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
@@chrischandler889 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. 🇺🇸
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 🤡
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 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 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
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.
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.
"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.
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).
@@chrischandler889 "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.
@@chrischandler889 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.
@@chrischandler889What 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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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". ;-)
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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)
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
I've followed Penn's career since Cruel Tricks for Dear Friends, and he has always seemed like one of the nicest public people. Maybe he kicks dogs when no one is looking, but I've always been impressed with his kindness and intellect, and even been impressed when I've disagreed with him. Class act.
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.
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.
Freedom always ought to be tempered by fairness. We can debate what that fairness is, but anyone with a boss or landlord will tell you that someone else’s freedom often results in your own unfair situation
He and I follow the same trajectory. Someone called me and wanted me to be against any affordable housing. I am a religios person. The worst for me was to see people not listen to faith leaders who told them to take care of their fellow men.
This isn't about compassion, this is about the reality of it. Every single time the government gets its nose into the economy, things shatter. EVERY SINGLE TIME WITHOUT EXCEPTION. Almost every time you remove government from a field, the free market takes over and improves it drastically.
When I was a kid, I remember thinking that libertarians were well reasoned people who made some good points. Something shifted wildly with that group. I am glad to see that Penn Jillette is someone I can still respect.
Aside from genuine anarchists, this is how everyone views society. Do you envy a society in which everyone is permitted to do literally anything including the most heinous acts of crime? If not, then you second this sentiment.
@@cameronf.4119There is no "permitted" in anarchy. There is only what you think you can get away with. If there's anarchy and you do something violent enough odds are someone is going to harm you as a consequence so good luck with that. Nobody's gonna do anything if you just don't wear a mask. You need big govt and boys in blue to enforce laws against non violent crimes.
It's that Heinlein version of libertarian where everyone is capable and takes care of what needs to be done, and that means helping your neighbors and community when they're struggling and doing the best for society as a whole. That was my libertarian phase when I was younger and even though I left it long ago, it stung when Penn just made me realize that was the last bit of my naive optimism clingy on.
I think that if you are unapologetic in your beliefs as a libertarian, you agree with everything Penn just said. What seems to have happened, is some libertarians forgot to hold on to their principles, or did not really have internally consistent principals to begin with, and got sucked into the Ron DeSantis mentality of reflexively doing the opposite of the thing you hate most. For example, "I hate mandates on X. Therefore, I think there should be mandates against mandates-on-X." That backwards logic is DeSantis's path to authoritarianism. And in these few cases, that same backwards logic to authoritarianism gripped some libertarians who listened to anger, told themselves it was reason, and were too angry to see that reason was not the main driver. Libertarianism is still fine. Classical Liberalism is still fine. Neither of those concepts has gone anywhere. What has changed is that Penn Jillette used to be the loudest, most obnoxious libertarian out there, and that drove Bullshit, and that was great. Now, the loudest, most obnoxious libertarians are folks who watched Bullshit, took the faux anger and made it real, and took too much of the reason and logic that actually made the show work, and left it behind.
The only libertarian principle was always "Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me!...". It's the temper tantrum of the eternal three year old who doesn't have enough blood sugar. :-)
There is a difference between optimism and naivety. Believing that pandemic precautions could be taken voluntarily by everyone, and that there wouldn't need to be rules in place to ensure that everyone complies and some individuals don't put everyone else at risk, is simply naivety. Yes, I would love to live in a world where everyone would just do these things because it makes sense, without being told, and it wouldn't be necessary to have rules and penalties. But that's not the world we live in.
Sure the guy who said airport security was a violation of the 4th amendment now makes the argument that forcing people to wear ineffective masks is necessary for the public good and he's not a hypocrite.
He did not make an argument for mandatory masks. His turning point was about people assuming he was anti mask. Anti mandate is about you looking at the current facts and making your own decision. In the beginning, thinking of the people around me, using the facts I had at the time, I decided for myself and the people around me that masks and the vaccine was the responsible choice for me to make. Everyone else should have also had the freedom to determine for themselves what the best course of action was.
