Penn Jillette: Reconciling Atheism with Libertarianism | Big Think

[@bigthink]

Want to get Smarter, Faster? Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter

[@clifhaley5150]

I love how he's always willing to concede and accept that he might be wrong about whatever he says.

[@heatherbluelove]

It actually makes the most sense to be an atheist and a libertarian No God rules over me No State rules over me

[@jeremy3046]

Kent No. One is a belief [and a fact, IMO], the other is an ideal. Totally different.

[@heatherbluelove]

Jeremy Hoffman That wasn't what I was talking about I was mainly discussing the mechanics of the two which are very similar in that both advocate self dependency and the non aggression principle You see when you don't believe in God and become a secularist you believe that people's religious views shouldn't interfere with their life liberty and property also you believe that god himself doesn't help you and you don't need for him to force you on matters such as prayer virginity and homosexuality Same thing with the state we don't need the state to force us to do anything or impose it's views on us God and the state are very similar in that they both seem to interrupt our daily lives on a daily basis in annoying manner that results in no benefit whatsoever.by being an atheist and libertarian you give more freedom to yourself from myths and bureaucrats and you depend on your self more as you don't need a fake deity or a big government to fix your problems Liberterianism and atheism are very similar some even refer to Capitalism as the atheism of economic systems

[@jeremy3046]

Kent Oh. Thanks! That makes a lot more sense.

[@heatherbluelove]

Jeremy Hoffman No problem You're welcome :)

[@shanana569]

But you want private unaccountable tyrannies to rule over you. A real libertarian opposes state and private tyrannies.

[@ScarletLink121]

An Atheist Libertarian? I'm not alone? Are there more of you out there?

[@thevoidreturnsnil7281]

Honestly, libertarianism seems to have a huge atheist population to me. I don't think people have the perception of this because of the sizeable "conservatarian" Tea Party-like types co-opting the name recently. If you check out anarcho-capitalism (which Penn subscribes to), you'll probably find even more atheists than in the more popular Minarchist flavor of Libertarianism. I actually really like that Libertarianism attracts people of all kinds. I've encountered plenty of people from several different religions as well as agnostics and atheists -- *all agreeing on stuff*. It's kind of amazing. Liberty is a universally loved concept.

[@ScarletLink121]

TheVoidReturnsNil I suppose I should look harder. Thanks for the info.

[@thevoidreturnsnil7281]

Scarlet Link *shrugs* Might have to do with where you hang out, too :) I mostly interact with folks on Reddit, which may skew my perception. There are people from a lot of backgrounds who've gravitated toward libertarianism. The Ron Paul movement (regardless of what you think of Paul) kinda proved that by the way it attracted people who are usually opposites of each other. Because of people like him, a lot of the libertarian message or awareness has leaked into the normally traditional "conservative" crowd, making it more relevant to them. For that I'm grateful (message always needs spreading), but that also might be why you see a lot of self-proclaimed libertarians who hail from that part of politics/religion. But libertarianism was around a long time before then, and is better represented by the folks in the Free State Project than by the Pauls or (especially) Becks of the world.

[@samueltrephan1658]

There are literally dozens of us.

[@sirandum]

Scarlet Link Hell yeah, much more common than we think apparently.

[@questioneverything.1178]

Like Penn, I'm a libertarian and an atheist. I love this guy.

[@EDC1911]

Me too....it hurts when i meet an atheist socialist.....because one of those things i strongly support...and the other, i'd fight to stop.

[@ArtofFreeSpeech]

@stringypete It always amazes me how socialist atheists, much like those in the ACA (the people who do Atheist Experience and Talk Heathen), are so adamantly against the government prescribing religion, but are just fine with the government prescribing how we must feel on social issues.

[@seyhuncelik9584]

@@ArtofFreeSpeech they can smell the same problem but their approach is wrong. I think this happens because they are not well educated about men, state and economics.

[@cosmiccheetah6906]

Teller's quote around 4:28 is amazing!

[@thewhitewolf3089]

Not to paint all atheists with a broad brush here, but I don't understand why many of them (but not all) can see religion for the BS that it is but they put all their faith in the government like a religious person would put all their faith in a personal deity. Wouldn't it make more sense to be skeptical of the state if you don't believe in God, either?

[@ianwallace8922]

+Adam Fitzpatrick Im an atheist and Ive been saying the same thing for years. I hold on to skepticism as a principle to apply to everything, including philosophy, religion, politics, and science. Whatever stands up to scrutiny and logic is what I support, and I think if atheists are logical enough to notice that reason > faith, why dont they be consistent with their logic and apply it to the state?

[@flavorshots3153]

It is a common argument that is held against atheists, and in some sense, one can say that both camps of thought are faith based. I wouldn't call it faith per se, but more so trust. I put my trust in science and the capacity for it to produce objectively verifiable "truths" that are not based on the account of one person, but a collaborative team of intelligent individuals. Science is also not static, and will adapt to change when/if new evidence arrives. Skepticism is also a rooted scientific principle. It is important to be skeptical of the workings in the universe as a whole. It might also be worth noting that not all scientists are atheists either. So really the world would just be a better place if people started acknowledging the benefits of becoming scientifically literate.

