feel your burn(Bernie), now feel my Johnson (Gary). 🤣
If he actually did his homework, he would understand that government being a monopoly on violence means that govt. violates the non aggression principle. You can't be a libertarian who believes in the NAP and be a statist. It's a contradiction and anyone who claims to be both is a hypocrite.
@@livewire2759 Yeah I agree but I'm pretty sure he is an anarcho-capitalist (he's said he might be before) he's just trying to convince the pragmatists and people who aren't even close to libertarianism about some libertarian principles
@@averagegenius7212 He's a leftist. He voted for Johnson back then, and he continues to vote mostly for democrats, which means he continues to be a statist. If he considered himself to be anarcho-capitalist, he wouldn't vote. The truth is that he's very articulate and eloquent, but he's just as confused as most swing voters. He's nowhere near anarchistic and damn sure not voluntarian or anti-authoritarian. He's a beginner libertarian at best.
@@livewire2759 I don't know much about him I've just seen a bit of what he's said. If you're an anarcho-capitalist you SHOULD vote just not nationally because third party doesn't have any chance there but locally you should vote libertarian especially in NH.
@@averagegenius7212 I don't think you understand what an anarcho-capitalist is... The first word, "anarcho", as in, anarchy or anarchist, means that we are anti-authoritarian... anti government... anti voting. People who call themselves "libertarian" and vote, don't understand what libertarianism is. The cornerstone of libertarian ideology is the non-aggression principle, or NAP. All forms of govt. use aggression, they all violate the NAP and therefore are not compatible with libertarian ideology.
When you vote, you're saying, "I want THIS candidate to write/pass laws that will be enforced by violence and/or threats of violence if people disobey". That's aggression... indirect, but still aggression. So, if someone like Penn here says they believe in the NAP and they vote... they're being hypocritical. The libertarian party and all of it's members are massive hypocrites. Government is evil and I refuse to actively participate with it.
I like Penn's vision of libertarianism however, what I think we've seen in practice, particularly during this pandemic is what I've learned to dislike about libertarianism: libertarians tend to believe in libertartianism like Ayn Rand - it's all about me. I think Penn's version of libertarianism has a moral quality that most libertarians do not share - let's face it, most libertarian-minded people voted for and support Trump. Still. After a coup attempt no less. Trump is an authoritarian and should be, from a libertarian perspective, should be antithetical to a libertarian's belief system.
I've often said that nobody with any sense should be a libertarian after the age of 25. I understand the compunction but, in practice, it's a selfish ideology, And we've seen that during the pandemic where libertarian types act as if they're freedom fighters when, in reality, they are selfish and uncaring. They have no problem killing Grandma as long as their view of not being told to what to do, even if it is temporary (a slightly ill-defined temporary), is infringed. They have no problem sacrificing Grandma on the alter of "their" freedom because their rights are more important.
Incidentally, I don't think Penn Jillette necessarily conforms to this version of libertarianism. I think he views libertarianism within the strictures of a moral environment.
I'm most libertarian on free-speech. My view is that this is the most inviolable of rights. But, I must say, the last four years have made me reconsider to an extent. I still don't particularly care how one expresses oneself: that neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. However, constant lies or disinformation does damage discourse and democracy. And, frankly, I don't have a good solution for how we maintain a libertarian view on free speech while stamping out dangerous lies - democracy and policy don't work well with lies. Lies are the ace in the hole of the authoritarian or fascist, not of democracy. In other words, you can free-speech the truth all you want but the lies seem to win. How do we stamp out the lies while maintaining one of our most precious rights - freedom of speech? One man's lie is another man's political philosophy.
How do we protect the best of freedom of speech while trampling the lowest and most worthless of free speech without damaging the best?
I used to think that I mostly agreed with Penn. It's down to
this was 2016 give Penn a chance to repent Trump has done an amazing job but it could all disappear if we vote the Communist Party of the Democrats in office.
I don't believe Hillary gives a $#@! about anyone but herself, and I don't believe she is competent enough to hold any public office. I would cast my vote for Hitler before I'd vote for that woman.
Switch Trump with Hillary and I agree. I don't think Hillary would be good for the country, but I do think that Trump would be flat out dangerous.
There are enough checks and balances to stop Trump from fucking up too bad, but no one can stand against Hillary.
