Is Penn Jillette Still a Libertarian?
The larger, louder half of Penn & Teller on Donald Trump, COVID, masks, vaccines, mandates, and what comes next for freedom.
HD Download"A lot of the illusions that I held dear—rugged individualism, individual freedoms—are coming back to bite us in the ass," Penn Jillette told Big Think in July 2020, the first summer of the COVID pandemic. "Libertarianism has been so distorted that I don't know if I have to pull my name out of that ring. It's been adopted by people who don't seem to hold the responsibility side of it and don't seem to hold the compassion side of it."
For decades, Penn—the larger, louder half of the performing duo Penn & Teller—has been among the best-known spokesmen for libertarian ideas and attitudes in politics and culture. But he says that the 2016 election of Donald Trump—whom he knows well and loathes from his days on The Celebrity Apprentice—and the COVID pandemic have forced him to rethink whether he wants to continue to be publicly associated with the broader libertarian movement.
"I can see arguments for not wearing seatbelts and I can see arguments for not wearing motorcycle helmets," he told Big Think two years ago. "But I cannot see any argument for driving drunk and that is what not wearing a mask is. It's not risking yourself, it's risking the people around you."
For many Americans, though, trillions in wasted spending, contradictory guidance from public health officials, arbitrary school and business shutdowns, and policies like closing beaches and outdoor dining have made them more skeptical of government power and expertise.
So why did the 2016 election and the pandemic cause one of the libertarian movement's most important public figures to go in the other direction?
Has libertarianism changed—or has Penn?
Reason's Nick Gillespie caught up with him in Las Vegas on the set of his popular podcast Penn's Sunday School to talk about Trump, COVID restrictions, and whether his view of the world has really changed. Also joining the conversation was Matt Donnelly, the cohost of Penn's Sunday School.
Produced by Nick Gillespie; camera by James Marsh and Noor Greene; edited by Brett Raney and Adam Czarnecki.
Photos credits: Newscom/Penn Jillette/evphotostwo288423; Newscom/Penn & Teller 2012/zumaamericasseven518137; Newscom/Penn Jillette/ptsphotoshotthree271167; Flickr/Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at the Phoenix Convention Center in Phoenix, Arizona/Gage Skidmore; Unsplash/mother and daughter wearing pollution protection masks in taxi/Jon Tyson; Newscom/Penn Jillette-All-Star, Celebrity Apprentice/spnphotosfour433360; Unsplash/David Veksler - https://unsplash.com/photos/0UF_vme6lJ8; Newscom/Penn Jillette/krtphotoslive271616; Image via screengrab/Penn Jillette Responds to Donald Trump's Tweets on Opie with Jim Norton [07-16-2015]; Google Search/Joe Biden/Biden Signs Covid-19 Relief Bill; Newscom/Anthony Fauci/dpaphotosfive795473; Google Search/Education Week/Closed due to Covid-19; Google Search/Beaches close down as Covid-19 lockdown continues; Newscom/President Biden listens to a speaker during a virtual meeting/sipaphotosfourteen130929; Google Search/Young boy receives Pfizer vaccine in Venezuela; Newscom/Penn Jillette on stage in 2017/polspphotos407638; Google Search/Penn Jillette in Vegas before his show; Unsplash/International daily newspaper from Thursday 5th November 2020 – Le Monde (France) & The New York Times (USA) – After the election report. Made with analog vintage lens, Leica APO Macro Elmarit-R 2.8 100mm (Year: 1993)/Markus Spiske; Unsplash/Bar with sign during Covid/Brian Hurst.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Objetion! Assumes evidence not in the record (that he ever was a libertarian).
If his reason for abandoning libertarianism is because people aren't doing what he wants them to do, then you are correct, he was never libertarian.
He's no different than the people who claim to favor democracy, until people vote against what they want.
The one-two punch of Trump and COVID broke a lot of people.
A. Lot.
Anyone that can say with a straight face that forgoing a mask is equivalent to drunk driving was never a critical thinker.
Yeah, I thought Penn was smarter than that.
Who cares what he actually said? He said bad things about Trump and that's all that matters. Now you just make standard anti-leftist arguments against him and call him a liar if he says you're wrong about his point of view. That's how it's done around here.
Speaking of people broken by Trump...
I think people DO care about what he said. That's the point.
He betrayed Trump. Only leftists betray Trump. That means he's a leftist. And since leftists aren't good for anything other than target practice, there's nothing left to talk about.
So broken.