[@NikiHerl]

One can be sceptical of the political parties and the *current* government and still be convinced that a strong government with far reaching authorities is fundamentally the best way to organize society (at least in principle, but also for the most part in practice right now). That's what I believe. Of course it only works when political decisions are based on evidence and reality, not populism nor religion nor anything else.

[@NikiHerl]

+Niki Herl I should add that I strongly believe in Utilitarianism, so the state that I'm imagining would promote general happiness of its (and all) people, and pretty much nothing else.

Your dishonest and stupid noise is boring as fuck. As an Atheist I know magic's not real. As an anti-libertarian I know magic's not real. When a spoiled libertarian asswipe starts spouting shit like "Put all your faith in the government" that's the point at which the disease which is libertarianism makes everything ridiculous nonsense.

[@AmerginMacEccit]

I love this man's school of thought. That's exactly what I did for myself, I educated myself with all the tools available out there. You have a choice far beyond just belief.

[@christopherjohnson1873]

"Whenever you disagree with Dawkins, the chances are you're wrong" LOOOOOOL!

[@bjbarlowe]

Six years after this comment, that statement has aged even less well.

[@chubbyninja842]

Not sure why this video is entitled with "Atheism" in it. This video doesn't really have anything to do with Atheism. That said ... great video.

[@josuebarboza9809]

People now worship the state.

[@SquashDog01]

I learned more from self-study than I ever did in a classroom. And I had a teacher that touched my life, and whom I learned an incredible amount from. And that pales in comparison from what I learned by myself.

[@MasterOfSparks]

Penn Jillette is right. When you disagree with Richard Dawkins, as he does here, you will nearly always be wrong.

[@mkmny2010]

An atheist that believes in the state is not an atheist.

[@MasterOfSparks]

I am twisting your statement around in my head in every way possible to try to discern your meaning. But I haven't found a way to turn it yet where it doesn't sound stupid. Perhaps you would care to expand on your words so I know which version of idiot you are.

[@mkmny2010]

You're trying to discern my statement and you can't figure it out on your own? bahahaha, you're the idiot.

[@MasterOfSparks]

Yeah I can see your point, Me trying to make your bullshit into ANY kind of statement is obviously a dumb waste of my time. Sometimes I just have that sort of empathy and compassion for the less fortunate like yourself. Though it seldom pays off.

[@mkmny2010]

Prove to me that the state (government) exists in reality.

[@mate6mty]

The commentaries are sure 50 % of the entertainment on youtube ...No one changes anything ,but all this crop is gold for writers for sitcoms....

[@JohnSmith-rb6zj]

Teaching evolution in a biology classroom in a public school is necessary. Evolution is fact. Creationism has no place in a science classroom. A science class is meant to present facts. The student then decides if he wants to ignore reality. That is not forcing beliefs.

[@Account-rb6xg]

It's not like they teach it well. We spent all of 1-2 days on evolution in my school.

[@JohnSmith-rb6zj]

Franco Selem There was a whole chapter dedicated to it during my Freshman year of high school. Evolution has mountains of evidence backing it up.

[@Account-rb6xg]

John Smith Of course it does and I'm not denying that. I'm just saying, I've learned _far more_ about evolution on the internet than I did in my 10th grade biology class.

[@JohnSmith-rb6zj]

***** You call it atheist. I call it sane.

[@Justin-rm6su]

But in a private education, like both Penn and I prefer, the organization can teach whatever it may so desire. Whether it be evolution or intelligent design, it should be up to the school's administrators.

[@FrankLightheart]

I gotta say, I do not agree with everything Penn says here, but I like how openly he admits he could be wrong, and that kind of humility is a value I respect. I am not really sold on libertarianism. I think there are some important functions that a government is needed for. I like the fact that we have public parks, and libraries and schools we can all use and benefit from that we probably wouldn't have under a "donation" system. There ARE some things Penn says that I DO agree with, however. Lets end these wars, let's quit bailing out big companies. Legalize things like marijuana and prostitution. Maximize civil liberties and minimize government corruption. That's shit I want to high five Mr. Jillette for.

[@JohnVandivier]

fist bump for Jillette in this case.

[@Nerobyrne]

I clicked on this video to watch it and write something about how libertarianism is nice but fails. I will now call myself a libertarian. Penn Jillette, most amazing person I ever learned about.

[@T1J]

When you have a large group of people working together to create regulations based on a common philosophy of liberty and justice and democracy, you are going to come out much better than letting individuals find ways to screw each other over. Representative Democracy is not "letting the government tell us what to do" nor is it "taking away accountability" and I think this is a common, disingenuous characterization that libertarians like to use (which, in turn, makes me take them less seriously)

[@VencedorGamer]

Agreed.

[@Unknownentitties]

The us government has over 2 million slaves(oh I mean prisoners) and you're talking about individuals who are screwing each other?

[@Seriona1]

I know, it brings a tear to my eyes.