@@meganwhite7330 So you did not do much research, you probably listened to the news or a doctor that was afraid of losing his license. There was ample evidence that masking would have no effect on the trajectory of the virus. The vaccine was a fool's errand and something Fauci had advocated against prior to Covid. This is why we don't have a cold virus shot. The mutations are too rapid so the vaccine becomes ineffective before it can be administered to the population.
Actually he said people SHOULDN'T be forced to wear masks, but people SHOULD do it to benefit others. He made the stance that it should your choice. Think of him as pro choice when it comes to the mask and vaccines. This is a libertarian point of you: it's your choice. He's basically using herd theory.
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.
100% agree with Penn here. I was a Libertarian around that time and was starting to see a lot of the flaws in it but the whole mask drama was just the final nail in the coffin precisely because of the reason he described. They weren't advocating to just not have a mask mandate and to wear it voluntarily instead, but rather they just simply didn't want to be told what to do. It just showed how weak the ideology is when it comes to handling a variety of political situations, and, as Penn said, how little a lot of them cared about other people.
Back then I asked my doctor whether wearing a mask would help stop the spread of the virus. He explained to me that the virus, including the water droplet holding it, was so small, and the pores on a face mask were so large in comparison, that trying to stop the spread of the virus using a mask was like trying to stop mosquitoes from invading your yard by installing a really high chain-link fence. The only way a mask would stop the virus was to make it so dense that you could NOT breathe through it. We would all need to carry oxygen tanks around. Yeah, you and Penn were good little sheeple. You did exactly as you were told. You proved you cared for other people. Can't wait to see how high you can jump next time they tell you to.
@@johnnynick3621 No I disagree. Do some droplets escape the masks? Yea of course. They aren't 100% effective, and efficacy can depend on mask type. But does it block a lot of the bigger droplets? Yes, most definitely. You don't have to take my word for it. There are plenty of studies and visual simulations that clearly show they prevent the spread and block a lot of droplets from escaping. Hell, we don't even have to go that far. Just ask yourself whether you would want someone to sneeze in you face with them wearing a mask or without them wearing a mask. The answer to that is obvious, and the reason for that answer is also obvious, because it blocks bigger droplets from landing on you. This is the same reason why doctors wear masks when performing surgeries or when patients have highly transmissable diseases.
@@johnnynick3621All evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of masking reducing the risk of spread. But I'm pretty sure your story about "my [your] doctor" is made up. Either that, or your doctor is actually ignorant and an anti-masker himself.
'just simply didn't want to be told what to do.' Yeah that's a fundamemental tenet of the ideology, you were clearly never a libertarian but heard something that sounded good and labeled yourself as such. Now you've heard something else and you follow that blindly too even though they are diametrically opposed. In short, you are a suggestible follower.
Right there with you - I identified as libertarian until recently. People who habitually do the opposite of what they're told are just as controlled as the "sheeple" they claim to be smarter than. It's like they never emotionally actuated out of throwing tantrums when their parents made them do less-than-fun things, and have turned it into a political ideology in adulthood. I get that vibe from the Mises leadership, and it's disappointing that they're steering the party in a certain "anti-woke" direction and taking a stronger stance supporting extreme States' rights (which FYI are also governments capable of tyranny). I guess to pull in frustrated far-right voters from the Republican Party? Reminds me of an old neighbor who just let trash pile up in their yard because they didn't want a government telling them what to do with it. Place was a rat farm with a tiny walkway between rusty metal and oily mud. Pathetic.
I listened to and weighed Libertarian Party arguments. I concluded they would just rearrange taxation so we might not recognize it at first. I read the fine print on one of their brochures and noticed that "user fees and tolls" would replace much of tax payments. Always read the fine print. I still sometimes call them the Liber-Toll Booth Party.
