Despite the lofty rhetoric, Libertarianism is a stalking horse for plutocracy. When democratic institutions are weakened, the power vacuum is filled by money. Advantage begets advantage and the disadvantaged become more powerless and poorer as income inequality increases.
@@mikevanroy9356 Are you aware there is an election coming up? Are you voting for Microsoft, Google or Amazon? No. You are voting for our government because it is controlled by us.
A lot of what he says resonates with me. I thought Libertarianism had a lot going for it... until I discovered what most Libertarians think and believe...
When I was in university I briefly toyed with libertarianism. There are parts of it that I still like, but I think that the other parts are a massive disaster, as we see among many American Libertarians today.
I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement [Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough. ~Christopher Hitchens
@@PotatoMcFry There is no such thing as a self-made man. Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money ~George Lakoft
@@Chrisrpg1980 The lie of liberty is the mask for the desire for profits in blood I pledge compliance to the flag, of the corporate state of America. And to the oligarchy, for which it stands, one nation, under the New York stock exchange, divisible depending on political convenience, with liberty, and a flexible definition of justice for all who can afford it. 🇺🇸
This is it in a nutshell. The balance of your freedom verses doing what's right so as not to harm others. No seatbelt verses drunk driving. Not wearing a mask verses not wanting to spread a dangerous, new virus to those around you. Where is the consideration for others? Why are we so selfish? In places like Japan, they have no problem wearing masks if they don't feel well, because they respect other people. America had one of the highest death rates of covid in the world... is that what makes us great?
Japan is a collectivist society and the US is an individualistic society. Their respective cultures are different when it comes to values, social norms, and expectations for behavior. Collectivist societies prioritize the group over the individual, while individualistic societies focus on individual rights and personal freedom. These fundamental differences shape everything from family dynamics to workplace behavior and communication styles.
@@alexandermacneil4430 Japan is not all that collectivist. They tend to be more Law of the Jungle types in my experience. (弱肉強食 - the strong eat the weak, as they say.) They often wear masks when they have a sore throat, for their own comfort. Masks are more hygienic than wool mufflers. On cold days they will offer you one when you leave their house after a visit. (Note that I translate Japanese so I know about these things.)
@@mikematull229 It's people like you who are the reasons why measles and other controlled & highly contagious diseases are making a come back. I truly hope yourself and your loved ones NEVER contract these all but eradicated diseases.
@@mikematull229ok, so 1. "peace of mind" 2. you call it "forcing others to wear a mask", but the thing is that if you go to the tube station and cough in the wrong direction, Janett (who works in accounting and is 6 years from retirement and finally will be able to move to the same state as her grandkids and is looking forward to finally have more time for her family) is going to fkn die bc she is 58 years old and has a minor congenital heart disease she isn't even aware of, bc it has so far gone undiagnosed. Do you want to demand Janett stays at home for the rest of her life, just bc just because you have the mindset of a toddler and have to go against everything anybody tells you to do as a knee-jerk reaction? do you want every person above the age of 45 to lock themselves in, bc they may have some undiagnosed risk factor? do you want people with risk factors to remain permanently locked in somewhere, just for your i don't even know what, it's not even peace of mind... what are you even losing when wearing a mask? your own ego, bc then you will have to admit someone else has a good piece of advice you didn't come up with first? gtfo with this 3yo oppositional defiant phase type 🤡
Just in case anyone forgot. When Penn and Teller had their show Bullshit, they did an episode on vaccines where they debunked a lot of what Jenny McCarthy said. So, never associate pen with the antivax movement
There are two definitions of "anti-vax" in common use, and really only one associated with a movement. The movement and the old definition was skeptical of vaccines that went through a full testing process and they latched onto conspiracy theories about side effects of proven vaccines. The more common new definition of "anti-vax" really has nothing to do with this movement.
To be fair, in that episode they simply plagiarized the talking points that had already been presented by vaccine developers and grant recipients. Not even Stanley Plotkin, who literally wrote the textbook on vaccines, was able to defend the dominant narrative under meticulous deposition… very disappointing. A rational person would have grave concerns about that outcome.
Unfortunately his support of vaccines and Fauci was total BULLSHIT. All the mandates from masks to 6 feet to get vaxxed and you won't get Covid or spread it has been shown to be lies. Yes he was stupid about the vaccine and still is. How many vaccines has he taken and given to his kids?
He didn't sound antivax here. But he did say something interesting. The vaccine was invented in 3 days and then wonder why people don't trust it? Kind of answered his own question there. The vaccine has the effectiveness of something that was rushed together in 3 days.
I have always misinterpreted Penn's definition of libertarianism, until now. I would like to thank him for clarifying. I wish more of us could be as optimistic, and that we could live up to his ideal of what it would be like to live in that kind of world. Yes. We should take care of one another, and we shouldn't have to be forced to do so.
His daughter told me his views had evolved on a different social media platform and I sought this out. He has not necessarily changed but I love that he has explained why he realized the platform was not meshing with his views.
I misunderstood him too, but I think that's largely because he acted like kind of a tough-guy/jerk on that show where he and Teller would attack people with unusual beliefs.
I’ve subscribed to his same thoughts on libertarianism since I was 17. I also pretty quickly came to the conclusion that it only works if we actually care about and for each other.
I was a libertarian as well, and then we had a pandemic, and half of our country refused to just wear a mask to protect their neighbors because "Fweedumb." We had an experiment that proved the libertarian claim that we don't need the government for people to do the right thing is objectively wrong
That’s what solidified me as a libertarian. You saw massive government overreach. They told me I couldn’t work or go to school. Also most of the mask people were wearing weren’t doing anything. So no I don’t want you to make decisions for me. Remember the people that run government are still people. Blind trust into anything is dumb.
@@ryanunruh2683bad faith argument. Instead of debating the claim that humans are selfish as made by OP, you debate a claim they didn't make about "trusting the science". Be better.
The anti-drunk driver stance he took is key to debunking libertarian arguments. Essentially, if individuals are not responsible enough (or intellectually capable enough) to avoid behavior that jeopardizes the other people with whom they share this planet, the other people have three elementary responses: 1) People can unite to compel others to behave responsibly (government action) or, 2) respond individually (vigilantism), or, 3) do nothing and get massacred by all the idiots that are "free" to do whatever they want without any intervention. Vigilante behavior quickly deteriorates into gang warfare, tribalism, or similar settings of violence and retribution, and most folks refuse to go there for that reason. And, since most people refuse to idly let themselves and their families be exploited or massacred without opposition, the default option throughout most of human history has been the first option: government response. Of course, the nuances and complexity of government issues and functions is as limitless as human imagination and emotion, but that is what we ought to all be working towards bettering. Everything else is navel gazing.
Except who gets to decide what is good and bad and to what extent. We go through this constantly in every nation state in human history where definitions change and it always leads to abuse of power or corruption or war, etc. When you add the power to change definitions, you start to allow a government to dictate things, and over time, they always overreach. The best example is the Canada/UK charters vs the US constitution. The US mandates absolute free speech while the commonwealth nations leave it up to government discretion. It led to the government having police divisions that sit there and monitor social media for speech they dislike.
@@Peglegkickboxer The US Constitution doesn't allow absolute free speech. There are constraints that the government can set, circumstantially. And there are very few constraints to how speech can be limited by private individuals and organizations.
I miss those days when libertarian was a synonym for leftist anarchist. Emma Goldman called herself a libertarian and she recognized that the power of economic elites in a "free market" was just as dangerous as the power of government, and that the two were closely linked. Noam Chomsky and others have called themselves libertarian socialists.
Libertarianism and leftist beliefs are mostly incompatible. And supposed anarchists who defend various Marxist totalitarian states around the world are probably the most ludicrous people alive.
People just don't read anything. They think they're the proud inventors of ideas that have been circulating, in more mature and thought-through forms, for hundreds or thousands of years.
An an arch ist would say, I didn't sign your Constitution, so I am not bound by it. Minimalist constitution or not, I have a right to be left alone by strangers that strive to force me to comply and conform to their rules, mores, and norms. No, I am not a libertarian. I am not a part of any fictional group. I am not bound to obey your rules, because I am not a citizen of your so called nation and you can't make a non-spoken non-written non-signed implied contract with a baby who doesn't speak your language.
Wrong, she called herself an anarchist and she hated JP Morgan and other rich people. Libertarians don't play class warfare, don't hate the rich. They hate government overreach, corporate welfare, personal welfare, and want to privatize everything from the police to city services. Watch John Stossel videos.
Yeah, this is what libertarianism originally meant, the term was co-opted in the mid-20th century by American anarcho-capitalists and minarchists but it has nothing to do with what the rest of the world recognizes as “libertarianism.” It’s an interesting little rabbit hole to go down and I’m not surprised that Jillette really knows his stuff.
I was a member of the Libertarian party for about 8 years prior to the pandemic. At that time, I noticed many people who identified as Libertarians refused to comply with the quarantine, mask, and ultimately vaccine mandates because they felt it was their personal right to not comply. They basically held the view that their wants and needs are the only thing that matters. Little did they consider the risk their choices were putting on others around them. Not complying with health and safety measures put others in danger, and these so-called Libertarians didn't seem to care. At that point, and because I agree 100% with Penn's perspective about caring for others and understanding how our individual choices can impact others, I left the Libertarian party to become an Independent.
@@earthwormandruw It's only "your body your choice" if the decision you make regarding your own healthcare only impacts you. Those who refused to follow quarantine guidelines, who refused to get vaxxed etc. are not only putting themselves at risk, but risking the health and well-being of everyone around them. So it's not about individual choice when your choice affects everyone closest to you. The "my body my choice" argument only works for women when considering the issue of abortion. Getting an abortion doesn't hurt anyone around them or put anyone else at risk, therefore it is solely the choice of the individual woman.
My reasoning to argue for wearing one is that you get less injured if you do, and that means less of a strain on emergency and health services. In Canada, our taxes help pay for it, so it makes sense to help reduce that cost. I imagine the idea in America would be what you mention plus wanting to not get as hurt. *shrugs*
@@jimbojones8978 I'm not making an argument for or against any laws, but I would imagine seat belts are close to a wash in terms of strain on society. In my case wearing my seat belt saved my life, albeit as a quadriplegic, so it added to the strain on emergency and health services, and will end up costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars or more depending on how long I live considering my disability checks and Medicare.
The fact is, it should be YOUR decision. You have people arguing that an unborn genetically distinct organism is effectively part of woman's body like a mole, and yet we can't choose to not wear a seatbelt for our own good. Explain that one.
"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." - Alexander Hamilton
Lol, what did Hamilton think government is made of? “Government is instituted so that some men who have a passion to dictate conformity among man can do so without constraints, reason, or being subject to justice.” - Alexander Hamilton (paraphrased) The irony is astonishing, yet a superbly accurate description of “man” as government.
@ParaousiaComingnowOnly a Sith thinks in absolutes. When Hamilton said that statement, he wasn't talking about wino's and prostitutes and street thieves, he was talking about those that were already powerful and desired more and more. . Government is SUPPOSED (I understand that this is wishful thinking, but we are speaking philosophically) to guard against absolute power. That is the "passions of men" about which he speaks. Hamilton warned (Federalist Paper No. 84) that the Bill of Rights didn't go far enough. . Proper government is supposed (there's that word again) to defend individual liberty against business interests, wealth, and social power. We don't need less government, we need more gov actually doing it's job. . There is a saying, "Regulations are written in blood". That is the blood of the people, not some pitiful owner crying about how hard it is to make more money and how they should be given Laissez-Faire to do whatever they want (which Jefferson wanted no matter what he wrote - his actions show his greed). If business and raw capitalism had its way, they would feed workers to the machine. Government is the only way to combat that level of power.
