Libertarian History/Philosophy

Penn Jillette's 10 Commandments…For Atheists

|

Currently the top-read story at USA Today is Penn Jillette's "10 Commandments for Atheism," a list he created and turned into the best-selling book God, No! after Glenn Beck asked him to come up with a list of moral dictates for non-believers. Here they are:

1. The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity and love. Respect these above all.

2. Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings. (Let's scream at each other about Kindle versus iPad, solar versus nuclear, Republican versus Libertarian, Garth Brooks versus Sun Ra— but when your house is on fire, I'll be there to help.)

3. Say what you mean, even when talking to yourself. (What used to be an oath to (G)od is now quite simply respecting yourself.)

4. Put aside some time to rest and think. (If you're religious, that might be the Sabbath; if you're a Vegas magician, that'll be the day with the lowest grosses.)

5. Be there for your family. Love your parents, your partner, and your children. (Love is deeper than honor, and parents matter, but so do spouse and children.)

6. Respect and protect all human life. (Many believe that "Thou shalt not kill" only refers to people in the same tribe. I say it's all human life.)

7. Keep your promises. (If you can't be sexually exclusive to your spouse, don't make that deal.)

8. Don't steal. (This includes magic tricks and jokes — you know who you are!)

9. Don't lie. (You know, unless you're doing magic tricks and it's part of your job. Does that make it OK for politicians, too?)

10. Don't waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it'll make you bugnutty.

More here.

Reason.tv interviewed Penn recently. Check it out here, especially the sharp and wise opening line: "My whole take on libertarianism is simply that I don't know what's best for other people."

Mentions of, previous interviews with, and articles by Penn Jillette at Reason.com here.

NEXT: Reason Morning Links: Herman Cain Camp Denies Sexual Harassment Charges, NYPD Ticket-Fixing Scandal Gets Bigger, White House Responds to Pot Petition

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. It was only when I got about halfway through this list that I realized he had intentionally re-written all of the original commandments. Duh.

    1. I heard a non-Reason interview on some radio show on Friday. Was better than the reason thing, but can’t find it now.

  2. I like George Carlin’s take on the Ten Commandments.

    Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie.

    &

    Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.

    Full transcript here: http://philosopherpoet.wordpre…..mandments/

    1. He must have read the Islamicist version for that.

      1. Or the old testament. Please go away.

        1. Really> The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament commands Christians to slaughter non-believers? Where MNG, where is that?

          1. Yahweh smoteth them on your behalf.

  3. I better not see these posted in any courthouse anywhere.

  4. A truly loving god doesn’t have to “command” anything.

    1. A truly loving parent doesn’t have rules

      1. People with honesty and integrity don’t need rules.

        1. Quark: Let me tell you something about humans, nephew. They’re a wonderful, friendly people as long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers, put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time and those same friendly, intelligent, wonderful people become as nasty and as violent as the most blood thirsty Klingon.

          1. Cross me and you’ll wish I was only “as nasty and violent as the most blood thirsty Klingon.”

        2. those people don’t exist

          1. People devoid of honesty and integrity cannot see it in others.

            Those who possess those things can recognize them in others, and alternatively recognize when those things do not exist in a person.

            1. People devoid of honesty and integrity cannot see it in others.

              Question successfully begged.

              1. If you do not know something, how can you recognize it?

                1. What about sociopaths? I think they know these things but choose to ignore them for their own benefit.

        3. “Tell the truth” is a rule, and if you don’t live by it, you have neither honesty nor integrity.

          1. God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And then god commanded them to forsake the rational faculty with which he had provided them. Seek not knowledge, he commanded. Use not your brain. Be content in ignorance. Obey me only. Or else.

            Thus spake the merciful and loving sadist father.

            1. What the does that have to do with what I said, or did you hit the wrong “reply” button?

              1. I blame threaded comments.

        4. These would be angels not humans. Cast the first stone…and all that.

        5. 1. Be honest.

          2. Have integrity.

          You said no rules, but that sounds like two rules. Maybe you should adopt “learn to count” as rule number three.

      2. What? Without rules how do you know what’s right and wrong? Your parents didn’t set anything out for you? Just “hey pal, do whatever! we’ll support you!”? I’m betting they said things like “do your homework. don’t cheat. don’t steal” right? Rules all. Or maybe you’re part of the 99% of smelly people on Wall St.

        1. There is a big difference between giving loving parental guidance and being abusive and authoritarian. Not only is damning people to eternity over that line, it is no where in the vicinity of that line
          Think about it. h parents, how do we draw the lone between discipline and abuse? First, was the punishment in anger? The Bible refers constantly to the wrath of God. Second, does the punishment fit the offense? Does an eternity of suffering sound equal to a single sin to you? No, because a finite offense can’t logically be equal to an infinite punishment. Third, does the parent attempt to control to the child through persistent fear? The Bible and its constant threats of damnation are pretty clear.

          It seems obvious to me that the biblical God is an abusive father.

    2. Since when is God a Scottsman?

      1. Sy, ya weee girl! Ya better believe I’m a fookin’ Scotsman or I’ll kill ya weth a lightnin’ bolt from me arse!

        Now back to the Bay City Rollers!

  5. Saw the book yesterday at Barnes and Noble, right next to Richard Dawkin’s new science book for kids, and had a good chuckle as I flipped through the pages. I love just about anything Penn comes out with.

    As an atheist my moral code is pretty much Christianity’s “golden rule”, treat others how you expect to be treated. From an objective standpoint no other method makes is logical as how can you expect others to treat you better than you treat them.

    As for my libertarianism, Penn sums it up very nicely in that first line. There is no one right way to live and we should let everyone live their lives as they see fit as long as it prevent others from doing the same.

    1. Doesn’t prevent others**

    2. Actual Golden Rule:
      ‘those that got the gold, make the rules’

      1. I remember that from They Live

      2. Re: Dickless,

        ‘those that got the gold, make the rules’

        You mean the Federal Reserve, or Hip-Hop artists?

        1. Oh OM, I like it that you have my dick on your mind, but alas, it’s not for you.

      3. How original.

      4. There is actually some official in NH named Richard Head. Which is pretty damn funny if you ask me, particularly when we have already had Dick Swett.

        1. When I was growing up in Illinois there was a local pol named Richard Lis.

          1. I once worked with a guy named Richard Holder. When he was obnoxious we would refer to him as he was behaving. It’s still funny.

            Do you think parents sometimes just don’t realize these things they are subjecting their kids to? That was a pretty big one to miss…

      5. Hey everybody! It’s Dick Head! Hey Dick Head! How the hell you are you!?

    3. It’s not Christianity’s golden rule. It shows up in every major ethical/religious system on Earth.

    4. I’ve preferred for quite a while to live by the first tenet of Metalaw: “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.”

  6. I have been looking for this list for a while. I knew he created it, but I thought he said he published the book instead of the commandments.

  7. “My whole take on libertarianism is simply that I don’t know what’s best for other people.”

    But that’s just the same as letting them starve to death on a desert island, when you could steal food from somebody else and feed them!

    1. And let the people you’ve stolen it from starve to death instead.

      1. Pshaw! They have enough. They don’t need it anyway, greedy sonsobitches! Besides, if they don’t have enough later, then they’ll be happy we’re stealing it from people with enough!

    2. “You’re forcing me to have choice!”