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.
Masks: proven ineffective to the point of uselessness. Miracle vaccine: Proven ineffective at everything it was promised, as facts, to do. "they came up with that vaccine* in 3 days!" and this skeptic was all praise and no questions??? Not even when announced that big pharma would have immunity from lawsuits and no liability for the lifetime of everyone alive? Thats embarrassing, that he was so dead wrong and that reminds you how smart he is. Dude was scared and listening to the wrong people.
@@Robert-xk9no Really? So just state for the record that you, like ‘libertarian’ Penn, support law-enforcement with guns forcing human beings to put experimental chemicals in their body. Just say it. So we are now all clear where you stand. SAY IT.
I was a libertarian once. If I were to describe my utopia, it still would probably be the libertarian one. The problem with applying it to the world as we find it is that there are people starting with vastly greater economic power than others, a situation which can only get worse fiven that return on capital far outstrips return on labor.
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.
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.
@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.
Original libertarianism is progressive with old roots in socialism, like social anarchism, syndicalism, mutualism, etc. It's just that in the 1950-60s it was appropriated by the right in the US, to mean a 'me first lassez faire capitalism', which many Americans assume is the original one.
I left libertarianism as I became more empathetic. Conservatives and libertarians in general lack empathy for others. There are exceptions, but generally speaking the above is true.
Bullshit. Libertarianism and conservatism has nothing to do with empathy. It's the left's solutions to those problems that are the difference. And the solutions to those problems seem more like enabling, is where the true difference is.
I used to consider myself a libertarian, but I eventually decided I should look into whether these welfare programs I claimed were bad actually helped people and then I found out that the real world data didn't really support my world view as much as I had assumed, so I changed my view. It seems like a Iot of libertarians repeat an idea of what they BELIEVE should happen based on models which don't match up to real world data.
@@danielzhender660 So your NEW worldview permits the enslavement of the most productive, the highest achievers, the creators of all that benefits mankind - to the wants and needs of the highest number of needy people. Got it. Who says we get smarter as we age. Here's contrary proof.
Because there is empathy in political discourse so that is an asinine statement. You are not empathetic if you advocate for a violent state enforcing arbitrary laws.
@@danielzhender660 The welfare programs are disastrous failures. Poverty has increased with welfare programs so they just steal from the population to give bureaucrats jobs. What evidence you found that refutes this should be highly questioned, I imagine it originated with some government entity.
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!
@@4gegtyreeyuyeddffvyt "I voluntarily chose to follow the recommended safety practices of the time" = scared, apparently. I mean, I choose to wear a seatbelt even though I've never personally had my life saved by one, and despite my friend having her collar bone broken by one when she got in an accident, I still follow the safety data indicating it will make me ~90% less likely to die in a crash. Must mean I'm a coward!
It seems like optimism, at a certain point, cancels out skepticism. When a new type of "vaccine" is developed in 3 days with new untested technology, it deserves skepticism, not praise
Except this optomist once said global warming was a phony issue being used by socialists to justify controlling free enterprise. That doesn't seem to come from a position of optimism, just blind faith in Ryandian doctrine. I don't believe every businessman is evil, but the factory that can dump their waste in a river will bankrupt their competitor, and hoping that they will both magically be nice seems beyond naievety
"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.
libertarianism= opponents will always claim you are truly a confused anarchist. Webster's definition of Libertarianism=one who uploads the principles individual liberty of thought and action[with attached consequences]. The opposite, or what you must lean towards if you don't lean towards Libertarianism is Determinism=the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Anarchy: do as you wish, no actions have consequences. So which is more like anarchy? Libertarianism or Determinism?
How about we step away from political ideology and instead put the best ideas in the best places without loyalty to moronic ideas that go out of favor every ten or so years
libertarianism = the tunnel-visioned obsession with Liberty as the one and only value that matters. The idea that Liberty is the magic answer to every complex question there is. And the self-gratifying solicitation of both the accusations of "conservative" and "liberal", which makes libertarians feel smart and edgy compared to the dumb stranger that doesn't know you're deliberately trying not to be either.