@@ahansen9583: Democratic institutions are designed to work in the public interest. That is what The Constitution is about. Unrestrained capitalism is predatory and has always abused labor and despoiled the environment unless prevented by the public through democratically elected representatives.
@@ered203They are winos and prostitutes and street thieves. They just dress better and speak in complete sentences (most of them anyway) so it's easier to fool you.
@@ahansen9583 "Lol, what did Hamilton think government is made of?" There are literally no other options. You WILL have a government, whether you like it or not. The idea is to implement one in such a way that it's extremely difficult (ideally, impossible) for people to behave in harmful ways. The idea is that power that exists whether we like it or not, and the ideal government controls that power in a safe way that benefits us all. Having it run by some magical force that's always morally good is not a possibility; we have to make a system that works with humans.
I've never heard American libertarianism described as being about responsibility for others. Typically it's seen as focused on minimal government intervention in markets and personal lives; personal responsibility is crucial. You can feel responsible towards others if you like, that's your choice and your freedom, but by no means are you expected to. This makes me think he's actually more of an anarchist. Not in the cliche sense of anarchy being no government or rules, but it is about minimal government intervention (etc.) because you are expected to feel responsibility towards others and not need a government to compel this.
I mean, "everybody helps everybody out without being coerced" is the ideal result of both anarchy and Marxism. I can sympathize with the idealist fantasy of libertarianism. If everybody just had good intentions and the presciense to anticipate the long-term effects of their actions, we'd all be completely free and perfectly responsible and we'd end war and hunger. That'll happen when we get assimilated by the Borg, or we wipe out like 90% of our population, whichever comes first.
Yeah I'm glad this is top comment, was going to say something similar. Anarchists and other left-libertarians consider mutual aid and voluntary cooperative organizations as a big part of their worldview.
@@Chris-ot1ze You say I am confused... I do not think that word means what you think it means! I admit I was ignorant about a very, very obscure and almost extinct American way of political thinking. I have a few friends who call themselves libertarian (in the American sense). While not all of them are right-wingers I think it's fair to say if they are representative of how American libertarians are then they indeed left Jillette and others who think like them far behind.
@@Chris-ot1ze I followed his logic, and thought that concern for others at large and a respect for science was unusual for an American libertarian. You're not saying that's incorrect. Either way, I can see why his strain of American libertarianism has largely died out.
The word "Libertarian" originally meant a kind of left wing anti-authoritarian. That word was deliberately misrepresented and destroyed for the purpose of destroying what is now called anarchism since "libertarianism" is no longer available. See this quote: "One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over." - Rothbard, Murray
Penn Jillette = Legend He was one of the main people to get me interested in Libertarianism. Now he has pretty much summed up all of my issues with a lot of so-called Libertarians.....
The thing is Libertarianism always was nothing more than naive optimism masquerading as a political party. We would never have needed to make laws to begin with if everyone just did the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts.
@@royms2000 You STILL dont understand it. Laws must be in place for enforcing contracts and to ensure free from harm of the individual. Libertarianism is my freedoms stop where I am infringing on your freedoms. That is very simple.
@@deansusec8745 How are we defining "freedom"? You are saying that we need government to enforce contracts, but why is someone not free to break a contract? No constitutional freedoms are being taken away by doing so. Why does someone have a right to make you pay to have the government enforce contracts that they chose to sign themselves?
@@Chrisrpg1980 "What a fallacious reason." But he's sort of the de facto leader of that line of political thinking in this country. Or at least, he was.
@@Chrisrpg1980 Yeah definitely not the only one, but he and his son held office as republicans (I think his son still does), and he was a not-joke Republican primary candidate for president. He didn't get the nomination, and right-wing media denied him air time, but that's further than the others got.
@@Chrisrpg1980What am I an issue of exactly? Something wrong with being independent? And I misspoke, I meant Rand Paul. I don’t think Ron drank the MAGA kool aid like Rand did.
It seems like Penn actually wanted to be an Anarchist, but got waylaid by the Libertarians. I'm convinced the formation of the Libertarian Party did more harm to the far left than anyone claiming to be a Republican, because it caught the attention of lot of people who would have read and taken a lot from Anarchist philosophy.
It doesn’t exactly map to the “right-left” we usually think of, but it sounds like Penn is basically a left-libertarian. The US Libertarian Party is very much a right-libertarian party. And the reason I’ve never had any interest in libertarianism, not much respect for self-proclaimed libertarians was precisely because my only exposure was via the US Libertarian Party. I only recently found out - coincidentally about the same time this video was released - that not all libertarians agreed with the US Libertarian Party. And that some, like Penn, want libertarianism in order to build society, not so they can escape any social responsibilities.
I am so glad Penn came around. The main logic of libertarianism seemed to me to be that 90% of people are good and will do the right thing and that the use of force to make them do it was wrong. I think 90% is extremely optimistic especially after the '24 election, but even if true, laws, enforcement and mandates are still needed for the other 10% . Let alone the 1% of seriously messed up sociopaths.
idk, don't you think the 1% are in charge now? Isn't the world being run by the sociopaths and outright psychopaths? None of laws, enforcement, mandates or norms is being upheld, by the elected President. I think the Trumpers and Christian nationalists would do much less damage in some sort of anarchist arrangement, instead of letting them be represented in our republic. Basically, the line of thinking you've presented is the reason(s) why not, are the same why I'm leaning towards libertarianism and anarchism, not away from it!
This guy had one of the best observations of Trump that I ever saw.... "No sense of humor," and "Doesn't like music." He observed these things while on the Celebrity Apprentice. Very telling...
I still embrace libertarian ideas, I just try to be pragmatic about it. In recent years, my priority has been to keep Trump out of office. That hasn't worked out so well...
I've always respected Penn and it is interesting to see him arriving at the same sorts of conclusions about Libertarians that I arrived at following 9/11. I was also a dues-paying Libertarian in the 90s, and I always knew the party had it's share of...that...whatever you want to call it. That selfish contingent. And I had to move away from it all after 9/11 happened and that contingent and paranoia started taking over the party. I still think I start with a (small "l") libertarian philosophy now-and like Penn I wish that so many things didn't have to be laws or rules because people could have the freedom to choose, but obviously there's only one real choice to make (like wearing a mask in a pandemic)-but I've spent 20 years realizing that people just aren't like that. Half will choose the right thing, will think of their neighbors, will try to lessen conflict and look at the world optimistically...but half won't. They just won't. And that's why we ultimately need far more rules that I ideally would like to have. For every person only taking one slice at the pizza party just in case there might not be enough to go around, there's someone else yelling "Eff y'all, I gots mine!" and grabbing up half-a-dozen slices for the same reason.
Good, u realized the most basic natural law there is for life - 'survival of the fittest individual by any means available and at the cost of others if opportune'. Now what?
"A radically voluntary society driven by mutual aid." The dream of 21st century conservative anti-government forces - some sort of proto-world where locals help locals on their ranches or something. Which, in a wildly complex high-tech society with vast amounts of capital requirements, funding constraints, environmental clashes, legal nuances and policy issues is basically an invitation to a cluster f**k. Anarchism is as much a fantasy as conservatism - we cannot back to some utopian "simpler time" and all live simple lives. We're in a big, beautiful modern world with technology, rules and law - and regulation and self-regulation. Sorry!
The weird thing is I have a friend who loves acupuncture but who is rabidly anti-vax. I don't doubt that what you describe is true for some but I suspect for others it's more "the government is always out to get you" (and for some it's both).
Always had so much respect for Penn. Even if I’ve often thought a lot of his views were kind out there and crazy, it’s clear he came to to them through honest reasoning and principles he cares about and I’ve always deeply admired the way he treats and talks about other people.
I first met Penn in roughly 2006 at the Houdini seance in Las Vegas. He was extremely kind and generous with his time. Teller wouldn’t stop talking about the project he was working on, and I, over the next few years, grew to really respect them both. This is the Penn I know. This is 100% him being Penn, and following his moral compass. I respect that, very much.
Libertarianism is the proposition that the best way to get people to do the right thing is to give them explicit permission not to. If human nature was so magnanimous that Libertarianism could work, we would never have developed any political systems at all. The existence of laws _per se_ is evidence that laws are necessary.
I'm a libertarian not necessarily because I'm optimistic about the efficiency of a free and unregulated people (although I am), but because I'm incredibly pessimistic about the competence of government.
@@Sammie551 ......Anything the government does.........Literally anything. How can I give an example when the examples are happening every day? You can see it on the news. It's everywhere.
Government IS people. It's not that gov't is incompetent - it's that people are incompetent. There has never been a 'free-market' and whenever regulations have been relaxed or non-existent with respect to any form of action, it's absolutely led to people abusing that to the complete detriment of others.
@PhrontDoor Let's say you're right. You still have incompetent people running the government. You can't just snap your fingers and find the competent ones.
So few libertarians have the self-awareness to evaluate themselves and their party on this level. This is why he's optimistic: he thought everyone had the same wherewithal as he has, and he found out they don't.
I mean.... you're not wrong. I'd argue that agriculture is literally the greatest accomplishment of mankind. The entire reason for that being readily available sustinance for a population. I'd say free refills falls into that category.
Neither anarchism not libertarianism are designed to work. They are designed to work for a very small class of select individuals who feel special about themselves. Some of us call these people "psychopaths". ;-)
There are apparently two types of Libertarians. On the one side you have Penn Jillette, and on the other Charles Koch. One is optimistic and the other wants no taxes and for the government's only role to be is to protect Billionaire's properties.
I thought for a really long time that I was very close to being a libertarian, but I had the same outlook and realization. I was optimistic that people would look out for each other, and that they would take care of each other. Then I realized, not just through 2020, that a large portion of the libertarian population was literally just in it for themselves. It was very disheartening, and eye opening.
Interesting perspective. I've never associated libertarianism with taking care of others, quite the opposite. When I hear someone say that people should not be required to do something which benefits others, I have always interpreted that to mean that they don't prioritize caring about others. I see, though, that it can also mean optimism that people are good and will take care of others without being required by the government to do it. I very much disagree with that optimism in general, because too many people are just awful, although each situation is different.
Its literally only "Do not force others or use coercion on others to take care of others". That says absolutley nothing about not taking care of others. Im very libertarian. Basically an anarchist and I'm all about mutual aid and helping others. I'd never hold a gun to another's head to do it. Also if people are generally that bad, putting some of the worse among us in extreme positions of power is nutty. No wonder government killed apx 442,000,000 people in the 20th century alone. I wonder if governments will beat that record this century? If you doubt my numbers here is a breakdown. 262,000,000 in acts of democde. 120,000,000 military casulties of war. 60 million civilian casulties of war. The civilian casulties is often estimated higher. I went with the conservative numbers. I wont list all the links. Its easy to look up the war casulties but heres the democide ones: Its an academic study done by the University of Hawaii. www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
This feels like someone who spent years sloganeering, "No one's coming to save you," finally got a taste of what "No one's coming to save you" feels like.
The thing is, the word "libertarian" used to refer to anarchism, a left-wing movement, and carries that same meaning in most of the world today. American right-wing "libertarianism" is really a bastardization of mutualism, which is the first formalized form of anarchism in the West and is one of the earliest forms of *socialism* expressed in that same tradition. While it advocated for a "free market" of sorts, it emphasized worker ownership of the means of production and is famous for an incisive critique of property which is, functionally, not all that different from (anarcho-)communism. I think Penn Jillette might find that his values are more robustly reflected and expressed in anarchism, which in all its forms emphasizes mutual aid, human solidarity, and a distaste for hierarchy that is obviously absent in self-styled "libertarians" of the modern day.