  8. I’ve always preferred the Silver Rule: “Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto you.”

    Or, more simply: Mind your own goddammed business.

    1. How about “live and let live”?

      1. How about “live and let die”?

        1. How can you not enjoy yaphet kotto?

          1. I would have rather enjoyed Jane Seymour at that vintage. Though she’s still pretty hot. Much hotter than Yaphet Kotto.

    2. Pretty much the Jewish “golden rule” given by Hillel… “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”

      Jesus stole it from Hillel and flipped it from a negative to a positive (“don’t do vs do”).

      1. Considering Jesus was jewish, I dont think that is stealing.

        1. You expect us to believe some blond-haired, blue-eyed bearded beach bum is Jewish? Oh, come on!

        2. Interest. Always with the interest.

  9. These atheists are total hypocrites! Take a look at #8: 8. Don’t steal. (This includes magic tricks and jokes ? you know who you are!)

    He totally stole the Ten Commandments idea from some old book. I forget the title, and the author, but charlton Heston was in the movie version.

    1. Stealing ideas is not stealing. It’s copying. A significant tautological difference.

      Some libertarian.

      1. Penn tells people that “Don’t steal” includes ideas, specifically, jokes and magic tricks.

        And what do you mean by tautological? doesn’t that refer to circular reasoning?

    2. I know the book you mean, IIRC the title translates as “The Book”.

      1. Kind of odd, since I don’t think they had binding then. Wouldn’t “the scrolls” have been more apropos?

        1. ?????? means any written book, scroll, or volume. It is more a descriptor of an abstract idea than a particular form of artifact, much the way “album” is properly used.

    3. Fair use, he changed it significantly.

      1. Not even Hollywood ever considered asking for copyright protection for 3500 years.

        Clearly public domain.

        1. I don’t know, I heard the guy with the original idea has an awesome legal team working for him. He’s so good, they call him “king of the Jews.” a little anti-semetic, but still.

        2. Not even Hollywood ever considered asking for copyright protection for 3500 years.

          Lysander Spooner himself argued that intellectual property should be protected by governments in perpetuity, and that inventors and writers could transfer the rights to their creations to their heirs. I’m not sure if that’s before he became a full blown anarchist and called government a gang of killers and thieves writ large, though.

          Just think how wealthy the descendents of the guy who invented the wheel would be!

  10. “Do not put things or even ideas above other human beings.”

    Don’t tell this to some of the hard-core libertarians who have condemned the forcible taking of food or medication from one who has plenty in order to save the life of one in need of it because, you know, property trumps human welfare!

    1. Just hardcore libertarians? Last I checked, no one is forcing or threatening to force Americans to share their cheeseburgers with starving Africans.

      So where is this overwhelming majority that thinks human welfare trumps property?

    2. “one who has plenty”

      There’s the rub.

      For some reason, the “sharers” feel they should determine that. I’d suggest you read Conquest’s Harvest of Sorrow to see where that leads.

      1. Regardless of the failures of various totalitarian schemes, which nobody on the left actually advocates, you cannot make a coherent moral case for why the rich man is entitled to the (taxpayer-supported) freedom to enjoy his luxuries while the poor man is not entitled to enjoy the freedom of not starving to death.

        1. “which nobody on the left actually advocates,”
          Didn’t you read the one about not lying, shithead?

          1. If I’m on a slippery slope to collectivist hell then so are you.

          2. If I’m on a slippery slope to collectivist hell then so are you.

        2. Re: Stoopid In America,

          Regardless of the failures of various totalitarian schemes, which nobody on the left actually advocates[…]

          Michael Moore has never visited Cuba, for instance…

          1. Tony can’t use the word “bigotry” in proper context, and yet here he is telling us how to feed the poor.

            1. For someone who can’t stand the thought of anyone else having grievances you sure do carry yours for a long time.

              1. It’s a matter of honor, Tony. You might as well be calling me a liar when you call me a bigot.

                Of course, for a gay man who is bigoted against straights, it IS kind of ironic.

        3. I agree. Let’s get rid of taxes.

        4. “the rich man is entitled to the (taxpayer-supported) freedom to enjoy his luxuries ”

          If the rich man got what he were due in proportion to taxes he himself paid, he would be getting a lot more than today.

        5. Try telling an animal that is a poor hunter that his “freedom” is being infringed upon.

    3. Stealing from someone else for an ostensibly good cause is not putting other people before things. Unless you are stealing from a robot, then it is OK.

    4. Nice going MNG!
      You state the rule and then immediately violate it.

    5. Re: MNG,

      you know, property trumps human welfare!

      Property is not an idea, MNG – try breaking into my house so my very concrete and objective friends, Smith and Wesson, give you a very objective and concrete lesson on property. Oh, and my friends don’t care about YOUR welfare – that’s entirely YOUR responsibility, you thief.

      1. Sorry – “Property is not just an idea.”

        Thief.

      2. Yet somehow the much better armed government of the US is not entitled to take a portion of your stuff?

        1. You seem to be confused by the difference between ‘defending your own stuff’ and ‘taking somebody else’s stuff’. Not surprising for an authoritarian collectivist.

          1. He says that not taking is giving, and not giving is taking.

            If you’ve got more stuff than me, and I don’t steal from you, I am actually giving you stuff.

            And if you’ve got more stuff than me, and you don’t give me any, you are actually stealing from me.

            See?

            Not taking is giving, and not giving is taking.

            1. Smaller spending increases are thus draconian budget cuts.

            2. “I’m not taking pie from you…I’m simply giving pie to me.” Quote on the absurdity of leftist thinking is fitting considering the subject of the article

              1. And for the mouth breathers no I’m not calling Penn a leftist.

                1. That was a good video, another Penn and Teller hit. My leftist friends never get the pie analogy though, even though Penn describes it well.

          2. The original point was that you are claiming government protection for “keeping and defending your own stuff” but a starving person is not entitled to government protection of taking a portion of “your” stuff to feed himself. That’s as legitimate a scheme as any other I suppose but there’s no reason to think it’s a morally superior one.

            1. The first is not an initiation of force.
              It is a reaction to the initiation of force.

              The second is an initiation of force.

              What part of “initiation” do you not understand?

              1. It’s the threat of force–you know that thing you say makes government actions immoral.

                1. I see nothing immoral with my saying to you “Tony, if you take my shit I’m gonna whack you upside the head with this bat”.

                  Nothing immoral at all.

                  That is distinctly different from my saying “Tony, if you don’t give me some of your shit I’m gonna whack you upside the head with this bat”.

                  Do you see the difference?

                  Both involve a threat of force.

                  One is an initiation, the other is not.

                  Can you guess which one?

                  I’m guessing you can’t.

            2. So you’re arguing that people who want government police protection should pay the full cost of that, or opt out and buy their own protection?

              I’m down with that.

              Oh, wait, you’re arguing that because the government steals large amounts of stuff from us, then assigns some of its agents, paid with the proceeds of that theft from us, to ostensibly guard whatever is left that they didn’t steal, in the sense of guarding of “showing up after the theft to take a report and then not catch the criminals and get the stuff back”, that we’re being hypocrites.

              1. If people are just paying for private security then “ownership” is determined by whoever has the biggest private army, which is, in the end, just non-democratic government.

                But if you allow that taxes can be extracted to pay for the enforcement of commonly understood property rights, then you’re every bit as much a “statist” as the biggest believer in social welfare programs. You just differ on the functions of government, there is absolutely no inherent distinction.

