Shawn Cain Ugh, fucking socialists and their blood soaked worship of state, go wear out your gums on some other pro-fascists wank fest youtube channel. For people who support freedom can't see eye to eye with an emotional authoritarian incapable of reason.
Shawn Cain Oh why don't you go to a place that cares like China or North Korea. Idk and I don't care...Go to the moon for all I care. There wouldn't be a black market mafia because the very idea of a black market mafia would violate a libertarian state where everything is allowed as long as it doesn't harm others... So a black market mafia would be illegal. You socialist pigs need to think with your brains every so often...
+xXJAKMACKXx can i ask what is the ideal for Christians in a libertarian mind. or do they not care but just a thought, are there alot of athiest in it OR more religious people thanks i hope you can answer my question
+chief wiggums Nice show of your religious devotion there, I know you won't actually seek the answers to your points, because your points have been shot to death in the past. This is like a creationist bringing up the missing link.
+Ed Lesperance YOU FORGOT ONE TINY THING .... YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN BECAUSE YOU ARE A SHEEP ....JUST TRYIN TO COMPLETE YOUR LIST . NO NEED TO THANK ME .. IT'S THE LEAST I CAN DO .
@THomas Girlman: On what are you basing your statements? The way I read it, those who disagree with you are "LIBERTARIANS ARE OBEDIENT KOCH BROTHERS MONKEYS . GIVE A LIBERTARIAN AN ORGAN GRINDER AND HE WILL WORK FOR PEANUTS " no matter what they believe.
I am a libertarian because if I want to move to the Rocky Mountains and start a pot farm while I snort cocaine and eat foie gras and sit on a couch made out of my own hair.... I should be able to without any government interference. Not that hard of a concept.
I fail to see why you SHOULDN'T be able to do that. As long as you aren't harming anyone else and enjoy what your doing, you should be able to do whatever you want.
Redant23 False. Libertarians think there is such a thing as limited power. Anarchists are honest enough with themselves to admit there is no such thing. It's not anarchists who want to impose their will on others, that would be people who advocate governance.
Libertarianism isn''t this complicated. You believe in individual liberties over the governing rule. It doesn't have a limit on the size of government.
...hmm, no. I assert that the truth IS more important than my ego. And since my ego is no more or less than any other ego, then so too is the truth more important than any ego. Therefore, condescension remains an available tool, IF it achieves the goal of transmitting the truth. Manipulation, of course, remains unacceptable. Basically when I argue, I may be an asshole, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. If you reject my "correctness" because your "ego" was "bruised" then all I'm going to do is laugh at how pathetic and weak your ego is anyway.
Because I support a gay married couple defending their pot farm with firearms. Neither political party does that. Political parties are similar to religion in that they support continuing a narrative as opposed to critical thinking.
You forgot naive, and misanthropic. Seriously, every...single...libertarian I have ever met has been very strange. They are outsiders by nature. I have known a lot of true libertarians and they are all weird. I'll bet there are a lot of only children who are libertarian.
Gurimbom *" It is a common rhetorical tactic to try to discredit a political philosophy by criticizing the characteristics of its proponents."* - Yes, it's a common fallacious tactic used by people who are either afraid to think or unable to think, and typically angry and cynical because they ultimately know that their world views are undefendable and contradictory.
Diginess Unknown Yeah I believe Capitalism can work. Same with left and right politics. It's people that always screw it up(God Damn People) If we could just find a way to get rid of them.
Thanks for answering, but, what would people who need SSI and SSDI do to stay alive do if they can't work? Do they just die off or do you have ideas how to keep them alive?
I have a question for Libertarians. I am a Liberal with typically left-leaning 'biases'; i.e. Universal Healthcare, Social Security, Environment, Banning of Automatic firearms, Midigation of Corporate influence, etc. What are the typical Libertarian views on these subjects? I am very interested in your philosophy and am curious of how these concerns will be dealth with in a Libertarian socety. Love some feedback.
Uhh Can someone explain? Penn Jillette is a cool dude but I don't see how what he is describing has anything to do with libertarianism? ''Be open to the other person's heart'' ??? Property rights? the NAP? He mentioned none of those
It might make more sense to you if you catch what I think is a much longer interview with Caleb Brown. It was in the daily podcast some years ago in Nov/Dec, my memory wants to say. It's a very interesting conversation; I kept a copy on my iPod until it died.
The rules that PJ lays out for himself in the interview are based on using only moral means to the end of advancing and communicating truth. Penn first discusses how he sees the truth in his job, because lying to an audience is basic to magic, maybe more than any other performance art. Penn says that he and Teller try to fuse their worldviews into their act as to keep it truthful to some respect. He explains that to him, that service to truth needs to spill into other parts of your life, especially when you explore issues with your social and work life. "Don't preach" you'll hear him say; that means being upfront with what you believe. DON'T falsely equivocate or present squishy versions of your beliefs to advance your worldview. Penn has better real life examples, but the method is like this: a preacher will ask a new person what they believe on the topic of the preacher's choice, than when they get an answer and are expected to reciprocate with an answer, the preacher will coach and calculate their response so as to make the tent they represent in politics, religion or philosophy
*calculate their answer to bring that person into the preacher's tent, whether that tent is a political, religious or otherwise philosophical view. Penn points out that if you preach, you register at some degree of sliminess and dishonesty. I also think that you may lose track of your own principles if you're always trying to adapt them to who(m)ever you meet, and the practice turns real people into points in a game that only desperate people play. Being honest makes you a better communicator, a better thinker and helps you keep within ethical boundaries. The parallels to libertarianism are not only to how to discuss your principles with everyday people, but also realizing that libertarian principles can' be violated to reach its goals. At least that's what I got from it.
+MrUbister - Exactly. I clicked on this because I thought he was actually going to explain libertarian ideas in an understandable way. No such luck. No offense intended to Mr. Jillette, I like the guy, but this video's contents doesn't match the title.
IMHO, every political philosophy breaks down when take to extremes. I definitely lean libertarian but I also have some conservative views and even some liberal views. To just box yourself into something specific is short sighted. Then there is the practical vs working with what can realistically be done.
Oh, okay. Anyway, why do you think it's primitive and what amazing advanced system do you present as an alternative? I'm not really in the mood to fight right now (I might be by the time you reply), I'm just curious.
It seems to be a lot of conservatives who are just glad he believes in small government. Me, I love what he said all the way around, especially about open discussion.
Is not that a part of property rights. The owner of a certain property can do whatever he wants to that property. However, if he wants sales to come through, He has an incentive to keep it clean and/or please customers. Niagra falls is pretty pristine itself.
I think the whole theme of changing people's minds deserves to be in the limelight. Generally, Libertarians utilize logic and facts to arrive at truths (Is their reasoning always right and without holes? no.) People who have a propensity towards this kind practice tend to want to debate and convince others because Libertarian counter-arguments are many times absent of reasoning/truth. The problem is that most people are vested in their belifs (especially the older they get). Opponents of Libertarianism can argue that Libertarians too are just defending a dogma. Still, I would disagree with Penn and say that a Libertarian should still try to persuade not because they want to change others people's minds, but so they can also to find truths and strengthen ideas. It's fun too >:)
And name me one time throughout history that governments have actually done what they are suppose to? There is no consistency in being a libertarian as you must support usage of immoral acts to get what you want. See you still vote and voting is enforcing your will/opinion over people with a threat of violence, nothing moral about any belief in government.