@@BlueRidgeBubble It's not moronic, hard work matters. If I grow tomatoes in my backyard, I eat tomatoes. If you believe you have no ability to better your outcomes through hard work, You will still try to eat My tomatoes. Through regulation, laws, or force. I'd like to think that I was describing the way societies are, transcending bigoted ideologies. As in you can't "step away" from the descriptors, anymore than you can "step away" from the laws of thermodynamics.
It is not just libertarianism. All ideologies are split into groups who are more interested in enriching humanity and those who wish to benefit themselves. It just happens that libertarians are mostly the latter group. Props to Penn for speaking out!
You can see something as a scientific breakthrough and an impressive feat of organization ...while still be against the use of force to implement its adoption en mass. It should be up to the individual to decide if they want to inject themselves with a novel, revolutionary technology never seen before and produced in record time outside the usual process of checks and balances. I cant believe we have to spell that out.
The fact that the "novelness" of the vaccine and its status under emergency use authorization forms such a key cornerstone of the libertarian case against vaccine mandates is extremely telling. If you can't make such an argument absent that (mostly misleading) claim, it's clear that you're employing motivated reasoning.
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.
My take has always been that you have to stand tall, be smart, considerate, with a proper sense of responsibility to be really free. That's why when given freedom so many people feel lost because it is a big burden. But far too many see it as being absolved of any or all responsibility towards others and a free pass to give the whole world a giant middle finger.
He is not. As a registered libertarian for two decades (independent now), the VOLUNTARY commune structure was widely subscribed. People living freely of their own accord, dividing the labor as they see fit -- these ideals are not incompatible with libertarianism in the slightest. Authoritarian communISM is a different matter.
@@shionyr so a commune, the thing that communism advocates for... which is why libertarianism was initially a left-wing movement that fell in-line with socialists and communists. It only when Americans began including economic freedom and profess the freedom of business that it became right wing. What Penn is describing is far more left wing than right wing and is deeply departed from the type of libertarianism we see today, specifically in the United States
@@xCandieAndiex agreed. I'd also add that the term "communism" was firmly authoritarian by the mid century, around the same time that "libertarianism" started to gain a harder-right bent. Crazy to see how things developed.
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.
@@chrischandler889
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. 🇺🇸
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.
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.
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. 🙁
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 🤡
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 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
His way to describe libertarianism seems to best fit the description for healthy anarchism
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 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
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.
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.
"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.
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).
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.
@@chrischandler889 "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...
@@chrischandler889 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.
@@chrischandler889What 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.
What Jillette is describing is anarchism. A radically voluntary society driven by mutual aid.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
How am i just coming across this in 2024?
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.
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🙄
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 🇺🇦
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
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.
Just saw this, and boy do I feel like Penn must be having a rough time this week.
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.
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.
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.
I quite frequently (and far too much so) encounter idiots who equate "conservatism" with "libertarianism."
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'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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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!!
I cannot fault him for being as he said pathologically optimistic. It is incredible and beautiful that he hasnt become jaded and tired.
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.
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.
He who never changes his mind never changes anything.
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
I've followed Penn's career since Cruel Tricks for Dear Friends, and he has always seemed like one of the nicest public people. Maybe he kicks dogs when no one is looking, but I've always been impressed with his kindness and intellect, and even been impressed when I've disagreed with him. Class act.
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.
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
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.
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 💉
Freedom always ought to be tempered by fairness. We can debate what that fairness is, but anyone with a boss or landlord will tell you that someone else’s freedom often results in your own unfair situation
responsibility for others?? not "f u, got mine!"??
Feels familiar, as being libertarian to me was individual rights with social responsibility - I now prefer to describe myself as a humanist
He and I follow the same trajectory. Someone called me and wanted me to be against any affordable housing. I am a religios person. The worst for me was to see people not listen to faith leaders who told them to take care of their fellow men.