[@donald347]

My intellectual sensei. Not many other libertarian atheists to look up to. Penn Jillette, Ayn Rand and Stephan Molyneux. Can't think of any other heavey hitters. When you care about reason and intellectual honesty and consistency Earth is a lonely place.

[@UnchainedEruption]

I was just going to recommend Stefan Molyneux when I read you said it. I had heard of Penn Jillette before and I knew he was an atheist but I always assumed he was a liberal, I just found out he's a libertarian. Another great classical liberal who was an atheist is Thomas Paine. You're not alone though. I'm also an atheist libertarian, though I'm a minarchist like Peter Schiff, not an an-cap like Stefan

[@Ciph3rzer0]

*Stephan Molyneux* Ugh, I can't cringe harder. Do yourself a favor and turn off that ignorant jackass. And please don't lump him in the same category as Penn.

[@johnpoliziani6054]

I would highly suggest you avoid mentioning your appreciation for fascists lmao

[@mistajames3213]

From someone who has done a hell of a lot of post-grad work, I can tell you that open, accessible, well-categorized peer review helps if you actually care about getting results. Not all opinions are valid or valuable. People need a solid baseline in order to weed the garbage from the gold. High schoolers don't have the skills to do this; a large part of the value of mandatory education is to provide people with the critical skills to do this later in life.

[@DoctorLipsh1ts]

From 4:18 to the end may have persuaded me to vote Gary Johnson in the upcoming election

[@AkumosBDF]

It's good to hear him say this, it's easy to learn on your own now.

[@fafakitten9635]

As a highly conservative libertarian atheist, I needed this video. However, I was pretty surprised by his examples of what libertarianism can eliminate from the government at 5:38. They seem like very liberal examples. Now, I know he talked earlier in the video about things like not assisting businesses, and that's good, but real conservatism is about performance and efficiency through freedom, not morals as Penn states at the end. Some of the examples, especially the execution one and the "stuff that we really know is bad" at the very end, seem more liberal than conservative. Of course all of the other things need to stop, but it would be preferable to take the bridges with them along with every other social service and program the executive branch has amassed. For a truly small government, only one purpose needs to be fulfilled: the individual rights of citizens must be protected. So, all that needs to be done is eliminate those counterproductive who damage the individual rights of others and simply allow the unproductive components in society to naturally disappear; the weak individuals, groups and organzations are unable to provide for themselves or contribute to society, fail, and elimiate themselves, making more room for the successful to enjoy the country. This process of true capitalism creates a country of complete success and incredible efficiency with minimal government intervention. It's like taking a jungle and removing loggers from it so that it can grow, except that unlike other known life, humans are capable of growing without limit to infinite heights given the right conditions. I think you didn't go far enough in this video, Penn. Only talking of the changes that would come from applied libertarianism and appeal to liberals is not scraping the surface of the most important ideas in conservatism, libertarianism and capitalism, and I personally think it's a bit misleading.

[@reynoldscorey]

As afraid as I am of death, it's no where near as terrifying as the prospect of living for all eternity. Living a billion, billion, billion, billion years - experiencing all things that can be experienced. Burning every candle down. Letting every note drown out, and realizing it's only just begun. *That* is terrifying.

[@joegaylord87]

If this were where libertarians I talk to were coming from, I'd like the philosophy much more. Those I talk to tend to lean heavily on eliminating welfare programs and allowing people to have military grade weaponry in their backyard...

[@7777777777e]

***** the issue I have with guns is how impersonal it makes killing, if you kill an animal with a bow or a person with I knife you must take the time to prepare, understand your intentions, and the kill will be a bit of a mess. looking through a scope and bumping a trigger doesn't always require the thought or ritual that is necessary when making a decision as large as taking a life. its just so impersonal to never have to be in the same room as the life you are taking. for that reason I don't believe in gun manufacturing however, if half the planet has one im gonna get one too.

[@apelgrenjordi8432]

***** I can't believe you dare to give lessons about what classic libertarianism is. The dishonesty of the left couldn't be bigger. Please answer back and tell us again that a socialist like Bill Maher is for "classic" libertarianism.

[@UnknownUser-cn3rv]

It always makes me laugh to hear people say "military grade weaponry". The military uses weapons that are effective. So if a civilian wanted to get a weapon, particularly a weapon for self defense, why wouldn't they want one that is effective?

[@railroadtrash09]

We love to be winners. Knowledge and strength are the components to winning.

[@kevintucker8839]

Penn should run for presidency.

[@ythandlerandom1278LK]

Funny you ask that because I just watched a video on it on youtube, and it brought back memories from my undergrad course on the Economic History of Europe that I took years ago.

[@itchykami]

Penn Jillette, 2020.

[@MrHasenfeffer]

I agree to some degree. I still think you need a formal way of delivering the material, and having experts (teachers) on hand that can help students through the tough spots. I have taken a few online classes, and I have seen people struggle with them. However, I could see this being an option for some, just like home schooling, but not for all. There might actually be a market for a "home school" online business.

