Bernie Sanders

Penn Jillette: Bernie Sanders is the 'one person in this race who's actually genuine and not crazy' [UPDATE: Penn sez 'You are right, I am wrong']

Libertarian magician praises the socialist and disses Rand Paul

|

Get a job, hippie! ||| MedPageToday.com
MedPageToday.com

CNN's Chris Moody recently caught up with magician Penn Jillette in Las Vegas, and got the outspoken libertarian to expand on his prior enthusiasms for Democratic-socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders:

"There seems to be one person in this race who's actually genuine and not crazy. And that's Bernie," Jillette said of Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders during an exclusive backstage interview here at the Rio Hotel and Casino. "He uses the word socialist, which in the United States is what? Sixty percent socialist now? We're a mixed economy. This is all stuff a libertarian probably shouldn't say, but 'socialist' isn't a dirty word. It's a different way of looking at how the government works."

Jillette told Moody he'd likely vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, but that a Sanders administration might be a healthy thing.

"I disagree with him on almost everything," Jillette said. "Bernie Sanders in the White House gives us a chance to say, 'Is this the direction we want to go?' There's supposed to be a certain kind of experimentation with this."

What about the candidate who actually uses "libertarianish" as a self-identifier?

"I'm a little disappointed in Rand Paul," Jillette said. "Because Rand Paul is not libertarian. He's not really a small government guy."

One disagrees with Penn Jillette at one's peril, but I for one am not jumping on the Bernwagon, no matter how comparatively refreshing his popularity is next to Hillary Clinton's. "Experimentation" is better carried out in small, competing laboratories, instead of atop a federal leviathan with 4 million employees and a monopoly on force. Sanders may be a quirky individualist in the context of two-party Washington, but make no mistake: He sees your individuality, and Penn Jillette's, as clay that needs strong federal molding in service of The Revolution.

And no, that's not hyperbole. Here's Sanders this weekend on Meet the Press. Bolding will be mine:

What I understand is that the power of corporate America, Wall Street, the corporate media is so great that real change to transform our country does not take place unless millions of people begin to stand up and say very loudly and clearly that the United States government has got to represent all of us, and not just the top 1%.

No president, not Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, anybody else is going to be able to accomplish that unless millions of people stand up and say, "You know what? You guys are not going to get it all." 58% of all new income is not going to go to the top 1%. We're not going to have incredible, grotesque levels of income and wealth inequality. […]

And by the way, I hope by a political revolution we will be substantially increasing voter turnout.

[Y]ou have to be prepared to mobilize people to take on these big money interests. […] I think we can do it. And I think that's what the bully pulpit is about. And that's what organizing effort's about. And that's what this campaign is about. And we're beginning to do that, Chuck. Every day I read in the paper things that are happening someplace in this country, whether there's spontaneous outbursts of support for us. And that is what we have to mobilize. The bottom line is, unless turnout becomes much higher, we lose. Unless people are organized and politically conscious in a way that does not exist today, we are not going to transform America the way we have to. […]

[W]hat it's about is at a time when so few have so much and when the big money interests have so much political power, the real most important question is, who is prepared to mobilize the American people to stand up to these very powerful and wealthy special interests? […]

I believe what I call common sense gun reform. Plus, a revolution in mental health, making sure that if people are having a nervous breakdown, or are suicidal, or homicidal, they get the care they need when they need it.

Sorry, Bernie, but I don't want to be "mobilized." I don't want a president who views his fellow Americans as potential mob-fodder for a "revolution" to "transform America the way we have to." That conception of citizenship is as expressly anti-individualistic as John McCain's "National Greatness Conservatism."

The fact that I agree more with Sanders on, say, the folly of American intervention in the Middle East, does not blind me to the observation that this is a person whose stated intention is to amass and exercise more government power, and the presidency would give him a unique position to do just that. Ready for life under a Sanders-run Commerce Department, or Federal Elections Commission, or Environmental Protection Agency? You think he's your man to clean up the deadly mess at Veteran's Affairs?

I'm all in favor of political experimentation, particularly in the types of personalities and ideas allowed at the Adult's Table, and so I have mostly greeted the Bernmentum with pleasure. But this is a man who believes capitalism is a Hobbesian "race to the bottom" (on Meet the Press, he accurately answered the question "Are you a capitalist?" with "No. I'm a Democratic Socialist"); who says he would not retroactively endorse a single U.S. trade pact, and who thinks the problem with our entitlements system is that they're not big enough.

As a wise man once said, "I believe in individual rights so much that I don't like any sort of 'what's good for the cause'–type question.…I'm even uncomfortable telling people who to vote for." If people want to self-mobilize into some pro-Sanders "libertarian socialism," well, I'll bring the popcorn. And wonder how many times an experiment needs to be tried before people notice that it doesn't work.

UPDATE: Penn Jillette Tweets "You are right, I am wrong. I fall in love with sincerity, but you are right." More here and here.

NEXT: On Gay Issues, Expect All Democratic Candidates to Sound the Same Tonight

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. He’s not crazy?

    How about stupid?

    1. And dangerous. I have no doubt Bernie believes the shit he’s selling because he is stupid. That stupidity would lead to his “solutions” actually perpetuating the problems they intend to solve, which is extremely dangerous.

      1. It doesn’t matter whether he believes it or not; the only thing that matters is whether he will work to enact it.

        But it should be noted that many on the left don’t actually believe their solutions will truly work; they do believe that those solutions are better than anything else out there. And, if they get to steal more money for the people they think are too rich, so much the better.

        1. Actually it doesn’t even matter if he will work to enact what he believes. What matters is whether he will be able to enact it.

          1. Executive orders, maybe? I wonder how far he could go with them before the GOP (and a few Dem senators) would actually step up to stop him.

            1. Of course! That has worked so well already!

      2. Please watch the ‘dangerous’ talk. This is the third time in recent times that I have head the right wing talk about Bernie being dangerous. I saw this one right wing screed entitled ‘the most dangerous man in america’. The site had all thee gun rights stuff all over it , too. put two and two together and you know what got especially when you genuinely stupid and low intelligent people with guns reading this stuff.

        I say they are low intelligent because overall they are getting screwed the by rich and the corporate elite and yet they espouse and support the rich’s interests. That is plain stupid.

        Bernie is not proposing any structural changes to our nation. From Day 1 , our founders gave congress two powers , among others:

        1) power to lay taxes
        2) power to regulate commerce

        All of our history ha s been adjustments using these basic powers . We have too much to the corporate side and Bernie seeks to correct this maladjustment towards where it s/ be – towards the people.

        For this, correction of our nation’s priorities , he is dangerous? Yep – to the uber riche. But NOT to regular folks like you me and that most ‘dangerous man’ essay writer.

        http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HXYR….._FINAL.jpg

        1. Peddle your nonsense to people who are less informed and more stupid.

        2. Oh piss off, you socialist pig-dog.

        3. But the non-aggression principle applies to government power over citizens. Just because Bernie has pro-libertarian views on intervention overseas, doesn’t his excuse his desires to broaden and intensify certain powers of the state.

          Penn’s makes his money deceiving others for a living, so I can see why he might think Bernie is okay.