Depends on whos paying otherwise you are impeding on someone else's liberty
How much do you do to take care of "your fellow men"?
The biggest obstacle to affordable housing is government intervention in the market.
If you're religious then penn thanks! You're delusional
This isn't about compassion, this is about the reality of it.
Every single time the government gets its nose into the economy, things shatter. EVERY SINGLE TIME WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
Almost every time you remove government from a field, the free market takes over and improves it drastically.
When I was a kid, I remember thinking that libertarians were well reasoned people who made some good points. Something shifted wildly with that group. I am glad to see that Penn Jillette is someone I can still respect.
Penn Jilette is all about freedom of choice, just until you choose to do the things he doesn't like. 👍
He's just more mature than you. Accept when someone changes their opinions. What of the many Republicans that become switch to Libertarians, then?
What you’re saying comes off a little like infantilism.
Aside from genuine anarchists, this is how everyone views society. Do you envy a society in which everyone is permitted to do literally anything including the most heinous acts of crime? If not, then you second this sentiment.
@@cameronf.4119There is no "permitted" in anarchy. There is only what you think you can get away with. If there's anarchy and you do something violent enough odds are someone is going to harm you as a consequence so good luck with that. Nobody's gonna do anything if you just don't wear a mask. You need big govt and boys in blue to enforce laws against non violent crimes.
Actually he's just all about freedom of choice. What delusion led you to say that last bit?
It's that Heinlein version of libertarian where everyone is capable and takes care of what needs to be done, and that means helping your neighbors and community when they're struggling and doing the best for society as a whole. That was my libertarian phase when I was younger and even though I left it long ago, it stung when Penn just made me realize that was the last bit of my naive optimism clingy on.
I think that if you are unapologetic in your beliefs as a libertarian, you agree with everything Penn just said. What seems to have happened, is some libertarians forgot to hold on to their principles, or did not really have internally consistent principals to begin with, and got sucked into the Ron DeSantis mentality of reflexively doing the opposite of the thing you hate most. For example, "I hate mandates on X. Therefore, I think there should be mandates against mandates-on-X." That backwards logic is DeSantis's path to authoritarianism. And in these few cases, that same backwards logic to authoritarianism gripped some libertarians who listened to anger, told themselves it was reason, and were too angry to see that reason was not the main driver.
Libertarianism is still fine. Classical Liberalism is still fine. Neither of those concepts has gone anywhere. What has changed is that Penn Jillette used to be the loudest, most obnoxious libertarian out there, and that drove Bullshit, and that was great. Now, the loudest, most obnoxious libertarians are folks who watched Bullshit, took the faux anger and made it real, and took too much of the reason and logic that actually made the show work, and left it behind.
The only libertarian principle was always "Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! Me!...". It's the temper tantrum of the eternal three year old who doesn't have enough blood sugar. :-)
There is a difference between optimism and naivety. Believing that pandemic precautions could be taken voluntarily by everyone, and that there wouldn't need to be rules in place to ensure that everyone complies and some individuals don't put everyone else at risk, is simply naivety. Yes, I would love to live in a world where everyone would just do these things because it makes sense, without being told, and it wouldn't be necessary to have rules and penalties. But that's not the world we live in.
Sure the guy who said airport security was a violation of the 4th amendment now makes the argument that forcing people to wear ineffective masks is necessary for the public good and he's not a hypocrite.
He did not make an argument for mandatory masks. His turning point was about people assuming he was anti mask. Anti mandate is about you looking at the current facts and making your own decision. In the beginning, thinking of the people around me, using the facts I had at the time, I decided for myself and the people around me that masks and the vaccine was the responsible choice for me to make. Everyone else should have also had the freedom to determine for themselves what the best course of action was.
@@toby2581 GREAT POINT Toby!