No, the use of force is necessary for self-defense and to resolve civil disputes. Consistent libertarianism acknowledges that government should have a monopoly on the use of force, and that it must be subordinate to an objective rule of law. Rather than allowing individuals or mobs to use force according to their own subjective idea of justice. The best example of anarchy is the wild west where civil disputes were resolved with a duel or someone getting shot in a bar, and that kind of justice and use of force is far from desirable.
I dont disagree with your arguement but have you ever been bitten by a cat...I had a cat to jump up on my arn, latch on with his claws, and bit down on the crook of my arm twice. I had a total of 8 punture wound and 4 of those pretty bad from the canine teeth. A huge brusie developed and I was very sore for several day. I wore scar patches for about 8 weeks and still have little scars there. It was not a good experience....
I believe we have an obligation to each other, a social contract. Alot of these right wing ideas on freedom are glorified versions of social Darwinism. I don't fear government nor do I think it is the problem. Corruption of government by lobbyists and dark money is not the same as Government. I don't think the free market is always the best decider and often a terrible way to reallocate resources being exploitive of vulnerable people whilst over compensating many on rank or undue privilege. Above all of these considerations is the repugnance of reducing freedom to mean freedom in the consumer sense, the economic incentive context alone and all too often a double standard on the role of government and individual Liberty. Where Regulation of a woman's womb is pushed along with what chemicals I can ingest but background checks for some Firearms is the hand of big government. Credit however where credit is due. During the 1980's Conservatives destroyed the image of Liberalism and progressive politics by reducing complex ideas into cookie cutter sound bites and paying little regard to factual evidence. The left still can't compete when it comes to messaging and the packaging of ideas..
You say: _"I believe we have an obligation to each other, a social contract."_ - Yet I haven't ever signed one, nor seen evidence that _any_ historical state was ever started by social contractual agreement. If one still takes the premise as correct however, one could potentially use this 'obligation' to justify literally any gruesome act, whether it be forced sex, forced labor, or forced suicide. Hence, it is a very strange moral method to try and justify anything if its implications run counter to your own ethical beliefs.
If Libertarians succeed, the result will be hunger for millions. There are 80 million people drawing some sort of assistance. End gov''t support and flood the job market, depressing wages for the existing force. It would be a return to the poverty of the 30's, political instability, unrest, and repression. As a system it wouldn't last, and it would be replaced with a less freer system. The history of revolution is a sad , repetitive one. We have 3 hots and a cot, the system works.
bruceduece1 You're forgetting the part where the government would take less of our tax money... since they don't need to fund all of these support programs, they wouldn't need as much. That would let people get more money from their paychecks, which would allow them to spend more money, which would bolster the economy, which would create more jobs.
I agree, but if you reject the assumptions of Murray Rothbard or Ron Paul, you will be called a statist and/or a socialist by our compassionate libertarian friends online. Their ideology ignores the basic human tendency to fail: in the libertarian world, if you make poor investments or have bad timing in stocks, or fail to save enough money for retirement because you have to pay for short-term living expenses, you are deemed careless and are shunned for not taking personal responsibility in life. Libertarians argue that those who do manage to fall between the cracks will be taken care of by charity, absent the fact that such a fanciful world never existed. They erroneously point to the world before state welfare, when the church essentially forced peasants to forgo a significant portion of their harvests for crusades and almsgiving programs (tithes). They seem to forget that no state-level society (Mesopotamia, Ancient Greece, Qin China) has functioned without taxes and “immoral government robbery” of income. I am very upset with this notion that we supposedly have to dismantle every government program dating back to the Progressive Era to preserve their notion of freedom. And I’m sorry for their ambition to see the best in mankind, but the mere manner people on both the political left and right treat others around them is enough proof that we are not as caring or loving as we think we are. To that end, I like paying into Social Security and Medicare, in part, because I understand that no actual “Ponzi scheme” would dare cut payments to current beneficiaries or tighten age and eligibility requirements to stabilize its supposedly “broken” model, which has been declared bankrupt by libertarians for a number of decades now. Another major flaw with libertarianism is that they seem to refute the very concept of a “public good.” Roads and clean air, for example, are two arguments that can be seen easily within the flimsy libertarian economic model. They say that infrastructure can be fully privatized, as they are apt to hand everything over to their invisible hand, and they point to the success of toll highways as evidence their ideas are valid. They conveniently forget that other roads are “non-excludable”, such as back alleys and streets within rural areas. Moreover, the central-planning they fear so much of has facilitated the construction of Manhattan’s street grid and the interstate highway system, which is undoubtedly so efficient and advanced, no single corporation could have paid or planned to build it. Also, It is understandable that rivers and some coasts can be sold off to various businesses, but libertarianism’s weakest argument lies within regulation of clean air. They refer back to their classical liberal theorist Locke, and argue that government serves a legitimate purpose protecting property rights. If someone pollutes the air, they (I’m literally not kidding) believe the person who has been harmed by pollution must take the business to court. They are not capable of acknowledging the obvious imbalance in legal funding and resources that large companies have over individual people, and it places a larger burden on the victim to prove wrongdoing, rather than admit that industry has an inherit tendency to emit pollutants. Rather than subscribe to the conservative “cap-and-trade” model that has already been endorsed by economists from across the ideological spectrum, they would prefer to flood the courts with “property rights” cases which supposedly will end the phenomenon of pollution. Therefore, if I turn on my car, or mow my lawn, I already have a right under the libertarian legal system to sue the polluter. Yes: it’s that ridiculous. Anyone with a disposition towards accepting modern society could argue for days on end against this broken theory. I don’t disagree with everything they put forward, especially when it comes to imperialism and the federal reserve, but I strongly believe most of the ideology is paper-bound; not practical. I’m looking forward to the inevitable rebuttals.
***** I agree with your sentiments on pollution and road tax... However, On your first point, I don't think we should force people to help somebody else if they've failed. Playing the stock market is a risk, and it should be treated like one. Saving for retirement is a nice thing to do, to be able to not have to work anymore and rest on your laurels, but I don't think it should be some kind of human right... so I feel like those are both somewhat weak examples. Helping people out shouldn't be a government mandate, something along the lines of KickStarter would be much more appropriate. It should be an individual's choice if they want to help out somebody in need. You underestimate the good will of people, just because we see so many uncharitable and greedy people in the world... and this is coming from somebody who only makes about 60 bucks per month as an entrepreneur. Tax dollars shouldn't be going to people as handouts, they should be going into roads, schools, and things that will undoubtedly make our society better. Some libertarians would disagree with me on that last statement, but that's okay... I'm not entirely libertarian, myself. I just feel like there's a bunch of pointless government programs that tax dollars are being wasted on that should probably get shut down, so taxes can be lowered, so that people can choose how to spend their money on their own.