[@enigmavariationzero893]

Jillette is right on all counts. Dawkins' position is just more statism. Anyone who wants an enforced atheism is simply yet another Stalin and Mao in stylish new clothes. And he's also correct that implementing a small-l libertarian approach to governance need only retract, step by step and gradually, the largest and worst abuses first. There's no need to frighten conservatives with wild talk about radical and immediate change. They are fully aware of what happened after the overthrow of the Czar and French monarchy, and there's no way in hell they'll risk that road. If ever the worst problems get resolved, then perhaps some Libertarian (Utopian) dreams about the primacy of private property and nigh-anarchic individual rights might see implementations. Libertarians, especially those in the militant atheist ambit, are constantly forcing the merely good to be the mortal enemy of the perfect, and getting nothing thereby - except maybe some selfish emotional satisfaction.

[@SethGoodman]

Really, well stated!

[@ronaldbook8179]

but selfishness is the cornerstone of libertarianism so they are simply practicing what they preach.

[@GlassTopRX7]

Ronald Book Not true at all you just aren't entitled to benefit from my labors. Doesn't mean I wouldn't help someone if needed.

[@ronaldbook8179]

GlassTopRX7 if you helped someone because you wanted to how is that not selfish?

[@HarleyDrummer1]

You may be allowing your personal bias to glean from this video certain ideas and conclusions that are simply not true. There is no evidence to suggest Dawkins wants forced atheism, nor that atheism leads to Stalinism in an already established and functioning democracy that prides itself on the fundamental principle of the separation of church and state. I've listened and read enough about Dawkins, Penn, and the secular movement to assert that all are in agreement that in 2014, there is too much "church" being promulgated in legislation - particularly (but not limited to) legislation that impacts children's education - and by a growing number of politicians that are uneducated in virtually all of the sciences, or being willfully ignorant. Penn only disagrees with Dawkins on how children should get their education in the sciences, where Penn explicitly states that disagreeing with Dawkins is historically the wrong position to take. I take that to mean his views are open to change. So, if you are defining "forced atheism" as the government intervening in what scientific truths are taught to children mandatorily, then it is a view that Dawkins considers ridiculous and unworthy of debate in this day and age. Yes, Dawkins is extremely harsh to religion, and if you want to call that "militant", that's fine, but there's no evidence to suggest that Dawkins differs from Penn or the secular movement in general, such that people should not have the right to faith belief and to teach their biblical "truths", but he thinks the government has a vested interest and obligation to its citizenship to intervene on what is taught to children regarding the known truths (i.e. facts) of the sciences.

[@boringshi]

I can agree it's definitely worth watching. This way we'll know what works and what doesn't. Maybe this will benefit both 'ways'.

[@johnnyreb86]

I want no god OR government to be my master! To live as truly free men and women both mind and body from all forms of oppression, economic, spiritual or otherwise is the true pinnacle of human existence.

[@LittleTed1000]

***** I'm not sure you're aware of what Harikus is referring to. The USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. It's different. _“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."_ _- Benjamin Franklin_

[@LittleTed1000]

***** Slavery breaches the Non Aggression Principle.

[@LittleTed1000]

***** I take it you didn't know about the NAP? How dishonest do you have to be to spread criticism about a concept you're absolutely ignorant of?

[@LittleTed1000]

***** _Yes, i understand the non aggression principle and its pretty weak. Not that I don't agree with it, but for that and property rights/ contracts to be the only law of the land is retarded really._ Your two minutes of wikipedia research have not served you well. Can you show me where in Libertarian thinking it advocates the NAP being the _only_ law, please? In fact the NAP wouldn't be a "law" at all. _Sure, right now "wage slavery" isn't even close to as heinous as its chattel slavery counterpart_ If that in fact is what you were referring to (I'm not convinced of that) I'd make that clearer from now on. Perhaps not use the wrong term? _The constitution however does not protect shit in a libertarian distopia because the whole point of it was to establish a central government._ Ah huh... can you point out in mainstream Libertarian thinking where it says you shouldn't have a government? There are extremists who use Libertarian concepts to justify anarchism but that's not considered Libertarianism in the main. In fact most Libertarians view Libertarianism as an unattainable goal - one to aim for but probably not doable in reality. But any movement closer to Liberty is better than moving the other way. When you say the constitution wouldn't protect you in Libertarianism... do you think Libertarianism advocates getting rid of the constitution?? If so - read a book immediately. _As for the democracy debate, you must know that dispite being a constitutional democratic republic it is still the democratic process._ Similar to the democratic process, sure. Where have you ever seen the USA's system described as a Constitutional _Democratic_ Republic? I've never seen that. Are you sticking a word in the middle to make your point sound more valid?? _Technically it is structured differently than pure democracy but that is so redundant to the argument,_ How so? The discussion was that democracy is coercion via the mob (an apt description) and that Ricardo Bozboz didn't understand what was being pointed out to him.

[@LittleTed1000]

***** You're not going to address my questions? You're just going to repeat your misunderstanding huh?

[@deluks917]

That was a good point. Probably important to not get bogged down on the bridges issue.