                1. then you’re every bit as much a “statist” as the biggest believer in social welfare programs

                  Grudgingly agreeing to taxation for the purpose of securing property rights is not at all distinct from celebrating taxation as a way to destroy property right.

                  Gotcha.

                  Taxation to secure rights is the same as taxation to obliterate rights.

                  That makes sense.

                  Like, totally.

                  1. Ah so what makes you moral and pure in contrast to others who believe in taxation is your “grudging” attitude.

                    1. what makes you moral and pure in contrast to others

                      I believe in right and wrong.

                      You do not.

                      For that reason I a moral (though certainly not pure) compared to you.

                    2. I’m pretty sure we both believe in right and wrong. What those constitute is a more complicated matter.

                      You just said you’re OK with taking tax money via threat of force to pay for specific government services. Just like me. Only you’re better because you do it “grudgingly”? What bullshit is this?

                    3. What those constitute is a more complicated matter.

                      Not really. Not to me anyway.

                      Theft is theft. Taxation is theft.

                      I “grudgingly” accept it because I have no choice, just as I “grudgingly” accept that someday I will die.

                      What is the purpose of government? To protect peoples’ life, liberty and property.

                      Government “services” whose entire intended purpose is to violate peoples’ life, liberty and property conflict with the purpose of government.

                      You want it to be both.

                      It can’t be both.

                2. You just differ on the functions of government, there is absolutely no inherent distinction.

                  There is a big distinction between having principles and having no principles.

                  I think I understand. You do have principles, or rather one principle. If government does it it is OK because government has the most guns. Stealing is a crime. But government gets away with it because they’ve got the most guns. That means that crimes committed by government are OK because they’ve got the most guns.

                  If you want to commit a crime, but can’t because it is, well, a crime, then you get government to do it for you and it is OK.

                  Say you don’t like Jews. Well, you can get government to round them up and exterminate them, and it’s OK because when government commits a crime it’s not a crime.

                  Gotcha.

                  1. You’re the only inconsistent one here. You think taxation (theft) is OK to “protect people’s life, liberty, and property.” I actually think exactly the same thing, I just add in a few more government services I think are necessary to this end. If taxation is morally wrong then it’s morally wrong all the time. You want government for your purposes, but I don’t get it for mine.

                    1. You think taxation (theft) is OK to “protect people’s life, liberty, and property.”

                      No I don’t. I think theft is theft and theft is wrong. However taxation, like death, is unavoidable. Death is unavoidable. Does that make murder OK? I mean, you’re going to die anyway. If I kill you I’m just speeding up the natural course of events. What’s the problem?

                      I just add in a few more government services I think are necessary that are in direct contradiction to this end

                      ftfy

                    2. You’re just not making any sense and surely you see that. Are you OK with government protecting your rights or not? We’re talking theory here so “taxes are unavoidable” is a cop out.

                    3. Are you OK with government protecting your rights or not?

                      That is the purpose of government, duh.

                      You are saying that since government is duty bound to protect property from theft through threat of violence, but funds itself with theft, then anyone who calls taxation theft (because it is) but also wants government to protect them from thieves is a hypocrite.

                      I get it.

                      I can’t say theft is wrong and taxation is OK.

                      I’m not saying it is OK. I accept that it is unavoidable. There is a difference.

                      Since it is unavoidable, but still wrong, then government must be limited to keep the likes of you from perverting it into what it is today.

                    4. You want government for your purposes, but I don’t get it for mine.

                      You want government to be a philanthropic charity organization.

                      The problem with this is that it taint charity if it is obtained by force.
                      It taint philanthropy if it is obtained by force.
                      Being generous with property that was obtained by force is neither philanthropic nor charitable.

                      Funny how the liberals who squeak the most about how government should help the poor never pay any more taxes than they must, and rarely if ever give to charity.

                      Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of liberals who squeak about wanting to help the poor tell a much different story.

                    5. You want government to be a philanthropic charity organization.

                      SO DO YOU. You want ME to pay for YOUR property protection. Suck it up and buy a private security force, slaver.

                    6. SO DO YOU. You want ME to pay for YOUR property protection.

                      So paying a police force is no different than paying welfare.

                      Paying people to work is the same as paying people to not work.

                      Gotcha.

                    7. Except your not paying for his protection. You are putting your money in a pool from which you derive some protection. That is the difference between statism and libertarianism. We begrudgenly accept goverment realizing that there is a need to organize for a few select causes. Taxes to pay for fire departments, police departments, roads, utilities I don’t mind paying since I derive some use for them. Paying a tax so some guy can get a free 240 volt charger for his goverment subsidized electric vehicle is a whole other story.

                    8. You can tell Tony never lived somewhere that had government force this kind of thing on all the animals at the farm (except for the pigs). It’s not pretty.

                      And yes, Tony. East Germany in the 80s was just that kind of place. Plenty of government redistribution. But the only thing the proles got was equal misery. You won’t be happy until we’re like that here.

                      Did I mention that in that kind of place, government doesn’t protect property rights? Because you have none? Everything, including your ass, belongs to the state. And they are not afraid to take everything from you.

              2. “showing up after the theft to take a report and then not doing a damn thing to catch the criminals and get the stuff back”

                ftfy

        2. On what basis is the federal government “entitled” to forcibly take my stuff? Nevermind that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids the taking of private property, except for public use and with just compensation – you know, that whole pesky due process thing.

          Nowhere is the federal government empowered to take my property without compensation and give it to some other private person for their own use.

          1. Because Toni thinks all stuff belongs to the collective, to be ‘distributed’ as Toni and his ilk see fit.

          2. The constitution does grant it the power to tax.

            And I’m just curious why OM thinks the single reason he’s entitled to claim that stuff is “his” at all is because of his firepower. Yet a much better armed competitor for that stuff isn’t similarly entitled, because of magic or something.

            1. Why would you assume he ‘claimed’ his stuff through firepower, rather than by freely trading his labor and the fruits thereofin exchange for his stuff? Oh, that’s right, because you’re a moron. Nevermind.

              1. How do you know he didn’t steal it from someone else? It doesn’t matter how he acquired it, guns are still required to keep it his. He apparently thinks the only moral justification he needs to claim it is his gun, but everybody else has to abide by mystical hands-off rules if they think they deserve to have it.

                1. Tony|10.31.11 @ 11:41AM|#

                  How do you know he didn’t steal it from someone else? It doesn’t matter how he acquired it, guns are still required to keep it his. He apparently thinks the only moral justification he needs to claim it is his gun, but everybody else has to abide by mystical hands-off rules if they think they deserve to have it.

                  Two possibilities:
                  1. Toni really believes this, in which case he is actually too fucking stupid for words and therefore no logic can affect him.
                  2. Toni doesn’t really believe this nonsense, in which case he is a dishonest douche and therefore no logic can affect him.

                  Either way, why bother any further with him?

                2. It doesn’t matter how he acquired it, guns are still required to keep it his.

                  I see the word “acquired” use here.

                  That implies that wealth is either found on the side of the road, or taken by force.

                  It rules out that wealth can be produced or created by effort or the employment of capital.

                  It assumes a zero sum game.

                  I used to feel that way myself.

                  Now I think.

                3. Quit it Tony, your trying to deflect the debate by subtly smearing Sarcasmics character without any proof. You are choosing to misinterpret what he is saying.