          Obama got elected on rhetoric, likeability, and some saw him as genuine. We saw how that turned out. However I think Bernie would be worse.

        4. “power to regulate commerce”

          No caveats, not limits, no nothing noted, amirite?

          Fuck off slaver.

    2. Or “ugly”?

      1. CNN always uses this image, which makes him look like a pedophile.

        1. He’s got that pedosmile.

        2. I resent that.

        3. ‘I’m not wearing pants.’

          1. …and neither is Billy.

        4. too old

    3. You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth in a world in which we are struggling with climate change and all kinds of environmental problems. All right? You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers when children are hungry in this country.

      Sane! Refreshing! #feeltheberninyourass

      1. Who’s struggling, Bernie? Can you name a single state in the US where the “environment” is in worse shape than it was 100 years ago? Can you name one US citizen or resident who was harmed by “climate change”?

        1. It’s already too late for Miami and New Orleans.

          1. If you believe that sea levels will rise 30 feet worldwide by 2100, sure.

            1. The whole premise is absurd.

              I’ve made this comment here before but, to be repetitive: if you believe in AGW and think something should be done, then why go to the absurd-catastrophic card?

              1. Because that has been the playbook since Silent Spring.

                And yes, it does real damage to serious discussion of real environmental problems.

              2. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

                -Mencken

                But I repeat myself.

        2. Who’s struggling, Bernie?

          1-2% of the population really do struggle.

          Or according to the Peanuts/Sean Hannity 94 million people can’t get jobs and are starving to death.

          1. P’sB, you know we’re talking about climate change here, right? Not starving. Also, why would we care one whit what Sean Hannity thinks?

        3. Adverse effects of global warming are already unwinding and there is and will be a whole lot of bad well before we lose NO and MIami. When that happens it will be close to catastrophic probably.

          Crazy history breaking floods in 2015 had lots of deaths

          ‘Death Toll From South Carolina Floods Rises To 17’
          Posted: 10/06/2015

          ‘Texas floods death toll rises to 31 as two more bodies are found’
          PUBLISHED: 23:28 EST, 30 May 2015

          You mentioned American deaths, but what you mean is American impact from AGWCD. Besides abnormal storms (rains, floods) or droughts, there also is predicted to be consequent societal stresses . And we have a genuine beast of one in the Syrian Civil War. And lest one thinks that is over there, they are now coming into our country as refugees, like it or not.

          ‘SCIENCE DATE OF PUBLICATION: 03.02.15.
          HOW GLOBAL WARMING HELPED CAUSE THE SYRIAN WAR’
          http://www.wired.com/2015/03/g…..yrian-war/

          1. This is such horseshit. “[A]bnormal storms.” WTF does that shit even mean? Shit floods and we have droughts every goddamn year. None of the supposed effects of climate change are the least bit out of the ordinary.

            You people are fucking terrible.

          2. Grammar. How does it work?

            Oh yeah. And idiocy.

          3. idic5 – You are f’n retard. Should be idiot5.

            It seems you believe 100% of the shit the media sells. As someone who has lived in Texas (Houston area specifically) I can tell you the media stories where crap.

            Yes, people died, sad. But the flood happen quite regularly. Has been happening regularly since I can remember (and this a pretty long time). They are nothing new. When you make your streets the secondary drainage system, water rises. It is also very flat, water does not run off quickly.

            Also the media seems to do the bait and switch about storms. They say they are larger and more damaging. It looks like they are look and dollar amounts of damages, and of course this way larger, we have millions more people in their path that previously.

            Stop buying into the media hype. Do people have an affect, yes. But weather is a huge and chaotic system, we don’t have the impact we think we do.

          4. Wow. I heard the sky is falling as well.

          5. “Government agricultural policies had led to an over-reliance on rain, so desperate farmers had to turn to well water?and they ended up sucking most of the country’s groundwater reserves dry. “….

            So, a regional drought, compounded by shitty LOCAL GOVERNMENT policies fucked over their own citizens, and you blame The Drought?!

            You wouldn’t understand the concept of Root Cause Analysis if it crawled up your leg and nibbled on your scrotum.

            Sea level rise will be more like .9m than 9m, and the only real hazard is that property damage and losses that MIGHT result over those 85 years or so will be paid for by All Citizens of the US (think Bailout) rather than letting the chips fall on the fools that build high-rises at the tide-line and build cities on flood plains.

            Bernie would love to have everyone pay for others’ stupidity, but …. well, “I can explain it to you, but I can’t Understand It For You…

            http://www.plusaf.com/pix/home…..rehend.bmp

            🙂

      2. Who needs economic prosperity, the important thing is that we all get poor together.

        1. poor like in scandinavia which countries have consistently been ranked by various sources as the most livable areas in the world? We’ll risk this.

          1. Ok – you *do* know that what Scandinavia does is *not* the shite American and European socialists peddle, right?

            Scandinavian ‘socialism’ is to have a robust *free-market* with *minimal regulation* and *easy entry requirements* while topping that with a highly redistributive tax scheme.

            Its not the ‘government knows best and is always working for the good of the common man so we need to unfetter it and give the people in the government more power’ style of politics that Sanders and his like peddle.

            And I don’t know about ‘livable’ when the Scandinavian countries seem to keep showing up at the top of the ‘per capita suicide rate’ charts.

            1. You DO know that what you are describing is EXACTLY what Bernie Sanders is peddling, right?

              He is not a Marxist, Communist, or Republican Socialist, he is a DEMOCRATIC socialist. Look up what that means…

              1. I apologize, my comment above this was in error, I misread the previous posts.

          2. We’ll risk this.

            We will? I don’t, so we won’t be doing anything of the sort.

          3. idic5 = then move to Scandinavia for the hot chicks .

            1. Don’t forget all of that beautiful weather!

          4. id5, many dozen years ago I visited Stockholm on a business trip. I had some opportunity to chat with our sales rep and got an interesting answer when I asked him about the allegedly high taxes on income there…

            “Well,” he said, “if my boss were to offer me a raise, I’d try to negotiate with him to give me more vacation time, instead. The marginal tax rate would be something like 80%, so I really wouldn’t end up with much in my wallet at all, but having more vacation time with my family would be better than the raise.”

            So… you’ve got a government that penalizes initiative and success and achievement and Hard Work and Invention that way… Con-fucking-gratulations, moron! Just the kind of reward system the US WASN’T built on.

            Fool. But, of course, again… http://www.plusaf.com/pix/home…..rehend.bmp

            1. So you’re saying the money is the obviously better option over vacation time and spending time with your family?

      3. You can’t just continue growth for the sake of growth

        Isn’t unchecked growth exactly what he is suggesting?

        *turns to aide whispering something in ear*

        Oh.. never mind, nothing to see here!

      4. Actually, that sounds similar to what Penn says on Sunday School when he goes into ‘global warming’ and talks about how ‘wrong’ they were about the topic on Bullshit!

    4. “He no crazy. He nuts!”

    5. Well, Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing and expecting different results. By that definition, then all socialists are crazy. How many times does their “experiment” have to fail before they’ll admit it doesn’t work?