A lot of people, including me and others here, hate Trump’s vulgarity and inability to articulate a rational political philosophy, but support his more realistic and, yes, libertarian instincts. Penn’s swallowing of the severely authoritarian measures used to combat the Xi flu disqualify him as a libertarian. Simple enough. Sorry you are obsessed with Trump; TDS is a nasty, debilitating condition.
Hey sarc, why are no not convinced that GDP is a meaningful measurement? When did you come to this conclusion? Do you have a better idea?
Gross National Product was coined by statistical economist Clark Warburton, who explained in "The Economic Results of Prohibition" that suddenly crushing 5% of GNP as in 1929 Jones Five & Ten Law and Capone income tax indictments to Battle Beelzebub's Beer might not be the best thing for the economy. To Republicans, this was tantamount to failing to salute Hitler or refusing to lick the blacking off of Herbert Hoover's spats. No Republican (except Milton Friedman) ever mentioned Warburton again, and GDP became the King James version.
“Beelzebub's Beer”
What does this have to do with the topic, Hank?
https://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/46317/114805/?ba=Grizzarky
They didn't have that back in Grampa Hank's day.
I'm stunned at how the myth of amulets persists two years on.
And we have the gall and arrogance to mock the Middle Ages?
Welcome back Rufus! You were missed.
Begone, viral demon!
Nothing that he says matters because he said bad things about Trump, and that means he's a leftist.
Nothing you say matters because you were a self proclaimed lifestyle Hobo who managed to become homeless while possessing the skills to be online all day
Jillette's big takaway from the Covid fiasco is that going maskless is the equivalent of drunk driving and it's libertarianism's fault, but here's sarcasmic to claim that any criticism of that stance is because Trump.
Poor sarcasmic.
Wait! Jillette is jeffy?
Libertine
Comparing going maskless to drunk driving does sound like a refinement of the bear in the trunk argument. But that may be too intelligent for jeffy.
Hey sarc, why are no not convinced that GDP is a meaningful measurement? When did you come to this conclusion? Do you have a better idea?
GDP is distorted because it includes government spending; it is distorted to make it more positive! So it’s worse than the ‘official’ number. The economy likely shrunk by more than 1% in Q2 and 1.6% in Q1.
Is your name sarc? The questions have been addressed to sarc.
Hey sarc, you never answered why you think GDP is not a good indicator of U.S. financial health? You asked us why we didn't ask you that and now I've asked you 3-4 times as have others and you never answer.
Nobody cares.
Shouldn't you be murdering people for their choice of cars?
Speaking of attacking people for their choice of cars...
https://news.sky.com/story/environmental-activists-claim-to-have-disarmed-nearly-2-000-suvs-in-one-month-12579597
Trying the car activist thing is this country would likely end in a few deaths, and not BY SUV but WITH SUV.
Most of the 'activists' in this country actually drive SUVs though, so....
No, but self defense against totalitarian cancer is legitimate.
Put the barrel of your gun in your mouth and pull the trigger. It's never too late to improve yourself.
So it's ok to quietly murder someone in a parking lot for owning a Prius. Just checking.
What the fuck?
Now I'm actually curious to know what rabbit holes you went down to come up with that statement, sarcasmic.
It can't just be the Captain Morgan talking.
^ this.
Who cares what an entertainer thinks?
I don't care if he's a fucking marxist or a member of the KKK, just do your magic tricks dude.
Every movement likes to have high profile spokesmen.
REASON used to love Penn Gillette. They resurrect him now to self-enable their TDS. REASON fades with a whimper...
I'm having the weirdest sense of article Deja-vu.
The pandemic really shook out the LINOs.
Betteridge's law of headlines says what?
If the statist and authoritarian Covid shenanigans made you question libertarianism instead of reinforcing it, you were never ever a libertarian.
^ absolutely correct
Bingo
Thank you.
you should listen to he interview..... his problem isn't with the philosophy, it is those who have a hard time understanding the difference between you should not do something, and you should not be forced to do it.....
through the pandemic, the libertarian party was a dreadful combination of people who were basically arguing against any personal responsibility, and those who failed to condemn the government overreach too much for fear of being lumped in with the first group. we did not stand apart and spread our message, we allowed ourselves to get dragged into the same dichotomy we want to topple. we had "do as your told" and "don't do anything," but nobody was saying "do what you should, that nobody should force you to do."