                  But you did give us a key inside into how you think

                  “He apparently thinks the only moral justification he needs to claim it is his gun, but everybody else has to abide by mystical hands-off rules if they think they deserve to have it.”

                  I mean that is simply fucked up. That is the mentality of a 5 year old. Just because you feel entitled doesn’t mean you deserve it. That is why we as a society made certain property laws. You have no right to what you have not earned, or is not owed to you in recompense for some harm done to you by other. Anyone who thinks otherwise is nothing more than a walking manchild. I mean I could go on about how dangerous your thinking is but for the sake of berevity I’ll stop

                4. So you’re saying I can come appropriate your computer because I think you stole it? Give me your address, bitch.

            2. Re: Stoopid In Amerika,

              The constitution does grant it the power to tax.

              “And if the law says it, then it must be good.”

              And I’m just curious why OM thinks the single reason he’s entitled to claim that stuff is “his” at all is because of his firepower. Yet a much better armed competitor for that stuff isn’t similarly entitled, because of magic or something.

              You have it backwards, idiot. I’m not entitled to my things because I have firepower, I am entitled to them because I own them. Since I own them, I defend them, not the other way around. The government with the “bigger guns” does not own my things, so the government’s actions to take my stuff is called THIEVING.

              1. I am entitled to them because I own them.

                That’s what you base your beliefs on? A tautology?

                What do you mean you own them? Because you say so?

                1. Re: Stoopid In Amerika,

                  What do you mean you own them? Because you say so?

                  Yes, because I say so. Do you own your ass, or don’t you?

                  1. I don’t understand how you translate self-ownership (a conceit I can live with) to ownership of stuff. If your stuff is merely what you can defend with firepower, then someone with bigger firepower is entitled to it more than you, according to your own definition of ownership.

                    Unless you believe ownership to be a piece of government paper like a good statist.

                    1. I don’t understand how you translate self-ownership (a conceit I can live with) to ownership of stuff.

                      If you own yourself, then does it not follow that you own the results of your effort (assuming that that effort is not employed in theft or fraud)?

                    2. Maybe I do. Now as long as everyone agrees with me, we’re good.

                    3. Re: Stoopid In Amerika,

                      I don’t understand how you translate self-ownership (a conceit I can live with) to ownership of stuff.

                      So you concede you own your ass? Ok, do you own the shorts [or stuff] that covers it?

                      Or would you like to go naked?

                    4. Re: Stoopid In Amerika [aka Tony],

                      I don’t understand how you translate self-ownership (a conceit I can live with) to ownership of stuff.

                      So you do concede you own your ass! Ok, do you own the shorts [or stuff] that covers it?

                      Or do you go naked?

                2. If he stole it from someone else, force would be justified in getting it back. Force is not justified in taking things you do not own.

                  Ownership is the rightful possession of something. You don’t need force to defend something you own until someone else tries to take it from you.

                  Stoopid.

                  1. Who defines “rightful”?

                    1. Rational people who recognize that voluntary exchanges and actual use of property are worth more than just wanting that property. In other words, not you.

                      Stoopid.

                3. Are they in his possession or are they not. If I see Old Mexican or Sarcasmic walking around with a bag of silver. That bag of silver is theres and not mine. If OM or Sarcasmic put their bag of silver in a safe, or give it to a trustee to hold onto their bag of silvr it is still their silver. Not mine. These aren’t fucking hard concepts to understand. I won’t take their silver as long as they won’t take my hooch and titty mags. Now if they want some hooch and titty mags I would gladly trade some of what I have for some of their silver. You know, equitable free exchange?

            3. This is ludicrous. You’re implying that OM stole his stuff to begin with…basically equating capitalism with thievery. Capitalism is based on transactions in which both parties voluntarily participate. Both parties believe the transaction to improve their respective utility.

              Property obtained in such a manner is NOT stolen by force.

              1. The above comment was directed at Tony’s 11:41 post.

              2. Re: NAL,

                You’re implying that OM stole his stuff to begin with…basically equating capitalism with thievery.

                Tony is being dishonest. He equivocates by implying that defending property is the same as TAKING it. He does not bother saying from whom I took it, he simply implies it so he can make the moral equivalency with government action.

                He’s a dishonest, lying piece of dog crap, and a fool.

                1. I’m not trying to be dishonest, I’m trying to get you to question your very flimsy premises.

                  What justifies your claim to your stuff other than force?

                  1. Re: Stoopid In Amerika,

                    I’m not trying to be dishonest,

                    You’re not trying – you ARE. Conflating owning and taking is being dishonest.

                    DO you or don’t you own your ass? And if you do, do you or don’t you own the shorts that covers it? Or do you live your life naked?

                    1. Conflating owning and taking is being dishonest.

                      I suppose if you feel there is a static amount of wealth out there distributed amongst the population, then any acquired wealth comes at the expense of someone else.

                      So all ownership is theft since it must come at the expense of someone else.

                      Of course there is not a static amount of wealth out there.

                      But believing that there is, and thus that every rich person is a thief, justifies committing theft against them.

                    2. Owning is taking from others who might claim it as theirs. Your entitlement, which includes keeping and preventing others from taking with threat of force, either comes from a legitimate government or a claim based on your own firepower, in which case someone with more firepower is more entitled to claim ownership of your stuff.

                    3. Owning is taking from others who might claim it as theirs.

                      Not giving does not equal taking.
                      Not taking does not equal giving.
                      Inaction does not equal action.
                      Light is not an absence of dark.
                      Heat is not an absence of cold.

                      Producing is not an initiation of force.

                      Taking (claiming) what someone else produced is an initiation of force.

                      Protecting what one has produced from an initiation of force is not an initiation of force.

                      Your definition of “owning” as “taking” is only a justification for theft.

                    4. Entitlement to the fruit of one’s labors is perfectly reasonable. Now who’s gonna secure that entitlement? You on your soapbox? Or is it men with guns?

                    5. Entitlement to the fruit of one’s labors is perfectly reasonable. Now who’s gonna secure that entitlement? You on your soapbox? Or is it men with guns?

                      Believe it or not, libertarians actually support a government that protects one’s property from the initiation of force by others.

                      I bet you didn’t know that, but it’s true.

                    6. Or rather – a government that reacts to the initiation of force.

                      react… initiation…

                    7. Whoever claims the property first (or voluntarily exchanges for it, or makes use of property that has been otherwise abandoned for a reasonable amount of time), AND ACTUALLY CONDUCTS LABOR TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY, is the only claim that matters. This justifies force to defend it, force does not justify itself.

                      (This would rule out the government claiming huge tracts of unsettled land and deeding it to individuals who never even saw it, i.e. railroad land grants.)

                  2. If I own my own body, do I not have a right to respond to an initiation of force against my body with force?

                    What is theft other than an initiation force?

                    If I own myself, and by extension that which I produce (as opposed to “acquire” which implies a zero sum game), then do I not have a right to respond to that initiation of force with force?

                  3. That is exactly what you are doing, being dishonost. Their claim to property is justified based off of an agreed tenant that what is theirs is theirs and what is mine is mine. The use of force to protect ones property is one of the core tenants of civilization. If Old Mexican wastes a guy trying to take his stuff I won’t organize a mob to get Old Mexican because I have acknowledge Old Mexicans right to protect his property. And Old Mexican has agreed in turn to do the same. If either one of us does not agree with the aforementioned arraigment then we can leave the settlement we are in and seek out one that has rules that we agree with.