I never in a million years would have thought to myself, "You know, Penn Jillette is a real optimist." 😂 That's really not the vibe that I get from his show "Bullshit", or from any of his many rants. Much like I would never label George Carlin an optimist.
Penn sounds like he would find more agreement with socialist Anarchist philosophy, which I'd argue is more libertarian than the clusterfuck of "individualist rightwing libertarianism" which only leads to feudalism
The more I see how the sausage is made and study history, the more I think these "alternative political philosophies" are utter nonsense. Granted, my family survived the CCCP, so we understand what "socialist" experiments become in practice. Why is everyone who isn't an economist or systems analyst convinced that the modern global mixed economy isn't going to be the vehicle to the next better version of our economy? There's no invention we could "replace" our current system with that will magically solve ~any~ of our problems.
I've always respected Penn because from any perspective or point of view it was coming with some form of empathy and intellectual curiosity. This only makes me respect him more.
Libertarianism ALWAYS fails because it thinks of freedom as this black and white fairytale thing, sort of like how a child would approach concepts. There's no such thing as unlimited freedom, not unless you are the only one living on the planet. The moment you have a neighbor, unlimited freedom stops for both. Your freedom to listen to your favorite song however loud you like it clashes with their freedom to have silence and be able to sleep at night. Society, since its inception, has always been an exercise in deciding where one's freedom ends to accomodate somene else's. Libertarians belong to two categories: those who fail to understand these concepts and still think it's possible for two people to both eat the same cake in its entirety, and those who think that freedom applies to them and not everybody else.
Yep, they have devolved into “We will not fund infrastructure like road repairs, A jet pack for every household” When someone like Gary Johnson is booed for saying drivers should have a license 🪪 to drive,it’s, uhh telling
>debated and OWNED You are part of the reason why they lost their minds, you fool. The moment you saw the debate and went "oh i need to OWN THEM" was the moment you fucked up.
"Pathological optimism" is not how anyone has envisioned libertarianism, ever. His view of what libertarianism is, is so skewed. I don't know how he got it so wrong.
If you ignore centuries of human history and become arrogant enough to believe that human nature has fundamentally changed then you can be foolishly optimistic.
Libertarians seem to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility they have for others while enjoying the benefits of systems that are responsible to them. Libertarians will drink tap water and demand it be free of pollution, but refuse to hold businesses accountable for polluting that water in the first place.
That’s why I’m not a libertarian. To be a libertarian you either have to be a sociopath or someone who believes that whatever services that are working in other countries to ease poverty and help the disabled and mentally ill people as individuals will just pick up and do themselves. If you live in or around America, you know the latter part isn’t true. People are basically selfish and would leave large chunks of society to go somewhere and die a painful death if it meant another dollar in their pockets. Libertarianism sounds great if you’re rich and don’t need help from anyone, but it’s a nightmare if you don’t have money and you get sick.
'I'm responsible for others' Yeah, dude, that's NOT libertarianism. Libertarian is 'i got mine, leave me alone!' Penn's description is closer to socialism.
When you're voluntarily responsible for others and act out of compassion for them, not because you're required to, that's not technically socialism. Libertarianism, like Communism and many other 'pure' ideologies fail to account for human nature, so
Did you listen to anything he said? He said voluntarily helping other people is not against libertarian principles. So, in other words, libertarians shouldn’t necessarily be against things like laws against drunk driving (that help everyone)
Libertarians died for me when I found I didn't need dig very far to find some very uncomfortable conversations regarding the age of consent. Nope. Want NOTHING to do with that.
I have pretty much always been skeptical of Libertarianism for the simple reason that I have seen what companies will do for profit when no one prevents them from it. For-profit prison companies that pay off judges to impose longer sentences, chemical companies dumping toxic waste into rivers that provide drinking water, and car companies deciding that it's cheaper to settle lawsuits when people are burned alive in their vehicles, than it is to fix the gas tanks responsible for the most horrible fiery deaths imaginable. I desperately wish we could trust our fellow humans to do the right thing, but a clear-eyed look at the data shows they will far more often do the thing they perceive to be in their own selfish interests. Few things in history have put a larger exclamation point on that than Tuesday's catastrophic failure of American decency. People absolutely suck!
I have never even heard of that definition/description of "libertarian". The only one I've encountered is the not caring about anyone else/libertine/DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO YOU BIG POOPYHEAD! one.
It's a tragedy that many people, during the most productive years of their lives (maybe late 20's to mid 50s?), have a tendency to become incredibly selfish. They begin to think they did it all on their own, they don't need anybody's help, and they shouldn't have to pay taxes. Even people who, in reality, aren't very successful can fall into this way of thinking.
I have almost his entire set of his old show Bullshit, on DVDs. His idea of ‘libertarianism’ as ‘responsibility for others’ was not what I ever heard or saw during any of the episodes.
@@laurencewhite4809 your right that episode is from 2010 not from the vintage collection of which I own many copies of. I notice it’s mostly about autism and the vaccines. Not mRNA vaccines and COVID or anything related to that. It’s also their last episode it seems. And again I’m not surprised that it perhaps is a more recent episode because Penn has jumped the shark and descended (in much the same way Mr Sam Harris has in to intellectual lunacy) after contracting another type of virus, Trump derangement syndrome. Voting Democrat in the last two elections, abandoning pretty much something to the effect of 90% of his life espousing true libertarian principles and values. No other libertarian or serious thinker I’ve seen besides the other person just mentioned has done this sort of bizarre and betrayal of years of long held beliefs because of his dislike of just one man. Doing a complete change in his thinking and politics surrounding basically everything, because of Trump. That’s not the behaviour of the serious thinker I grew up to know and admire. It looks almost like sadly someone has lost their marbles.
I'm not too familiar with libertarianism, but I've always thought of it as a fiercely individualist movement. Lots of "I've got mine, you get yours." I wonder what led him to believe that it was about "responsibility for others."
The most surprising thing from Penn, after a lifetime of watching his and his partner's output, is that he thinks he is "wildly optimistic". I love that he thinks this, but very little of what he presents to the world ever felt optimistic.
I agree. Government handling of COVID is the best example of why we need libertarianism. They messed everything up so badly. They created inflation and made kids fall behind in school. Sweden had a libertarian approach and handled COVID the best. I suspect this interview was during the pandemic, when the hysteria and confusion could have rubbed off on him. Very disappointing nonetheless.
@mikeellement1567 It also ignores the fact that they were building off of studies from decades earlier...which is what I was hinting at with my original comment. Had that information not been readily available, the timeline would have looked very different.
Penn's version of libertarianism has always been romantic and optimistic. And I actually love him for it. He made me consider it for a long time. But it is a fairy tale. And in our society it is a siren call to those that simple do not care about their fellow American.
Penn just doesn’t want to get accused of being a “white supremacist”. Lots of people denounced classical liberalism/libertarian thought when being a progressive leftist became in vogue
If you care about human well being, the evidence seems clear that countries with Democrat Socialism / Social Democracies have the best actual outcomes for human well being. For example, the Nordic countries.
So Penn Jellette’s stance is that not forcing people to do something is good… as long as they agree with you, and are going to do that thing you were going to force them to do anyway. That’s a perverted idea of freedom.
His stance was "if you give people the choice, they'll choose the right thing" Now he acknowledges that people are too stupid and selfish to choose to do the right thing.
No, he''s not opposed to people deciding differently. You can say "hey guys, please do this" while still advocating that the government not mandate it.
Speaking of a "perverted" idea of Freedom; yours is one you will never have. If society or government disallows you from freely doing *anything*, you'll cry that you dont have "Freedom". Maybe try an ideology that requires you to think through problems, instead of short circuiting your brain with emotional buzzwords.
Penn Jillette is wrong again... respectfully ... about the vaccine. I still love the guy because he opposed "anti-mask" rallies. As an old man with lung fibrosis I personally mask-up for my own protection, and I am grateful for those around me who do too. I do not try and enforce my views on masks on the people around me because that is not my right, nor reasonable. It infuriates me when people challenge me for wearing a mask. I wear a mask to protect myself from a disease that will AT BEST reduce my lung function, possibly kill me because of my medical history, and the weirdest thing of all is that I have come close to personal altercations with people because THEY take offence to me wearing a mask. Absolute tyranny.
Hate to break it to you but he was also wrong about the masks. Anything other than an N95 does virtually nothing, and even an N95 MAY protect you very minimally. MAY…
I was vaccinated several times and NOTHING bad happened to me or anyone I know. I do know people that didn’t get the vaccine who STILL can’t smell and have long Covid and gave zero energy.
It is not tyranny if people use peer pressure about wearing a mask. Tyranny is MAKING someone wear it, or NOT wear it. BTW, I am a libertarian physician and would have no problem with you wearing a mask especially with lung fibrosis. But then again when I saw individuals triple masked driving alone in their car or walking down a barren street I saw what I would consider tyranny...or at least science ignorance.
@@NewAgeGigolo what are you talking about? How are you a physician during a damn pandemic saying it’s “optional” to wear a mask during an airborne virus? That is a health crisis. Are you stupid?
Not a single argument against the validity of the non aggression principle. If people are bad, we can’t have a state which bad people will occupy and coerce others.
The ambivalence of human nature must be recognized. The same person can be at once good and bad, pure and corrupt, loyal and treacherous. It is nobody's fault and we cannot escape our accountability to each other.
Ok but we don't live in the abstract, we live in a world where communism exists and explicitly requires it's believers to violently take over the whole world. The problem with libertarian/ancap talking points is that it seeks to invalidate and dismantle the ONE obstacle that has stood in the way of actual global conquest by communists for 80 years. The lines all originate from communists because that's who will benefit the most if y'all open the gates from within. You really think you'll just get to live in total liberty and that the CCP won't simply take out the unorganized individualists one by one while they claim the spoils?
@@HarbingerOfBattle Wait.... if somebody chooses to be bad - if they murder - steal - rape - it's NOT THEIR FAULT??? REALLY??? The delusion is strong in this one.
@@HarbingerOfBattle _"The same person can be at once good and bad, pure and corrupt, loyal and treacherous. It is nobody's fault and we cannot escape our accountability to each another._" I am interpreting this in English - perhaps you meant to write it in another language. If the same person can be good and bad - and it's not their fault when they are bad - then who is accountable when bad people do bad things? If someone were to purposely cause you grave harm - is it "NOT their fault".
yea college brainwashed him LMAO. look at articles from 2016 about penn jillete on trump. he loved the guy. now these articles from like 2019 and on are about him bashing the very same guy. "paid off". your thinking is a disease to the country I call home.
Most reasonable people can shake of the libertarian instinct by their mid-20s, when they exist in the real world for a while. I'll let off the precocious high schoolers, and slightly less so the university students, because there is some degree of high-minded idealism in it. But after that, it's nothing more than Otto's (Fish Called Wanda) view of buddhism "Every man for himself".
But you see, that was exactly why I didn't get it. It was developed in 3 god damned days, then rushed through approval. It hadn't been properly tested, and the coof had a kill rate of roughly .5% at the time, if memory serves, and even better survival rates in my age group. Do I take an experimental shot, or gamble on the .5? the choice was pretty clear.
That's why I was really attracted to libertarianism until I figured out I was the only responsible one. Same issue with the GOP. No government basically means letting lots of people die. The only time my libertarian friends post anything it's that they want to be stupid but the government or society is trying to stop them.