@@meganwhite7330 So you did not do much research, you probably listened to the news or a doctor that was afraid of losing his license. There was ample evidence that masking would have no effect on the trajectory of the virus. The vaccine was a fool's errand and something Fauci had advocated against prior to Covid. This is why we don't have a cold virus shot. The mutations are too rapid so the vaccine becomes ineffective before it can be administered to the population.
@@toby2581 Yesssirrr
Actually he said people SHOULDN'T be forced to wear masks, but people SHOULD do it to benefit others. He made the stance that it should your choice. Think of him as pro choice when it comes to the mask and vaccines. This is a libertarian point of you: it's your choice. He's basically using herd theory.
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.
100% agree with Penn here. I was a Libertarian around that time and was starting to see a lot of the flaws in it but the whole mask drama was just the final nail in the coffin precisely because of the reason he described. They weren't advocating to just not have a mask mandate and to wear it voluntarily instead, but rather they just simply didn't want to be told what to do. It just showed how weak the ideology is when it comes to handling a variety of political situations, and, as Penn said, how little a lot of them cared about other people.
Back then I asked my doctor whether wearing a mask would help stop the spread of the virus. He explained to me that the virus, including the water droplet holding it, was so small, and the pores on a face mask were so large in comparison, that trying to stop the spread of the virus using a mask was like trying to stop mosquitoes from invading your yard by installing a really high chain-link fence.
The only way a mask would stop the virus was to make it so dense that you could NOT breathe through it. We would all need to carry oxygen tanks around.
Yeah, you and Penn were good little sheeple. You did exactly as you were told. You proved you cared for other people. Can't wait to see how high you can jump next time they tell you to.
@@johnnynick3621 No I disagree. Do some droplets escape the masks? Yea of course. They aren't 100% effective, and efficacy can depend on mask type. But does it block a lot of the bigger droplets? Yes, most definitely. You don't have to take my word for it. There are plenty of studies and visual simulations that clearly show they prevent the spread and block a lot of droplets from escaping.
Hell, we don't even have to go that far. Just ask yourself whether you would want someone to sneeze in you face with them wearing a mask or without them wearing a mask. The answer to that is obvious, and the reason for that answer is also obvious, because it blocks bigger droplets from landing on you. This is the same reason why doctors wear masks when performing surgeries or when patients have highly transmissable diseases.
@@johnnynick3621All evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of masking reducing the risk of spread. But I'm pretty sure your story about "my [your] doctor" is made up. Either that, or your doctor is actually ignorant and an anti-masker himself.
'just simply didn't want to be told what to do.'
Yeah that's a fundamemental tenet of the ideology, you were clearly never a libertarian but heard something that sounded good and labeled yourself as such. Now you've heard something else and you follow that blindly too even though they are diametrically opposed. In short, you are a suggestible follower.
Right there with you - I identified as libertarian until recently. People who habitually do the opposite of what they're told are just as controlled as the "sheeple" they claim to be smarter than. It's like they never emotionally actuated out of throwing tantrums when their parents made them do less-than-fun things, and have turned it into a political ideology in adulthood.
I get that vibe from the Mises leadership, and it's disappointing that they're steering the party in a certain "anti-woke" direction and taking a stronger stance supporting extreme States' rights (which FYI are also governments capable of tyranny). I guess to pull in frustrated far-right voters from the Republican Party?
Reminds me of an old neighbor who just let trash pile up in their yard because they didn't want a government telling them what to do with it. Place was a rat farm with a tiny walkway between rusty metal and oily mud. Pathetic.
I listened to and weighed Libertarian Party arguments. I concluded they would just rearrange taxation so we might not recognize it at first. I read the fine print on one of their brochures and noticed that "user fees and tolls" would replace much of tax payments. Always read the fine print. I still sometimes call them the Liber-Toll Booth Party.
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.
Pen realizing he's actually an Anarcho Communist rather than a libertarian.
every time I watch one of Penn's videos, I'm suddenly reminded how smart and eloquent this guy is.