I am genuinely, truly afraid that Trump's ego would start World War 3. I honestly believe that if Trump becomes president, it might the last election the U.S. ever has.
Yeah, I'll choose bad choice over dangerous choice every time.
"I would cast my vote for Hitler before I'd vote for that woman."
Since I don't think many people are that stupid, you are probably joking but incase you aren't:
If you are serious that you would vote for Hitler over Hillary, you have a very skewed moral compass. As bad as Hillary would be, how corrupt she is and how she is going to be if she becomes president, I don't see it likely that she's going to run a dictatorship and genocide an entire group of people.
Exactly how I feel. I don't like either candidate, but at least Hillary has some ideas and some experience. Trump is essentially a 5 year old in a toupee throwing a temper tantrum, and middle america eats it up for some reason.
I need to educate myself on Gary Johnson a bit more. I was a staunch Bernie supporter, but even I realized that many of the things Bernie wanted to accomplish were pipedreams in 2016 America. I mean every decent European nation has those things, but yeah... not in America. Helping the poor is somehow seen as superfluous here.
So close to being so right.. but you definitely lost me at Hillary is a good person. Then you said Bernie Is experienced at Government.. both of these are absolutely false.
I think he only said that to keep the people who voted for Hillary on his side and to calm the masses and if you disagree with that than you must also disagree with Trump because they day after Trump got in office he did something similar. Also he roast Hillary more times in this video than supported her so I think you are another person taking one line out of context.
I agree with the consensus of these posters.. He starts off GREAT, and then goes completely off the rails. First part- "Keep govt. small to prevent corruption." Second part- "We need big govt to take care of everybody." Speaking as a Libertarian, I love ya, man, but you can't have it both ways.
So Libertarianism is saying, "I don't know, and I can't know, so I won't." Though the first part is accurate, to make this world a better place it's the job of political figures to figure out the answer to the middle point, so the latter point is not the issue. The problem currently is that politicians think they know, and don't. We won't get any further by not knowing and not fixing problems, but at the same time we won't get further by fixing nothing because we "don't know." You need to get involved in other people's lives to figure out what's wrong and help them fix what is.
You can't be a helpful human being by sitting idle and saying, "Oh, I'm just going to fix what problems have a directly foreseeable affect on me," because the problem with that logic is that 1. That's a selfish mode of thinking, and 2. Everything anyone does has an affect on someone else, and so on until the affect reaches you. For instance if we have a bunch of morons who are so blind to logic have the ability to vote we'll have a moron for president, and this country will fall further into a hole. If we take the time to educate those people then you as well as I will be much better off since we won't have a bunch of dullards with pulling power. It's an overly simplistic example, but you get the point.
The whole apathetic viewpoint is good to an extent, but not everything. Yes, "who cares" about gays, because there's nothing inherently wrong about two adult men or women hooking up because there's a connection/whatever you want to call it. There is a problem however, with people's values amounting to being prideful about it. There comes a problem when the value of being gay takes precedence over the people IE "Gay Pride" or whatnot. It's how we get to transgressive points, so in retrospect we need things to be moderate, not apathetic.
The problem with freedom is that people take it a little too far. You have Colorado for example. Suicide rates went way up since weed legalization. Some people can't handle the responsibility freedom entails, so saying, "Yeah, go ahead and do crack" is an incredibly bad idea - a good idea to have addicts spring up all over the place because they can't find the money to get their fix? No sir.
"Whatever you think is right" problem with that is, a lot of people *aren't* right.The teenage girl example is one of someone who doesn't know what's best for them - they cannot be responsible - you can't be responsible for something you do not know. When I was 19 - knew how to maintain a 180 gallon aquarium, honor student in college, walked a dog, took care of a cat, a bearded dragon, had a part time job washing dishes - sure, I was knowledgeable, but that does by no means mean I know what's best for me. Shit - compared to myself just three years ago I was a fucking dullard. If I decided to drop out and go work at a gas station that would've been a huge mistake, because I didn't know what was best. Just because someone makes an off decision and it works doesn't mean it's best for them - so I got a manager position. Great, but that doesn't beat out my scholarship to a private university now. Point being a lot of time people don't know what's best for them, and if you know and they don't it's a common human decency to inform them of their better opportunity and make sure they understand what they're missing. If they still continue to choose the not so great option then that's their prerogative, but at least you did your part in informing them.