      Yeah, I know, “real socialism” hasn’t been tried… “haven’t had the right people in charge”… blah blah blah. Whatever.

      1. Just because Einstein said it doesn’t make it a universal truth.. In science even, it’s not good to test a hypothesis by doing one experiment and calling it. You do it multiple times to get a distribution of results. So trying to live your life by that quote, which only holds any relevance maybe in formal mathematics, is really misguided.

        1. It wasn’t Einstein that said that, people constantly misattribute that to him. That saying actually originated in AA. Einstein never said anything of the sort.

          The very foundation of science is doing the same thing over and over to see IF it gets the same result.

          1. and what steven2000 missed in that ‘discussion’ is NOT that we’re saying Doing Something Once is a bad way to create a rule or generalization, it’s Noticing that When Bad Solutions get Reapplied to The Same Problem, even if more money, people or resources are applied to The Solution… When the results STAY crappy, you really need to stop and think whether the Original Solution should be Done Away With.

            Unfortunately, in most government agencies, that never happens. Never.

            1. Your entirely unnecessary capitalization of certain words makes it really difficult to take your comments seriously.

              This is not the same problem. That problem domain no longer exists. This is a new problem. There are new variables. Real wealth has increased dramatically. People have the ability to be informed through non-centralized information sources.

              Take a look at other democratic socialist governments currently in existence. Specifically, at their quality of life measures and gdp per capita. I assume you haven’t because you think democratic-socialism doesn’t work.

      2. Einstein was a physicist, not a psychiatrist. Who gives a shit how he “defined” insanity?

      3. Hey *EINSTEIN*, you do realize he was a democratic socialist right? Ya know, same as Sanders??

        “This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.”

        -Albert Einstein (Democratic Socialist), excerpt from “Why Socialism” May, 1949

        1. So you want to recreate the Soviet Union and Communist China?

          1. What an ignorant comment. The Soviet Union and Communist China are not, and never were about the good of each and every individual, which DEMOCRATIC socialism is. They were/are totalitarian states that are all about the group to the exclusion of the individual.

            1. What an ignorant comment. Socialism by definition is all about the primacy of the group(the state) over the individual. It doesn’t give a stuff about what it does to individuals as long as those actions are believed to be of benefit to the group(the state.

              Democratic socialism is simply the mob deciding who they’re going to lynch next.

              1. Ignorance means uninformed, You are going off of your knowledge of one word, which makes you ignorant.
                I am going off of the definition of the PHRASE “democratic socialist”.

                When you combine two words into a phrase, that doesn’t always mean the definition is the combination of the two words separately, Look into it, My comment was dead on, you are just peddling your own ignorance as well.

        2. Albert Einstein holding forth on macroeconomics puts him in league with current Hollywood actors telling us how to control climate.

          Wrong wheelhouse, Albert… and ‘most all actors who have bully pulpits, lots of visibility and no foundational education or experience to bring to the party.

          But lots of followers who hang on their every word… just more Non-Critical Thinkers…

          Sad.

          1. “Albert Einstein holding forth on macroeconomics puts him in league with current Hollywood actors telling us how to control climate.”

            No.. the mathematical and critical reasoning skills of one of the best physicists the world has ever produced is more than enough to have a very strong grasp on macroeconomics.

    6. We’ll see if “socialist” is a dirty word when the government comes and takes 95% of your money Mr. Jillette.

      You really should spend your time working on your magic act. I saw your act about a year ago and the street magicians down on Fremont did a better show.

    7. Like Sanders, I too would like to mobilize millions of people. Mobilize them to rid America of people like Sanders.

  2. 58% of all new income is not going to go to the top 1%.

    It’s going to go to me instead!

    1. Yeah, it just “goes” there; it’s not like they earn it through companies providing goods and services, or investments, or anything.

      1. All of those are provided on the whipped backs of the exploited workers.

    2. No, it goes to The People. After it filters through the Top Men and Women to pay for state-owned dachas and state-owned jets that cater exclusively to their whims, and then filters through the Swarms of Officers who serve only to harass The People.

      1. Hmm, wasn’t there a sarcastic term that referred to Top Men controlling the country’s wealth only to benevolently allow it to trickle down to us peasants? And didn’t a Canadian singer once sing about this type of incongruity?

        1. Interesting, but I didn’t get any of that from Cuts like a knife.

          1. I never heard the Celine Dion cover of that.

      2. Yep. It has to filer through the hands of Barry and Michelle and Bubba and Kankles and Huma etc. etc. before a few crumbs make their way downwards. And then we get to have a little somethin’. Don’t vote for them? That little somethin’ goes bye-bye.

      3. Trickle-down poverty.

  3. An honest slaver is still a slaver.

    1. When you lose your job w/o cause to overseas cheap labor in a cold hearted capitalist machination , you aint free and you are enslaved. Democratic socialism intends to increase personal liberty to reduce this anti-life, liberty and pusuit of happiness pure capitalist crap.

      Here is Bernie’s mission stmt

      ‘We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’

      1. OK – you’re not even wrong.

      2. Lol, if your job can be done by a child in a third world labour death camp then your job is shit. Maybe you should’ve studied a little more in high school math, dipshit.

        1. Bingo! But the useful idiots that think socialism will be? great” this time will never understand reality. Not even of you rub their face in it.

        2. Bingo! But the useful idiots that think socialism will be? great” this time will never understand reality. Not even of you rub their face in it.

        3. Bingo! But the useful idiots that think socialism will be? great” this time will never understand reality. Not even of you rub their face in it.

      3. You are a Strasserian Fascist.

        Your opinion is beyond dangerous. It will be fought if it comes to it.

        1. It will come to it. Which is a central theme of many of my comments here. The progs are not going away on their own. Elections are meaningless to them as the rule of law is a bug to be exploited i their minds. Not an intrinsic feature in society.

          Simply put, if you want less Marxism, reduce the number of Marxists. Personally, I think reposting them face down in landfills by the dump truck load is the easiest way to thin the herd, but I suspect most of you are too squeamish for that.

          So for all you open borders types, I propose an exchange program wherein we keep one illegal for every three progtards deported to Marxist ‘paradises’. Everybody wins.

          1. To append what I said, the assets of the deported progtards will be redistributed to native citizens as reparations for damage the progtards have caused with all their jackassery, marxism, and assholery. As boosters of wealth redistribution, I know that’s how they will want it.

            1. Fuck I like plan a better. Bury them in the garden.

      4. “When you lose your job w/o cause to overseas cheap labor in a cold hearted capitalist machination”

        What if you lose that same job to an illegal immirgant who lives in a Democrat run sanctuary city ?

        Is that OK though ?

        1. Of course it is you white devil!

  4. Genuine and honest, sure.

    Not sure about the “not crazy” part. Though he may be sane but wrong, I suppose.

  5. Is Sanders “genuine”? Indeed, zealots are quite genuine. Is Sanders “not crazy”? Well, he’s not crazy like a non-fox.

    This is all stuff a libertarian probably shouldn’t say, but ‘socialist’ isn’t a dirty word. It’s a different way of looking at how the government works.