***** I agree with you on all points, which can be summed as Libertarians demand anarchy. Their position has 2 major flaws. The first is that the power vacuum created by dismantling gov't would be filled by corporations and the wealthy. The 2nd flaw is that an aristocracy of wealth would result with separate laws for different classes. Who would defend the constitution after gov't was stripped of power? You're right about roads, too. Libertarianism is disguised elitism and outright fascism in a very pure sense.
@@46_and28 First of all I didn't imply atheism by force. In fact I didn't imply capitalism or civil liberties by force either. This would be like - fall in love with me or I'll kill you. Good luck with that. I meant atheism as a choice of an enlightened society, one that has passed the point of believing fairy tales written hundreds or thousands of years ago and switched to a science based worldwiew. Just like an enlightened society would also choose the second and third points as well.
Maybe. Perhaps. How about the following adjustment: 1. Atheism 2. Capitalizing our Wants 3. Socializing our Needs 4. Civil Liberties (which, let's face it, would, by definition, be intrinsically extrapolated from the previous 3 reasons)
@@LV-426... *ponders* Mathematically speaking, universal basic income IS feasible. So, what do you mean, "nonsense"? Oh, I see, the idea of "universal basic income" pisses off your ego, and triggers your short sighted survival instincts. Even though it would work, you don't "like" it, so you call it nonsense to protect your fragile emotions. Ugh.
Hey i agree with you but there was a missed up thing at my school I was going to vote ( School Voting BS ) they said pick ether Obama or Romney. I said " What if you are a libertarian" and she said that is a waste of a vote. I replied why is there only two parties when there are lot more then that and this forces younger people to pick only two parties instead of knowing there is more then one. So me and half of my class did not vote for ether parties,
What about it? Maybe there's an alternative meaning to it that I'm not aware of, but I remember he mentioned it one time in an interview that it was homage to his mother, to remember her by. So... what about the red pinky nail? O.o
My opinion is that lower taxes, at least corporate taxes on small businesses, will create more incentives for small businesses to expand, thus reducing unemployment, while simultaneously thrusting more wealth into economic circulation. Also, the more expansion as a result of lower business taxes results in higher wages for employees, and that money is spent, and circulated throughout the economy. Anyone's thoughts?
A very difficult question for libertarian: What do you think about the American sport? In Belgian we don't have something like “The Draft”. In Belgian soccer is the choice from the wage, and who plays in which club a negotiation from the club and the player. In European soccer is NO minimum wage and NO maximum wage. Or is the question about economies and sport a little bit too difficult for you? :) I'm curious.
This isn't even remotely a difficult question. Sports leagues are private enterprises which can set up whatever rules they want about how they're run. There is no "libertarian" opinion about sport, other than that the government shouldn't be involved in it at all.
Ryan Posly American football is not good for the competition, European football is much better for the competition. If you believe in the libertarian religion.
10 років тому+5
There isn't any libertarian religion. Libertarianism is a political philosophy and doesn't pretend to be anything else. PS: BTW, in English the name of the country is Belgium, you should know this, especially if you live there.
Exactly. And we sort of know what that is: justice is fairness. I'm way too tired to do this now. But I assume you've read Rawls, or some version of his argument.
Also, it's the free market folks that make the same error of non sequitur assuming that because the particular mix of govt & private sector fails to solve a problem, therefore govt is the problem. Maybe the problem isn't simply that because a particular govt "intervention" policy has failed (probably due to a bad political compromise) that intervention itself is wrong.
I'm not trying to make fun of Mr. Jillette or anything - I'm just curious: I've never heard of this Brown fellow. Who is he? I'm a Republican (officially), but am thinking of going Libertarian, by the way.
A free market is not a myth, and you can 100% create the conditions that allow it. Please tell me what you think prevents it? It's difficult for me to provide reasons it can, because there is no reason it can't. present the points that you believe prevent it and we can go from there.
Not really. Jails, police are constitutional due to the General Welfare Clause. But, Most of these services are state and local institutions deemed by a smaller constituent. Also, most police and firemen are becoming voluntary.
I guess the premise of your question is another we must both truthfully answer: is it sometimes necessary to violate our conceptions of morality in order to do what is moral? Tell me, which is the greater evil, stealing from others to do good or trying to find other ways, knowing failure is possible? Abdicating the necessity of a uniform application of morality may have commendable utility in the moment, but doing so sets an awful precedent, as we have seen in the past and are seeing today.
Hey partner how are you doing? I'm reading your comments on the penn jillettte thing. Im coming in a few minutes late on the covo. I can tell that you enjoy debate, as do I. And I absolutely love that no curse words or slander is coming from your fingertips. That's rare in live debate,not to mention youtube debates. Anyway, you are a socialist? I would like to converse if you don't mind.
Well if the limited state simply enforces contracts and raises armies, then none. But they would wield enormous economic power that would, in my view, create a totally unjust society because pure market transactions don't ensure just allocations. They simply ensure market allocations. But the market isn't necessarily just or good.
He probably knows a great deal of it (criticism of Libertarian economics) since in this video he says that he would rather listen to people preach to him than he would try to convert people. That tells me he's listening to others' viewpoints which would include criticisms of libertarianism. But I like the quote from the German billionaire you posted.
I just wish that more libertarian activists would actually read the LP's free 40 page campaign manual found on LP dot org. Most of them have read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead's 1700 total pages. But few lib activists have ever looked at an actual campaign manual. You can buy them used on amazon or barnes&noble for $4.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking you what alternative survival tactics can those paralyzed people do to keep their bills payed when they can't work a job anymore due to their problems?
A private business cannot force you to buy their product without violating your right to liberty and property(which the government is supposed to protect), this is not so for government programs such as healthcare insurance which can throw people in jail if they refuse to participate.
I understand where Libertarianism is coming from, however I personally would advocate the active persuasion of people to your point of view if it is one that you have reached by a rational and logical conclusion. This is the action I especially feel to be right if the opposing views to yours are harmful in any way. The most important practice though is to keep an open mind and always be ready to be persuaded yourself.
I have no problem with freedom of choice. When it comes to purchasing, we should all be given the right to make our choices based on HONEST information. So, if I'm defrauded, is it "too bad, so sad", or will businesses perpetrating fraud be held accountable? Other than that, I'm pretty much on board.
Dave Denton Libertarians explicitly say that the purpose of government is to protect people from force and FRAUD. So yes, people who perpetrate fraud WILL be held accountable.
"I view a process which ends this coercive monopoly, enabling full accountability and competition between several of these providers as superior." Classic economic theory says that monopolies are more efficient in certain situations. Govt monopoly (in a democracy) differs from private business monopolies in that politicians are accountable to the voters. A private monopoly has even less incentive than a dictatorship to be accountable to the people.
A private business can OFFER to sell you something. It can OFFER to pay you for doing work for it. It can't force anything on you, unless it does it via "government." The fact that you hallucinate free exchange as being "authoritarian" is a little odd.