The whole argument of "is my life better" makes this man look like a value-neutral cur to be honest. Yes, your life was better. How? Considering that a life of drugs (materialism driven by addiction), sex (materializing human beings as sex objects) doesn't constitute happiness yeah - I'd say the guy with a wife and kids is "happier" - has a better life - than the rock singer who died at 27. At that age you don't even know what the good life is shown clearly by his decisions. You judge the value of something to figure out who had what. Saying "I don't know" is just sidestepping around the bush that everyone should be looking in: judge it. I don't know why people are so afraid to judge the actions of other people - it's how everything functions. I mean, for God's sake how did you pick out your shirt in the morning? Did you just reach in and grab the thing and slap it on, even if it's backwards? No - you looked at what you had to choose from and your brain automatically started making a decision - a judgement - on which outfit would work best for the day. You do the same thing with cereal, road directions, and especially *people* since they're the most influential parts of our lives. Don't be afraid to say, "Yeah, my life is better than a drug addict" or what not, especially if it is.
Libertarianism is apathy, and apathy doesn't solve problems.
i.huffpost.com/gen/1542573/thumbs/o-BODY-EMOTIONS-900.jpg?2
This is the body on infrared. You tell me which is the "best" since, as human beings we're emotional creatures. Telling me that the blackest one (neutral AKA apathy) is the best stance to take is *wrong.* Yes, *wrong.* That's a judgement based on a fact. If you say being apathetic is correct then I'm obligated to inform you of as to why you're incorrect (life is lived through emotion, not the neglect of them/an uninvolvement in the world around you) and hope that you'll understand as to why. I'm not going to put a gun to your head and make you understand (because you won't that way anyway) but I'm not going to allow falsity to spread and "not care", because falsity existing in the society that I'm a part of is *my responsibility* as well - it's *my* society too, and it affects *me* just as much as anyone else, so why would I - a person that values truth - allow falseness to exist in my home? I wouldn't.
Hate to break it to you too, but rich people aren't fundamentally reliant on *just one form of government* either. You do some taxy, no-rich guy shit here? Off to China. The problem currently is that rich people have money, and money is power. You're not taking the power they already have, and you won't even if you make the government smaller - the bribes they're giving will just get bigger to the fewer people you have set up in office. It's a predicament - the more people you have in office the more people that can get corrupted, but the less people you have in office the more crucial each member is, thus if they're all pocketed by a company, you're fucked even more. So you either have a huge government regulating the economy, or you have a small government unable to regulate big business. You're fucked either way.
The problem with the Hillary argument is that no matter what she says she's not honest, and she's not a good person. 1. Killing people just to kill them is unjust. Unjustified killing isn't good, so she's not good. 2. Lying and saying you're honest isn't honesty. Actions > words. Showing that you're a liar makes you a liar, saying you're not doesn't change it. Bam. Problem solved.
Trump wants to deport people from different countries. Bigoted. There's no logical deduction as to how he'll fix anything. There's no proof - the same with Hillary.
We have two tyrants running in office. It's not going to end well. Hillary and Trump both have that idealistic "I know what's best" theory, but they're completely impractical with it, so they really don't. If you had a man that could *prove* that he knew what was best for people (or women, or what the fuck ever) then I'd be inclined to vote for them. But this? This is just a bunch of power-hungry politicians wanting to fabricate the world into their own little warped image. This is not progress, but then again neither is being apathetic.
Sanders will not work either. You can't have an emotional paradigm guide anything. You can't have a government run on by what's "fair" because fair doesn't exist - it's a concept created by people to use for a social advantage. If someone else gets a banana leaf and someone else doesn't, "it's not fair!" and behold as they split the leaf. It's a tactic that's been evolved as a biased means for survival, nothing more. It's a flawed concept to base your ideology off of, and it's not how the world works, hence why socialism never will. Everyone "getting the same" isn't the same - 2,000 calories to a body builder isn't the same as 2,000 calories to a petite woman in her 60's. Bernie won't work, Trump won't work, Hillary won't work, Libertarianism won't work. You need a candidate who's involved enough to know what's best, but at the same time know when they're crossing a personal line into people's lives.