    But, “Socialist” and “Socialism” are dirty words, having been stained with the blood of millions of innocents.

    1. Boy, the troll american socialist would be all up in your grill about this if he wasn’t busy sucking Hillary’s dick in the other thread.

      1. I thought Hillary’s dick was the one doing the sucking.

      2. Good. I’m not in the mood for his bullshit today.

        1. Seeing as it’s a sock, you can just ignore it or mock it. Either is good.

    2. He says “It’s a different way of looking at how the government works.” as if it were a matter of aesthetics. When actually that difference “in looking at how the government works” is the difference between life and death, it’s a difference between millions of free people pursuing better lives and millions of people whose lives are wasted and stagnated under the grinding heel of the state.

      1. It’s also (potentially) the difference between different ways in which millions of people can stagnate and be ground under the heel of the state.

        As someone inclined toward anarchy in principle, I think there is pretty much one way to look at government, whether or not it is necessary or inevitable.

      2. Everything is a matter of aesthetics.

        1. Shut up, Alessandro.

      3. Exactly. I like Jillette generally. But, he’s just plain wrong here. If we were talking about one fo the variants of statism that didn’t get the white wash, how absurd what he’s saying would be obvious.

        1. Most people seem to talk about whatever variation on statism we have now as if it’s OK and redeemable.

      4. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler looked at government in the same “different” way. Nothing scary about that.

    3. Penn is just wrong. Saying socialism is just another way of looking at how government works is like saying slavery is just another way of looking at how labor is allocated.

      No. It’s immoral.

      1. Well, slavery is another way of looking at how labor can be allocated. Just as horrible governments have been the norm throughout much of human history, slavery has been a big part of how labor is allocated.

        One’s perspective on government in general is important to how to interpret statements like this. If you believe that all government is immoral, then it is just another way to look at it. If you believe that there is any such thing as a real moral basis for government, then maybe you can draw a line between good and bad forms of government. But the difference between the kind of government we have now and a Bernie style socialism really is one of degree.

      2. You’re saying it’s more moral to work to make a few people’s lives much better than to make everyone’s life a little better?

        1. A 15 dollar an hour minimum wage doesn’t make my life better. It screws me over by transferring my wealth to no skill high school dropouts.

          1. Yeah fuck the no skill high school drop outs they deserve to mire in poverty for the rest of their life for the decisions they made as teenagers.

    4. A while ago, I read Bertrand Russell’s piece on his visit to the Soviet Union that he wrote around 1919. It was interesting seeing the pain of someone who really wanted Communism, in the sense that Marx meant it, to come about, but was honest enough with himself to realize that the Bolsheviks were just psychopaths and that attempting to produce socialism by violence was just an excuse for murder. So if it took the old philosopher a couple years to realize it, how long should we expect lesser intellects to take to come to the same realization? 100 years?

      1. One BILLION years?

        (sticks pinky in corner of mouth)

        1. Have you ever experienced a shorn scrotum? It’s breathtaking.

          1. Oh, I laser. It’s like a turtle shell down there.

        2. Careful Epi, you don’t know where that pinky has been.

          1. Yeah, but Warty does.

            1. two in the pink, one in the stink ?

              1. How many pinkies do you have? Jesus.

      2. Only psychopaths can actually implement communism. Rational people eventually come to their senses.

        1. Too bad the communists are in charge already at that point.

      3. They’ve had a century. They’re either blind or hoping to secure a nice sinecure in the state apparatus for themselves by consigning the rest of us to chattel slavery .

        1. They’ve had a century. They’re either blind or hoping to secure a nice sinecure in the state apparatus for themselves by consigning the rest of us to chattel slavery .

          It’s an insult to chattel slavery to compare it to communist slavery. Chattel slaves are more likely to be well-treated as compared to public slaves, since they have private owners who are ostensibly interested in preserving the capital value of their “property”. Publicly owned slaves have often been killed by the millions, 14,000 per day under Stalin, just to squeeze some extra productivity out of the ones who aren’t killed.

          1. Stalin was a piker compared to Mao.

    5. What you are referring to, presumably, is Stalinist Russia’s implementation of socialism , which was not socialism, but Stalin’s government. Someone in these pages indicted not socialism, but government.

      OUr Founder arguable were democratic socialists when they wrote about that each person is endowed with inalienable rights among them life, liberty , and the pursuit of happiness, and when the wrote the de facto mission stmt of our nation, the preamble. these contain classic socialistic goals

      We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      1. You’re not even wrong.

      2. You’re a fucking idiot. Stalin was the perfect communist. That is what your bankrupt and evil ideology eventually comes to. It hasn’t differed in two hundred years.

        And arguing that the US was founded as socialist is just fucking stupid. It would be laughable if you weren’t serious. You are a bad person and your brain is broken.

        1. Idic needs to go drink some Drano.

      3. Those are standard goals for all governments. Do you think a libertarian government wouldn’t be created to establish justice?

        I think the main difference is you view justice as 5 pounds of free cheese.

  6. Does precipitous dieting cause the brain to shrink as well? Someone get him a Snickers bar and a Coke, stat.

  7. I guess i dont understand how he is honest and genuine.

    Justice not for sale act- says nothing about role prison guard unions have played for mass incarceration, blames for profit prisons (which were in response)

    Paycheck fairness act — does not address the reasons for the wage gap which is not due to discrimination

    Wants to reverse climate change whatever that means

    Blames the VA and open borders as a koch brothers conspiracy

    1. And an entire life spent on the public teat.

    2. I think he admitted that the private prisons bill is more symbolic than anything. He also admitted in that New Yorker profile that he doesn’t actually read economics, he just judges the state of things by what he observes. I think he is honestly stupid. And he is honestly playing to other people’s stupidity and emotions.

      If he started saying that he is an economist, or that he has consulted with the best economists to come up with a solid policy plan, that would be dishonest.

    3. Oooh another one.

      I am concerned about youth unemployment, let’s raise the wage to 15 bucks one size fits all. No need to account for COL differences in the country

  8. Anyone who prattles on about “the 1%” is by default, an intellectual drone who only knows how to mimic a mind that has any understanding of economics, governance and political philosophy.

  9. “I disagree with him on almost everything,” Jillette said.

    This money quote will be ignored by the Yokeltariat.

    1. But so what? It’s like saying how much you like your stuff while dousing the house in gasoline because “it’s an alternative way of storing petrol.” Sanders isn’t dangerous because he has nutty ideas, he’s dangerous because he may end up in a position to do something with them.

      1. He’s not dangerous. Overwhelming odds are that he doesn’t even get the D nomination. If we look at worst case, he gets elected and we spend the next 4 years in gridlock. Which isn’t really a bad outcome.

        1. Given the historical capacity of socialists to mismanage, micro-manage and outright obliterate economies (and humans) I’d say that’s hardly the worst case scenario. I recall Obama was considered to be a hapless candidate who’s too wildly out of touch with political reality to really amount to much in terms of his ability to produce policy.

        2. Well, the Wasserwalrus is clearly in thrall to the Clintons. So it will work round the clock to ensure the coronation of Hildebeast.