I'm not necessarily comparing the two or saying they are equivalent in either case, although they may bear similar aspects. You stated that government intervention has a positive effect on society. I cited examples rife with government intervention that were notable catastrophes in order to directly rebut your statement. To say that welfare programs played no part in the fall of Rome may be equally ridiculous. Currency inflation is noted as a primary economic cause of the fall of Rome.
3. The place of unions is complex. Unionization is not an anti-market activity, and is useful to help counteract privileges and inter-cooperation that employers enjoy. But government was dragged behind by Union activity and not vice versa. It opposed all unions at first, and many of the legislative actions were already the norm that had been won on the ground. Certainly we owe some gratitude , but it is still the advancing productivity of capital than underwrites these improvements in the end
Years ago my best friend was a Libertarian & another friend was a Liberal (Democratic Socialist for lack of better term. Both had post grad degrees in Poli Sci & Philosophy) & I listened to their debates. I began with a bias toward Libertarianism (in part due to the ideals of non coercion. I've never been big on Capitalism) but I had to eventually admit that my Libertarian friend lost the argument. I don't mean to say that my judgment was objective & without bias but I made up my mind. Thanks.
"$70 is not that much money." To YOU it might not be that much money. What you seem to not understand is that wealth is extremely relative, and a weeks' worth of gas, as I said before, is included in necessary costs of transportation, which many people still have difficulty affording if they can afford a car at all. Have you ever lived off of minimum wage for an extended period of time, with absolutely no relatives to chip in or savings to fall back on when times were tough?
more "personal" freedom. meaning more freedom for everyone. A free market does not protect corporations. Less corporations means more businesses, and more competition. more competition means more improvement in every sense of the word.
In my opinion, the problem with our economic-political system is that hard work is not rewarded. More precisely, it is discouraged through a system if taxation that increases the money taken from you as you become more successful; which in essence reduces the incentive to become wealthy, and more importantly, to work hard. Why work up the ladder if the rungs will be farther apart as I go(taxation), making it harder to succeed and become wealthy.
I'm not a Libertarian but I fully agree with what Penn is saying here. I don't agree with everything he says all the time, but I love to hear what he has to say.
I am a former libertarian, current democratic-socialist liberal. To say that Penn and are polar opposites isn't exactly true, but we certainly are pulling a 180 in terms of political ideologies, or close to. This method he talks of here is something that can, and should, apply to all of us. Penn himself has broken his own goal here on a few occaisons but we all do, we're only human, right? I also think there are usable policies that we can extract from many supposedly contradictory political
I think you may have misinterpreted what I wrote, but it's my fault for not being more clear. What I meant was, in many cases, people living in poverty have little to no money to spend on anything after taking care of the rest of their needs for basic survival. For some, spending money on anything else, including a modestly priced e-book, would be more than they could afford.
I think that both trusting in people's inherent goodness and inherent badness can both lead either toward Classical Liberalism or some form of collectivism. The more important question is how do we best give the most people what they want most out of life? And it is insane to try and answer that question from a collectivist leaning, because a given individual is as close as we can come to an expert on what will make her/him feel happy, content, and fulfilled.
I think he is right about leading questions, and how they do not help, and the moment you lose being a libertarian is when you try and lead or control people in anyway
exactly thats why u wouldnt want it on a profit model not to mention it costs way more. yea im unfamiliar with airline deregulation im not saying its all good or bad the way libertarians talk about it. theres a regulatoin saying automakers have to report to their consumers when they have a defect. glass steagal was a good regulation.
You are partially correct. Libertarians aren't anarchists, rather they are "minarchists", meaning they believe in limited government rather than the absence of government. As far as the statement regarding America becoming an aristocracy, it is an Aristocracy now while having the largest government in history (this is true). This is because the Aristocrats can utilize the government for their individual interests. I wish this wasn't true but it is.
Not only that, but in a free market, once corruption is brought forth and recognized by the general public (the consumers) they can choose to no longer support that corrupt company/organization and watch as it starves and goes under. Once other companies see how the people react to corruption, I imagine they'll be pretty disinclined to take that route.
Separation of Church and State. Separation of Government and Business. Separation of Emotion from Reason.
+xXJAKMACKXx Here Yee.
Separate gov and business? So mafia black market. Lmao this is why I am not a libertarian.
Shawn Cain Ugh, fucking socialists and their blood soaked worship of state, go wear out your gums on some other pro-fascists wank fest youtube channel. For people who support freedom can't see eye to eye with an emotional authoritarian incapable of reason.
Shawn Cain Oh why don't you go to a place that cares like China or North Korea. Idk and I don't care...Go to the moon for all I care. There wouldn't be a black market mafia because the very idea of a black market mafia would violate a libertarian state where everything is allowed as long as it doesn't harm others... So a black market mafia would be illegal. You socialist pigs need to think with your brains every so often...
+xXJAKMACKXx
can i ask
what is the ideal for Christians in a libertarian mind.
or do they not care but just a thought, are there alot of athiest in it OR more religious people
thanks i hope you can answer my question
I'm a libertarian because I believe in:
The founding father of our government,
Small government, SERVING the people,
And, individual LIBERTY!
+chief wiggums Nice show of your religious devotion there, I know you won't actually seek the answers to your points, because your points have been shot to death in the past. This is like a creationist bringing up the missing link.
+Ed Lesperance
YOU FORGOT ONE TINY THING ....
YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN BECAUSE YOU ARE A SHEEP ....JUST TRYIN TO COMPLETE YOUR LIST . NO NEED TO THANK ME .. IT'S THE LEAST I CAN DO .
+THOMAS GIRLMAN
So who isn't sheep, by your definition?
Republicans? Democrats? Trumpists?
Ed Lesperance Trumpists sounds like some kind of musician.
@THomas Girlman: On what are you basing your statements?
The way I read it, those who disagree with you are "LIBERTARIANS ARE OBEDIENT KOCH BROTHERS MONKEYS . GIVE A LIBERTARIAN AN ORGAN GRINDER AND HE WILL WORK FOR PEANUTS " no matter what they believe.
I am a libertarian because if I want to move to the Rocky Mountains and start a pot farm while I snort cocaine and eat foie gras and sit on a couch made out of my own hair.... I should be able to without any government interference. Not that hard of a concept.
How soft is your hair? You might have a market for those couches.
if you need a cleaner in your new found utopia i have a good resume :)
To assume that libertarianism = anarcho-capitalism is fairly ignorant. Hence the nature of your goofy post.
I fail to see why you SHOULDN'T be able to do that. As long as you aren't harming anyone else and enjoy what your doing, you should be able to do whatever you want.
Steven Edelmann
Actually the libertarian party is the fastest growing :)
What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?
Around 6 months.
Can you limit the power of an institution whose mandate requires a monopoly of it?
Libertarians respect all freedoms and anarchists only care about their own freedoms
Redant23
False. Libertarians think there is such a thing as limited power. Anarchists are honest enough with themselves to admit there is no such thing. It's not anarchists who want to impose their will on others, that would be people who advocate governance.
Namaste1001 most anarchists are clueless
Redant23
Your generalization would indicate that you are.
This is exactly why I love Penn Jillete. If only all people thought like he does.