        3. Re: Stoopid In Amerika,

          Yet somehow the much better armed government of the US is not entitled to take a portion of your stuff?

          Leave it to the direct result of the Amerikan Pulbic Skool Seistem to confuse thieving with protecting your own property.

          Leave the adult conversation to us the adults, sockpuppet. Go and play with your dolls, or something.

          1. But you’re defining your private property as “what you’re able to defend with guns.” So why isn’t someone with bigger guns entitled to take it?

            Surely you’re not suggesting you should have the right to take property from others to pay for official state recognition and protection of your property.

            1. Re: Stoopid In Amerika,

              But you’re defining your private property as “what you’re able to defend with guns.”

              I didn’t define it as such, imbecile. What I told MNG is that he can test his little theory that property is less important than “human welfare” by trying to steal mine.

              So why isn’t someone with bigger guns entitled to take [sic] it?

              I didn’t take mine, you lying piece of shit. You’re equivocating.

              1. Who cares how you acquired it? You may claim it was fair and free transactions, but why is someone with bigger guns supposed to believe you, and what if they just don’t give a shit?

                1. Re: Stoopid In Amerika,

                  but why is someone with bigger guns supposed to believe you, and what if they just don’t give a shit?

                  Well gosh, sockpuppet. If a thief is set to steal regardless, he is certainly not going to care. So what are you arguing – that one can rape your ass as you will not resist? You just made an argument that such defensive action would be futile, or didn’t you?

                  1. I’m in the mood for assrape, simply because you’re near me.

                  2. Whether it’s futile or not depends on who has the bigger gun. In a civilized society we outsource that role to government that we vote for democratically, in order to prevent armed gangs we don’t vote for decide what belongs to whom.

                    1. That you can’t see the difference between taking by force and defending by force is your burden to bear. Most people can see the difference.

                      On the role of government, you’ve been around here long enough to know that libertarians are NOT anarchists. Most libertarians believe that there are at least two legitimate functions of government:

                      1) Defense from foreign invaders
                      2) Enforcement property rights and contractual law

                    2. Yes NAL I am talking to the non-anarchists and asking them why they feel it’s legitimate to have “property forcefully taken” in the form of taxes to provide for their property and contract enforcement, but any other function is illegitimate, even though they’d be paid for in exactly the same way.

                      Why does the rich man have the government-backed freedom to enjoy his luxuries but the poor man can’t have government to secure his access to food?

                    3. “…but any other function is illegitimate, even though they’d be paid for in exactly the same way.”

                      In other words, Tony sees no principles argument against totalitarianism unless one is a complete anarchist. Tony embraces serfdom.

                    4. On the role of government, you’ve been around here long enough to know that libertarians are NOT anarchists.

                      I’m the Chair of the Hawaii Libertarian Party. I’m an anarchist.

                      Your claim doesn’t hold up under scrutiny, until you’re doing a tautology where you define libertarianism to exclude anarchists.

                    5. What if the armed gang we didn’t vote for wins, and decides to take my stuff (you know, the status quo under democracy)?

                    6. Whoever said you’re entitled to every single thing you want? We have to share this planet with 7 billion people. Not everyone’s gonna get their way all the time even under the fairest possible system.

                    7. Whoever said you’re entitled to every single thing you want?

                      Oh, the irony.

                      Now who’s going to clean up all this troll food?

                    8. Whoever said you’re entitled to every single thing you want?

                      Who on this thread has made such a strawman claim?

                      I want lots of things I can’t get. I’m OK with that.

                      The thing I want that I can’t seem to get, thanks to slavers like you, is to have the right to own my body and my mind, and to own the results of that which I produce by using those assets, and to hire people of my choosing to defend what I produce from those who would steal it, whether the thieves wear uniforms and call themselves government agents or whether they are more forthright thieves.

                    9. You want a private armed gang. How am I supposed to trust that you’ll use it just to protect your stuff, and not raid mine?

                    10. How am I supposed to trust that you’ll use it just to protect your stuff, and not raid mine?

                      And thus government is born.

                    11. “Whoever said you’re entitled to every single thing you want?”

                      I, for one, know that I am not entitled to everything I want. I do very much believe I am entitled to what I have until I choose to divest myself of it.

                    12. For godsake Tony no one. But that is the thing. Our method of thinking recognizes that fact and has come to the conclusion that the fairest method is to allocate resources based off of mutual and equitable exchange. Those who have more than others generally, though not always, ahve simply worked harder and offered more to society. What you ask is that the most productive amongst us should carry the load for the least productive. That is not only ineherently unfair, but unsustainable.

                2. Jesus Christ, Tony! You really need to get out of the Department of Social Science at whatever community college you work at.

                  Just move to Cuba already, and see how this kind of thing actually works. And no, you can’t go on the tourist package. You must actually move there and do it like the everyday prole does it.

    6. You’re just putting one person under another person, and making that choice by force. Is that ok to you?

    7. Penn isn’t saying that people must be FORCED at gunpoint to help their neighbor fight a fire.

    8. A forcible taking is putting things above the human being who owns them. Forcibly taking is a wrong on the conscience of the person doing the taking, not goving to charity is on the conscience of the person who could be charitable. Like Penn, progressives do not know what is best for other people, but unlike him they are too arrogant to recognize this truth.

  11. The problem is that none of these are based on science. If you make a moral rule, you have to show how people follow rules, and more importantly, why they don’t. Obviously, thousands of years of morality hasn’t changed human inclinations to not follow these rules, otherwise Penn wouldn’t have to make them. The truth is that immorality is rooted in the deep structures of the brain, and there’s no way to get it out.

    1. The truth is that immorality is rooted in the deep structures of the brain, and there’s no way to get it out.

      It is possible for a human being to, through the use of the frontal lobes of the brain, control those impulses and rise above the level of an animal.

      BTW I don’t consider liberals to be human beings. They’d fail the gom jabbar every time.

      1. “It is possible for a human being to, through the use of the frontal lobes of the brain, control those impulses and rise above the level of an animal.”

        But that’s a religious concept. It has no basis in scientific fact. Right down to the distinction between human beings and all the other animals.

        1. I wasn’t aware that the humans having well developed frontal lobes of the brain when compared to every other species was a concept rooted in religion.

          Thank you for clearing that up for me.

          1. I’ve had about enough of your proselytizing for one day, sarc!

        2. Nature has no morality. Saying man (or animal) is essentially immoral is an evasion. Concepts like justice and morality are born from abstract thought and, from there, the conception of free will. The rest is just detail.

          1. Some people cannot do abstract thought.

          2. Morality is born from the nature of man. Humans don’t have large fangs or sharp claws. To survive we use our minds. To be effective the mind must be free. For the mind to be free, man must be free from force. It is only force that can cause a man to go against his best interests. Therefore man invented morality to keep the mind free.

        3. “But that’s a religious concept. It has no basis in scientific fact. Right down to the distinction between human beings and all the other animals.”

          Religion is a human invention.

          1. So is free will.

            1. Erm, wut?

            2. Because free will gets in the way of liberalism?

              1. Because it’s a convenient fiction.

                1. It’s not a fiction. Just a useless concept.

              2. Give Tony a break. He says stupid stuff because of events set in motion by the Big Bang.

                1. Convenient when arguing in favor of a nanny-state, you mean.

      2. BTW I don’t consider liberals to be human beings. They’d fail the gom jabbar every time.

        What is a gom jabbar and could I pass it?

