• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Penn Jillette is a smart man...

RadioactiveMan

Banned
R
Joined
May 6, 2008
Messages
305
A Jillette commentary on cnn.com.

We need someone stupid enough to understand that the president of the United States can't solve many problems without taking away freedom and therefore shouldn't try. The only reason John McCain scares me a little less is because I think he's a little less likely to win. They both promise a government that will watch over us, and I don't like that.

I don't want anyone as president who promises to take care of me. I may be stupid, but I want a chance to try to be a grown-up and take care of my family. Freedom means the freedom to be stupid, and that's what I want. I don't want anyone to feel my pain or tell me to ask what we can do for our country, or give us all money and take care of us.

...

I think Ron Paul and Bob Barr mean it when they say they want much smaller government. But the government is already big enough, powerful enough and bipartisan enough (and "bi" means exactly two and no more) that Ron and/or Bob won't even be in the debates. People won't even hear someone suggesting that our president should do less and individual citizens should do more for themselves.

The choice shouldn't be which lesser of two evils should have the enormous power of our modern presidents. The question should be, who would do less as president? Who would leave us alone?
Click to expand...
Something tells me the pumping up of Ron Paul by none other than Penn Jillette won't stop idiot Republicans and retard Democrats from bashing those of us who think more individual freedoms and less government is, in general, a good thing, but the whole article is a good read.

The only part I don't agree with is the last line, where he claims the only way to waste your vote is to vote. I think voting is a responsibility, and the only way to waste it is to cast it for someone you support less than some other candidate, whatever their party. If you're going to spend the time to go and vote, realize your contribution won't make a bit of difference in the final outcome, and vote for the candidate you most support.
 
If you are rich and liberal, but your name isn't George Soros, you pretty much have to be a Libertarian.
 
RadioactiveMan said:
Something tells me the pumping up of Ron Paul by none other than Penn Jillette won't stop idiot Republicans and retard Democrats from bashing those of us who think more individual freedoms and less government is, in general, a good thing, but the whole article is a good read.
Click to expand...

I used to be a libertarian until I realized that less government and more individual freedoms was a paradox. You can't have freedom unless you have a government powerful enough to protect it. Otherwise, another party will ALWAYS fill the vacuum. The flip side of that of course is that a government power enough to protect freedom is often times a government power enough to be a threat to freedom.
 
Penn said:
But the government is already big enough, powerful enough and bipartisan enough (and "bi" means exactly two and no more) that Ron and/or Bob won't even be in the debates.
Click to expand...
Bob 0% Barr is one thing. But Ron Paul? Maybe Penn thinks the primaries are a multi-tiered playoff system, like hockey.
 
Last edited:
It's too bad there isn't a strong third party candidate. I cannot support Barr or Paul. They have some great ideas but a lot of really stupid ones as well that would probably end up destroying and bankrupting the country faster than either the republicans or democrats. The other problem would be how much support they would get from congress. My guess is about none. A legitimate third party with a sensible leader with sensible ideas would gain a lot of support I think. Well maybe not but at least I would support such a candidate.
 
Minimal governments didn't protect us from Hitler or the Russians.

Minimal governments won't protect us from monopolies and oligopolies.

Minimal governments won't make sure children can read and write

Minimal governments won't make sure people get vaccinated and we don't again have polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough, and rubella epidemics.

Minimal governments won't make sure no one is dumping toxins into our drinking water

Minimal governments won't make sure that medicines are safe and effective

Minimal government is one of those things that people like in theory:
Does the government spend too much: yes
Are taxes too high: yes

Would you like to cut health care spending: no
Would you like to cut education spending; no
would you like to cut defense spending; no
would you like to cut social security benefits: no
would you like to cut infrastructure spending; no

what would you like to cut: fraud, waste, and pork barrel spending.

Which account for what percent of the budget? 5 percent? 10 percent? Is that "minimal government?"
 
gdnp said:
Minimal governments didn't protect us from Hitler or the Russians.
Click to expand...
Don't recall my history books saying anything about the governments in Europe during the late 1930's and early 1940's being too small to oppose Hitler, just lacking the political will to do so initially. And correct me if wrong but wasn't the whole threat that Hitler and Russia posed due to large governments where the state controlled everything?

gdnp said:
Minimal governments won't protect us from monopolies and oligopolies.
Click to expand...
Neither do large governments.

gdnp said:
Minimal governments won't make sure children can read and write
Click to expand...
Neither do large governments


gdnp said:
Minimal governments won't make sure people get vaccinated and we don't again have polio, measles, mumps, whooping cough, and rubella epidemics.
Click to expand...
I'll give you this one.

gdnp said:
Minimal governments won't make sure no one is dumping toxins into our drinking water
Click to expand...
neither do large governments

gdnp said:
Minimal governments won't make sure that medicines are safe and effective
Click to expand...
neither do large governments.
 
Tony said:
I used to be a libertarian until I realized that less government and more individual freedoms was a paradox. You can't have freedom unless you have a government powerful enough to protect it. Otherwise, another party will ALWAYS fill the vacuum. The flip side of that of course is that a government power enough to protect freedom is often times a government power enough to be a threat to freedom.
Click to expand...


:rolleyes:

Slacker.
 
It's difficult to take Jillette seriously. For instance, if the poll numbers were reversed, I cannot with full confidence say the following line would have appeared in the article:

The only reason Barack Obama scares me a little less is because I think he's a little less likely to win.
Click to expand...
 
Are there any Libertarians who aren't economically well-off?

BS was a funny show.. at times. But its seriously irrational views on second-hand smoke to global warming was worrying for a self-proclaimed skeptic show.
 
Last edited:
Libertarian utopia is just a plutocracy by any other name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom