Atheist Penn Jillette Explains Why He’s a Libertarian

[rug]

May 2, 2016
by Terry Firma

I have my differences with Penn Jillette. Our brands of atheism are just far enough apart that I’ve jokingly pictured him and me as the two characters in the famous Emo Philips gag.

But I find little to disagree with him on in the column he Penned for Newsweek.

The way the media tend to present libertarians is that we’re conservatives, or we’re people with money who want to smoke dope. And it’s really not true at all for me. I do not come to libertarianism because I’m a really successful businessperson, or a CEO, or because I have to fight regulations. I really come to it from a purely hippie point of view.

Because he is loath to personally use force, and because government has a monopoly on the use of sanctioned force,

In my morality, I shouldn’t be able to tell anyone (including police officers, etc.) to do something with a gun that I wouldn’t do myself.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/05/02/atheist-penn-jillette-explains-why-hes-a-libertarian/

Libertarianism is a narcissistic disorder.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. Bullshit, he got rich and then his own version of religion, called greed.

[Kelvin Mace]

2. Look, if you want to acccuse him of being greedy, cool

I disagree with Penn's Libertarian views and find them utterly misguided.

But please, don't try and claim greed is a "religion".

[Jackie Wilson Said]

3. Well, there is no god, and Penn knows that. As to what is and is not a religion, why

would you argue about that in this context?

Unless you are religious, in which case I dont want to demean that or argue about it, peace out.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. You are accusing an atheist of having religion

Again, you can certainly make a case, and I would agree with you that his Libertarian views can be/are self-serving and the result of greed. But greed is NOT a religion, and atheists do not subscribe to religions even if it were.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. Also Penn held the same political views when they were not rich....

So arguing that it is his religion adopted since he got rich is two kinds of inaccurate. First time I saw their act was in a shit hole with about 200 seats. He was the same guy he is today.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. I saw them in 94 and they were a headline act then.

But I agree that his libertarianism precedes his rich status.

[guillaumeb]

4. LIbertarianism is embraced by people like Jillette as well as

Rand Paul and the Koch family. It seems to be the ultimate in selfishness and general anti-social dis-functionality disguised as a political choice.

[stone space]

6. Freedums and Liberties!

"Don't punish me, and don't punish the gun"

[whatthehey]

8. There's always a few. The good thing is among atheists it really IS a few

Ask yourselves whether you want an electorate of atheists or Christians after seeing this data, and try to be honest, with yourselves at least.

[TexasProgresive]

10. What about atheists who are libertarian?

libertarians aren't necessarily Rs or Ds. I suppose Pew is saying the remainder 9% is other. Perhaps they should redo the poll with more options.

[whatthehey]

11. Either part of the 9% or part of the "Lean Rep"

A substantial part of the Libertarian set are comfortably off folks who want to avoid taxes and regulations plus smoke dope, whether one particular celebrity is of that ilk or not. There are far more lean right Libertarians than lean left. (over 8 to 1)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/10/29/poll-22-percent-of-americans-lean-libertarian/

[stone space]

12. I honestly want Christians, atheists, and others to vote.

Ask yourselves whether you want an electorate of atheists or Christians after seeing this data, and try to be honest, with yourselves at least.

Don't we all?

[whatthehey]

13. Hardly the question asked however

Assuming you are not lost on the choice of discussion board, asking you whether you would prefer an electorate generating a 55% Dem margin of victory or a Dem 9% loss should hardly be controversial, and wouldn't be if religion were not involved.

[stone space]

14. I answered your question honestly.

I want to vote, myself, and I want my wife to vote as well.

She's Catholic, and I'm atheist.

The 2016 Iowa Democratic Caucus was her first, and she enjoyed it.

She'll be voting in November for the first time.

I don't want either one of us disenfranchised.

There is too much at stake.

[whatthehey]

15. Not really

I did not ask whom you would prefer to disenfranchise, I asked which characteristics you would prefer in the electorate given their Dem vs Rep breakdown.

Direct word for word analog to make the point:

"Ask yourself if you would prefer an electorate of Dems and Dem leaners or a Republican-leaning one" is not implying that Republicans should not be allowed to vote, but rather implying that you prefer voters to lean Democratic.

In fact come to think of it that's a bit more than an analog; it's a rewording of the exact same question.

[stone space]

16. I answered your question honestly. I don't know what else you want from me.

Not really

I'm guessing that you just didn't like my answer because it is not the same answer that you would give.

That happens.

But just because you might have answered differently from me doesn't mean that I didn't answer your question honestly.



For the record:

I honestly want Christians, atheists, and others to vote.

[whatthehey]

17. Ermm again no

There was nothing in my question about who should be allowed to vote, only about what kind of electorate you would prefer. Maybe yet another analogy would help. If I say "wouldn't you prefer an America where people had healthier lifestyles to one where everybody is a gluttonous swine" most people would assume I was suggesting that Americans became healthier through diet and exercise, not one where we shot anyone with a BMI over 30 who couldn't do a 6 minute mile. It would certainly be odd to answer that question by saying "No I don't prefer a healthier America - I want fat people to live".

[stone space]

18. Look, if you have a particular answer that you want us to give, then...

...why didn't you just tell us what answer you wanted us to give in your initial post instead of asking us to answer honestly?

I answered your original question honestly, but you weren't looking for honest answers, it appears.