    2. Scientific fact 1: Societies that organize according to those rules get rich, live long, and eat many a hamburger.

      Scientific fact 2: I love hamburger om nom nom.

      Even as an unreconstructed religious person, I can see the scientific case for these rules.

      1. Scientific fact – hamburger lasts longer in my fridge when I put it in a Tupperware? container.

        WEIRD! And, somehow, ironic…

  12. Morality is but religion’s handmaiden.

    1. Big talker, you didn’t even invent bacon!

      1. Mmm, bacon. I’m willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt if their name is Bacon.

  13. I find it funny when people say he’s copying the biblical commandments, when over half of those aren’t biblical commandments.

    I like Penn and I think that these ideals are nice. But I’m disappointed that he took Beck’s bait in labeling these ‘Atheist commandments’.

    Not believing in the christian god is not so complex.

    1. I think that they are supposed to be moral rules for atheists to follow, not a necessary aspect of atheism.

  14. Penn’s sincere-square schtick is wearing thin.

    He can take his rules and shove ’em.

    The very last thing the world needs is more nags, let alone teetotaling atheist nags – even (especially?) if they’re nagging people to stop nagging people. Get a cleric’s collar already and be done with it.

    Oh, and the 5-minutes-of-content+40-minutes-of-intros+recaps he calls his new “show”, “Penn & Teller Tell A Lie” BLOWS.

    1. Gotta agree that “Lies” blows big time. I had high hopes – I lasted one episode.

      Also – needs moar labels.

      1. Bullshit! was crazy-good for about 3 seasons before it started to go down hill. The Vatican episode was a nice little rebound in quality, but unfortunately Showtime has refused to re-air it or release it on DVD.

        In my opinion, Penn & Teller do three things, preach atheism, preach libertarianism, and do cool, little, edgy magic tricks with a message. Bullshit! was a nice little vehicle for their messages on atheism and libertarianism*. At the same time, they continued their magic act in Vegas and on the occasional TV special.

        Tell a Lie, while continuing to spread the P&T belief in the “the search for truth” or, as Penn likes to say, “the market-place of ideas”, is too tame for the normally over-the-top performers and it lacks the focus that Bullshit had. The move to Discovery could have been an opening of doors to a wider audience, but instead it’s too much of drop in quality such that people will likely not be entertained by it and die-hard P&T fans will only be nostalgic for the better days of Bullshit!.

        *It seemed to me, back during the early days of Bullshit!, Penn & Teller were such passionate, newbie libertarians that their messages on topics like environmentalism and second-hand were often stereotypically denialist. To their credit, the appear to have adjusted their views to new data and points of view.

        1. I just looked over the Bullshit! series, and maybe it was actually still good during the 4th season. But, definitely by 5th season, it was starting to suck. One or two episodes a season were good (immigration, NASA), but the others were just excuses to show tits.

          1. [B]ut the others were just excuses to show tits.

            You say that like it’s a bad thing.

  15. He can tell you what but he can’t he can’t tell you why.

    1. Neither can you.

  16. 10. Don’t waste too much time wishing, hoping, and being envious; it’ll make you bugnutty.

    Too late – we already have the OWS.

    1. Too late – we already have the OWS.

      And the Democrat Party, and socialists, and communists, and Tony, and MNG…

    2. The Tenth Commandment in the Bible says basically the same thing – and the religious left has always ignored it.

      1. Exactly. The 10th commandment didn’t explain why, though. The so-called religious left needs the caveat he provided.

  17. First of all you must understand that morality deals solely with actions. Thoughts and feelings are neither moral or immoral. So some of Penn’s dictates don’t fall within the realm of morality, i.e. love your parents. Secondly, you must understand that there are two types of morality, subjective and objective. Subjective morality deals with actions that effect only an individual. Objective morality deals with actions between two or more individuals. Since every human is different you can not make general dictates about subjective morality. What’s good for me might not be good for you. That leaves us with objective morality. There are onlly three rules when it comes to objective morality. They are:

    Rule 1

    No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual’s self or property.

    Rule 2

    Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Rule 1.

    Rule 3

    No exceptions shall exist for Rule 1 and 2.

    And that’s all there is to it.

    1. So if someone pollutes my water supply, I get to kick them in the nuts?

      And what is property except “that which is secured by threat of force”?

      1. hurrrrrr durrrrr hurrrrr… uh I don’t getts it.

      2. Property is not an initiation of force.

        Theft is.

        What part of “initiate” do you not understand?

        1. Property is a piece of government paper.

          1. Tony, meet White Indian.
            White Indian, Tony.

            1. White Indian, while, uh, prolific, does make a very good point.

              You’re statist collectivists for all the things you want, you just don’t think people who are different from you are entitled to any of their statism.

              1. White Indian, while, uh, prolific, does make a very good point.

                Hey, 2 out of 3 retards agree!

              2. You truly do not understand what “initiate” means.

                1. Apparently it’s the distinction between stepping foot on your lawn and you shooting the trespasser in the face.

                  1. Apparently it’s the distinction between stepping foot on your lawn and you shooting the trespasser in the face.

                    I see. So you don’t mind if I set up camp in your living room, shit in your sink and eat all your food?

                    Or do you only disdain property rights when it the property is something claimed by someone else?

                    I think that’s it.

                    You are nothing but a liar and a thief.

                    1. Of course I mind, and because I pay taxes I get to have men with guns remove you.

                    2. Re: Stoopid In Amerika [aka Tony],

                      I don’t understand how you translate self-ownership (a conceit I can live with) to ownership of stuff.

                      So you do concede you own your ass! Ok, do you own the shorts [or stuff] that covers it?

                      Or do you go naked?

                    3. If you did that to me I would shoot you in the face, and be legally justified in doing so.

                    4. “legally justified”

                      Government for the purposes you want, but every other purpose is illegitimate, because you say so.

                    5. Re: Stoopid In Amerika [aka Tony],

                      I don’t understand how you translate self-ownership (a conceit I can live with) to ownership of stuff.

                      So you do concede you own your ass! Ok, do you own the shorts [or stuff] that covers it?

                      Or do you go naked?

                      ANSWER THE QUESTION.

                    6. I’m entitled to ownership of my shorts and to defend myself with force against anyone trying to take them.

                      That entitlement comes from the fact that I pay taxes to maintain a system that secures it with threat of force. Not magical rights fairies.

                    7. Re: Stoopid In America,

                      That entitlement comes from the fact that I pay taxes to maintain a system that secures it with threat of force. Not magical rights fairies.

                      Really? So you pay someone to have the guns to defend your property, is that what you’re saying? So if you don’t pay taxes, do you suddenly stop possessing your ass and your shorts?

                      Why would someone with even bigger guns care about how you think you’re entitled to your property for which you pay taxes to have it protected? It’s the same question you posited.

                    8. So you pay someone to have the guns to defend your property, is that what you’re saying?

                      Yes, they’re called police. If I wanted I could pay for private security, but their right to initiate force is only legitimized by government rules. Otherwise it’s all might-makes-right all the way down, and the robber with bigger guns is simply more entitled to your stuff than you, because he has bigger guns.

                      Why would someone with even bigger guns care about how you think you’re entitled to your property for which you pay taxes to have it protected?