Another issues with your Bernie problem is that a lot of people capitalize off welfare and government aid. So you'd effectively be supporting people who are corrupt, which was the problem you had with supporting big business IE corruption. You're either supporting corruption one way, or the other. We've heard all sides of the argument - libertarianism, liberalism, conservative - and none of it works. A new ideology that's *moderate* needs to be put in place. We can't have apathy, but we can't have over involvement. We can't have all drugs be legal because there are plenty of people who'll abuse them and cause many more problems than we already have, but completely eliminating them isn't going to stop them from coming in either. Giving people random checks = corruption. What do you think they'll use it for? Themselves in most cases. So you're just effectively supporting the thing you're standing against, or effectively supporting them contributing nothing because, let's face it, if they're getting enough money to support themselves *for free* why the fuck would they put forth any work if their goal is to make money to sustain themselves? They wouldn't and that would be a burden on society. We can't have that.
You want individuals to have more money in their pockets, but individuals more often than not spend it on selfish things that *you will then legalize* IE drugs etc., or will donate to charities that are anything but - yeah, a good majority of charities dip into those funds - over payed employees, straight up stealing from their funds - so in retrospect that'd just be feeding to the problem as well. To boot, if you give people more money, they'll buy more shit. Where's the shit come from? Corporations mostly, so you'd effectively be funding the people your perspective originally stood against. People at the base level are the problem - not corporations directly. All these problems now exist because *the common man has allowed them to.* We bought from Wal-Mart, we went to Costco - we fund these big businesses, we vote for these political idiots, we give donations to charity which are then used for personal gains on both sides (because charity corruption, as well as it not being charitable on our account as saying, "I donate to charity" isn't charitable at all - it's exchanging currency for reputable gain IE "Look how good I am! I donated to charity!"). The problems we see today are created because people like us allowed them to exist - people like us *were apathetic to other people's issues.* We wouldn't have people in office like this if we all did our part, spoke out, and said, "No dude, your viewpoints are shit and *here's why:* "
If color and gender isn't a big deal for you, then why does it matter if a President is black, white, or female? It doesn't. Take a page out of your own book and stop being a hypocrite. To boot, what makes Bernie "good"? Because he's a socialist? There's plenty of reasons as to why that's not a good value - supporting those who don't want to contribute, idealistic theories that are disastrous in practice, entitlement, and much, much more - so that "good person" argument is out the window. Don't use subjective terms in a logistical debate when you're trying to make a point, because that's not how a perspective is proved to be fact and correct, it shows a lack of supporting evidence when you make a subjective clam. This is political - we need objectivity.
Why do we have two tyrants? Because money is the driving factor that produces candidates. Money is power apparently, so when your value is currency - power - who are the people that are going to get elected? Those people who have money. You're effectively setting up the kind of people you want to run for office when you set cash as a prerequisite, not actual value that constitutes more than materialism. The reason we don't have Bernie in office is because we know socialism does not work, and all it produces is entitled people who act like children as adults, feeling like they "deserve" free things when in reality the reason they don't have anything is because they were never taught to work. Yeah, it sucks having no money - I'm a college student for God's sake - but handing it out for free so that uneducated people can do with it what they will? That's a bad fucking idea. Having two tyrants running for election? Again, bad fucking idea. Being apathetic and legalizing everything? People are irresponsible, and a vast majority of the time don't know what's best for them, so again - bad idea. This whole video is just... a bad idea.
If you want a society of good people you have to start *with the person.* You can't just eliminate all these checks and balances without eliminating the negativity on the personal level. How do you do that? Education in morals, ethics, history, science, psychology - an *actual well rounded education and not this calculus for high school students - the thing that they'll never use again.* You want people to be happy? Teach them that freedom is a great value, but also teach them how to fucking use it - teach them that happiness isn't materialism IE smoking dope, having sex with whoever they want, and eating until their fat, and that they shouldn't do it just because they can. You're going to have a society of tyrannical degenerates, or a society of materialistic degenerates in the former or the latter version. None of this is going to work and that's that.
The fundamental question that your perspective asks is wrong, Mr. Penn. "Should I care?" is horrifically flawed - of course you should - about everyone in society and every event that happens, because in some way it all comes back to you. The real question is "Out of all the other things, is this worth caring more about?"
I actually took the time to read-through both of your posts, and understand what you're saying.