You were looking for somebody to regurgitate your own answer.

I could have done that for you if you had requested that in advance, and told us what answer you wanted us to give.

I do know how to copy and paste.

And it would have been much easier than composing an honest answer on my own and going through the trouble of actually typing it on my mystery keyboard with so many of the letters rubbed off.

Do you have any idea how annoying that is?

[whatthehey]

29. Sorry your obtuse act is boring now.

[stone space]

31. No need to apologize for having a different opinion that mine.

Different people have different viewpoints.

It happens all the time.

I just want you to know that I respect your opinion, even if it is different from my own.

I answered honestly, as you requested.

Have a nice day!

[Warren Stupidity]

21. He's desperately trying to shoot down an attack

not in evidence. The misfires are legendary. Don't bother.

[stone space]

22. What attack?

He's desperately trying to shoot down an attack

not in evidence. The misfires are legendary. Don't bother.

I was asked a question, and I answered.



Where do you see an attack?

That seems like a figment of your imagination.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. exactly. What attack? There was none.

[stone space]

25. Then what are you talking about?

I just answered a question honestly.

Do you object to folks answering questions?

Why did you come in here and start talking about some so-called "attack"?

That seems to have been invented in your own mind.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Honest or not you answered an imagined attack, as usual, with guns blazing.

[stone space]

27. The attack is a product of your own imagination.

Honest or not you answered an imagined attack, as usual, with guns blazing.

I answered the question straightforwardly and honestly.

Others may have a different answer than I do, and that's fine.

But my answer is my answer.

I don't claim it as your answer.

Do you have anything to add other than your imagined attacks?

Because I can't say much about your imagination, as I don't have access to it.

As for reality, here is the question, along with my answer:

Ask yourselves whether you want an electorate of atheists or Christians after seeing this data, and try to be honest, with yourselves at least.

I honestly want Christians, atheists, and others to vote.

I don't know what else I can tell you. Your answer may differ from mine, but that's ok.

It really is OK for folks to disagree.

[Act_of_Reparation]

36. 2 + 2 = potato

I don't know what else to tell you. Your answer may differ from mine, but that's ok.

It really is OK for folks to disagree.

[stone space]

37. I honestly want Christians, atheists, and others to vote. (nt)

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. Cool story, bro.

Do you find these exercises in solipsism refreshing?

[rug]

39. How is that solipsism?

[stone space]

40. What is solipism? I'm not familiar with it.

Cool story, bro.

Do you find these exercises in solipsism refreshing?

And what is the connection between solipsism and this thread?

If we put our minds together, perhaps we can both gain some wisdom, even if different minds might disagree on things at times.

What does solipism mean in your own mind?

[rug]

41. "What does solipism mean in your own mind?"

I think you just defined it.

[goldent]

28. I studied that chart - interesting data.

I think I also would like all of them to vote.

[whatthehey]

30. Sure - I'd prefer far more that all of them vote like atheists though. You?

[rug]

32. Not if they vote like Penn Jillette.

Their is no "atheist" vote any more than there is a "Moslem" vote.

[MisterP]

9. "because you're all easily-tricked sheeple and I'm not, that's why us Objectivists have all come

to an identical means of thinking our own separate ways: we're called 'Randroids' because 'andros' means 'man' and we're the real individuals"

[Jim__]

19. For a self-proclaimed gifted student, he doesn't seem to be much of a thinker.

From the article in Newsweek:

...

I really come to it from a purely hippie point of view. I have always been a peacenik, and in the '80s I met a man named Tim Jenison. I was then just kind of your standard liberal, and Tim was libertarian.

I started giving all the arguments for why the government had to be more powerful, and Tim said a really simple sentence to me. He said, “Do you think it’s OK to punish people who’ve done nothing wrong?” And I said “No”—even though I felt somewhere in my heart that it was a trick question. And then he said, “Why is it OK to reward people who’ve done nothing right?”

He said, “Can’t you see that you can’t reward without punishing? They’re the same thing.” And that shut me up for a little while.

...

Stumped by someone telling you that rewarding and punishing are the same thing? I can see where that might be momentarily confusing. I can't see how it could ever be convincing.

[AlbertCat]

33. Stumped by someone telling you that rewarding and punishing are the same thing?

Hinduism anyone?

I can't see how it could ever be convincing.


Hinduism anyone?

(Here's the scene from Peter Brook's film of "The Mahabharata" that addresses reward and punishment....and other things....
I'm no Hindu. But I find it much more interesting than any of the Abrahamic religions.)

&index=15&list=PLB6D851FFCF7F946F

[struggle4progress]

24. I don't know if the precise issue is narcissism, but libertarians seem to suffer

from a particular species of immaturity in their social and political thought

F Scott Fitzgerald's remark -- the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function -- is relevant here

Social dynamics always involve conflicting individual desires and competing visions -- but there is no real society unless the resulting friction is lubricated by compromise and the formation of genuine relationships. The notion, that this process can be reduced to static rational principles, is risible. There are inevitable contradictions, and these will always appear as internally inconsistent political compromises, as well as mixed legal and statutory regimes which do not accord to any one vision of what would be proper and right

[AlbertCat]

34. but libertarians seem to suffer from a particular species of immaturity...

...in their social and political thought

I must agree.

It's like they forget we've been social animals for millions of years.

[rug]

35. One of the fruits of maturity is growing out of narcissisism.