  10. And wonder how many times an experiment needs to be tried before people notice that it doesn’t work.

    If history is any lesson, until hundreds of millions of people are crushed under its boot, until a whole country implodes under its own weight of takings, and still not even then.

    1. They just didn’t go far enough. It’ll totally work next time, promise.

      1. This time it’s different. We have the right people in charge. People honestly concerned with the well-being of their fellow man, not people looking for power.

        1. The new name will fix everything.

        2. And those people will eventually die to be replace by others who are not so idealistic and benevolent. What we need is government by immortals.

  11. How many other Reason contributors?

      1. What you did there.

    1. Four!

  12. Penn is just saying that he likes that Bernie is actually saying what he believes, even though what he believes is wrong. Calm down.

    1. There is some inherent contradiction in his idea that “a Bernie presidency wouldn’t be that bad” and his apparent disaffection with Rand Paul for not being “Small Government-enough

      Which Matt points out.

      It seems odd that he’d maintain a small-government litmus test for one candidate, then dispense with it with others. And true, Rand Paul is not a libertarian… but he’s miles closer to it than anyone else out there.

      If all Penn were saying is that “its refreshing that Bernie’s not just an empty suit saying whatever he thinks will get him elected”, that would be one thing.

      But he specifically says Bernie is “Not Crazy”.

      If the definition of insanity is “repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results”…Bernie’s insistence in doubling/tripling down on Big Government Welfare-Statism as a solution to America’s ills (rather than the source of them) is pretty close to textbook-Crazy.

      I’ve always liked Penn, but I think his diet is starving his brain of some essential fats.

      1. His starvation cult diet does concern me. This Cronise guy creeps me out more and more the more I hear of him.

  13. I view Saunders in the same way I see Carson. Both genuinely believe their own schtick and aren’t as cynical and corrupt as their respective parties, but they’re both monumentally wrong on substance.

    Not evil, just wrong. Given the opportunity, they might become evil if their policies were actually instituted.

    1. Yeah, I don’t think you can actually be called evil until you’re hurting people. You can have evil beliefs and not be evil. Bernie would absolutely be evil if he was president, and he might be evil as a senator, maybe not. Carson is just a harmless kook for the moment.

      1. Which is not to say that I’m not guilty of doing this myself.

        1. Guilty of what? Rape? Evil-er rape? Enjoying Michael Bay films?

          1. Evilly raping someone whilst watching a Michael Bay film…or even worse, making the rape-ee watch the film during said evil rape?!

            1. Being raped by the Hildebeast while being forced t watch her speeches is most evil of all.

          2. That last one is beyond the pale, even for you, Epi.

    2. Nah, Sanders is evil. Perhaps he doesn’t realize he’s evil, because he’s never thought through the consequences of what he wants, but look at the rhetoric that Matt cites. He has aesthetic ideas about what America should be, and he wants it remade in that image. And what happens to the dissenters?

      Not that I think he would set up camps or anything, but look at how he talks. There’s a whole lot of “us” and “we” talk, with no room for dissension. “If corporate America wants us to buy their products, they need to manufacture those products in this country.” What if I’m fine buying corporate America’s China-made products, Bernie? Why can’t I have that option?

      1. because he’s never thought through the consequences of what he wants

        Thought through the consequences? Are you out of your mind? The consequences of not doing what he wants is slavery to the corporations! Don’t you get it? If we don’t do what Bernie wants, then the rich will keep getting richer while the poor will keep getting poorer! A few corporatists will own everything while everyone else scrambles for the crumbs! That’s what will happen if we continue this experiment in unfettered capitalism! It’s madness! Absolute madness! Liberty is tyranny of the rich! The only thing that can save us is the total state! Bernie knows! He understands! Aaaaauuuuggghhh!

        1. Talk of the corporations taking over always reminds me of Milton Friedman’s appearance on the old Phil Donahue show. People were concerned that Sears and K-Mart were merging and would own us all. Friedman points out that as long as government doesn’t interfere, competition will prevent that. Most notable is Friedman citing other retailers, but doesn’t mention Wal-Mart…..in other words, today’s corporate villian wasn’t even on the radar back then.

          1. I always find the idea of the corporations owning everything while everyone else lives in poverty to be amusing, because corporations require customers buying their products in order to exist. So if there is going to be “corporate rule,” then the people who the corporations lord over must be able to purchase their goods and services. A society ruled by corporations must necessarily be a wealthy society, not the other way around. Collectivists are fucking idiots.

            1. One thing I’ve realized over time is that when these types decry “corporations”, if you look at what they fear from them, it’s all the stuff that a government can and does do. For corporations to do as they fear, it requires a monopoly on the market and often on force, which…only governments have.

              If you look at most anti-corporate sentiment, it is actually anti-government. But I think what sets these people apart from actual anti-government types is that they still believe in a daddy corporation, one that rules all the ones they fear, but the daddy one is benevolent and takes care of them. And that’s government for them.

              1. Nah. You’re over thinking it. Corporations allow for some people to attain great wealth, and that makes the anti-corporate people feel angry because it isn’t fair.

                You’re trying to inject rationality where it does not exist.

                1. sarcasmic, what you and Episiarch are saying are not mutually exclusive, both can be true.

            2. The evidence of their idiocy is right in front of them every day. Companies rise and fall on their ability to please customers, and better products and services come to market constantly. But people cling to the idea they need powerful, unaccountable and potentially deadly government to protect them from corporations.

              1. and better products and services come to market constantly

                Only because of government-funded research! Duh! Everyone knows this!

              2. I hate to disagree, but the idea that in this day and age “corporations rise and fall on their ability to please customers” is demonstrably false. Bank of America and Comcast routinely rank at the absolute bottom of customer satisfaction rankings, but the idea that they are anywhere near collapse because of it is laughable. The cable part of Comcast will certainly go the way of the dodo eventually, but that will be because the internet will supplant traditional cable tv delivery and not because the perennially shat upon customers have finally had enough. And you’d better believe that it will be Comcast providing the internet for the New TV…

                1. Bank of America and Comcast routinely rank at the absolute bottom of customer satisfaction rankings, but the idea that they are anywhere near collapse because of it is laughable.

                  I would be hard pressed to come up with two companies that get more help from the government than those two. Military service people are practically forced to use BoA, and Comcast of course has a government-imposed geographical monopoly. That example of yours couldn’t be more terrible.

                  1. Again, I have to disagree. My response was in a thread in which Episiarch stated “For corporations to do as they fear, it requires a monopoly on the market”, which you have helpfully pointed out Comcast enjoys due to government imposition. Then Mainer2 said “Companies rise and fall on their ability to please customers”, which you have also helpfully pointed out does not apply to BoA due to military service members being forced to use them. I think both of those examples are quite appropriate to dispute the idea that in today’s world large corporations still thrive or fail based on customer service and better ideas, which was my original stated point.

                    1. Comcast and BofA would be doing much worse if there was actual competition instead of government intervention propping them up. Corporations without government assistance rise and fall on their ability to please customers.

                    2. I think both of those examples are quite appropriate to dispute the idea that in today’s world large corporations still thrive or fail based on customer service and better ideas, which was my original stated point.