                      Because I pay for the men with the biggest guns–government.

                    9. Unfortunately for you, it has been well established that the police you’re paying your taxes for have no obligation whatsoever to protect you from crime.

                      So what will you do when they fail to do so?

                    10. Having a bigger guns or more guys in his gang does not in any way make the robber “more entitled” to my stuff. It might enable him to take it – wrongfully. But it does not mean he is “entitled” to it.

                    11. So why are you entitled to it in the first place? Because you say so?

                    12. Apparently you don’t read much about the cops. Especially about the NY cops.

                    13. So people who don’t pay taxes, don’t have that entitlement? I, and Hoppe, disagree. Your rights come from your being. Nothing magical about it.

            2. Libertarians define force that is justified and force that is not justified, and it is pretty much the basis that rational Americans (in other words, not Tony) accept when dealing with property. We’re just consistent about it, while the government (and Tony) is not.

      3. Re: Stoopid In Amerika,

        And what is property except “that which is secured by threat of force”?

        The sockpuppet does not believe in property, which would mean he does not believe in the Self-ownership Principle, which means he will let anybody violate his ass without even a hint of self-defense or threat of force.

        You should change your name to “Perfunctory Contradiction”, sockpuppet.

        1. And what is property personal safety except “that which is secured by threat of force”?

    2. Thoughts and feelings are neither moral or immoral

      So, the intent behind the action has nothing to do with it’s morality?

      1. I can assure the guy you hits in the head ultimately doesn’t give a shit why you hit in the head, assuming he was minding his own business. For property crimes, intent is even more ludicrous, devolving into self-pity every time.

        1. Note to self: Take off gloves before typing.

        2. If I hit him in the head to kill a dengue-fever bearing mosquito before it bites him, he doesn’t care?

          If we are in a sanctioned boxing match and he agreed to dive in the 3rd round so we could split the betting proceeds?

          I can come up with more ludicrous hypotheticals all day long.

          1. You can forgive people if you accept their intent, but I don’t think intent excuses anything if the assaulted person doesn’t agree to it.

            That’s just what the leftists discount. If you steal money from me, I don’t give a fuck why it was stolen: the poor, the sick, the disabled, or just that next fix.

            I decide when I’ve been stolen from, assaulted; not the thief or attacker.

            Getting people to agree with me is the trick part when you delve into ludicrous hypothetical.

        3. What if I slapped him in upside him head to knock the ugly off? I’m pretty sure that’s legal, you absolutist prick.

  18. These rules are but faint shadows of the Iron Rules…

  19. 1. Ideals are personal. What one person holds ideal another may consider to be insignificant, or at least not as important. Why is creativity there and intelligence not, for example? Is a math professor less ideal than an artist?

    2. OK

    3. Eh.

    4. Subjective; some people find a set-aside break time to be helpful, others find it to be distracting.

    5. No. Family is owed no special reverence or honor. Should I be there for my abusive mother because oh, she’s family? No.

    6. To an extent. I’d still shoot a criminal in my home or threatening my person if I had to.

    7. Repeat of #3?

    8. OK

    9. Repeat of #3? Besides, there are times when lying is appropriate.

    10. “Don’t spend much time with wishes and hopes”? wtf?

    1. Ignore #1 because I apparently can’t read when I lack caffeine.

      The rest still stand though.

    2. Ignore #1 because I apparently can’t read when I lack caffeine.

      The rest still stand though.

  20. Re: Stoopid In Amerika [aka Tony],

    I don’t understand how you translate self-ownership (a conceit I can live with) to ownership of stuff.

    So you do concede you own your ass! Ok, do you own the shorts [or stuff] that covers it?

    Or do you go naked?

    1. I own them because the men with the most guns say I own them. Luckily we live in a civilized country so I get to vote for those men with guns.

      1. Re: Stoopid In Amerika,

        I own them because the men with the most guns say I own them[.]

        Who are these men – your pimps? You’re such an idiot. If the men with the most guns say you can own your shorts then they certainly own your ass. Have you thought about that?

        Luckily we live in a civilized country so I get to vote for those men with guns.

        You mean the nice men who tell you what you can “own”? Those men?

        Clearly, intelligence or honesty are not attributes one can use to describe you.

        1. So what else is there? Natural rights everyone is just supposed to agree upon and then behave perfectly morally and rationally all the time?

          If someone tries to take your stuff, and they have more guns than you, do you say “fair enough, take it,” or do you call the police?

          1. Who do you call when the police try to take your stuff, and they have more guns than you?

            1. I call other police. If government is corrupted then I still don’t see how standing on a soapbox declaring your natural rights will help you.

              1. So when the police come to relieve you of the burden of your private possessions, your plan is to call…the police?

                Have you thought this through?

                1. Yes, have you? What alternative do you suggest?

                  Everything depends on having a good accountable government. Without that it doesn’t matter what rights you claim you have.

                  1. What you’re saying is we should vote for politicians who favor governments that don’t trample on our rights, politicians that see protecting our rights as paramount.

                    With you so far…

              2. If government is corrupted then I still don’t see how standing on a soapbox declaring your natural rights will help you.

                So then you’re completely ignorant of how this country came into existence, then.

                1. And yes, I said “then” twice, dammit!

                2. And yes, I said “then” twice, dammit!

                  1. Squirrels!

                3. I didn’t realize the American Revolution was fought with ideas and soapboxes.

                  1. I didn’t realize the American Revolution was fought with ideas and soapboxes.

                    That’s actually exactly where it started.

                    1. That’s actually exactly where it started.

                      But not how it ended.

              3. What if those police are IRS agents, robbing you without your consent, and they belong to the gang with the strongest military force?

                Why are you assuming that a government that robs you is “corrupt”, when all government rely on taxation, which is theft?

                1. There is no difference except you do give your consent, by remaining a citizen and voting. Consent in a large population is determined by democratic vote–I’m not sure of a better way to do it.

                  Nobody has explained what alternative there is to men with guns.

                  1. “Might makes right”? Really?

                  2. There is no difference except you do give your consent, by remaining a citizen and voting. Consent in a large population is determined by democratic vote–I’m not sure of a better way to do it.

                    So all those black people consented to Jim Crow/all those gay people consented to DOMA/all those pot smokers consented to the WOD/?

                    Then what the hell are they complaining about?

                  3. by remaining a citizen and voting

                    By being born I give consent to be robbed, and by not taking it upon myself to leave the country, I continue to give consent.

                    Got it.

                    Nobody has explained what alternative there is to men with guns.

                    Again you say libertarians are anarchists.

                    What part of “limited government” do you not understand?

                    1. By being born I give consent to be robbed, and by not taking it upon myself to leave the country, I continue to give consent.

                      Pretty much. How would you do it? Give infants a choice whether to be a citizen? Or do you just want all the comforts of a modern state and civilization but you don’t want to pay for it?

                      What part of “limited government” do you not understand?

                      The part where you’re somehow morally different from me just because you limit “robbery” to providing for different services than I do.

                      If you’re not an anarchist, then you allow for the legitimacy of the state and taxation, and at that point we merely differ on scope, nothing fundamental.

                    2. The litmus test is pretty simple.

                      When a law gives someone in government the power to commit acts that would be criminal if committed by citizens, then the law is wrong.

                      I would call that fundamental.