Most medicines go through extensive FDA testing before being released on the market, out of concern that the medicines will have negative side effects that exceed the benefits. So is it surprising that people were wary of being forced to take a vaccine that had no significant safety testing?
It had a whole clinical trial concerning its safety. Tens of thousands in it. People are lying about the vaccine in order to stir up opposition to taking it. Put another way, people are willing to kill people with lies to win political points.
But it did go through safety testing. One of the reasons they didn’t approve it at first for different groups was because they needed to finish safety testing for those groups before approving it.
@@Highbrowser How much more illogical can you possibly be Highbrow? You are still trying to make the same ridiculous claim that those of us who decided NOT to get vaccinated were putting at risk the lives of those who DID get vaccinated? Some people are so immune to logic and reasoning that further discussion is futile.
@@johnnynick6179 Do you know how herd immunity actually works? When we had 90-95% infection prevention, and transmission interference on top of that, it would have been nice if we didn't have people acting as a reservoir to keep the disease spreading around. People want to be seen as smart or brilliant, and they think it's all about the powers of reasoning. The reality is, 80% of it is about recognizing the limits of those powers and putting what you think you know to the test.
@@Highbrowser Here's another Einstein who refuses to use reason and logic because his "masters" tell him that "THEY" are science.... and nobody else should use their own rational minds. If the vaccine actually worked, the unvaccinated, the people you refer to as reservoirs for the virus, would not be a threat to those of you who were immunized. YOU would be protected from THEM. If the vaccine didn't work... the unvaccinated would be no more of a threat to you than the vaccinated. What part of that is so hard for you to understand? Should I type slower...or write it in crayon?
He seems like a sharp guy, it's pretty amazing that he went his entire adult life without recognizing the type of people that seem to flock to Libertarianism.
His mask argument is 90% correct but fails in one critical way: every study has shown masks were useless. The jurisdictions with mandates were no better off than those without. So the entire “do this to take care of your fellow man” argument collapses in light of evidence showing the thing you’re doing doesn’t benefit your fellow man at all.
Yes.... and some of us KNEW that.... it NEVER made sense to me that wearing a mask that allowed air vapors through so I could breathe would somehow block the air vapors that also included virus particles... it never made any sense... still doesn't.... but this pretend-libertarian knows better.
In my experience, Libertarians are just moderate republicans that are okay with gay marriage and/or abortion (socially liberal and fiscally conservative). They say 'both sides are bad' meanwhile voting republican 90% of the time. I've never met somebody that called themselves a Libertarian that wasn't an arrogant, patronizing person that I just can't get along with.
People being stupid hurts others and create pain and suffering. Is all the pain and suffering worth just to ensure the "right to be stupid"? I don't think so.
Penn’s point is people are doing stupid things because they think that’s what freedom means. Freedom means you can be stupid but it doesn’t mean you have to be stupid.
Yes, having had an ancillary role in phase 1 testing for two decades, generally, it takes 10 years for a new medication to receive approval. Seven years is fast five years is unheard of five months is insanity.
He believes in Scientism not science. He doesn't understand that vaccine injuries can manifest years after you take it so we require massive testing to prevent harmful side effects. He threw all that information away because science had done something new and fancy. Penn is a fraud.
I had a professor once say "our rights end at the tip of the other guy's nose." That statement can be looked at as either showing the limits of selfishness, or the expanse of compassion. If we look through the lens of compassion, I believe we travel down the same road as Penn. I hope he stays optimistic, even though it is hard.
From about 15 to 21, I was a small government libertarian. (partially because of penn and his show) What made me stop being a small government libertarian, besides the realization that companies are governments within themselves, was the extreme apathy libertarians had towards the sick and injured. 2008 was an interesting year. It seems Penn experienced my 2008 in 2020.
@@RM-jb2bv No, because the healthcare companies are still greedy, and people like you fight to keep them free to indulge that greed at everybody else's expense.
@@RM-jb2bv The problem with whataboutism is that it accepts the statement it's attempting to counter. Saying that massive government is apathetic to the sick and injured does not refute the claim that libertarians are apathetic to the sick and injured. Both can be true at the same time. Your statement ultimately implies that you think both claims are true.
So let me get this straight, Leif..... You care so very deeply for the sick and injured that you want to take money away from those who earned it.... by FORCE.... with the threat of prison.... so that somebody else can help those who are sick and injured. Is that REALLY your moral position? You want to FORCE people to do with their life's blood what YOU consider more important than what they want to use it for? That's your morality? Why not just use FORCE... and the threat of prison to make doctors and nurses help the sick and injured for free? Why not use FORCE against the scientists to work longer hours until they come up with a cure for every disease? Perhaps you should FORCE people with two healthy kidneys to "donate" one to those who are in need. Wow. That's a lot of FORCE. And you claim you were once a Libertarian.... a believer in freedom and liberty. You were much smarter when you were 15 and you believed you had a right to live your own life and did NOT deserve to be a slave to everyone else.
I think there's an implicit theme of most people calling themselves libertarians who confuse selfishness (no mask) with true libertarianism (no seatbelt).
Except the Cochrane study showed masks don’t work and the FDA said the vaccines weren't intended to prevent infection or transmission. Oh and for a while Fauci said don’t wear masks. So do vaccines go through rigorous safety testing or are they pumped out in 3 days?
If you actually read the study (don’t just cite it randomly) you’d know the study itself admitted that it did NOT prove masks don’t work. Do some reading before humiliating yourself.
Problem is there are "reseting points" in history where the playing field is made a lot more level. Ex: think of WW1 then the Depression and WW2 that those Boomer kiddies in USA "Factory to the World" the wealthy were gutted, and they were born on 3rd base later thought they'd hit a homer. It was a great time to be working class in America as well to strike it rich if one had the ambitions. However, by the 1960s the cracks were already beginning to show in the system. And the problem is, when everyone's roughly the same size fish, it can be pretty good. But if you're born in a more advanced economy, there are big fish lurking just for the opportunity to eat you alive. If you don't have a government that can occasionally watch out for the little guys, you're screwed. It's the same thing after a forest fire: it all burns down, those seeds in the soil bed then have a field day and reach for sky in full sun and great nutrients. But as a forest grows older, those giant trees produce more and more seeds but nearly all those seeds die. However, the very best conditions for trees are in older growth when one of the giants dies, it produces a clearing, there's water in the forest as well nutrients from that old tree's death, BUT that opportunity is very rare to occur & also is dependent on death/input from one of the "bigs". Most seeds die in those old growth forests, BUT if/when the fire comes again, it's those seeds dropped in the few years prior, that got buried just enough in the soil, that hit the lottery. Evolution still applies, ex: this or that tree that can grow a little taller, photosynthesize sunlight into sugar just a little better, has flower nectar and/or fruits that taste better to pollination insects and/or animals, etc. they pass on their genes, and yet so much of the whole game is dumb luck of the draw. Graduate with your Masters' Degree in 2008 oh look, they're firing all kinds of people and unlike them you have no experience; you're begging to work at Applebee's you have an insane amount of student debt and you've never worked a single "career" day in your life.
Despite the lofty rhetoric, Libertarianism is a stalking horse for plutocracy. When democratic institutions are weakened, the power vacuum is filled by money. Advantage begets advantage and the disadvantaged become more powerless and poorer as income inequality increases.
As opposed to a government that is filled by money?
@@mikevanroy9356 Are you aware there is an election coming up? Are you voting for Microsoft, Google or Amazon? No. You are voting for our government because it is controlled by us.
Nancy Pelosi's Net worth is 240 Million, Joe Biden = 10 Million, Trump = 5 Billion.
Exactly
@@mikevanroy9356 our government… by design represents the people. It doesn’t always do it well but a corporation’s only duty is to take your money.
A lot of what he says resonates with me. I thought Libertarianism had a lot going for it... until I discovered what most Libertarians think and believe...
They believe that they are better than you and that you should be their slaves. ;-)
You mean libertarians actually think libertarian?
That's like visiting a Buddhist temple and being disappointed you didn't find Jesus.
@@mikevanroy9356 He means that libertarians are habitual liars. :-)
The term "libertine" comes to mind.
When I was in university I briefly toyed with libertarianism. There are parts of it that I still like, but I think that the other parts are a massive disaster, as we see among many American Libertarians today.
I have always found it quaint and rather touching that there is a movement
[Libertarians] in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough.
~Christopher Hitchens
You're never called selfish for wanting to take someone else's money. Only for wanting to keep your own.
@@PotatoMcFry
There is no such thing as a self-made man.
Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money
~George Lakoft
@@kristiandoon8976And many of them won the parents lottery, too.
Libertarians all over the world are united in liberty. Liberty is not selfishness.
@@Chrisrpg1980
The lie of liberty is the mask for the desire for profits in blood
I pledge compliance to the flag, of the corporate state of America. And to the oligarchy, for which it stands, one nation, under the New York stock exchange, divisible depending on political convenience, with liberty, and a flexible definition of justice for all who can afford it. 🇺🇸
"For someone like me, who lives his life like an optimist, the world is making it kind of goddamn hard right now."
PREACH 🙏🙏
optimistic people in America are fools. just look around you. morons
Not after the red wave of 2024. Way more optimistic on America than ever before.
For reals. I felt that one in my bones.
Who else is watching this on November 7th, 2024 and REALLY resonated with the last line?
It's not hard for me to be an optimist now, it's completely impossible.
Present : (
Interessant, nicht war?
Yes optimism is suddenly very scarce
Amen. 🙁
This is it in a nutshell. The balance of your freedom verses doing what's right so as not to harm others. No seatbelt verses drunk driving. Not wearing a mask verses not wanting to spread a dangerous, new virus to those around you. Where is the consideration for others? Why are we so selfish? In places like Japan, they have no problem wearing masks if they don't feel well, because they respect other people. America had one of the highest death rates of covid in the world... is that what makes us great?
Japan is a collectivist society and the US is an individualistic society. Their respective cultures are different when it comes to values, social norms, and expectations for behavior. Collectivist societies prioritize the group over the individual, while individualistic societies focus on individual rights and personal freedom. These fundamental differences shape everything from family dynamics to workplace behavior and communication styles.
@@alexandermacneil4430 Japan is not all that collectivist. They tend to be more Law of the Jungle types in my experience. (弱肉強食 - the strong eat the weak, as they say.) They often wear masks when they have a sore throat, for their own comfort. Masks are more hygienic than wool mufflers. On cold days they will offer you one when you leave their house after a visit.
(Note that I translate Japanese so I know about these things.)
You don't think it's selfish to "demand" others wear masks for your "piece of mind?"
@@mikematull229 It's people like you who are the reasons why measles and other controlled & highly contagious diseases are making a come back. I truly hope yourself and your loved ones NEVER contract these all but eradicated diseases.
@@mikematull229ok, so
1. "peace of mind"
2. you call it "forcing others to wear a mask", but the thing is that if you go to the tube station and cough in the wrong direction, Janett (who works in accounting and is 6 years from retirement and finally will be able to move to the same state as her grandkids and is looking forward to finally have more time for her family) is going to fkn die bc she is 58 years old and has a minor congenital heart disease she isn't even aware of, bc it has so far gone undiagnosed.