This is amazing. I really do wish more people had this virtue. Imagine a world full of people who are free thinkers and are open to other's ideas.
This Christian loves Penn Jillette! You are a real patriot!
+Rob Smith I'm a Christian, Libertarian who believes in gay rights...
Libertarian = believes in 'rights'
Gays are individuals. And libertarians believe in freedom and liberty for all individuals.
Libertarianism isn''t this complicated. You believe in individual liberties over the governing rule. It doesn't have a limit on the size of government.
The Great Pumpkin
Corporations can't exist without a government.
that's a very vague and general statement.
i'd need to assess every individual situation.
in some i do.
in some i dont.
"Your goal, without condescension and without manipulation, is to tell the truth as you see it."
...hmm, no. I assert that the truth IS more important than my ego. And since my ego is no more or less than any other ego, then so too is the truth more important than any ego. Therefore, condescension remains an available tool, IF it achieves the goal of transmitting the truth. Manipulation, of course, remains unacceptable.
Basically when I argue, I may be an asshole, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. If you reject my "correctness" because your "ego" was "bruised" then all I'm going to do is laugh at how pathetic and weak your ego is anyway.
Because I support a gay married couple defending their pot farm with firearms. Neither political party does that. Political parties are similar to religion in that they support continuing a narrative as opposed to critical thinking.
Every time someone asks the age old question, "if you could go to dinner with three people, who would it be?" Penn Jillette is always on my list.
I'm a liberal, but I respect libertarians as principled and intellectual.
You forgot naive, and misanthropic. Seriously, every...single...libertarian I have ever met has been very strange. They are outsiders by nature. I have known a lot of true libertarians and they are all weird. I'll bet there are a lot of only children who are libertarian.
***** I have heard Penn speak a few times and he seems to know quite a bit about it but ultimately, they might not know for sure.
Jim Beam It is a common rhetorical tactic to try to discredit a political philosophy by criticizing the characteristics of its proponents.
Gurimbom
*" It is a common rhetorical tactic to try to discredit a political philosophy by criticizing the characteristics of its proponents."*
-
Yes, it's a common fallacious tactic used by people who are either afraid to think or unable to think, and typically angry and cynical because they ultimately know that their world views are undefendable and contradictory.
Diginess Unknown
Yeah I believe Capitalism can work. Same with left and right politics.
It's people that always screw it up(God Damn People)
If we could just find a way to get rid of them.
Thanks for answering, but, what would people who need SSI and SSDI do to stay alive do if they can't work? Do they just die off or do you have ideas how to keep them alive?
I have a question for Libertarians.
I am a Liberal with typically left-leaning 'biases'; i.e. Universal Healthcare, Social Security, Environment, Banning of Automatic firearms, Midigation of Corporate influence, etc.
What are the typical Libertarian views on these subjects? I am very interested in your philosophy and am curious of how these concerns will be dealth with in a Libertarian socety. Love some feedback.
"Libertarian only when it suits him." Which is almost always.
Meaning?
Uhh Can someone explain?
Penn Jillette is a cool dude but I don't see how what he is describing has anything to do with libertarianism? ''Be open to the other person's heart'' ??? Property rights? the NAP? He mentioned none of those
It might make more sense to you if you catch what I think is a much longer interview with Caleb Brown. It was in the daily podcast some years ago in Nov/Dec, my memory wants to say. It's a very interesting conversation; I kept a copy on my iPod until it died.
The rules that PJ lays out for himself in the interview are based on using only moral means to the end of advancing and communicating truth.
Penn first discusses how he sees the truth in his job, because lying to an audience is basic to magic, maybe more than any other performance art. Penn says that he and Teller try to fuse their worldviews into their act as to keep it truthful to some respect.
He explains that to him, that service to truth needs to spill into other parts of your life, especially when you explore issues with your social and work life. "Don't preach" you'll hear him say; that means being upfront with what you believe. DON'T falsely equivocate or present squishy versions of your beliefs to advance your worldview. Penn has better real life examples, but the method is like this: a preacher will ask a new person what they believe on the topic of the preacher's choice, than when they get an answer and are expected to reciprocate with an answer, the preacher will coach and calculate their response so as to make the tent they represent in politics, religion or philosophy
*calculate their answer to bring that person into the preacher's tent, whether that tent is a political, religious or otherwise philosophical view. Penn points out that if you preach, you register at some degree of sliminess and dishonesty.
I also think that you may lose track of your own principles if you're always trying to adapt them to who(m)ever you meet, and the practice turns real people into points in a game that only desperate people play.
Being honest makes you a better communicator, a better thinker and helps you keep within ethical boundaries.
The parallels to libertarianism are not only to how to discuss your principles with everyday people, but also realizing that libertarian principles can' be violated to reach its goals.
At least that's what I got from it.
MRCKify Thanks for the explanation, I get what he is talking about now
+MrUbister - Exactly. I clicked on this because I thought he was actually going to explain libertarian ideas in an understandable way. No such luck.
No offense intended to Mr. Jillette, I like the guy, but this video's contents doesn't match the title.
IMHO, every political philosophy breaks down when take to extremes. I definitely lean libertarian but I also have some conservative views and even some liberal views. To just box yourself into something specific is short sighted. Then there is the practical vs working with what can realistically be done.
I'm not Libertarian, but I'm not gonna hate because I love Penn and Teller and you shouldn't let political views get in your way.
Oh, okay. Anyway, why do you think it's primitive and what amazing advanced system do you present as an alternative? I'm not really in the mood to fight right now (I might be by the time you reply), I'm just curious.
my favorite libertarian and Atheist*
Atheist*
Thx
holy shit you could not possibly have any more strawmanning in the comments section of this video.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed.
It seems to be a lot of conservatives who are just glad he believes in small government. Me, I love what he said all the way around, especially about open discussion.
Ancap master race.
Tyler Hurson ancap is different from traditional libertarianism and anarchism. And its stupid. Ask Noam Chomsky
Is not that a part of property rights. The owner of a certain property can do whatever he wants to that property. However, if he wants sales to come through, He has an incentive to keep it clean and/or please customers. Niagra falls is pretty pristine itself.
do u think everything should be privatized?
I think the whole theme of changing people's minds deserves to be in the limelight. Generally, Libertarians utilize logic and facts to arrive at truths (Is their reasoning always right and without holes? no.) People who have a propensity towards this kind practice tend to want to debate and convince others because Libertarian counter-arguments are many times absent of reasoning/truth. The problem is that most people are vested in their belifs (especially the older they get). Opponents of Libertarianism can argue that Libertarians too are just defending a dogma. Still, I would disagree with Penn and say that a Libertarian should still try to persuade not because they want to change others people's minds, but so they can also to find truths and strengthen ideas. It's fun too >:)
Any consistent libertarian has to also be an anarchist #selfownership #voluntaryism #taxationistheft
I don't mind being an inconsistent libertarian. Civil liberties are for the people. Regulate corporations and government strictly.