                    3. So no taxation and no private property then?

                    4. http://www.lewrockwell.com/dil…..zo182.html
                      http://www.lewrockwell.com/cal…..han72.html
                      sorry, either you’re a libertarian or … (see title)

        2. “Who are these men – your pimps?”

          His feudal lord and master. Tony is a happy little serf.

  21. 1. The highest ideals are human intelligence, creativity and love. Respect these above all.

    Human intelligence and creativity can be a deadly combination, particularly when it comes to weapons technology. And love makes people do crazy things.

    The rest of the list sounds pretty reasonable.

    1. “Human intelligence and creativity can be a deadly combination, particularly when it comes to weapons technology. And love makes people do crazy things.”

      And God has the power to stop child-sodomy, but doesn’t.

      Your point?

  22. Disappointing Penn.

    A couple in particular sound vaguely like humanist hogwash. For example “[r]espect and protect all human life” sounds mandatory. I neither respect ‘all’ human life, nor feel a duty to protect it. In addition, “[d]o not put things or even ideas above other human beings.” Why the hell not? I value some of my possession more than I do some human beings (using that phrase loosely). Moreover, without ideas/words there is no thought (IMO). Honestly, some ideas are more important than some humans, i.e. individual freedom, etc.

    That’s my two cents, take it for what it’s worth…

    1. “A couple in particular sound vaguely like humanist hogwash. For example “[r]espect and protect all human life” sounds mandatory. I neither respect ‘all’ human life, nor feel a duty to protect it. In addition, “[d]o not put things or even ideas above other human beings.” Why the hell not? I value some of my possession more than I do some human beings (using that phrase loosely).”

      Let me help you here…the list sounds humanist because its for ‘human beings.’

      In other words, we pretty much all grew up with some kind of loved ones who we did not want to see murdered so most ‘human beings’ really have it ingrained in them that creating cycles of violence and murder, well, it isn’t such a great idea.

      And if you really believe you have any objects in your possession above any life ? human or otherwise ? you must really think you are something special to judge others and condemn them…And if you are wrong about yourself, well, you are probably wrong about how special your objects are.

      Signed,

      An Atheist

  23. Except for a couple, these commandments seem to be plagiarized.

  24. Is it too early to start the religious wars between Orthodox Penn-tacostals and Reformed Reconstructionist Tellerites and the Church of Doug Henning and the New Atheists and the N? ?theists and the News sans Huey Lewis and the…

  25. Thoughts:

    Re 1: Not in this society, they aren’t… (intelligence, creativity, and love)

    Re 2: If we didn’t put ideas above human beings, the American Revolutionary War never would have happened. The Swiss Confederation would not have fought off the Hapsburgs. The holocaust would have continued in Nazi-occupied Europe. I absolutely, positively, 100%, 25 hours a day and 8 days a week will put certain ideas ahead of human beings. Yessiree and boy-frickin’-howdy.

    Re 3: I’m sorry, but if I can’t be sarcastic, then this just ain’t gonna work.

    Re 4: If they’re religious, then they’re not atheists.

    Re 5: I agree with this one!

    Re 6: Sometimes, killing is the only reasonable course of action. However, I don’t care WHAT tribe they’re in.

    Re 7: I agree with this one! (Keep your promises)

    Re 8: I agree with this one! (Don’t steal)

    Re 9: I would agree with this one, except that without a certain amount of fibbing to grease the gears of society, we’d all be cast members in The Road (a depressing Cormac McCarthy movie about a second Obama term).

    Re 10: I agree with this one! (Don’t be an OWSer)

    1. Fighting for your own survival is not “putting ideas over human beings.” Murdering a million people because you like the idea of some Lebensraum or because you think collective farming sounds peachy is.

      1. The American Revolution wasn’t about survival – it was about a better way of life. It was still worth fighting.

        Anti-communism is a fight worth fighting.

        As long as people keep coming up with really bad ideas, there will be better ideas worth fighting for.

  26.  

    Well he skipped the first one with me personally -no need to read further

    1. Did you translate your article into Korean with Babelfish and then translate it back again?

  27. HOW TO TELL IF A THREAD MAY BE INTERESTING: DO A PAGE SEARCH FOR THE WORD “TONY”. If You Have More Than Three Matches, Skip it. The Thread Will Be A Tedious Revisit Of Issues That Tony Continues To Argue And Some Folks Continue To Respond To.

    1. Mainer, unless you accuse me of writing as White Indian, or insist the rather spoofs are me, you will never earn your decoder ring 😉

    2. Until the day libertarians realize that “I’m just right, give me everything I ask for, then fuck you!” isn’t a political philosophy, my points will remain relevant.

      1. You seem to have libertarian philosophy with progressive political philosophy.

        1. That is the lynchpin of liberalism, MJ… “give me everything I ask for”.

  28. This is why Moses had to break the first set of tablets. God made way too many asides.

  29. I’m with Penn on everything except not stealing jokes because where would that leave me?

  30. My best friend’s mom makes $77 an hour on the computer.She has been out of job for 9 months but last month her check was $7487 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read about it here NuttyRichdotcom

  31. Well, numbers 1 through 9 clearly show that Penn is a racist and uncomfortable with a black man in the White House.

    And number 10 makes me think that Penn might be a birther and a racist who is uncomfortable with a black man in the White House.

    I wonder what Janeane Garofalo thinks of these commandments.

  32. Why should anybody accept Mr. Jillett’s ten commandments? Who died and made him the Atheist’s God? How about everybody make up their own? Yeah, that ought to work.

    1. “How about everybody make up their own?”

      If you mean to say that no one can live up to someone else’s moral code and we all must develop our own ? I agree!

      1. Hitler had his own.

  33. Obviously, atheists aren’t concerned with having a heavenly afterlife. If they were, they would follow Jesus Christ. Maybe they will accept him before it’s too late.

    1. Obviously, Christians aren’t concerned with having a heavenly afterlife. If they were, they would follow the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). Maybe they will accept him before it’s too late.

      1. Obviously, Christians aren’t concerned with having a prosperous and happy reincarnation. If they were, they would follow the teachings of the Buddha. Maybe they will accept him before it’s too late

        1. Obviously, Christians aren’t concerned with having the body thetans causing them grief purged from their souls. If they were, they would follow L. Ron Hubbard. Maybe they will accept him before it’s too late.

  34. Isn’t there a contradiction between the statement “My whole take on libertarianism is simply that I don’t know what’s best for other people.” and making 10 commandments for Atheists?

    If you really claim to not know what’s best for people, isn’t creating 10 commandments a startling act of hypocrisy? And wildly irresponsible since you claim you don’t even know if it’s true?

    If you claim to not know what’s best for people, how can you claim that people should have freedom? How do you know freedom is best for people?

    The golden rule is dangerous when someone is doing to me what they would like done for them, if I don’t agree with that. It takes little imagination to see that. If you like getting face-raped, I might not like it if you do me a favor.

  35. Tony|10.31.11 @ 12:49PM|#
    “If people are just paying for private security then “ownership” is determined by whoever has the biggest private army, which is, in the end, just non-democratic government.”

    Shithead, maggots wouldn’t have you. Lower than whale shit.

  36. are people basically good? read some Phil Zimbardo, who did controlled empirical research on human nature, and you’ll probably be re-evaluating that position

  37. Thank you for sharing nice information, I wish you success

  38. Thank you for sharing nice information, I wish you success

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.