So the people who understood The Science was wrong and said so were wrong?
the people who didn't want to take any responsibility and claimed it was based on science were wrong...... the people who, to this day, are more interested in justifying their choice to be an asshole than just saying "don't force anything," and leaving it at that.
Are you for real?
do you want to know what is killing the libertarian brand or not?
freedom comes with responsibility. this is something many who want to pretend they are libertarian ignore. the pandemic was an opportunity to prove that people can deal with problems without some authority forcing solutions on them. instead, we had one faction pretending that the voluntary actions available were completely made up, and another faction woefully silent on the gross overreach of the government in response to the problem. too many people claiming to fight for liberty are actually just aligning themselves with the extremes of the duopoly...... one side of that equation disproportionately represented here in these threads.
"do you want to know what is killing the libertarian brand or not?"
Apparently by not swallowing the nonsensical garbage being peddled about Covid, if I understand you correctly.
You may be a gullible lunatic, but you're certainly no libertarian. What you're doing here is called Concern Trolling.
"Apparently by not swallowing the nonsensical garbage being peddled about Covid......"
you clowns are just too stupid to understand that all the BS you choose to believe.... is just "nonsensical garbage about covid." you are more interested in justifying your desire to do nothing than standing on the principle that nobody should be allowed to force you to do anything.... right or not.
even now, you are more interested in casting doubt on what the "right thing to do" is than acknowledging the principle i have already agreed to that nobody should be able to force you to do it. you openly don't care at all about the principle.
Don't remember you from 2020 or even 2021. Most posters here didn't give a crap if someone wanted to wear a mask or not, but were against being forced to wear one while conducting regular business. The evidence that masks would be effective was weak then, and now shown to be even weaker. Contemporaneously, the lies of the public health establishment and government have been legion, and the posters here rightly called them out. Just re-name yourself, and start over, you're twisting in the breeze here.
"Most posters here didn't give a crap if someone wanted to wear a mask or not, but were against being forced to wear one while conducting regular business."
you are really struggling to deliberately miss the point. i was also against anyone being forced to do anything. but, i recognize that the multitude of delusional idiots loudly and brazenly refusing to do the right thing was the main reason anyone thought they NEEDED to try and force anything. we had the opportunity to prove, once and for all, that government force is not only wrong... it is unnecessary. you didn't stand up to those who look to the state for solutions, you empowered them.... you emboldened them.... you convinced them all of the virtue of their beliefs..... and you provided them all the evidence they needed to justify their crusade against our rights "for our own good."
i won't waste my time explaining to you how wrong your beliefs about masks are. (the studies you misread mixed with a smattering of quacks... usually monetizing your stupidity without you even knowing it. i have honestly gotten bored debunking the BS, and i know it is a game of wack a mole where you will find some other confirmation bias... no matter how many of them i show you are false.) i know you are far too indoctrinated to ever see reality on this one.
but consider this..... those not subscribing to your brand of propaganda believe the common sense idea that covering your mouth has SOME impact on the transmission of a respiratory disease.... (people figured that out even before they knew what viruses and bacteria were.) even those who understand it is only around 50% for cloth masks.... understand it is SOMETHING.... and all you have done is verify for them that you will not take that simple action unless you are forced.
vaccinations are an even bigger no brainier..... fortunately, there are privacy protections in place that prevented your stupidity from allowing them to implement those mandates on a large scale.
"brazenly refusing to do the right thing was the main reason anyone thought they NEEDED to try and force anything."
Again, Foo_dd really wants everyone to accept that wearing a mask was "the right thing". He has no interest defending that statement because he is not intellectually equipped to do so. Instead, when people disagree that masking was "the right thing", he complains that they are obsessed and braying.
And then he has the nerve to say that disagreeing that masking was "the right thing" empowered and emboldened statists, rather than people like him who were saying "If you all just did what I want, you wouldn't be forced."
You aren't fooling anyone Foo_dd.
The people who empowered and emboldened the statists were people LIKE YOU. Which one of these is not the libertarian stance, Foo_dd?
"I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it!"