And name me one time throughout history that governments have actually done what they are suppose to? There is no consistency in being a libertarian as you must support usage of immoral acts to get what you want. See you still vote and voting is enforcing your will/opinion over people with a threat of violence, nothing moral about any belief in government.
No, the use of force is necessary for self-defense and to resolve civil disputes. Consistent libertarianism acknowledges that government should have a monopoly on the use of force, and that it must be subordinate to an objective rule of law. Rather than allowing individuals or mobs to use force according to their own subjective idea of justice. The best example of anarchy is the wild west where civil disputes were resolved with a duel or someone getting shot in a bar, and that kind of justice and use of force is far from desirable.
@@chris135x I apparently have to keep saying this. Capitalists are not libertarian or anarchists. Theyre tyrants trying to appeal to the youth.
@@chris135x lol
You sir, deserve a high five. Thank you for having a brain.
why is his nail red?
I dont disagree with your arguement but have you ever been bitten by a cat...I had a cat to jump up on my arn, latch on with his claws, and bit down on the crook of my arm twice. I had a total of 8 punture wound and 4 of those pretty bad from the canine teeth. A huge brusie developed and I was very sore for several day. I wore scar patches for about 8 weeks and still have little scars there. It was not a good experience....
I believe we have an obligation to each other, a social contract. Alot of these right wing ideas on freedom are glorified versions of social Darwinism. I don't fear government nor do I think it is the problem. Corruption of government by lobbyists and dark money is not the same as Government. I don't think the free market is always the best decider and often a terrible way to reallocate resources being exploitive of vulnerable people whilst over compensating many on rank or undue privilege.
Above all of these considerations is the repugnance of reducing freedom to mean freedom in the consumer sense, the economic incentive context alone and all too often a double standard on the role of government and individual Liberty. Where Regulation of a woman's womb is pushed along with what chemicals I can ingest but background checks for some Firearms is the hand of big government.
Credit however where credit is due. During the 1980's Conservatives destroyed the image of Liberalism and progressive politics by reducing complex ideas into cookie cutter sound bites and paying little regard to factual evidence. The left still can't compete when it comes to messaging and the packaging of ideas..
You say: _"I believe we have an obligation to each other, a social contract."_
- Yet I haven't ever signed one, nor seen evidence that _any_ historical state was ever started by social contractual agreement. If one still takes the premise as correct however, one could potentially use this 'obligation' to justify literally any gruesome act, whether it be forced sex, forced labor, or forced suicide. Hence, it is a very strange moral method to try and justify anything if its implications run counter to your own ethical beliefs.
Gurimbom fuck you must be bored to try to turn a youtube comment into a lawful contract.
12from121 Congratulations in failing to comprehend my argument.
Gurimbom lol I understood it fine it was completely irrelevant.
12from121 I will respond with an equally valid retort: yes it was.
Smart man.
If Libertarians succeed, the result will be hunger for millions. There are 80 million people drawing some sort of assistance. End gov''t support and flood the job market, depressing wages for the existing force. It would be a return to the poverty of the 30's, political instability, unrest, and repression. As a system it wouldn't last, and it would be replaced with a less freer system. The history of revolution is a sad , repetitive one. We have 3 hots and a cot, the system works.
You sir are confused with LIBERALS.
bruceduece1 You're forgetting the part where the government would take less of our tax money... since they don't need to fund all of these support programs, they wouldn't need as much.
That would let people get more money from their paychecks, which would allow them to spend more money, which would bolster the economy, which would create more jobs.
I agree, but if you reject the assumptions of Murray Rothbard or Ron Paul, you will be called a statist and/or a socialist by our compassionate libertarian friends online. Their ideology ignores the basic human tendency to fail: in the libertarian world, if you make poor investments or have bad timing in stocks, or fail to save enough money for retirement because you have to pay for short-term living expenses, you are deemed careless and are shunned for not taking personal responsibility in life. Libertarians argue that those who do manage to fall between the cracks will be taken care of by charity, absent the fact that such a fanciful world never existed. They erroneously point to the world before state welfare, when the church essentially forced peasants to forgo a significant portion of their harvests for crusades and almsgiving programs (tithes). They seem to forget that no state-level society (Mesopotamia, Ancient Greece, Qin China) has functioned without taxes and “immoral government robbery” of income. I am very upset with this notion that we supposedly have to dismantle every government program dating back to the Progressive Era to preserve their notion of freedom. And I’m sorry for their ambition to see the best in mankind, but the mere manner people on both the political left and right treat others around them is enough proof that we are not as caring or loving as we think we are. To that end, I like paying into Social Security and Medicare, in part, because I understand that no actual “Ponzi scheme” would dare cut payments to current beneficiaries or tighten age and eligibility requirements to stabilize its supposedly “broken” model, which has been declared bankrupt by libertarians for a number of decades now.
Another major flaw with libertarianism is that they seem to refute the very concept of a “public good.” Roads and clean air, for example, are two arguments that can be seen easily within the flimsy libertarian economic model. They say that infrastructure can be fully privatized, as they are apt to hand everything over to their invisible hand, and they point to the success of toll highways as evidence their ideas are valid. They conveniently forget that other roads are “non-excludable”, such as back alleys and streets within rural areas. Moreover, the central-planning they fear so much of has facilitated the construction of Manhattan’s street grid and the interstate highway system, which is undoubtedly so efficient and advanced, no single corporation could have paid or planned to build it. Also, It is understandable that rivers and some coasts can be sold off to various businesses, but libertarianism’s weakest argument lies within regulation of clean air. They refer back to their classical liberal theorist Locke, and argue that government serves a legitimate purpose protecting property rights. If someone pollutes the air, they (I’m literally not kidding) believe the person who has been harmed by pollution must take the business to court. They are not capable of acknowledging the obvious imbalance in legal funding and resources that large companies have over individual people, and it places a larger burden on the victim to prove wrongdoing, rather than admit that industry has an inherit tendency to emit pollutants. Rather than subscribe to the conservative “cap-and-trade” model that has already been endorsed by economists from across the ideological spectrum, they would prefer to flood the courts with “property rights” cases which supposedly will end the phenomenon of pollution. Therefore, if I turn on my car, or mow my lawn, I already have a right under the libertarian legal system to sue the polluter. Yes: it’s that ridiculous. Anyone with a disposition towards accepting modern society could argue for days on end against this broken theory.
I don’t disagree with everything they put forward, especially when it comes to imperialism and the federal reserve, but I strongly believe most of the ideology is paper-bound; not practical. I’m looking forward to the inevitable rebuttals.
***** I agree with your sentiments on pollution and road tax...
However, On your first point, I don't think we should force people to help somebody else if they've failed. Playing the stock market is a risk, and it should be treated like one. Saving for retirement is a nice thing to do, to be able to not have to work anymore and rest on your laurels, but I don't think it should be some kind of human right... so I feel like those are both somewhat weak examples.
Helping people out shouldn't be a government mandate, something along the lines of KickStarter would be much more appropriate. It should be an individual's choice if they want to help out somebody in need. You underestimate the good will of people, just because we see so many uncharitable and greedy people in the world... and this is coming from somebody who only makes about 60 bucks per month as an entrepreneur.