[@geekgroupie42]

i'm a lefty and i think those ideas are great

[@wariyoshidirector]

I'm a "hardcore right-wing," as most others would probably classify me, and while I didn't agree with most of his political points (strangely enough considering we're on the the same side of the political spectrum O_o) I can say that I'd probably vote for him over Obama or Romney any day because while I wouldn't agree with a lot of his political views, I think he's very good at putting morals and practicality over loyalty to his political party unlike most politicians c:

[@geekgroupie42]

i'd vote for him over the clowns we have in australia too!

[@geekgroupie42]

we should always put morals and practicality over loyalty to a party... it seems as if when ever you say you hold a view (ie being a leftie) you need to explain that it is only a small part of a complex nexus of thoughts and beliefs.. you shouldn't have to, but i often find, like now, that you do.

[@MTread545]

you have to take into account that he is as right as you can get on money and as left as you can get on sex/drugs/personal decisions

[@chrlpolk]

When I worked at Walgreens, I was talking with a district manager, and he said something like, "You don't have to be good at math if you've hired someone who is." You don't have to personally be good at anything to be successful in business. You just have to hire according to your needs (rather, your defficiencies). What makes you "succeed" is the fact that you took a chance with your assets, while the person you hired did not.

[@apelgrenjordi8432]

23lFrench Classic reductionist anti Capitalist pro Socialist dogma How cool is to answer shallow statements with shallow statements?

[@sonicx2218]

Thanks for the clearing up. I agree 100% with that

[@SteveGouldinSpain]

You need to get where you have free heath-care, free justice, and free education for all and then the society flourishes and takes care itself. Opinion!

[@stlstg]

Where does the money for all this free stuff come from? Why stop there? Why not free housing? Free clothes? Free food? Your "opinion" doesn't seem very well thought out or logical.

[@SteveGouldinSpain]

+stlstg the point is that manufacture creates a surplus. The manufacturer produces more than he can consume. He can either share what he has with society or sell at a profit (or a combination of both). Today, production is so efficient and productivity so great due to information technology, that we should all be working less rather than more, the third world should not be going hungry, and the increase productivity enjoyed over the last thirty years should have benefited everyone, not just the one percent. There is enough to go around as long as you don't treat the world as a game of monopoly. In future I do hope that we accept that food, clothes and shelter are available for all for no other cost than their peaceful co-operation in society, and that we mutually support the needs of everyone in our tribe and our tribe is the world. Alternatively you can stick with the Donald Trump 'fuck everyone else' model of how to create a better world.

[@SteveGouldinSpain]

Wow Michael Tomac do you really believe that rubbish? _Microsoft created tens of thousands of jobs making the world more productive and interconnected?_ Microsoft didn't know what the internet was until five years after Tim Berners Lee invented the Web, then they did the usual propriety money grabbing thing of trying to secure their standards for their web browser that started a browser war that hampered development in the web for a decade. Now they're laying off people in large numbers. It's true large American corporations have outsourced work to third world countries but it would be a huge lie to say that this has ameliorated poverty. In countries like India and China where the wealth created has largely gone to a small middle class in concentrated areas in big cities. Capitalism is re-birthing it's cancer that will be to the detriment of the large part of their populations.

[@SteveGouldinSpain]

Michael Tomac You're clearly not a web developer are you? The inability of principally Netscape and Microsoft to agree standards for the implementation of HTML and later, CSS made it a nightmare for developers to produce code that displayed equally well on both platforms. There was no sense of, 'oh lets sort this out so we can rush out the best system possible for the benefit of mankind!' Competition cost the early web big time. It is still doing so today. Just as the world was getting used to open source and web applications that were platform independent, out comes Apple with the iPhone and starts charging for 'apps', which of course are proprietry and not platform independent, plunging the world back into the dark ages! As for China having a better standard of living it surely must be than under Mao, though you must recognise that he put the groundwork in taking China from what was essentially a pre-industrial-revolution economy into the modern world. Given that China was the worlds most populated country that was no mean feat. Since Nixon went over and started the tech revolution over there, sure a lot more people have gotten rich out of it, but how many as a percentage of population? Nobody really knows but my guess is that because China's population is so huge, the disparity between rich and poor will, as a result of capilatism (if China completely turns its back on central planning), turn out to be worse in China than in any country at any time in history.

[@SteveGouldinSpain]

Well I would argue China wasn't crushed by socialism - that's just a myth perpetuated by the US government. Russia, China and East Germany would have been OK if the US hadn't done everything it could to drive their economies with trade barriers, sanctions and embargoes. As for the Internet, you have to be kidding me! The Internet was a DARPA project completely funded by the US government - the private sector have nothing to do with the development of the internet. As a matter a fact, most things like computers and mobile phones that depend on VLSI - very large scale integration, computers on a chip, would not be with us without the advances made by the space program, which again was public money. Centralized planning is good. A fail to plan is a plan to fail.

[@Odesawaan]

"I think there's a condescending quality that has to do with 'we have to educate the masses because we know better.'" I agree, it's incredibly condescending. But it's also the truth. It's been observed time and again that when given the option on how much education to obtain the masses will pursue the path of least resistance. We can't just 'leave the tools out for people to educate themselves' then expect everyone to do it on their own, because those tools already exist and many don't.