"I don't think taking drugs is right, but I'll defend your right to stick whatever you want in your body"
"I don't agree with your masking behaviors, but I'll keep silent when the state forces it on you!"
the problem we have is that you all have already established how full of shit you are. not one of you actually cares about the principle of not being forced to do anything..... not one of you gives a shit about any principle. (which is why most of you have no problem abandoning body autonomy and privacy rights when the subject is switched to something like abortion.)
all you care about is pretending that "the right thing to do," was not "the right thing to do." you all have spent the last two years in circle jerk echo chambers repeating absurd BS until you believe it.... it isn't enough for you that i agree that you should not be forced to do anything, i must agree with what you chose to do with that freedom. i must agree that common sense is wrong, i must pretend endangering others is cool, and i must ignore every shred of verifiable evidence. i say you should be allowed to do what you want and not forced to do anything, and all you care about is if i think your choice was the right one. talk about fragile little egos.
and no.... i definitely did not keep silent when the mandates were being forced on people. like a typical partisan hack, you picked up on the part of what i said that applies to you..... and completely ignored the fact that i ALSO had a problem with those who failed to condemn the actions of the government. your tiny little partisan brain just can't grapple with anything that isn't my side/your side. you can't begin to imagine how anyone can think you and the other extreme are both wrong, even when they point blank say it.
"the problem we have is that you all have already established how full of shit you are. not one of you actually cares about the principle of not being forced to do anything."
Oh now you have moved onto baselessly telling me I am full of shit. And of course reading my mind to know what I actually care about. Tell me, Foodie, do you really, actually think anyone reading this thread is going to accept your constant weaseling as anything but the pathetic dodging that it is?
" i must agree that common sense is wrong, i must pretend endangering others is cool, and i must ignore every shred of verifiable evidence. "
To be truthful, I don't give two fucks what you do, angry little internet dude, but if you want people to take you seriously when you post online, you should learn some basic rhetoric. What you are doing is called "question begging."
You see, I am only a selfish asshole telling you to "ignore every shred of verifiable evidence" if in fact every shred of verifiable evidence said a healthy person walking around maskless was endangering others. Only if you believe that forcing little kids- and yes, even if parents willingly bought in, they had to force little kids- to wear a mask somehow protected the public to an extent greater than the harm it inflicted. But of course, you don't want to talk about it, because you have constructed a little rhetorical house of cards and called it a castle.
There is nothing clever in this, and your spittle-sprayed keyboard banging doesn't change that fact.
"and completely ignored the fact that i ALSO had a problem with those who failed to condemn the actions of the government."
Oh? So I "ignored" stuff that you did elsewhere (allegedly), and only dared to respond to stuff that you were writing here in this thread...and...that makes me (*checks notes*) tiny brained?
If you actually protested mandates, then that's good. That doesn't change the fact that draconian mandates are the fault of the mandators (as in the case of, say, drug prohibition) and not the people who refuse to comply.
"Oh now you have moved onto baselessly telling me I am full of shit. And of course reading my mind to know what I actually care about. "
i'm just calling it like i see it. i have said countless times that nobody should be able to force you to do anything.... and you have done a great job demonstrating just unimportant that principle actually is to you.
"but if you want people to take you seriously when you post online, you should learn some basic rhetoric."
you are even more delusional than i though if you think i give two fucks whether you take me seriously..... but i prefer to think for myself instead of regurgitating "rhetoric."
"But of course, you don't want to talk about it, because you have constructed a little rhetorical house of cards and called it a castle. "
oh.... so now i am using rhetoric? i thought you were the clever one who learned some rhetoric..... and wouldn't that make you the one in the imaginary castle surrounded by talking points and unoriginal thoughts? when you guys have lost the argument and really get into the insulting mode, it is truly amazing how ironic it is. you just spit out a list of practiced talking points, and then accused me of living in a rhetorical house of cards....... i mean wow....
"Oh? So I "ignored" stuff that you did elsewhere (allegedly), and only dared to respond to stuff that you were writing here in this thread"
i said it right here, in this thread.... shit for brains.... multiple times, including in the very first post i made.
"If you actually protested mandates, then that's good. That doesn't change the fact that draconian mandates are the fault of the mandators (as in the case of, say, drug prohibition) and not the people who refuse to comply."
ultimately those violating our rights are the ones responsible..... but that does not mean we must ignore those who helped give them the excuses and the arguments they needed to do it. when i condemn a gun grabber, i don't excuse the mass shooter that just gave them the excuse to try again.
"i'm just calling it like i see it. i have said countless times that nobody should be able to force you to do anything"
No what you "see" is people saying they disagree that walking around maskless is endangering others. What you are "calling" is the opposite: you are insisting they are lying based on nothing other than your feelz.
"and you have done a great job demonstrating just unimportant that principle actually is to you."
Hah! That's cute. How is saying that government mandates are the fault of people exercising their freedom principled? You (allegedly) agree with me that people ought to have the freedom to walk around maskless if we want to. But then you blame those people walking around maskless for the government denying them that freedom. That isn't principled, silly.