                      The fact that some politically connected corporations get help and protection from the government does not refute that idea one bit. And it’s not like government protecting favored industries and companies is a new thing. It’s been around as long as government has existed. Yes, some companies are protected from competition by the government. However the rest of them rise and fall based upon their ability to please customers.

                    3. You guys are in violent agreement! Cat is saying that in addition to pleasing customers, govt interference can sustain otherwise awful corps. Take GM, ….. please!

                  2. Comcast would be out of business in about 5 minutes if there was true competition in the cable TV market.

                    1. Indeed. I would jump ship from any of these pricks in a second if I could get a TV package that didn’t force me to buy ESPN and all those other ultra expensive sports channels I don’t watch.

                2. Horrible massive companies only stay alive because of government “help” be it tax breaks or Government sanctioned monopoly and never forget regulation and licensing schemes.

          2. ***as long as government doesn’t interfere,***

            But it HAS been interfering – for decades. And we now have a leadership of our big businesses (executives and unions) who have learned to live – and prosper – with this interference. They’ve even learned to steer that interference to a large degree. There’s an ever melding of the government and corporations. And it’s running up to an end game in the very near future. It’s all fascism, it’s all “supply side”, it’s the difference between the owners of the means on one side and the collective labor on the other as to who will run The Singularity. Either way, the consumer loses – the individual loses.

            1. This ^^^^^

        2. Yeah, that’s pretty much it. There’s a true believer, Rousseauian “false consciousness” style to what he and many of his followers think, which prevents them from seeing the likely consequences of what they propose. No person could really disagree that domestic goods are preferable to cheaper foreign made goods, so there’s no problem with restricting that choice. Whatever “harm” that comes from this restriction is either imaginary or inflicted on greedy rich folk.

  14. “There’s supposed to be a certain kind of experimentation with this.”

    Yes, Penn…it’s called the 20th century. Plus the continuing saga of Cuba, Venezuala, North Korea.

    I get the point that Sanders is honest about his beliefs, but let’s also be honest about where those beliefs lead.

    1. Hitler was honest too. As was Mao.

  15. The goal of socialism is communism.

    – Vladimir Lenin

    You are a moron Penn Jillette.

    1. So now you believe everything Lenin said?

      Obviously I think socialism and communism are terrible ideas that are horrific in practice. But that’s a rather odd appeal to authority.

      1. I believe Tom Tuttle from Tacoma Washington.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qLzQ4uOvio

        1. As a WSU Cougar, I always enjoyed his character from Volunteers.

  16. I keep seeing friends on FB posting the Sanders “revolution” speech which was quoted above.

    How in the fuck is a guy who has been sucking on the taxpayer teat since 1981 supposed to be the leader of a revolution to “change Washington”?

    Nothing pisses me off more than hearing people who have literally been a huge unchanging part of the system talk about how they want to change the system.

    1. You must be pissed off all the time, because that’s pretty much all that these people do.

      1. I balance it by ignoring people when they talk politics. Much easier to be the resident space nerd who would rather talk Martian missions or recent Hubble discoveries than what doofus we are going to send to the White House next.

        I always find it refreshing that when people talk space the usually check their politics at the door.

        1. You’re against NASA??????

          1. Yes, this does come up, but I usually squash it quickly by explaining how SpaceX is massively cutting the cost to send pounds in to space, while NASA is pissing away ten times that with Boeing and the others.

            1. So you want to live in a world with no Apollo missions????

              1. Apollo missions were public/private partnerships.

                NASA’s leaders made an early decision that they would have to rely upon outside researchers and technicians to complete Apollo, and contractor employees working on the program increased by a factor of 10, from 36,500 in 1960 to 376,700 in 1965. Private industry, research institutions, and universities, therefore, provided the majority of personnel working on Apollo.

                On this subject see Arnold S. Levine, Managing NASA in the Apollo Era (Washington, DC: NASA SP-4102, 1982), Chapter 4.

            2. Wait until the first private corporation has a foothold on the moon, Mars or a significant asteroid. The world will be screaming about “space” as a public good, the same way these fucking net neutrality waterheads do.

              1. SpaceX plans to do just that. And they are launching from Cape Canaveral. The thing I love about space exploration is that the cost and difficulty makes it pointless for the “public good” morons to bitch about the normal stuff.

                You want to stop SpaceX from getting to Mars first? Good luck with that.

                1. SpaceX needs to worry about not blowing up first.

                  LOX and kerosene won’t get you to Mars. We’ll probably end up using nuclear thermal, which is too bad because it’s still got an Isp that’s too low for the mission.

              2. That would be illegal under the Outer Space Treaty of ’67. Now a gov’t could issue a charter…

                1. That would be illegal under the Outer Space Treaty of ’67. Now a gov’t could issue a charter…

                  No, it wouldn’t. The OST outlaws WMD’s, not nuclear energy. The Orion Project would be illegal, but nuclear thermal rockets wouldn’t be.

                  We already use nuclear-powered RTG’s, for example.

              3. Don’t we already have some kind of space treaty designating the entire solar system as a public good?

                Of course, enforcing it will be a different matter. Setting up that kind of infrastructure takes a very long time, and costs a lot of money. I imagine Koch Space Corp will be mining heavenly bodies for decades, or centuries, before anyone is physically able to stop them.

                1. I should learn to refresh pages that have been sitting in my browser for hours, before I comment.

              4. Think of all the free cheese we could get from the Moon.

            3. But how else will we get warp drive? Or the Enterprise?

        2. So you’re saying you’re a Picard guy. I should have known. You scum!

          1. Nah, Picard was political, with that stupid prime directive.

          2. Picard is better than Kirk, but Sisko is better than Picard.

            1. It is like you people have never heard of Janeway.

              1. THANK YOU CRUSTY

                1. Once again, Nicole proves she can even out-worst Hugh. Impressive. And sickening.

            2. No one wants to hear your sick fantasies, Hugh.

            3. Han Solo or Mal from Firefly people, come on!

              1. Han Solo or Mal from Firefly people

                Han because he would shoot first!

            4. I’m more of a Chris Pike guy.

        3. I always find it refreshing that when people talk space the usually check their politics at the door.

          Unless they wear a dumb shirt…

          1. Dumb shirts make it easier for me to ignore you. It’s like you’re doing me a favor by saving me the trouble.

            1. *quickly covers up “federal bikini inspector” shirt.

    2. Well Tman, that is pretty much all of ’em.

    3. All he really wants is to suck on a bigger tit.

      1. a man after my own heart (wait, you were talking figuratively?)

  17. I think it’s easier for an honest socialist to appeal to Democrats than an honest libertarian to appeal to Republicans. If Rand Paul was honest about his political beliefs, he’d be seen as quirky and weird, and those traits don’t fly with Republicans as well as they do with Democrats (Trump being a strange exception). If he said (and I don’t know if he actually believes this, but I think he does) “I believe all drugs should be legal, but it’s not politically viable, so I’ll just let the states decide on marijuana and keep the rest bottled up under Federal Law”, even though he’d have the same position as half the candidate field, he’d be a weirdo.