[@23lFrench]

Classic reductionist pro Capitalist dogma

[@LittleTed1000]

Harikus Atheism doesn't have a political affiliation but if you mean it's an observation of those that are both left and atheist I suppose that could be a truism... I do find it hard to mentally reconcile your derisive-ish reference to atheism and your opposition to altruism. One would assume you are a member of a religion - but that is only an assumption based on your reference to atheism so I leave you open to correcting me. If you are though - to which religion do you belong that doesn't advocate altruism?

[@mehrshadvr4]

The problem with self-learning is that you don't know where to start without someone telling you. I also agree with not spending and billing out rich people and also the military.

[@tedadams1324]

Jillette makes some excellent points. Philosophically, I am an Anarcho-Capitalistic atheist. Yet, Jillette is most likely right that we should begin by picking all the low-hanging fruit first. Most An-Cap atheists are not very pragmatic. We're more interested in being philosophically consistent. However, if we'd ever like to see society transition, it will be much more likely to occur if we go slowly so that others will not resist our efforts with such ferocity.

[@ImRuzicore]

Yeah definitely. I think that's how the majority of the people choose to spend their time going on the internet, but I'm glad for my sake that I get to choose who I learn from, and there certainly is a lot more to choose from on the internet rather than just my hometown or a couple states surrounding.

[@ImRuzicore]

Some of the best teachers in the world are on the internet, who have the knowledge to persuade and influence millions instead of hundreds. The problem with teachers is you or your child can be taught by anybody, but with a person on the internet there is that true freedom of expression and liberation that isn't regulated by what the state or govt. determines. But then again human interaction is a very important part of learning and progressing.

[@Gryffixchannel]

I disagree with him on many points, but I did learn a few things. Penn is a cool guy.

[@LegionOf3]

I passed in one of the top high schools in my state with a 3.5 and i didn't learn anything more than i already knew from the internet.

[@AxeMain]

Public school is more about finding yourself and building social skills, so I think it'll stay important, even if you can learn a lot more online.

[@rexlupis]

Penn is an intelligent, honest and prolific man. I am glad he shares his ideas on the internet. My opinion of libertarianism is similar to Ayn Rand's; at its core, it is anarchy with money. I agree on most points raised by libertarian philosophers, but I think Hobbes was onto something when he posited the idea of negative rights; that is a government is imposed as a monopoly on force and does have a purpose: maintaining and enforcing laws that keep us from infringing on each others' rights.

[@pbmdh]

Best part about Penn is that he ADMITS he "may be wrong" on something. Some people just can't do that.

[@Odesawaan]

Knowledge has freely available in any local library for centuries. Some libraries predate the Revolutionary War. The internet has been making this knowledge even more vastly available and has been for more than a decade. Please explain: how are we not just leaving the tools out?

[@Jayremy89]

There is an increasing difference in thinking over the years when communication has improved and expanded especially with places like this, and the internet in general. In the "old days" generation to generation there was minimal differences and changes in society, they were happening, just more gradually. All people then were educated rather much by the same means, with growth of media people are gaining vastly differing opinions, abortion rights, gay marriage, atheism/agnostic and more grow.

[@dillon2130]

well, I have a bit of studying in communications which looks at cultures, and we learn that many people accept things in a sort of "This is how things are" they don't question it, they may not even notice it. one way to put it is this, ever watched a movie you liked, but then someone else mentioned a massive flaw, you are surprised because you hadn't really noticed. In essence they don't notice and they accept it so strongly they don't want to believe it's wrong

[@1anarquista.sensato]

I didn't message you, i replied publicly to your comment. I was correcting your logical mistake so that other people don't fall prey to thinking that atheism has any sort of affirmative claim. Your arguments spoke for themselves and i thank you for that.

[@AgentForest]

This video shows why Penn is one of the few famous or well-known libertarians I respect. If government was a gun, most libertarians say "That gun is too big and needs to be smaller!" Penn says what EVERYONE is thinking: "That gun is being aimed at the wrong things, and I don't like the ammunition they are using." Like his comments about bridges. He wants to tackle the real atrocities of our government, not simply "government" itself.

[@DoomedLich]

Penn is making a shockingly effective case for me to recognize myself as a libertarian. And it's a helluva thing when you hear something that can shift you identify yourself.

[@BlackFlag2012a]

It is a compelling argument to say that the locks of federal power become tighter in correlation with the size of a nation. With fewer options of political location, there is a tendency to choose between worse and worse "lessor" of evils.

[@AJThrash1]

This is why I love hearing Penn talk about Libertarianism, he just speaks the truth as he sees it and he's usually right. I'm constantly having to answer the "what will happen to the fire department!?!" question but let's start with ending all the corruption we can agree on is bad and we'll go from there. God forbid, it just might work.

[@BlackFlag2012a]

A study: The aim of this pilot study was to assess the effectiveness of a computer-based intervention on children who were average in academic performance. Result: There was significant improvement within the performance of the experimental group in cognitive functioning and school marks, as compared with the children in the control group. Conclusion: computer-aided intervention for improving attention and memory has had a positive impact on the cognitive and academic skills of children

[@lennintroya6547]

in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.