Tax dollars shouldn't be going to people as handouts, they should be going into roads, schools, and things that will undoubtedly make our society better.
Some libertarians would disagree with me on that last statement, but that's okay... I'm not entirely libertarian, myself. I just feel like there's a bunch of pointless government programs that tax dollars are being wasted on that should probably get shut down, so taxes can be lowered, so that people can choose how to spend their money on their own.
***** I agree with you on all points, which can be summed as Libertarians demand anarchy. Their position has 2 major flaws. The first is that the power vacuum created by dismantling gov't would be filled by corporations and the wealthy. The 2nd flaw is that an aristocracy of wealth would result with separate laws for different classes. Who would defend the constitution after gov't was stripped of power? You're right about roads, too. Libertarianism is disguised elitism and outright fascism in a very pure sense.
How old was he when he became a libertarian and how well off was he?
I'm sorry you kind of lost me in your reply. Perhaps you could explain more?
I'll say it from where I stand. In the E. U.
For a society to be successful there are three ingredients :
1. Atheism
2. Capitalism
3. Civil Liberties.
Idk about atheism that is interfering with peoples right to religious freedom
@@46_and28
First of all I didn't imply atheism by force. In fact I didn't imply capitalism or civil liberties by force either.
This would be like - fall in love with me or I'll kill you. Good luck with that.
I meant atheism as a choice of an enlightened society, one that has passed the point of believing fairy tales written hundreds or thousands of years ago and switched to a science based worldwiew. Just like an enlightened society would also choose the second and third points as well.
Maybe. Perhaps. How about the following adjustment:
1. Atheism
2. Capitalizing our Wants
3. Socializing our Needs
4. Civil Liberties (which, let's face it, would, by definition, be intrinsically extrapolated from the previous 3 reasons)
@@corinnepowers9646
Are you talking about some sort of universal basic income nonsense or what?
@@LV-426... *ponders* Mathematically speaking, universal basic income IS feasible. So, what do you mean, "nonsense"?
Oh, I see, the idea of "universal basic income" pisses off your ego, and triggers your short sighted survival instincts. Even though it would work, you don't "like" it, so you call it nonsense to protect your fragile emotions.
Ugh.
Hey i agree with you but there was a missed up thing at my school I was going to vote ( School Voting BS ) they said pick ether Obama or Romney. I said " What if you are a libertarian" and she said that is a waste of a vote. I replied why is there only two parties when there are lot more then that and this forces younger people to pick only two parties instead of knowing there is more then one. So me and half of my class did not vote for ether parties,
There are people in Greenland?
why would you listen to someone named after a shaving cream?
or someone who can't spell. ahhh SNAP!
good one
Hi blanket! I see we are on the same side again. Good to see my friend from across the pond again.
A very good comedian, libertarian, atheist, optimist, humanitarian, husband and father. What more can you ask for?
he could be a pansexual dragonkin with pronouns xir xerxxezfg and ftbrgs
What about it? Maybe there's an alternative meaning to it that I'm not aware of, but I remember he mentioned it one time in an interview that it was homage to his mother, to remember her by. So... what about the red pinky nail? O.o
My opinion is that lower taxes, at least corporate taxes on small businesses, will create more incentives for small businesses to expand, thus reducing unemployment, while simultaneously thrusting more wealth into economic circulation. Also, the more expansion as a result of lower business taxes results in higher wages for employees, and that money is spent, and circulated throughout the economy. Anyone's thoughts?
A very difficult question for libertarian:
What do you think about the American sport?
In Belgian we don't have something like “The Draft”.
In Belgian soccer is the choice from the wage, and who plays in which club a negotiation from the club and the player.
In European soccer is NO minimum wage and NO maximum wage.
Or is the question about economies and sport a little bit too difficult for you? :)
I'm curious.
This isn't even remotely a difficult question. Sports leagues are private enterprises which can set up whatever rules they want about how they're run. There is no "libertarian" opinion about sport, other than that the government shouldn't be involved in it at all.
Ryan Posly
American football is not good for the competition, European football is much better for the competition.
If you believe in the libertarian religion.
There isn't any libertarian religion. Libertarianism is a political philosophy and doesn't pretend to be anything else.
PS: BTW, in English the name of the country is Belgium, you should know this, especially if you live there.
Zephyr López Cervilla Perhaps you wrecked him a bit _too_ hard, Zephyr.
What's difficult for me is to make any sense of your second-rate broken English.
Glad you enjoyed it. It's a good laugh.
Based upon what, exactly? Can you cut and paste a quote of Rand advocating "privatized fascism"?
Great video!
Exactly. And we sort of know what that is: justice is fairness. I'm way too tired to do this now. But I assume you've read Rawls, or some version of his argument.
Srry didn't read your comment since it contains inpropper use of CAPITAL letters.
Please repeat that example, you did not give it to me. Are you? considering my pov that is?
Also, it's the free market folks that make the same error of non sequitur assuming that because the particular mix of govt & private sector fails to solve a problem, therefore govt is the problem. Maybe the problem isn't simply that because a particular govt "intervention" policy has failed (probably due to a bad political compromise) that intervention itself is wrong.
Why does he paint that one finger nail red?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_Jillette#Red_fingernail
I'm not trying to make fun of Mr. Jillette or anything - I'm just curious: I've never heard of this Brown fellow. Who is he? I'm a Republican (officially), but am thinking of going Libertarian, by the way.
A free market is not a myth, and you can 100% create the conditions that allow it. Please tell me what you think prevents it? It's difficult for me to provide reasons it can, because there is no reason it can't. present the points that you believe prevent it and we can go from there.
Not really. Jails, police are constitutional due to the General Welfare Clause. But, Most of these services are state and local institutions deemed by a smaller constituent. Also, most police and firemen are becoming voluntary.
I guess the premise of your question is another we must both truthfully answer: is it sometimes necessary to violate our conceptions of morality in order to do what is moral? Tell me, which is the greater evil, stealing from others to do good or trying to find other ways, knowing failure is possible?
Abdicating the necessity of a uniform application of morality may have commendable utility in the moment, but doing so sets an awful precedent, as we have seen in the past and are seeing today.
Hey partner how are you doing? I'm reading your comments on the penn jillettte thing. Im coming in a few minutes late on the covo. I can tell that you enjoy debate, as do I. And I absolutely love that no curse words or slander is coming from your fingertips. That's rare in live debate,not to mention youtube debates.
Anyway, you are a socialist? I would like to converse if you don't mind.
Well if the limited state simply enforces contracts and raises armies, then none. But they would wield enormous economic power that would, in my view, create a totally unjust society because pure market transactions don't ensure just allocations. They simply ensure market allocations. But the market isn't necessarily just or good.
did he say he's an anarcho-librarian?
Where do you get the "7 years tax before you're "free""?
Penn Jillette is a wonderful human being.
He probably knows a great deal of it (criticism of Libertarian economics) since in this video he says that he would rather listen to people preach to him than he would try to convert people. That tells me he's listening to others' viewpoints which would include criticisms of libertarianism. But I like the quote from the German billionaire you posted.