Do you want to demand Janett stays at home for the rest of her life, just bc just because you have the mindset of a toddler and have to go against everything anybody tells you to do as a knee-jerk reaction?
do you want every person above the age of 45 to lock themselves in, bc they may have some undiagnosed risk factor? do you want people with risk factors to remain permanently locked in somewhere, just for your
i don't even know what, it's not even peace of mind... what are you even losing when wearing a mask? your own ego, bc then you will have to admit someone else has a good piece of advice you didn't come up with first?
gtfo with this 3yo oppositional defiant phase type 🤡
Just in case anyone forgot. When Penn and Teller had their show Bullshit, they did an episode on vaccines where they debunked a lot of what Jenny McCarthy said. So, never associate pen with the antivax movement
There are two definitions of "anti-vax" in common use, and really only one associated with a movement. The movement and the old definition was skeptical of vaccines that went through a full testing process and they latched onto conspiracy theories about side effects of proven vaccines. The more common new definition of "anti-vax" really has nothing to do with this movement.
I'd probably be smart to not associate people that are against mandated COVID vaccines with the "anit-vax movement"
To be fair, in that episode they simply plagiarized the talking points that had already been presented by vaccine developers and grant recipients. Not even Stanley Plotkin, who literally wrote the textbook on vaccines, was able to defend the dominant narrative under meticulous deposition… very disappointing. A rational person would have grave concerns about that outcome.
Unfortunately his support of vaccines and Fauci was total BULLSHIT. All the mandates from masks to 6 feet to get vaxxed and you won't get Covid or spread it has been shown to be lies. Yes he was stupid about the vaccine and still is. How many vaccines has he taken and given to his kids?
He didn't sound antivax here. But he did say something interesting. The vaccine was invented in 3 days and then wonder why people don't trust it? Kind of answered his own question there. The vaccine has the effectiveness of something that was rushed together in 3 days.
I have always misinterpreted Penn's definition of libertarianism, until now. I would like to thank him for clarifying. I wish more of us could be as optimistic, and that we could live up to his ideal of what it would be like to live in that kind of world. Yes. We should take care of one another, and we shouldn't have to be forced to do so.
His daughter told me his views had evolved on a different social media platform and I sought this out. He has not necessarily changed but I love that he has explained why he realized the platform was not meshing with his views.
I misunderstood him too, but I think that's largely because he acted like kind of a tough-guy/jerk on that show where he and Teller would attack people with unusual beliefs.
I’ve subscribed to his same thoughts on libertarianism since I was 17. I also pretty quickly came to the conclusion that it only works if we actually care about and for each other.
@@christophermcclellan8730 The selfish Libertarians are the ones that make it impossible to implement, funny how that works.
I was a libertarian as well, and then we had a pandemic, and half of our country refused to just wear a mask to protect their neighbors because "Fweedumb." We had an experiment that proved the libertarian claim that we don't need the government for people to do the right thing is objectively wrong
It wasn't because of "Freedom", it was because they were useless. It was known then, and it was proved true after.
I think this comment is objectively wrong, as though it's maker would be one of those who routinely says "trust the science"
That’s what solidified me as a libertarian. You saw massive government overreach. They told me I couldn’t work or go to school. Also most of the mask people were wearing weren’t doing anything. So no I don’t want you to make decisions for me. Remember the people that run government are still people. Blind trust into anything is dumb.
@@ryanunruh2683bad faith argument. Instead of debating the claim that humans are selfish as made by OP, you debate a claim they didn't make about "trusting the science". Be better.
Masks didn’t work, but f it, everyone needs to wear one to make you feel better. You aren’t a libertarian, you are an authoritarian.
The anti-drunk driver stance he took is key to debunking libertarian arguments. Essentially, if individuals are not responsible enough (or intellectually capable enough) to avoid behavior that jeopardizes the other people with whom they share this planet, the other people have three elementary responses: 1) People can unite to compel others to behave responsibly (government action) or, 2) respond individually (vigilantism), or, 3) do nothing and get massacred by all the idiots that are "free" to do whatever they want without any intervention.
Vigilante behavior quickly deteriorates into gang warfare, tribalism, or similar settings of violence and retribution, and most folks refuse to go there for that reason. And, since most people refuse to idly let themselves and their families be exploited or massacred without opposition, the default option throughout most of human history has been the first option: government response. Of course, the nuances and complexity of government issues and functions is as limitless as human imagination and emotion, but that is what we ought to all be working towards bettering. Everything else is navel gazing.
well put
Except who gets to decide what is good and bad and to what extent. We go through this constantly in every nation state in human history where definitions change and it always leads to abuse of power or corruption or war, etc. When you add the power to change definitions, you start to allow a government to dictate things, and over time, they always overreach. The best example is the Canada/UK charters vs the US constitution. The US mandates absolute free speech while the commonwealth nations leave it up to government discretion. It led to the government having police divisions that sit there and monitor social media for speech they dislike.
He's a bigot.... plain and simple
@@Peglegkickboxer The key is to making sure the government serves the people first.
@@Peglegkickboxer The US Constitution doesn't allow absolute free speech. There are constraints that the government can set, circumstantially. And there are very few constraints to how speech can be limited by private individuals and organizations.
I miss those days when libertarian was a synonym for leftist anarchist. Emma Goldman called herself a libertarian and she recognized that the power of economic elites in a "free market" was just as dangerous as the power of government, and that the two were closely linked. Noam Chomsky and others have called themselves libertarian socialists.
Libertarianism and leftist beliefs are mostly incompatible. And supposed anarchists who defend various Marxist totalitarian states around the world are probably the most ludicrous people alive.
100% this
People just don't read anything. They think they're the proud inventors of ideas that have been circulating, in more mature and thought-through forms, for hundreds or thousands of years.
An an arch ist would say, I didn't sign your Constitution, so I am not bound by it. Minimalist constitution or not, I have a right to be left alone by strangers that strive to force me to comply and conform to their rules, mores, and norms. No, I am not a libertarian. I am not a part of any fictional group. I am not bound to obey your rules, because I am not a citizen of your so called nation and you can't make a non-spoken non-written non-signed implied contract with a baby who doesn't speak your language.
Wrong, she called herself an anarchist and she hated JP Morgan and other rich people. Libertarians don't play class warfare, don't hate the rich. They hate government overreach, corporate welfare, personal welfare, and want to privatize everything from the police to city services. Watch John Stossel videos.
His way to describe libertarianism seems to best fit the description for healthy anarchism
"healthy" anarchism?
jesus, is this like "responsible anarchy"?
these are just terms that narcissists use to give people the illusion of control... 🙄
Yeah, this is what libertarianism originally meant, the term was co-opted in the mid-20th century by American anarcho-capitalists and minarchists but it has nothing to do with what the rest of the world recognizes as “libertarianism.” It’s an interesting little rabbit hole to go down and I’m not surprised that Jillette really knows his stuff.
Selfishness is one of the core tenants of libertarianism according to Rand.
I was a member of the Libertarian party for about 8 years prior to the pandemic. At that time, I noticed many people who identified as Libertarians refused to comply with the quarantine, mask, and ultimately vaccine mandates because they felt it was their personal right to not comply. They basically held the view that their wants and needs are the only thing that matters. Little did they consider the risk their choices were putting on others around them. Not complying with health and safety measures put others in danger, and these so-called Libertarians didn't seem to care. At that point, and because I agree 100% with Penn's perspective about caring for others and understanding how our individual choices can impact others, I left the Libertarian party to become an Independent.
My body my choice.
@@Stewman109-gps identify as a libertarians..... you do know you sound like am idiot
Bye. 👋🏻
@@earthwormandruw It's only "your body your choice" if the decision you make regarding your own healthcare only impacts you. Those who refused to follow quarantine guidelines, who refused to get vaxxed etc. are not only putting themselves at risk, but risking the health and well-being of everyone around them. So it's not about individual choice when your choice affects everyone closest to you. The "my body my choice" argument only works for women when considering the issue of abortion. Getting an abortion doesn't hurt anyone around them or put anyone else at risk, therefore it is solely the choice of the individual woman.
Exactly what I felt, I was a member for 10yrs
The fact is, in an emergency situation, a seat belt does help you keep the vehicle under control. Wear it.
That is a good reason, tho I’ve not seen that data and should not take a youtube commenter as truth it sounds logical
@DrumWild I'm sure that was a good special effects movie that you saw. Makes me want a police state just hearing about it.
My reasoning to argue for wearing one is that you get less injured if you do, and that means less of a strain on emergency and health services. In Canada, our taxes help pay for it, so it makes sense to help reduce that cost. I imagine the idea in America would be what you mention plus wanting to not get as hurt. *shrugs*
@@jimbojones8978 I'm not making an argument for or against any laws, but I would imagine seat belts are close to a wash in terms of strain on society. In my case wearing my seat belt saved my life, albeit as a quadriplegic, so it added to the strain on emergency and health services, and will end up costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars or more depending on how long I live considering my disability checks and Medicare.
The fact is, it should be YOUR decision. You have people arguing that an unborn genetically distinct organism is effectively part of woman's body like a mole, and yet we can't choose to not wear a seatbelt for our own good. Explain that one.
"Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." - Alexander Hamilton
Lol, what did Hamilton think government is made of?
“Government is instituted so that some men who have a passion to dictate conformity among man can do so without constraints, reason, or being subject to justice.” - Alexander Hamilton (paraphrased) The irony is astonishing, yet a superbly accurate description of “man” as government.
@ParaousiaComingnowOnly a Sith thinks in absolutes. When Hamilton said that statement, he wasn't talking about wino's and prostitutes and street thieves, he was talking about those that were already powerful and desired more and more.
.
Government is SUPPOSED (I understand that this is wishful thinking, but we are speaking philosophically) to guard against absolute power. That is the "passions of men" about which he speaks.
Hamilton warned (Federalist Paper No. 84) that the Bill of Rights didn't go far enough.
.
Proper government is supposed (there's that word again) to defend individual liberty against business interests, wealth, and social power. We don't need less government, we need more gov actually doing it's job.
.
There is a saying, "Regulations are written in blood". That is the blood of the people, not some pitiful owner crying about how hard it is to make more money and how they should be given Laissez-Faire to do whatever they want (which Jefferson wanted no matter what he wrote - his actions show his greed). If business and raw capitalism had its way, they would feed workers to the machine. Government is the only way to combat that level of power.
@@ahansen9583: Democratic institutions are designed to work in the public interest. That is what The Constitution is about. Unrestrained capitalism is predatory and has always abused labor and despoiled the environment unless prevented by the public through democratically elected representatives.
@@ered203They are winos and prostitutes and street thieves. They just dress better and speak in complete sentences (most of them anyway) so it's easier to fool you.
@@ahansen9583 "Lol, what did Hamilton think government is made of?"
There are literally no other options. You WILL have a government, whether you like it or not. The idea is to implement one in such a way that it's extremely difficult (ideally, impossible) for people to behave in harmful ways. The idea is that power that exists whether we like it or not, and the ideal government controls that power in a safe way that benefits us all. Having it run by some magical force that's always morally good is not a possibility; we have to make a system that works with humans.
I've never heard American libertarianism described as being about responsibility for others. Typically it's seen as focused on minimal government intervention in markets and personal lives; personal responsibility is crucial. You can feel responsible towards others if you like, that's your choice and your freedom, but by no means are you expected to. This makes me think he's actually more of an anarchist. Not in the cliche sense of anarchy being no government or rules, but it is about minimal government intervention (etc.) because you are expected to feel responsibility towards others and not need a government to compel this.
I mean, "everybody helps everybody out without being coerced" is the ideal result of both anarchy and Marxism.