[@fjallgylder]

I would, Mr. Mastiff Brain. Disregarding your wittiness, non-aggression is refusal to initiate violence (coercion), while pacifism is refusal to use violence per se.

[@1NSHAME]

2:45. Right on spot.

[@billiabuscricketeer8149]

I stood up and applauded at the end of this

[@Kitora_Su]

0:05 excellent point

[@flagcoco69]

I so appreciate actual libertarians. Not conservatives who are bored with the Republican Party and just want to take their crazy somewhere else, not a Republican who's looking for a little street cred, but actual libertarians who don't fit in the normal political paradigm and are proud of it, who know both major parties are corrupt and dishonest and don't really give a damn about regular people or ethics. We used to have them. I registered as a Republican once just so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. You can tell the difference between a real libertarian and just some conservative crackpot trying to look a little different.

[@M4ttNet]

Major props to Penn for speaking your mind and stating you may very well be wrong. So few people are open to actually being wrong this day. With that said, you said people gamed the existing system to crash our current system and I think that's partially right; however, a huge mass bulk of the problems were surrounding the shadow banking system, basically places that effectively were banks but regulated as banks, these are the ones that did most of the worst things... lack of regulation

[@dubyamccoy]

Thank you sir.

[@666or999]

Yes. That comment was also emotionally driven. 'i want to protect another human being's right to life?' A right is not an entitlement. A right to life (even if it were applicable) does not entitle a fetus to be sustained by a woman nor does it entitle a fetus to be able to remain within a woman. In contrast self-ownership does entitle a woman to do as she wishes with her body. 'protect innocent lives from murder.' Loaded phrases like this are why there is so little discussion on the subject.

[@pauln0352]

You know I'm ardent opponent of Libertarianism 99% of the time. But, this is one of the rare times where I agreed with most of what was said. Bravo, Mr. Jillette.

[@chrischandler889]

So you are saying you are hardcore authoritarian?

[@pauln0352]

@@chrischandler889 I don't know what I said nine years ago. LOL Is this the new hustle? To jump into comments made almost a decade ago to appear more correct? Sad really...

[@chrischandler889]

@@pauln0352 didn't realize it was 9 years. I just found it strange to say "I'm an ardent opponent of libertarianism 99% of the time". Very strange thing to say. Libertarianis is full if great takes. Anti authoritarian. Anti slavery. Anti violence and coercion. Pro liberty. Pro human rights. Etc...

[@richardlanham2145]

While I clearly disagree with Mr. Jillette on many things - and agree on many others - even when he is expressing a view that I strongly disagree with, he does it in such an well-mannered, and well-reasoned fashion, that I stay engaged and want to learn more about how he has arrived at his perspective. If only this were more the rule than the exception!

[@deepsouthredneck1]

Libertarians motto is live and let live, which is why I consider myself one.

[@Jacktastic84]

I don't agree with Penn on everything, but I like his priorities laid out in this vid. Though the first priority is get money out of politics. You can't have any genuine discussion in government until you get politicians off the bankroll of the rich and powerful. The candidate with more money wins 94% of the time.

[@volleyballtweety]

And also, my one opposition to this video is that yes, there are plenty of avenues for those who want to know about evolution to look into it in the modern era, but the fact of the matter is that the people who are the most clueless about it refuse to look into it at all

[@bejjinks]

Professional Instruction has merits. Just because we get a lot of education from "non" professional education does not mean we cannot get more education from professional education. Professional and "non" professional education can compliment each other instead of being set against each other.

[@mistajames3213]

I have a difference of opinion on that. If I've got the skills needed for my boss's position and he lacks them, I start to think about what I need my boss for. I've pushed hard into private ventures (in addition to my day job), coming from a family of entrepreneurs. I have no problem flipping to my boss's competitors (or starting off on my own) if I don't need him anymore, and I have a regular steam of investment income that makes this possible. Then again, not many people think this way.

[@BlackFlag2012a]

A moot demand, since almost all nations insist on compulsion. The retort is principle - the best economic goods derive from competitive markets - you argue for an exception called "education" for specious reasons.

[@Tiptoetherat]

I agree with just about everything Penn says HOWEVER. I have run into PLENTY of Libertarians who START with "Lets get rid of bridges" (or whatever!) and ignore things like getting out of world conflicts. That might be why so many people counter libertarians with questions along the lines "So you don't want bridges??"

[@GnosticXMusic]

There are numerous things that I consider to be unfair,but I choose not to limit myself to a specific party(I fell into that pitfall before)...one of those things is how big businesses were saved with a bailout(even though it was probably necessary to save us from a complete collapse)and then grossly miss-used the funds...while MEANWHILE there was little to no help available for veterans and homeowners who were affected.Businesses need to be taxed higher, but govt is also corrupt.It's lose-lose.

[@black9897]

This is why i respect Penn so much.

[@mistajames3213]

And I'm arguing that putting kids through compulsory education in a certified educational institution (or at least certified curriculum in home schooling) is necessary for kids to grow into full and functioning members of society. I agree strongly with the compulsion element (which Penn disagrees with), but I approached the problem from a value-based perspective. I have no problem justifying the compulsion component. I didn't think we were talking about that.