I just wish that more libertarian activists would actually read the LP's free 40 page campaign manual found on LP dot org. Most of them have read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead's 1700 total pages. But few lib activists have ever looked at an actual campaign manual. You can buy them used on amazon or barnes&noble for $4.
I used to be a Libertarian but then I realized just how much society is going to shit and only caring for yourself will not fix this country
It's homage to his mother that passed away years ago.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking you what alternative survival tactics can those paralyzed people do to keep their bills payed when they can't work a job anymore due to their problems?
A private business cannot force you to buy their product without
violating your right to liberty and property(which the government is supposed to protect), this is not so for government programs such as healthcare insurance which can throw people in jail if they refuse to participate.
Always liked him, but had no idea that he is so eloquent. He is very smart
I understand where Libertarianism is coming from, however I personally would advocate the active persuasion of people to your point of view if it is one that you have reached by a rational and logical conclusion. This is the action I especially feel to be right if the opposing views to yours are harmful in any way. The most important practice though is to keep an open mind and always be ready to be persuaded yourself.
I have no problem with freedom of choice. When it comes to purchasing, we should all be given the right to make our choices based on HONEST information. So, if I'm defrauded, is it "too bad, so sad", or will businesses perpetrating fraud be held accountable? Other than that, I'm pretty much on board.
Libertarianism does not necessarily mean anarchy.
Dave Denton Libertarians explicitly say that the purpose of government is to protect people from force and FRAUD. So yes, people who perpetrate fraud WILL be held accountable.
There are checks and balances in capitalism through the market and spontaneous order. How do you think we came up with language?
Question, and to put it like you said Penn, offer the answer with 'more freedom", why do you HAVE to be an atheist in order to be a Libertarian?
"I view a process which ends this coercive monopoly, enabling full accountability and competition between several of these providers as superior."
Classic economic theory says that monopolies are more efficient in certain situations. Govt monopoly (in a democracy) differs from private business monopolies in that politicians are accountable to the voters. A private monopoly has even less incentive than a dictatorship to be accountable to the people.
You're making some excellent points here.
A private business can OFFER to sell you something. It can OFFER to pay you for doing work for it. It can't force anything on you, unless it does it via "government." The fact that you hallucinate free exchange as being "authoritarian" is a little odd.
Very nice.
P.S. The Second amendment says "arms", not "muskets." They envisioned (and wrote in) increasing arms technology.
Do you actually think about what you say before you say it?
I'm not necessarily comparing the two or saying they are equivalent in either case, although they may bear similar aspects.
You stated that government intervention has a positive effect on society. I cited examples rife with government intervention that were notable catastrophes in order to directly rebut your statement.
To say that welfare programs played no part in the fall of Rome may be equally ridiculous. Currency inflation is noted as a primary economic cause of the fall of Rome.
I couldn't agree with you more, and being such a simple idea one wonders why so many do not understand it.
3. The place of unions is complex. Unionization is not an anti-market activity, and is useful to help counteract privileges and inter-cooperation that employers enjoy. But government was dragged behind by Union activity and not vice versa. It opposed all unions at first, and many of the legislative actions were already the norm that had been won on the ground. Certainly we owe some gratitude , but it is still the advancing productivity of capital than underwrites these improvements in the end
Think you got Penn & Teller mixed up. Only one of them talks
Years ago my best friend was a Libertarian & another friend was a Liberal (Democratic Socialist for lack of better term. Both had post grad degrees in Poli Sci & Philosophy) & I listened to their debates. I began with a bias toward Libertarianism (in part due to the ideals of non coercion. I've never been big on Capitalism) but I had to eventually admit that my Libertarian friend lost the argument. I don't mean to say that my judgment was objective & without bias but I made up my mind. Thanks.
"$70 is not that much money." To YOU it might not be that much money. What you seem to not understand is that wealth is extremely relative, and a weeks' worth of gas, as I said before, is included in necessary costs of transportation, which many people still have difficulty affording if they can afford a car at all. Have you ever lived off of minimum wage for an extended period of time, with absolutely no relatives to chip in or savings to fall back on when times were tough?
more "personal" freedom. meaning more freedom for everyone.
A free market does not protect corporations.
Less corporations means more businesses, and more competition.
more competition means more improvement in every sense of the word.
In my opinion, the problem with our economic-political system is that hard work is not rewarded. More precisely, it is discouraged through a system if taxation that increases the money taken from you as you become more successful; which in essence reduces the incentive to become wealthy, and more importantly, to work hard. Why work up the ladder if the rungs will be farther apart as I go(taxation), making it harder to succeed and become wealthy.
I'm not a Libertarian but I fully agree with what Penn is saying here. I don't agree with everything he says all the time, but I love to hear what he has to say.
I am a former libertarian, current democratic-socialist liberal. To say that Penn and are polar opposites isn't exactly true, but we certainly are pulling a 180 in terms of political ideologies, or close to.
This method he talks of here is something that can, and should, apply to all of us. Penn himself has broken his own goal here on a few occaisons but we all do, we're only human, right? I also think there are usable policies that we can extract from many supposedly contradictory political
I think you may have misinterpreted what I wrote, but it's my fault for not being more clear. What I meant was, in many cases, people living in poverty have little to no money to spend on anything after taking care of the rest of their needs for basic survival. For some, spending money on anything else, including a modestly priced e-book, would be more than they could afford.
I think that both trusting in people's inherent goodness and inherent badness can both lead either toward Classical Liberalism or some form of collectivism. The more important question is how do we best give the most people what they want most out of life? And it is insane to try and answer that question from a collectivist leaning, because a given individual is as close as we can come to an expert on what will make her/him feel happy, content, and fulfilled.
I think he is right about leading questions, and how they do not help, and the moment you lose being a libertarian is when you try and lead or control people in anyway
If you won't pay taxes what makes you think you will pay charity?
exactly thats why u wouldnt want it on a profit model not to mention it costs way more. yea im unfamiliar with airline deregulation im not saying its all good or bad the way libertarians talk about it. theres a regulatoin saying automakers have to report to their consumers when they have a defect. glass steagal was a good regulation.
You are partially correct. Libertarians aren't anarchists, rather they are "minarchists", meaning they believe in limited government rather than the absence of government. As far as the statement regarding America becoming an aristocracy, it is an Aristocracy now while having the largest government in history (this is true). This is because the Aristocrats can utilize the government for their individual interests. I wish this wasn't true but it is.
Not only that, but in a free market, once corruption is brought forth and recognized by the general public (the consumers) they can choose to no longer support that corrupt company/organization and watch as it starves and goes under. Once other companies see how the people react to corruption, I imagine they'll be pretty disinclined to take that route.
It's Drell, from Sabrina the Teenage Witch!
I've heard a lot of preaching on this subject. But it was Penn who just won me over.
Oic, yeah i'm still trying to understand, thx for the clarification
I had no idea Penn was a libertarian and so enlightened. Excellent. Way to go Penn.
I wasn't attempting to apply what I'd learned here. If you expected that I would be swayed by what he said, then maybe YOU missed the point.