I can sympathize with the idealist fantasy of libertarianism. If everybody just had good intentions and the presciense to anticipate the long-term effects of their actions, we'd all be completely free and perfectly responsible and we'd end war and hunger. That'll happen when we get assimilated by the Borg, or we wipe out like 90% of our population, whichever comes first.
Penn has always been ancap on the economic sphere, and on the social sphere he is more of an agorist
Yeah I'm glad this is top comment, was going to say something similar. Anarchists and other left-libertarians consider mutual aid and voluntary cooperative organizations as a big part of their worldview.
@@Chris-ot1ze You say I am confused... I do not think that word means what you think it means! I admit I was ignorant about a very, very obscure and almost extinct American way of political thinking. I have a few friends who call themselves libertarian (in the American sense). While not all of them are right-wingers I think it's fair to say if they are representative of how American libertarians are then they indeed left Jillette and others who think like them far behind.
@@Chris-ot1ze I followed his logic, and thought that concern for others at large and a respect for science was unusual for an American libertarian. You're not saying that's incorrect. Either way, I can see why his strain of American libertarianism has largely died out.
The word "Libertarian" originally meant a kind of left wing anti-authoritarian. That word was deliberately misrepresented and destroyed for the purpose of destroying what is now called anarchism since "libertarianism" is no longer available.
See this quote:
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over."
- Rothbard, Murray
Labels are such B.S.
They lied again
Murray Rothbard was a great thinker and writer
Penn Jillette = Legend
He was one of the main people to get me interested in Libertarianism.
Now he has pretty much summed up all of my issues with a lot of so-called Libertarians.....
The thing is Libertarianism always was nothing more than naive optimism masquerading as a political party. We would never have needed to make laws to begin with if everyone just did the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts.
Libertarians i suppose are different from libertarianism
@@royms2000 You STILL dont understand it. Laws must be in place for enforcing contracts and to ensure free from harm of the individual. Libertarianism is my freedoms stop where I am infringing on your freedoms. That is very simple.
@@deansusec8745 How are we defining "freedom"? You are saying that we need government to enforce contracts, but why is someone not free to break a contract? No constitutional freedoms are being taken away by doing so. Why does someone have a right to make you pay to have the government enforce contracts that they chose to sign themselves?
I thought about libertarianism until I saw Ron Paul kissing up to Donald Trump. I will remain independent thank you.
What a fallacious reason. lol. If that is how you evaluate things, you're the issue.
@@Chrisrpg1980 "What a fallacious reason."
But he's sort of the de facto leader of that line of political thinking in this country. Or at least, he was.
@@TheMisterGuy Hes one of many. Many before and after him. Spooner, Stirner, Konkin, Bastiat, Freidman, Hayek, Mises, Hoppe, Rothbard, etc...
@@Chrisrpg1980 Yeah definitely not the only one, but he and his son held office as republicans (I think his son still does), and he was a not-joke Republican primary candidate for president. He didn't get the nomination, and right-wing media denied him air time, but that's further than the others got.
@@Chrisrpg1980What am I an issue of exactly? Something wrong with being independent?
And I misspoke, I meant Rand Paul. I don’t think Ron drank the MAGA kool aid like Rand did.
It seems like Penn actually wanted to be an Anarchist, but got waylaid by the Libertarians. I'm convinced the formation of the Libertarian Party did more harm to the far left than anyone claiming to be a Republican, because it caught the attention of lot of people who would have read and taken a lot from Anarchist philosophy.
It doesn’t exactly map to the “right-left” we usually think of, but it sounds like Penn is basically a left-libertarian. The US Libertarian Party is very much a right-libertarian party.
And the reason I’ve never had any interest in libertarianism, not much respect for self-proclaimed libertarians was precisely because my only exposure was via the US Libertarian Party.
I only recently found out - coincidentally about the same time this video was released - that not all libertarians agreed with the US Libertarian Party. And that some, like Penn, want libertarianism in order to build society, not so they can escape any social responsibilities.
I am so glad Penn came around. The main logic of libertarianism seemed to me to be that 90% of people are good and will do the right thing and that the use of force to make them do it was wrong. I think 90% is extremely optimistic especially after the '24 election, but even if true, laws, enforcement and mandates are still needed for the other 10% . Let alone the 1% of seriously messed up sociopaths.
idk, don't you think the 1% are in charge now? Isn't the world being run by the sociopaths and outright psychopaths? None of laws, enforcement, mandates or norms is being upheld, by the elected President. I think the Trumpers and Christian nationalists would do much less damage in some sort of anarchist arrangement, instead of letting them be represented in our republic. Basically, the line of thinking you've presented is the reason(s) why not, are the same why I'm leaning towards libertarianism and anarchism, not away from it!
This guy had one of the best observations of Trump that I ever saw.... "No sense of humor," and "Doesn't like music." He observed these things while on the Celebrity Apprentice. Very telling...
I still embrace libertarian ideas, I just try to be pragmatic about it. In recent years, my priority has been to keep Trump out of office. That hasn't worked out so well...
I've always respected Penn and it is interesting to see him arriving at the same sorts of conclusions about Libertarians that I arrived at following 9/11. I was also a dues-paying Libertarian in the 90s, and I always knew the party had it's share of...that...whatever you want to call it. That selfish contingent. And I had to move away from it all after 9/11 happened and that contingent and paranoia started taking over the party. I still think I start with a (small "l") libertarian philosophy now-and like Penn I wish that so many things didn't have to be laws or rules because people could have the freedom to choose, but obviously there's only one real choice to make (like wearing a mask in a pandemic)-but I've spent 20 years realizing that people just aren't like that.
Half will choose the right thing, will think of their neighbors, will try to lessen conflict and look at the world optimistically...but half won't. They just won't. And that's why we ultimately need far more rules that I ideally would like to have.
For every person only taking one slice at the pizza party just in case there might not be enough to go around, there's someone else yelling "Eff y'all, I gots mine!" and grabbing up half-a-dozen slices for the same reason.
Good, u realized the most basic natural law there is for life - 'survival of the fittest individual by any means available and at the cost of others if opportune'.
Now what?
What Jillette is describing is anarchism. A radically voluntary society driven by mutual aid.
"A radically voluntary society driven by mutual aid." The dream of 21st century conservative anti-government forces - some sort of proto-world where locals help locals on their ranches or something. Which, in a wildly complex high-tech society with vast amounts of capital requirements, funding constraints, environmental clashes, legal nuances and policy issues is basically an invitation to a cluster f**k. Anarchism is as much a fantasy as conservatism - we cannot back to some utopian "simpler time" and all live simple lives. We're in a big, beautiful modern world with technology, rules and law - and regulation and self-regulation. Sorry!
Penn Jillette underestimated how many hoops people will jump through to avoid admitting they're terrified of needles.
The weird thing is I have a friend who loves acupuncture but who is rabidly anti-vax. I don't doubt that what you describe is true for some but I suspect for others it's more "the government is always out to get you" (and for some it's both).
Always had so much respect for Penn. Even if I’ve often thought a lot of his views were kind out there and crazy, it’s clear he came to to them through honest reasoning and principles he cares about and I’ve always deeply admired the way he treats and talks about other people.
I quite frequently (and far too much so) encounter idiots who equate "conservatism" with "libertarianism."
I first met Penn in roughly 2006 at the Houdini seance in Las Vegas. He was extremely kind and generous with his time.
Teller wouldn’t stop talking about the project he was working on, and I, over the next few years, grew to really respect them both.
This is the Penn I know. This is 100% him being Penn, and following his moral compass.
I respect that, very much.
I’m sure you know him so well based on a meeting. Must mean the world to penn.
Libertarianism is the proposition that the best way to get people to do the right thing is to give them explicit permission not to.
If human nature was so magnanimous that Libertarianism could work, we would never have developed any political systems at all. The existence of laws _per se_ is evidence that laws are necessary.
I'm a libertarian not necessarily because I'm optimistic about the efficiency of a free and unregulated people (although I am), but because I'm incredibly pessimistic about the competence of government.
Why are you pessimistic about their competence though, give an example
@@Sammie551 ......Anything the government does.........Literally anything. How can I give an example when the examples are happening every day? You can see it on the news. It's everywhere.
@@chris135x no I don't
Government IS people. It's not that gov't is incompetent - it's that people are incompetent.
There has never been a 'free-market' and whenever regulations have been relaxed or non-existent with respect to any form of action, it's absolutely led to people abusing that to the complete detriment of others.
@PhrontDoor Let's say you're right. You still have incompetent people running the government. You can't just snap your fingers and find the competent ones.
So few libertarians have the self-awareness to evaluate themselves and their party on this level. This is why he's optimistic: he thought everyone had the same wherewithal as he has, and he found out they don't.
So what does Penn think now in 2024?
It's obvious he doesn't think at all these days.
Whatever he can make bank on.... he is a grifter
When grifters?
@@AbcDef-zf4gsnot as good as Sump pump Trump 🇺🇦
I think mankind's greatest accomplishment was the free refill at restaurants but that's just me
No. Sugar is highly addictive and damaging to your body. It's destroying Americans.
I mean.... you're not wrong. I'd argue that agriculture is literally the greatest accomplishment of mankind. The entire reason for that being readily available sustinance for a population. I'd say free refills falls into that category.
@@redonk1740 Wrong. Free refills and all-you-can-eat buffets are mankinds all-time greatest achievements and will NEVER be topped.
I say we need to go further than just free refills, but I'm not gonna get everyone to agree with me.
@@redonk1740 Mass agriculture may be directly and indirectly responsible for climate change. lol. Pros and cons.
He’s got a good point, anarchism or libertarianism won’t work if we don’t work together
Neither anarchism not libertarianism are designed to work. They are designed to work for a very small class of select individuals who feel special about themselves. Some of us call these people "psychopaths". ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 I'm so glad I'm a psychopath to someone like you.
And to work together requires a strong central government?
@@mikevanroy9356 no
@@schmetterling4477 ugh🙄
There are apparently two types of Libertarians. On the one side you have Penn Jillette, and on the other Charles Koch. One is optimistic and the other wants no taxes and for the government's only role to be is to protect Billionaire's properties.
This didn't age well.
I thought for a really long time that I was very close to being a libertarian, but I had the same outlook and realization. I was optimistic that people would look out for each other, and that they would take care of each other. Then I realized, not just through 2020, that a large portion of the libertarian population was literally just in it for themselves. It was very disheartening, and eye opening.
Interesting perspective. I've never associated libertarianism with taking care of others, quite the opposite. When I hear someone say that people should not be required to do something which benefits others, I have always interpreted that to mean that they don't prioritize caring about others. I see, though, that it can also mean optimism that people are good and will take care of others without being required by the government to do it. I very much disagree with that optimism in general, because too many people are just awful, although each situation is different.
Its literally only "Do not force others or use coercion on others to take care of others". That says absolutley nothing about not taking care of others. Im very libertarian. Basically an anarchist and I'm all about mutual aid and helping others. I'd never hold a gun to another's head to do it. Also if people are generally that bad, putting some of the worse among us in extreme positions of power is nutty. No wonder government killed apx 442,000,000 people in the 20th century alone. I wonder if governments will beat that record this century? If you doubt my numbers here is a breakdown. 262,000,000 in acts of democde. 120,000,000 military casulties of war. 60 million civilian casulties of war. The civilian casulties is often estimated higher. I went with the conservative numbers. I wont list all the links. Its easy to look up the war casulties but heres the democide ones: Its an academic study done by the University of Hawaii. www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
This feels like someone who spent years sloganeering, "No one's coming to save you," finally got a taste of what "No one's coming to save you" feels like.
Just saw this, and boy do I feel like Penn must be having a rough time this week.