Are you voting this November 8th?
I hope you are, and by the time you enter that booth - you will cast your vote for the person you come to realize, will be the best (at this moment in time) for America.
Another question for you ...you malign Mr. Trump by saying he's a bigot, and as a reason for not being a good candidate for president. However, you've posted nothing else to discredit the man, except to acknowledge the derogatory propaganda-spin we've all endured throughout this election run-up - and of course you despise that he is wealthy - although he's become wealthy because of the very reasons you've described as making us all good Americans, and good people in general - through hard work, self-reliance, work ethic, etc.
What I'd like to know, what are the defining reasons you will give for your vote selection, and will you ignore that rectangle-box in the livingroom long enough to make YOUR OWN decision?
+Grimm Tale He is not smarter than anyone, he is not a good honest person. He is a known sociopath and alleged billionaire. Willful ignorance and thin skin are more bad qualities he has. I'm a republican but I'll be voting Johnson, maybe Clinton, but never for that loser who litigates rather than pays his debts.
Grimm Tale Bigotry implies ignorance. Making money and being "successful" in a monetary standard isn't at all proving to be a good person. The standard with which we get candidates is contradictory to the value we want out of them - you want just people, but just people aren't materialistic bigots, so again, Trump isn't a good candidate by any stretch of the imagination.
He's been shown saying things like "Mexicans are rapists" as well as believing that we should deport all illegals. First off, the former is just ignorant. Second, if you deport all illegals there will be so many job voids to fill - that most people don't want to do in the first place - that the economy will suffer. Second, American workers require more pay to do the same job, so you're effectively supporting less people *by* eliminating illegals. Do I like people illegally crossing the border? Nope. Do I like that our hospitals pay for them to have children here? No. Is there a way for us to stop them from avoiding taxation like they are now? Yes.
As for voting, it's my freedom as an American citizen not to. I don't support either candidate, so I won't.
Matthew Sobke What is good actually *is* everyone's business and isn't subjective. Is it good to be an addict? Nope. That's not subjective. You're trying to remain value-neutral and look at this as if there's no legitimate "good" or "bad" - like the world is not a biased place, but sadly for your point of view that's not how it works. Yes, there are ultimate goods and bads, and the fact that you think otherwise doesn't change this.
"Do what you will" is literally apathy. It's to not care about the actions of others unless the effect is direct which, news flash, the indirect effects are the ones that produce direct effects, so stating that people shouldn't care about the indirects are consequently saying that people shouldn't care about any effects, as that's where they all originate. Read through the full post and maybe you'll catch that example.
Based on feelings? That's not how logic works. That's not how objectivity works. You're acting as if there's no objectivity in politics which is extremely ignorant. *The* problem we have right now is that we have two candidates giving subjective snippets rather than objective fact. We have yet to hear anything truthful from either candidate. As for me? Being a drug addict isn't good. That's objective. There's a whole collection of books as to why that statement is true if you really want to get into it. As far as I'm concerned it seems that I'm more objective and truthful with my statements than both candidates, so in retrospect why am I not president? Oh, right - money.
So you're saying that letting a bunch of drug addicts steal goods to sell at chop shops for money because they can't get their fix is a good thing? Yeah, no. Freedom isn't inherently bad, but the people - who of the vast majority will - abuse it are. You're relying on the majority of humanity being decent, which is a horrible oversight to make because the majority of humanity is not, hence why we're in this situation in the first place.
Yes, a lot of people know better than others, but it's weeding out those people that actually do from the people that think they do that's the problem. The fact that you think there's no "good" or "bad" and that everyone should just be allowed to do things free of consequence or value-based judgement is ludicrous. There's not even a system there - there's "do what you want" which isn't a way of functioning at all - it's the absence *of* a system, which is why we have government - a system - in the first place. Lack of = apathy. You're literally supporting an apathetic system, which will cause nothing but problems.
When you said we should try Socialism, you lost all credibility.
Socialism has many faces, not all aspects are bad. Kind of like guns, it's the person who uses it.
@@tylersizelove7521 So it's the Socialist that are bad but not Socialism itself? That literally makes absolutely no sense.
Socialism is Socialism no matter how you slice it. Not only that, but Socialism can not exist without Capitalism.
This is from 2016.... Hey Penn! Care to to do a follow up?