    1. Well, democrats are primarily communist traitors at heart. So yeah, It is easier to for a commie traitor to appeal to them when their hearts are filled with treason.

  18. The problem with our little Republic is that it has made life too easy. People have become soft because of it. Maybe people will wise up once they’ve spent some time with the yoke hanging from their necks for a while.

    Or maybe they won’t. I’m starting to notice a pattern here.

    1. Our wild and free ancestors would look upon their domesticated descendants with shame.

      1. I’d imagine more extreme confusion than anything.

  19. I am not going to read that.

    He is genuine, which is what makes him crazy, stupid, and dangerous. Penn just likes him because he is genuine and has good intentions. Neither of them can see the logical outcome of Bernie’s policies though.

    Stick to stage magic Penn. It works on stage but not in the real world.

    1. I think Penn realizes that Bernie would be a disaster. His thing is just that he likes honesty and he hates cynicism. And Bernie, to his credit, doesn’t seem to be cynical. Just retarded.

      1. Yeah. Saying you like someone for their honesty isn’t necessarily an endorsement of their ideas.

      2. He has kind of a cynical view on economic freedom.

      3. You know who else was honest about their socialism?

        1. Wrote a book about exactly what he was going to fo if given a chance to experiment, which he did!

    2. Somehow this has the flavor of that friend we all have who excusing their own boorish behavior with the excuse that they re just being honest, keepin’ it real. As if it’s ok to be an asshole as long as you’re a genuine asshole.

  20. I disagree with him on almost everything,” Jillette said. “Bernie Sanders in the White House gives us a chance to say, ‘Is this the direction we want to go?’ There’s supposed to be a certain kind of experimentation with this.”

    That’s called “masochism”.

    1. Jillette’s just saying he’s got a little Nero complex going.

      Let it Bern

  21. Socialism is an insidious ideology whose ultimate goal is pure Communism. We’re already on that path and don’t need a nutjob like Sanders to speed it along. He’s not evil like Hillary, but he’d still be horrible and would cause irreparable damage to this country. No, thanks!

  22. Sanders may be a quirky individualist in the context of two-party Washington, but make no mistake: He sees your individuality, and Penn Jillette’s, as clay that needs strong federal molding in service of The Revolution.

    I kind of agree with this.

  23. I wonder if Penn still reads the comments here. He did at one time.

  24. I suspect Penn may have a very different definition of crazy than I do.

  25. Let me ask a question – if someone were to say:

    ‘fascist’ isn’t a dirty word. It’s a different way of looking at how the government works.

    would anyone here continue to take them seriously?

    1. But, but that’s different because… Reasons!

    2. Sure, why not? As long as you don’t really mean Nazism. Fascism is pretty close to the mainstream politics of both parties in the US now as it is.

      1. As long as you don’t really mean Nazism.

        Well, why not?

        1. OK. Why not indeed? It just should be treated as a separate case to Fascism.

          Point is that Nazism is immediately associated with the Holocaust and WWII to most people. Socialism, to most contemporary Americans, means something more like Euro style welfare states than North Korea.

    3. Socialism could easily be used to describe our economics today (as could components of Fascism). We have a hybrid system in which private ownership is still allowed, however the government controls or directs production in almost every sector.

      I get where Penn is coming from. The other candidates prattle on about their commitment to free markets while, for example, advocating increasing military spending. At least Saunders is willing to call himself a socialist. The others are liars.

      1. So if we are socialist… how does that reconcile with those saying capitalism is evil and has led to this massive inequality?

        If this is socialism would that not suggesr more socialism is not the answer

      2. What does more military spendig have to do with views on free markets. They arent really related. Weird comparison

      3. The government does not control or direct production in every sector. Regulated yes…control or direct nope

  26. “Bernie Sanders in the White House gives us a chance to say, ‘Is this the direction we want to go?’

    Well, if he wins then obviously it is the direction “we” want to go, at least until the next mid-terms.
    It’s the reverse of the common objection that “Well, if the LP candidate were to win, he or she couldn’t get anything done.” No, if you win – specially in a two man race – you can and should claim a mandate that that is the direction the people want to go in.

  27. I disagree with Mr. Gillette’s “experiment” remark.

    But so far as he’s simply expressing respect for someone who is different from him politically, why not? We need more civility in politics, not less.

    1. We need more civility in politics, not less.

      It’s not incivility to point out that the emperor has no clothes.

      1. No, but Mr. Jillette expressed some sharp disagreement with Sanders. That’s some razor-thin support. He’s bearding the lion in his den. It could get hairy.

        (You see, Penn’s name sounds like “Gillette…”)

  28. And wonder how many times an experiment needs to be tried before people notice that it doesn’t work.

    Repeatedly, until we’re all dead.

  29. Praising the candidate you disagree with the most because he’s genuine say more about the rest of the field of candidates. than Bernie.

  30. Penn is not getting enough fat in his diet probably and that’s why his brain is not working right. Guy needs some duck fat, lard, tallow and butter asap.

  31. I like Penn’s approach to this sort of thing. I hate that everything has to be about politics. And I like how he specifically avoids any of the political strategy crap that is so easy to get bogged down in.

  32. Good article Matt. I don’t think we say this enough about you. Being rude assholes and all.

    I would add, I do consider socialism a dirty word. To me, coerced collectivism inevitably leads to murder because you’ll never get everyone to agree with your designs and, as we’ve seen (how many examples do we need really?), the socialist with good intentions and compassionate lingo is all too ready to turn the gun on you for your own good.

    They’re like villains in a comic book. You know the type. Actually good deep down but demons get the better of them and have convinced themselves that blowing up a subway to make a point is necessary for the greater good.

  33. Penn is a highly outspoken somewhat educated man which is why articles quote him. Sadly he’s not very smart or consistent. This latest guffaw doesn’t shock me. He’s not an intellectual.

  34. I love how Sanders is trying to differentiate his views from Marxist style socialism. “I’m a DEMOCRATIC Socialist!” Ok, so you want us to be like all the countries with Democratic Socialist Republic in their names? “No No! Private enterprise, but with elected officials regulating their activities.” Ok, so pretty much what we have now?

    1. Saunder’s beliefs are in-line with the modern definition called European Socialism. The term Socialist has evolved over the last 100 years or so, just like Conservative, Liberal, and even Libertarian.

      1. I think that is a fair distinction to make. You don’t find all that many self-identified socialists today who believe that government ownership of the means of production is the ideal situation. The meaning has changed.
        That said, it still depends on a lot of central control and confiscation of wealth, which is both evil and very inefficient.

        1. All socialists believe in government ownership. It’s the only way their bankrupt ideology can be sustained and they know it. Anyone tell you otherwise is lying.

      2. What countries in europe are socialist exactly? What is the obsession with wanting to be like europe? They are capitalist with massive welfare states.

        I read the site for democratic socialism and it sounds like socialism to me.

        No thanks

      3. Saunder’s beliefs are in-line with the modern definition called European Socialism.

        That places him somewhere on the spectrum between Bismarck and Hitler, that is, a weak form of “national socialism”. How is that better?

  35. Penn’s libertarian cred is at a low. He’s the one who advocated government coercion regarding the workings of private businesses .