The thing is, the word "libertarian" used to refer to anarchism, a left-wing movement, and carries that same meaning in most of the world today. American right-wing "libertarianism" is really a bastardization of mutualism, which is the first formalized form of anarchism in the West and is one of the earliest forms of *socialism* expressed in that same tradition. While it advocated for a "free market" of sorts, it emphasized worker ownership of the means of production and is famous for an incisive critique of property which is, functionally, not all that different from (anarcho-)communism. I think Penn Jillette might find that his values are more robustly reflected and expressed in anarchism, which in all its forms emphasizes mutual aid, human solidarity, and a distaste for hierarchy that is obviously absent in self-styled "libertarians" of the modern day.
How am i just coming across this in 2024?
He who never changes his mind never changes anything.
I'm glad to hear this... I had assumed that he was in with the cynical and selfish side of libertarianism... glad to hear it's not the case.
I never in a million years would have thought to myself, "You know, Penn Jillette is a real optimist." 😂 That's really not the vibe that I get from his show "Bullshit", or from any of his many rants. Much like I would never label George Carlin an optimist.
Penn sounds like he would find more agreement with socialist Anarchist philosophy, which I'd argue is more libertarian than the clusterfuck of "individualist rightwing libertarianism" which only leads to feudalism
The more I see how the sausage is made and study history, the more I think these "alternative political philosophies" are utter nonsense. Granted, my family survived the CCCP, so we understand what "socialist" experiments become in practice. Why is everyone who isn't an economist or systems analyst convinced that the modern global mixed economy isn't going to be the vehicle to the next better version of our economy? There's no invention we could "replace" our current system with that will magically solve ~any~ of our problems.
Nice Royal Model 10! My own favorite is the KHM model. How much do I like old Royal typewriters? My pen name is Manuel Royal.
I've always respected Penn because from any perspective or point of view it was coming with some form of empathy and intellectual curiosity. This only makes me respect him more.
Libertarianism ALWAYS fails because it thinks of freedom as this black and white fairytale thing, sort of like how a child would approach concepts.
There's no such thing as unlimited freedom, not unless you are the only one living on the planet. The moment you have a neighbor, unlimited freedom stops for both. Your freedom to listen to your favorite song however loud you like it clashes with their freedom to have silence and be able to sleep at night. Society, since its inception, has always been an exercise in deciding where one's freedom ends to accomodate somene else's.
Libertarians belong to two categories: those who fail to understand these concepts and still think it's possible for two people to both eat the same cake in its entirety, and those who think that freedom applies to them and not everybody else.
The Libertarian party has lost their minds. I was once a proud member, and debated and OWNED Libs/Conservatives in debates.
Yep, they have devolved into “We will not fund infrastructure like road repairs, A jet pack for every household” When someone like Gary Johnson is booed for saying drivers should have a license 🪪 to drive,it’s, uhh telling
>debated and OWNED
You are part of the reason why they lost their minds, you fool.
The moment you saw the debate and went "oh i need to OWN THEM" was the moment you fucked up.
A lot of far right types these days
"Pathological optimism" is not how anyone has envisioned libertarianism, ever. His view of what libertarianism is, is so skewed. I don't know how he got it so wrong.
If you ignore centuries of human history and become arrogant enough to believe that human nature has fundamentally changed then you can be foolishly optimistic.
Libertarians seem to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility they have for others while enjoying the benefits of systems that are responsible to them. Libertarians will drink tap water and demand it be free of pollution, but refuse to hold businesses accountable for polluting that water in the first place.
Libertarianism is the political philosophy of a two year old child.
Took him quite a while to figure out what libertarianism means.
Skepticism is asking real questions
Cynicism is refusing to accept real answers
That’s why I’m not a libertarian. To be a libertarian you either have to be a sociopath or someone who believes that whatever services that are working in other countries to ease poverty and help the disabled and mentally ill people as individuals will just pick up and do themselves. If you live in or around America, you know the latter part isn’t true. People are basically selfish and would leave large chunks of society to go somewhere and die a painful death if it meant another dollar in their pockets. Libertarianism sounds great if you’re rich and don’t need help from anyone, but it’s a nightmare if you don’t have money and you get sick.
'I'm responsible for others'
Yeah, dude, that's NOT libertarianism.
Libertarian is 'i got mine, leave me alone!'
Penn's description is closer to socialism.
When you're voluntarily responsible for others and act out of compassion for them, not because you're required to, that's not technically socialism.
Libertarianism, like Communism and many other 'pure' ideologies fail to account for human nature, so
Did you listen to anything he said? He said voluntarily helping other people is not against libertarian principles. So, in other words, libertarians shouldn’t necessarily be against things like laws against drunk driving (that help everyone)
Libertarians died for me when I found I didn't need dig very far to find some very uncomfortable conversations regarding the age of consent. Nope. Want NOTHING to do with that.
responsibility for others?? not "f u, got mine!"??
I have pretty much always been skeptical of Libertarianism for the simple reason that I have seen what companies will do for profit when no one prevents them from it. For-profit prison companies that pay off judges to impose longer sentences, chemical companies dumping toxic waste into rivers that provide drinking water, and car companies deciding that it's cheaper to settle lawsuits when people are burned alive in their vehicles, than it is to fix the gas tanks responsible for the most horrible fiery deaths imaginable. I desperately wish we could trust our fellow humans to do the right thing, but a clear-eyed look at the data shows they will far more often do the thing they perceive to be in their own selfish interests. Few things in history have put a larger exclamation point on that than Tuesday's catastrophic failure of American decency. People absolutely suck!
I have never even heard of that definition/description of "libertarian". The only one I've encountered is the not caring about anyone else/libertine/DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO YOU BIG POOPYHEAD! one.
It's a tragedy that many people, during the most productive years of their lives (maybe late 20's to mid 50s?), have a tendency to become incredibly selfish. They begin to think they did it all on their own, they don't need anybody's help, and they shouldn't have to pay taxes. Even people who, in reality, aren't very successful can fall into this way of thinking.
I have almost his entire set of his old show Bullshit, on DVDs. His idea of ‘libertarianism’ as ‘responsibility for others’ was not what I ever heard or saw during any of the episodes.
Did you see his vaccine videos, or his subsidy videos? I respectfully disagree with you.
@@wednesdayschild3627 I’m talking about his dvds which were released years ago which had nothing about vaccines
@@sashatagger3858 Yes, they had a whole episode on vaccines and how stupid the anti-vaccine movement is.
@@laurencewhite4809 your right that episode is from 2010 not from the vintage collection of which I own many copies of. I notice it’s mostly about autism and the vaccines. Not mRNA vaccines and COVID or anything related to that. It’s also their last episode it seems. And again I’m not surprised that it perhaps is a more recent episode because Penn has jumped the shark and descended (in much the same way Mr Sam Harris has in to intellectual lunacy) after contracting another type of virus, Trump derangement syndrome. Voting Democrat in the last two elections, abandoning pretty much something to the effect of 90% of his life espousing true libertarian principles and values. No other libertarian or serious thinker I’ve seen besides the other person just mentioned has done this sort of bizarre and betrayal of years of long held beliefs because of his dislike of just one man.
Doing a complete change in his thinking and politics surrounding basically everything, because of Trump.
That’s not the behaviour of the serious thinker I grew up to know and admire. It looks almost like sadly someone has lost their marbles.
@@sashatagger3858 They did an entire episode on how miraculous vaccines are and how horrible anti-vaccine movements are.
I'm not too familiar with libertarianism, but I've always thought of it as a fiercely individualist movement. Lots of "I've got mine, you get yours." I wonder what led him to believe that it was about "responsibility for others."
00:50 The way he’s describing how he perceived Libertarianism sounds more like the way that Anarchism is described by those who believe in it.
Pen realizing he's actually an Anarcho Communist rather than a libertarian.
The most surprising thing from Penn, after a lifetime of watching his and his partner's output, is that he thinks he is "wildly optimistic".
I love that he thinks this, but very little of what he presents to the world ever felt optimistic.
I agree. Government handling of COVID is the best example of why we need libertarianism. They messed everything up so badly. They created inflation and made kids fall behind in school. Sweden had a libertarian approach and handled COVID the best. I suspect this interview was during the pandemic, when the hysteria and confusion could have rubbed off on him. Very disappointing nonetheless.
"They developed vaccine in 3 days..."
To believe that requires pathological optimism.
3 days is about right if you only test it on mice.
You know, like the last couple boosters.
Doesn't mean they didn't test it for almost a year before allowing the public to use it.
@mikeellement1567
It also ignores the fact that they were building off of studies from decades earlier...which is what I was hinting at with my original comment. Had that information not been readily available, the timeline would have looked very different.
@@Bardineer Penn was just being hyperbolic.
@@ProHumanity
Good for him. My point stands.
Penn's version of libertarianism has always been romantic and optimistic. And I actually love him for it. He made me consider it for a long time.
But it is a fairy tale. And in our society it is a siren call to those that simple do not care about their fellow American.
The sign of a mature individual is to be able to modify or abandon strong held beliefs that he or she held and be OK with it.
Michael Pantazis
Off topic; but that's one of the best paintings I've seen in the background of a video call.
What part of the government lying or being incompetent did Penn forget?
Libertarianism is about more than irrational fear and hatred for things you don't fully understand, mike.
@itmeurdad Yes and many libertarians showed they don't actually understand libertarianism.
Penn just doesn’t want to get accused of being a “white supremacist”. Lots of people denounced classical liberalism/libertarian thought when being a progressive leftist became in vogue
Most of it, apparently.
bruh, they made a vaccine IN 3 DAYS!!
If you care about human well being, the evidence seems clear that countries with Democrat Socialism / Social Democracies have the best actual outcomes for human well being. For example, the Nordic countries.
So Penn Jellette’s stance is that not forcing people to do something is good… as long as they agree with you, and are going to do that thing you were going to force them to do anyway. That’s a perverted idea of freedom.
His stance was "if you give people the choice, they'll choose the right thing"
Now he acknowledges that people are too stupid and selfish to choose to do the right thing.
No, he''s not opposed to people deciding differently. You can say "hey guys, please do this" while still advocating that the government not mandate it.
Speaking of a "perverted" idea of Freedom; yours is one you will never have. If society or government disallows you from freely doing *anything*, you'll cry that you dont have "Freedom". Maybe try an ideology that requires you to think through problems, instead of short circuiting your brain with emotional buzzwords.
When "socialism" is a bad word, and "libertarianism" is an acceptable word.
Penn Jillette is wrong again... respectfully ... about the vaccine.
I still love the guy because he opposed "anti-mask" rallies.
As an old man with lung fibrosis I personally mask-up for my own protection, and I am grateful for those around me who do too. I do not try and enforce my views on masks on the people around me because that is not my right, nor reasonable.
It infuriates me when people challenge me for wearing a mask. I wear a mask to protect myself from a disease that will AT BEST reduce my lung function, possibly kill me because of my medical history, and the weirdest thing of all is that I have come close to personal altercations with people because THEY take offence to me wearing a mask.
Absolute tyranny.
Hate to break it to you but he was also wrong about the masks. Anything other than an N95 does virtually nothing, and even an N95 MAY protect you very minimally. MAY…
I was vaccinated several times and NOTHING bad happened to me or anyone I know. I do know people that didn’t get the vaccine who STILL can’t smell and have long Covid and gave zero energy.
@@1985nygAlways amazes me how binary people are about the issue. Protection of any kind doesn't have to be absolute in order to be beneficial.