Masks: proven ineffective to the point of uselessness.
Miracle vaccine: Proven ineffective at everything it was promised, as facts, to do.
"they came up with that vaccine* in 3 days!" and this skeptic was all praise and no questions??? Not even when announced that big pharma would have immunity from lawsuits and no liability for the lifetime of everyone alive?
Thats embarrassing, that he was so dead wrong and that reminds you how smart he is.
Dude was scared and listening to the wrong people.
Ick. Get a room please.
was
@@NewAgeGigolo"was" meaning he didn't go down the same rabbit hole as you
@@Robert-xk9no Really? So just state for the record that you, like ‘libertarian’ Penn, support law-enforcement with guns forcing human beings to put experimental chemicals in their body. Just say it. So we are now all clear where you stand. SAY IT.
I was a libertarian once. If I were to describe my utopia, it still would probably be the libertarian one. The problem with applying it to the world as we find it is that there are people starting with vastly greater economic power than others, a situation which can only get worse fiven that return on capital far outstrips return on labor.
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.
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.
"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.
Original libertarianism is progressive with old roots in socialism, like social anarchism, syndicalism, mutualism, etc. It's just that in the 1950-60s it was appropriated by the right in the US, to mean a 'me first lassez faire capitalism', which many Americans assume is the original one.
I left libertarianism as I became more empathetic. Conservatives and libertarians in general lack empathy for others. There are exceptions, but generally speaking the above is true.
Bullshit. Libertarianism and conservatism has nothing to do with empathy. It's the left's solutions to those problems that are the difference. And the solutions to those problems seem more like enabling, is where the true difference is.
I used to consider myself a libertarian, but I eventually decided I should look into whether these welfare programs I claimed were bad actually helped people and then I found out that the real world data didn't really support my world view as much as I had assumed, so I changed my view. It seems like a Iot of libertarians repeat an idea of what they BELIEVE should happen based on models which don't match up to real world data.
@@danielzhender660 So your NEW worldview permits the enslavement of the most productive, the highest achievers, the creators of all that benefits mankind - to the wants and needs of the highest number of needy people.
Got it.
Who says we get smarter as we age. Here's contrary proof.
Because there is empathy in political discourse so that is an asinine statement. You are not empathetic if you advocate for a violent state enforcing arbitrary laws.
@@danielzhender660 The welfare programs are disastrous failures. Poverty has increased with welfare programs so they just steal from the population to give bureaucrats jobs. What evidence you found that refutes this should be highly questioned, I imagine it originated with some government entity.
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!
Everyone can be libertarian until they are scared.
Penn got scared ?
@@4gegtyreeyuyeddffvyt "I voluntarily chose to follow the recommended safety practices of the time" = scared, apparently.
I mean, I choose to wear a seatbelt even though I've never personally had my life saved by one, and despite my friend having her collar bone broken by one when she got in an accident, I still follow the safety data indicating it will make me ~90% less likely to die in a crash. Must mean I'm a coward!
So don't be weak and dependent. There is no fear when you're strong and self sufficient.
Penn jillette is a National Treasure.
Sorry, Penn. Libertarianism has always been about this. You’re a victim of the proverbial no true Scotsman fallacy.
Selfishness is one of the core tenants of libertarianism according to Rand.
An optimistic skeptic.
It seems like optimism, at a certain point, cancels out skepticism.
When a new type of "vaccine" is developed in 3 days with new untested technology, it deserves skepticism, not praise
Except this optomist once said global warming was a phony issue being used by socialists to justify controlling free enterprise. That doesn't seem to come from a position of optimism, just blind faith in Ryandian doctrine. I don't believe every businessman is evil, but the factory that can dump their waste in a river will bankrupt their competitor, and hoping that they will both magically be nice seems beyond naievety
I'm a full-on pessimist. That's why I'm a Libertarian.