[@StuffedCrows]

The video ended where it should have started, end the things everyone thinks is stupid. I think everyone agrees with that. The problem arises when people say things like "People abuse the system; therefore, we should just get rid of it." rather than trying to fix a system that is broken but also helps people. The solution to your hand hurting is not cutting it off. No system run by people for people will be perfect, but if it is kept clean then it will be better than no system at all.

[@BlackFlag2012a]

A study, published in the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, found that students between age five and 10 who were home-schooled with a structured curriculum surpassed the public school peers on standardized tests.

[@racer9x]

Some wise words on a complex topic. Encouraging more liberalism ideals would be good. But getting there will take time and effort.

[@pm71241]

Libertarianism is many things. Unfortunately many who call them selves libertarians are actually anarcho-capitalists - and that's the image which sticks.

[@TruthRevoltNews]

Fighting for liberty and principles Pen, I'm on board! But as long as you do not take away my ability to pray to my God we are good to go :) We can unite on everything else :)

[@fightttttt]

SO god damn true, ive positive ive learned way more online then school in some subjects, and alot of other things

[@Hooga89]

Actually, I live in a country with a safety net, and the results are actually far from negative. The government is an entity that creates next to nothing. However, just the mere fact that, they give me money when I am unemployed actually helps the economy, my purchasing power doesn't deteriorate from not having an income. The fact that one gets money, and use it (buying goods) has a positive effect on the market.

[@Shozb0t]

Libertarians have one basic principle: you own yourself. Anything else that we claim is actually an application of that principle. For example, you have the right to smoke a cigarette and the right to ride in the front of the bus (but not necessarily at the same time).

[@57worldwide]

Whomever I replied to was talking about needing to use such knowledge in our everyday lives. Though I comment on KZbin frequently, I don't need to.

[@dustindavidhart]

I want a "free society", I dont find that very selfish

[@Odesawaan]

I am not sure on how to respond to this. It starts with some inference that having standardize common knowledge being taught is forceful, that the masses are using this media for education, then ends with claiming that people being too busy to care or to do this on their own which seems to harken back to my original statement regarding how people pursue the path of least resistance. So are you agreeing with me or not?

[@420xHustlerxB0SS]

Religion lives vibrantly in the United States even though separation of church and state is taken seriously. Meanwhile in Finland, where the church has a right to tax, relatively few people really believe in god.

[@InAllOurDreams]

Just because the religious have a different opinion as to how we all got here (comparing it to evolution), doesn't mean that evolution itself is also a religious idea..it simply disagrees with other religious opinions. It's science, and should be taught.

[@laupstad]

Yeah, I changed my mind about the maths after posting, just didn't bother adding another comment. I don't disagree with that, ANY knowlegde is important. You never know what situations you might come across where you might need it or you might make some connections in your head to combine two or more great ideas for a new use. But all this, and more, is freely availible online for the ones that desire knowlegde unlike the way it was just 15-20 years ago when I was in school.

[@irrevenant3]

A really interesting talk that has almost nothing to do with the title. A lot of what he says sounds sensible. The (metaphorical) devil is, as always, in "How do we get to there from here?". (And he partially addresses that). Education, for example. I would agree that transitioning from mandated, externally imposed education to self-driven education for all would be great. How do we make reliable education available in a non-centralised way? What does that do to qualifications? etc.

[@57worldwide]

Diseases caused by alcohol/tobacco have mainly negative emotional effects. If by "what you learned", you are also talking about tertiary education, then that has nothing to do with what I was talking about (compulsory education). That Istanbul lies in two continents, that Antarctica is a continent, that I can find the circumference of a circle if I know the radius, etc, is useless to me. Most of what I have learned has helped me to know what I want to learn. That's pretty much it.

[@ConvincingPeople]

Speaking as a libertarian socialist-yes, we do exist; look it up-I have many bones to pick with the kind of economic policies that right-libertarians like Mr. Jillette put forward. That said... I completely agree with nearly all of the points made in this video. We spend far too much money on violence, intimidation and cronyism that would be better spent fixing things at home; now is the time for united action, not for divided squabbling.

[@jenniethrockmorton5660]

I have been working with the poor for several years, not as a government worker but as a small business owner. We have very low priced rentals along with spots for RV's. Our rents start at $300 a month for RV's and that includes water, sewer, electric and cable TV. These are the people who's next step down is the street. What I see is a lot of them are on disability because of injury. If they get a job they will lose their benefits, or in other words they will have to take a cut in pay to work. Some of them will have their medical taken away so getting a job will give them a negative income. These people don't have anything to do. Most of the time they sit in their unit, in summer they sit outside and drink. Drugs are in heavy use. We need to stop helping people out by giving them money. Let's get a lower minimum wage so small business can afford to hire them, then they can add to their income while learning to work again. As they get better wages a small percent of their disability can be taken out, still leaving them with more money then they had. Right now they can not afford to work and we can not afford to hire them.

[@egillsverdgaur]

On a side note. I find it disheartening that people flag your comments as spam. I disagree with your opinion but I think it's genuine.