It is not tyranny if people use peer pressure about wearing a mask. Tyranny is MAKING someone wear it, or NOT wear it. BTW, I am a libertarian physician and would have no problem with you wearing a mask especially with lung fibrosis. But then again when I saw individuals triple masked driving alone in their car or walking down a barren street I saw what I would consider tyranny...or at least science ignorance.
@@NewAgeGigolo what are you talking about? How are you a physician during a damn pandemic saying it’s “optional” to wear a mask during an airborne virus? That is a health crisis. Are you stupid?
Feels familiar, as being libertarian to me was individual rights with social responsibility - I now prefer to describe myself as a humanist
Not a single argument against the validity of the non aggression principle. If people are bad, we can’t have a state which bad people will occupy and coerce others.
The ambivalence of human nature must be recognized. The same person can be at once good and bad, pure and corrupt, loyal and treacherous. It is nobody's fault and we cannot escape our accountability to each other.
Ok but we don't live in the abstract, we live in a world where communism exists and explicitly requires it's believers to violently take over the whole world.
The problem with libertarian/ancap talking points is that it seeks to invalidate and dismantle the ONE obstacle that has stood in the way of actual global conquest by communists for 80 years. The lines all originate from communists because that's who will benefit the most if y'all open the gates from within. You really think you'll just get to live in total liberty and that the CCP won't simply take out the unorganized individualists one by one while they claim the spoils?
@@HarbingerOfBattle Wait.... if somebody chooses to be bad - if they murder - steal - rape - it's NOT THEIR FAULT???
REALLY???
The delusion is strong in this one.
@@johnnynick3621 Wow…just wow. You missed the point entirely.
@@HarbingerOfBattle _"The same person can be at once good and bad, pure and corrupt, loyal and treacherous. It is nobody's fault and we cannot escape our accountability to each another._"
I am interpreting this in English - perhaps you meant to write it in another language. If the same person can be good and bad - and it's not their fault when they are bad - then who is accountable when bad people do bad things? If someone were to purposely cause you grave harm - is it "NOT their fault".
3 days, really, My friend worked on that for months 7 days a week, 12-15hrs a day, and DT did not help, this was an international endeavour
Graduating from clown college has finally paid off for Penn Jillette. Congratulations to him.
yea college brainwashed him LMAO. look at articles from 2016 about penn jillete on trump. he loved the guy. now these articles from like 2019 and on are about him bashing the very same guy. "paid off". your thinking is a disease to the country I call home.
Penn is clueless.
I think you mean 'Penn was clueless.' But he kept thinking. Try it.@@chriscosby2459
Most reasonable people can shake of the libertarian instinct by their mid-20s, when they exist in the real world for a while. I'll let off the precocious high schoolers, and slightly less so the university students, because there is some degree of high-minded idealism in it. But after that, it's nothing more than Otto's (Fish Called Wanda) view of buddhism "Every man for himself".
But you see, that was exactly why I didn't get it. It was developed in 3 god damned days, then rushed through approval. It hadn't been properly tested, and the coof had a kill rate of roughly .5% at the time, if memory serves, and even better survival rates in my age group. Do I take an experimental shot, or gamble on the .5? the choice was pretty clear.
Then why was there months of testing and almost a year between the illness hitting the states, and the vaccine?
A year isn't three days buddy.
That's why I was really attracted to libertarianism until I figured out I was the only responsible one. Same issue with the GOP. No government basically means letting lots of people die. The only time my libertarian friends post anything it's that they want to be stupid but the government or society is trying to stop them.
Most medicines go through extensive FDA testing before being released on the market, out of concern that the medicines will have negative side effects that exceed the benefits. So is it surprising that people were wary of being forced to take a vaccine that had no significant safety testing?
It had a whole clinical trial concerning its safety. Tens of thousands in it. People are lying about the vaccine in order to stir up opposition to taking it. Put another way, people are willing to kill people with lies to win political points.
But it did go through safety testing. One of the reasons they didn’t approve it at first for different groups was because they needed to finish safety testing for those groups before approving it.
@@Highbrowser How much more illogical can you possibly be Highbrow?
You are still trying to make the same ridiculous claim that those of us who decided NOT to get vaccinated were putting at risk the lives of those who DID get vaccinated?
Some people are so immune to logic and reasoning that further discussion is futile.
@@johnnynick6179 Do you know how herd immunity actually works? When we had 90-95% infection prevention, and transmission interference on top of that, it would have been nice if we didn't have people acting as a reservoir to keep the disease spreading around.
People want to be seen as smart or brilliant, and they think it's all about the powers of reasoning. The reality is, 80% of it is about recognizing the limits of those powers and putting what you think you know to the test.
@@Highbrowser Here's another Einstein who refuses to use reason and logic because his "masters" tell him that "THEY" are science.... and nobody else should use their own rational minds.
If the vaccine actually worked, the unvaccinated, the people you refer to as reservoirs for the virus, would not be a threat to those of you who were immunized. YOU would be protected from THEM.
If the vaccine didn't work... the unvaccinated would be no more of a threat to you than the vaccinated.
What part of that is so hard for you to understand? Should I type slower...or write it in crayon?
He seems like a sharp guy, it's pretty amazing that he went his entire adult life without recognizing the type of people that seem to flock to Libertarianism.
His mask argument is 90% correct but fails in one critical way: every study has shown masks were useless. The jurisdictions with mandates were no better off than those without.
So the entire “do this to take care of your fellow man” argument collapses in light of evidence showing the thing you’re doing doesn’t benefit your fellow man at all.
Yes.... and some of us KNEW that.... it NEVER made sense to me that wearing a mask that allowed air vapors through so I could breathe would somehow block the air vapors that also included virus particles... it never made any sense... still doesn't.... but this pretend-libertarian knows better.
i thinn Penn would find a lot of peace in being an Anarchist
He’s correct and all the infantile people in the comments are proving him right.
Don’t take the comments section so personally …
Instead , worry about you and your children being ‘up-to-date’ with the BOOSTERS 💉
In my experience, Libertarians are just moderate republicans that are okay with gay marriage and/or abortion (socially liberal and fiscally conservative). They say 'both sides are bad' meanwhile voting republican 90% of the time. I've never met somebody that called themselves a Libertarian that wasn't an arrogant, patronizing person that I just can't get along with.
None of this has to deal with libertarianism fundamentally. People have the right to be stupid.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
People being stupid hurts others and create pain and suffering.
Is all the pain and suffering worth just to ensure the "right to be stupid"?
I don't think so.
Penn’s point is people are doing stupid things because they think that’s what freedom means. Freedom means you can be stupid but it doesn’t mean you have to be stupid.
I discarded libertarianism ten years ago. I found it too selfish
I’m baffled by how someone couldn’t be skeptical of a vaccine that was developed in 3 days for a disease that was previously seen as “untreatable”
Yes, having had an ancillary role in phase 1 testing for two decades, generally, it takes 10 years for a new medication to receive approval. Seven years is fast five years is unheard of five months is insanity.
He believes in Scientism not science. He doesn't understand that vaccine injuries can manifest years after you take it so we require massive testing to prevent harmful side effects. He threw all that information away because science had done something new and fancy. Penn is a fraud.
I had a professor once say "our rights end at the tip of the other guy's nose." That statement can be looked at as either showing the limits of selfishness, or the expanse of compassion. If we look through the lens of compassion, I believe we travel down the same road as Penn. I hope he stays optimistic, even though it is hard.
From about 15 to 21, I was a small government libertarian. (partially because of penn and his show) What made me stop being a small government libertarian, besides the realization that companies are governments within themselves, was the extreme apathy libertarians had towards the sick and injured.
2008 was an interesting year. It seems Penn experienced my 2008 in 2020.
Massive government really cares about the sick and injured. That’s why healthcare costs have skyrocketed.
@@RM-jb2bv No, because the healthcare companies are still greedy, and people like you fight to keep them free to indulge that greed at everybody else's expense.
@@RM-jb2bv The problem with whataboutism is that it accepts the statement it's attempting to counter. Saying that massive government is apathetic to the sick and injured does not refute the claim that libertarians are apathetic to the sick and injured. Both can be true at the same time. Your statement ultimately implies that you think both claims are true.
So let me get this straight, Leif.....
You care so very deeply for the sick and injured that you want to take money away from those who earned it.... by FORCE.... with the threat of prison.... so that somebody else can help those who are sick and injured.
Is that REALLY your moral position?
You want to FORCE people to do with their life's blood what YOU consider more important than what they want to use it for?
That's your morality?
Why not just use FORCE... and the threat of prison to make doctors and nurses help the sick and injured for free? Why not use FORCE against the scientists to work longer hours until they come up with a cure for every disease? Perhaps you should FORCE people with two healthy kidneys to "donate" one to those who are in need.
Wow. That's a lot of FORCE.
And you claim you were once a Libertarian.... a believer in freedom and liberty.
You were much smarter when you were 15 and you believed you had a right to live your own life and did NOT deserve to be a slave to everyone else.
@@johnnynick6179 If you put the word force in all caps it becomes evil.
I think there's an implicit theme of most people calling themselves libertarians who confuse selfishness (no mask) with true libertarianism (no seatbelt).
Except the Cochrane study showed masks don’t work and the FDA said the vaccines weren't intended to prevent infection or transmission.
Oh and for a while Fauci said don’t wear masks.
So do vaccines go through rigorous safety testing or are they pumped out in 3 days?
You are so cute when you are begging for attention. ;-)
If you actually read the study (don’t just cite it randomly) you’d know the study itself admitted that it did NOT prove masks don’t work. Do some reading before humiliating yourself.
@@Vilblue
98% of people were wearing T-Shirt material for masks.
Why do you folks insist on continued deception ?
Problem is there are "reseting points" in history where the playing field is made a lot more level. Ex: think of WW1 then the Depression and WW2 that those Boomer kiddies in USA "Factory to the World" the wealthy were gutted, and they were born on 3rd base later thought they'd hit a homer. It was a great time to be working class in America as well to strike it rich if one had the ambitions. However, by the 1960s the cracks were already beginning to show in the system. And the problem is, when everyone's roughly the same size fish, it can be pretty good. But if you're born in a more advanced economy, there are big fish lurking just for the opportunity to eat you alive. If you don't have a government that can occasionally watch out for the little guys, you're screwed.
It's the same thing after a forest fire: it all burns down, those seeds in the soil bed then have a field day and reach for sky in full sun and great nutrients. But as a forest grows older, those giant trees produce more and more seeds but nearly all those seeds die. However, the very best conditions for trees are in older growth when one of the giants dies, it produces a clearing, there's water in the forest as well nutrients from that old tree's death, BUT that opportunity is very rare to occur & also is dependent on death/input from one of the "bigs". Most seeds die in those old growth forests, BUT if/when the fire comes again, it's those seeds dropped in the few years prior, that got buried just enough in the soil, that hit the lottery. Evolution still applies, ex: this or that tree that can grow a little taller, photosynthesize sunlight into sugar just a little better, has flower nectar and/or fruits that taste better to pollination insects and/or animals, etc. they pass on their genes, and yet so much of the whole game is dumb luck of the draw. Graduate with your Masters' Degree in 2008 oh look, they're firing all kinds of people and unlike them you have no experience; you're begging to work at Applebee's you have an insane amount of student debt and you've never worked a single "career" day in your life.
His mask take didn’t age well.
Why’s that?
@@Vilblue because there was never good evidence for them. There was evidence against.
bullshit
@@joshuascholar3220 🤣🤦♂️. On what basis is it “bullshit”? Just because you say so?
@@joshuascholar3220 ?