@@Proud_Troll you didn’t quite understand what Penn was talking about, did you ?
@@sawtooth808 Pretty sure I did. What do you think I didn't understand?
"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.
libertarianism= opponents will always claim you are truly a confused anarchist.
Webster's definition of Libertarianism=one who uploads the principles individual liberty of thought and action[with attached consequences].
The opposite, or what you must lean towards if you don't lean towards Libertarianism is Determinism=the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.
Anarchy: do as you wish, no actions have consequences.
So which is more like anarchy? Libertarianism or Determinism?
so true.
Definitely libertarianism.
How about we step away from political ideology and instead put the best ideas in the best places without loyalty to moronic ideas that go out of favor every ten or so years
libertarianism = the tunnel-visioned obsession with Liberty as the one and only value that matters. The idea that Liberty is the magic answer to every complex question there is. And the self-gratifying solicitation of both the accusations of "conservative" and "liberal", which makes libertarians feel smart and edgy compared to the dumb stranger that doesn't know you're deliberately trying not to be either.
@@BlueRidgeBubble It's not moronic, hard work matters. If I grow tomatoes in my backyard, I eat tomatoes. If you believe you have no ability to better your outcomes through hard work, You will still try to eat My tomatoes. Through regulation, laws, or force. I'd like to think that I was describing the way societies are, transcending bigoted ideologies. As in you can't "step away" from the descriptors, anymore than you can "step away" from the laws of thermodynamics.
"Pathological optimism" - well put, especially on the anarchist ends of the libertarian spectrum.
I’m so glad to see this video
well he was wrong, so...
@@Ronin969 I disagree!
It is not just libertarianism. All ideologies are split into groups who are more interested in enriching humanity and those who wish to benefit themselves. It just happens that libertarians are mostly the latter group.
Props to Penn for speaking out!
You can see something as a scientific breakthrough and an impressive feat of organization ...while still be against the use of force to implement its adoption en mass.
It should be up to the individual to decide if they want to inject themselves with a novel, revolutionary technology never seen before and produced in record time outside the usual process of checks and balances. I cant believe we have to spell that out.
Novel and never seen before except for 50 years
The fact that the "novelness" of the vaccine and its status under emergency use authorization forms such a key cornerstone of the libertarian case against vaccine mandates is extremely telling. If you can't make such an argument absent that (mostly misleading) claim, it's clear that you're employing motivated reasoning.
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 love penn ❤️☮️🕊️
thats fine. we all have stupid beliefs that should be kept to ourselves.
Skepticism is asking real questions
Cynicism is refusing to accept real answers
So basically “I want people to have freedom unless I disagree with them”. Very brave stance!
My take has always been that you have to stand tall, be smart, considerate, with a proper sense of responsibility to be really free.
That's why when given freedom so many people feel lost because it is a big burden.
But far too many see it as being absolved of any or all responsibility towards others and a free pass to give the whole world a giant middle finger.
He described a commune and said that's what he thought Libertarianism was. He is a smart guy but he's so heavily deluded.
He is not. As a registered libertarian for two decades (independent now), the VOLUNTARY commune structure was widely subscribed. People living freely of their own accord, dividing the labor as they see fit -- these ideals are not incompatible with libertarianism in the slightest. Authoritarian communISM is a different matter.
libertarianism has its roots in the left wing so idk what youre on about man
A self-organized, voluntary community with shared property is as libertarian as it gets.
@@shionyr so a commune, the thing that communism advocates for... which is why libertarianism was initially a left-wing movement that fell in-line with socialists and communists. It only when Americans began including economic freedom and profess the freedom of business that it became right wing. What Penn is describing is far more left wing than right wing and is deeply departed from the type of libertarianism we see today, specifically in the United States
@@xCandieAndiex agreed. I'd also add that the term "communism" was firmly authoritarian by the mid century, around the same time that "libertarianism" started to gain a harder-right bent. Crazy to see how things developed.