  36. If you’ve read this far down, look at the post again, because it has been updated w/ Penn’s reaction.

    1. Matt, you may want to update the first tweet in your Penn reaction update. I don’t know the twitters well, but the first listed tweet is from Dave Coulier, so now I am just going to assume you are a big Uncle Joey fan.

    2. Penn tells all those godless cosmoturds defending him they’re as wrong as he was.

  37. We should all stop worrying about what Penn says and just extend out sympathy to him. The man is dying. I don’t know what from, but it’s clear he has a terminal illness. He should just come out publicly with it.

  38. You ‘fall in love with sincerity’?

    When someone sincerely tells you that they intend to crush and destroy everything you believe in, that they will punish you for the crime of wrongthink for violating political orthodoxy, that their fondest wish is that they might muster an army of fellow travellers to utterly obliterate liberty and individuality—

    At some point while hearing all this you should fall out of love and be stricken aghast that they feel so comfotable they can be open about this.

    The worst thing is that the book of faces will be all atwitter over the ‘fact’ that noted libertarian Penn Jillette supports Bernie over Paul

    1. “I love Big Brother”

    2. Penn’s apparently not well read in libertarian thought; I’ve never heard him weigh in on Austrian v. Chicago, economics, or anything other than the libertarian version of the Kulture War.

      Which makes sense. He’s been a working raconteur and magician who’s made millions doing so. At what point was he going to take a couple of years off to study libertarian theory, which would net him exactly $0?

  39. “We Love Bernie” Social Network Ready for Political Revolution!

    WeLoveBernie.net is a new, Facebook-like social network devoted to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and progressive causes. Inspired by Bernie Sanders and his message about taking back America for the 99%, the social network offers the bells and whistles of Facebook where users can post profiles and photos, promote their organizations, books, music, artwork, films and other items of interest to this community.

    Join the Bernie Sanders Political Revolution here: http://welovebernie.net/

  40. Mr Welch: ‘Sorry, Bernie, but I don’t want to be “mobilized.”‘
    So you want to continue to be screwed by the powers that be? fine. get along lil doggie; you know that the slaughterhouse be your new home.

    I see that the writer cut out the other important part of this honest stmt of BErnie’s, that the rich and corporate elite are so powerful that this is what we need to do get this jump started. They keep the people down by undue voting restrictions.

    1. Holy shit you’re stupid.

    2. They keep the people down by undue voting restrictions.

      In the name of Holy Democracy, we must lower the voting age to 10!

    3. I see that the writer cut out the other important part of this honest stmt of BErnie’s, that the rich and corporate elite are so powerful that this is what we need to do get this jump started.

      You mean like this?

      “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”

      Yeah, this guy talked a lot about “mobilizing” the people and fighting against “bankers” and “capitalists” and their influence on government. You know, just like Sanders.

      fine. get along lil doggie; you know that the slaughterhouse be your new home.

      Yes, that about sums it up what a vote for Sanders gets you. Last time someone with his political views was elected leader of a major industrialized nation, millions ended up in the ovens.

    4. idic5,
      I don’t know why you can’t see this.

      Let’s say “STEVE” starts a business. He sells something others want. If people are willing to pay more for that item/service than it costs to produce, Steve makes money. The more people that want the item/service, the richer Steve becomes.

      Without government protection, Steve is open to competition from others who see that people want that item/service and apply their twist to make it better or cheaper.

      WITH government protection (“i’ll pass a law that protects you if you’ll donate to my campaign”) that competition has many hurdles, regulations, licenses and taxes to overcome in order to bring their version of the item/service to market. Most can’t get it done… hence Steve gets richer.

      Now to blame Steve is only partially correct. In the interest of his business, he may have donated to the campaign of “Slick Willie”, but without Slick Willie being a dirt bag politician, using the force of the state to help Steve, you’d have your choice of any number of items/services like Steve’s. The collective purchasing power of the consumer will determine who succeeds and who fails. Steve might not be as rich as he is now.

      So when you point your finger at the 1%, make sure you point some at the government that helps them thrive.

  41. Canceling my Sunday School subscription.

    1. This Leftard turn into Jilletteistan is 69 degrees too many.

  42. i just don’t get income inequality as an issue. there’s no doubt that the government and society itself favors the rich, famous, and powerful, etc. but that’s very different than saying they’re robbing from us. it’s not theft when we’re giving it away. any advantages the 1% have is because politicians give them out in trade. to blame the 1% for that is illogical, even if it’s also wrong. no one is making our politicians spineless, and the only one rewarding them -our reelection rates, even in high turnover elections is astounding- is us. i know a lot of people think the voters are idiots, and not for good reason i guess. i just think they’re lazy or in many cases beaten down to the point that they think when they get screwed over, it was their fault….you know, battered voter syndrome.

  43. They have either blind or hoping to secure a nice sinecure in the state apparatus for themselves by consigning the rest of us to chattel slavery.

  44. “There seems to be one person in this race who’s actually genuine and not crazy. And that’s Bernie,”

    Oh, I’m sure Sanders is both genuine and not crazy: he really believes his own hate mongering and false economic theories, just like his nationalist and socialist predecessors.

  45. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  46. I can’t say much about a lot of your views on Sanders Mr. Welch, but the comment about Veteran’s affairs is rather in poor taste in my opinion. He spent years on the Senate veteran’s affairs committee, and headed it for 2 of them.

    He recently received an award from the VFW for all the good he has done for veterans.

    is he the man who can clean up the mess? I don’t know, but his track record shows that he will certainly do as much as he can, and his experience says he can do more than most.

    1. Are you saying he’s responsible for the mess the VA is, but he’s the guy to fix it?
      And “… his track record shows that he will certainly do as much as he can, and his experience says he can do more than most…”
      Got some cites for that piece of propaganda?

      1. I’m saying the mess the VA is in has been around for ages, but it got less messy with Bernie involved, and the VFW agrees:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IGvfhuc4cw

  47. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  48. What’s wrong with a mother staying at home with her baby?

    Why are we so upside down as to think it’s an insult to motherhood to think both the mother and baby are better off in a world where she can care for her baby close up and giving the baby lots and lots of time?

  49. Is Penn showing the signs of early-onset dementia? Seems to me that the Penn I remember would spot a commie rat bastard like Sanders a hundred miles away.

    -jcr

  50. Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist but what does he mean by that? Democratic socialism would involve the majority in a country setting all public affairs or agendas, forcing what they deem right on everyone. Individual rights would vanish since they can stand in the way of such a procedure. In a free country people could indeed become very rich even while others might remain poor. Like in athletics — some win big time while the rest remain losers (with only the chance to be winners). To eliminate wealth inequality you need totalitarianism (usually top-down dictatorship). Talk about the rule of the one percent! Been there, done that and it ain’t pretty!

    1. If the majority care about individual rights, which we do, then they will not vanish in a system where the majority hold the power. Currently the country is run by a minority, not the majority, and this is a much simpler system for restricting the rights of individuals.

      If you’re trying to reach a Gini coefficient of zero, then yeah you need something like a totalitarian government. That is not what democratic socialism is. No one is trying to get to 0.0.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.