"oh.... so now i am using rhetoric?"
I never denied that you were using rhetoric. I was explaining that you were doing it poorly. Because you don't understand what begging the question is, and why it is a fallacious form of arguing. And once again, when I called you on it, you skip the entire argument because you don't want to talk about what you assumed.
"when you guys have lost the argument and really get into the insulting mode, it is truly amazing how ironic it is"
So based on your logic, that means you have no arguments. Or is it different when you call people selfish assholes, or tiny brained?
"but that does not mean we must ignore those who helped give them the excuses and the arguments they needed to do it. when i condemn a gun grabber, i don't excuse the mass shooter that just gave them the excuse to try again."
This is another terrible analogy. Mass shooters violate our rights by, you know, actively killing people. Every libertarian I know has no problem with the government banning killing people- since it is a violation of the NAP.
On libertarian principle, mandating that people give up their guns is punishing a moral behavior (the free ownership of property, and self defense) in order to stop immoral behavior (mass shootings).
So if your analogy were to be logical, you would have to argue that walking around maskless is in fact moral behavior (not a violation of the NAP), and that the mandates are (unjustly) trying to address some other immoral behavior.
But you aren't doing that. You are actually insisting that walking around maskless is a violation of the NAP. So for your analogy to work it would be, "Foo_dd doesn't believe the government should FORCE people to give up their guns. But since those selfish assholes refuse to give up their guns willingly, it's their fault that the government had to force it."
See how the principles work?
"No what you "see" is people saying they disagree that walking around maskless is endangering others. What you are "calling" is the opposite: you are insisting they are lying based on nothing other than your feelz. "
i thought i was the one imagining what was happening inside your head.....
"I never denied that you were using rhetoric. I was explaining that you were doing it poorly."
AAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! so, i am wrong because i am using rhetoric..... but you were just explaining how much better at it you are...... you can't really be this stupid.
"Every libertarian I know has no problem with the government banning killing people- since it is a violation of the NAP."
but deliberately increasing other's exposure to pathogens is totally fine....
"So if your analogy were to be logical, you would have to argue that walking around maskless is in fact moral behavior (not a violation of the NAP), and that the mandates are (unjustly) trying to address some other immoral behavior."
i don't even know where to start with a statement this stupid..... it is clear that you have no idea how principles and morals work or how they overlap.
"i thought i was the one imagining what was happening inside your head"
People say they disagree with your read of the science. You insist that they actually DON'T disagree with the science, but are using that as a ruse to do selfish things. So unless you can see inside peoples minds to know they are lying, you are making shit up.
"so, i am wrong because i am using rhetoric"
No you are wrong because you are using "the art of persuasion" poorly. Because you don't understand logic. Just as you might try to prove a theorem "using math" but fail at it, because you do it poorly.
"i don't even know where to start with a statement this stupid..... it is clear that you have no idea how principles and morals work or how they overlap."
Yes this has been your response every time I show how poor your logic is. You cut all of the argument, quote a small bit, and then say "This is stupid."
If you had a real argument, you would be able to use an actual logical proof to show how I am wrong. But you don't. All you can do is say "This is stupid." I don't know what is more hilarious: The fact that you are so bad at logic, the fact that you think people really will buy that as a response, or the fact that you are so insecure that rather than disappear into the night, you have to post such an utter non-response just to get the last word.
But either way, thank you for such a fantastic discussion. Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
".....or the fact that you are so insecure that rather than disappear into the night, you have to post such an utter non-response just to get the last word."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
OMFG, the projection is strong with this one....
Penn the celebrity is old, and probably more than a little overweight. In other words, for probably the first time in his life since he adopted his libertarian beliefs, Penn there is a chance that libertarianism is goring his ox.
Let's be clear for the 800th time: driving drunk is not equivalent to walking around without a mask. Even if we assume that masking is an effective tool for reducing the spread of a virus (and the science is not clear here), there is no moral obligation for a seemingly healthy person to wear one. Penn has no claim on me to reduce his risk of contracting a natural pathogen- any more than I have a claim on him to do background checks of his audience to reduce the risk that one of them might knife me at a show.
Penn has gone through life being ok with the costs of libertarianism. And there *are* costs. You have to figure out school for your kids. Think for yourself. Assume costs that today are handled by the government. No doubt, the childless Penn had no problem hating schools. And he is relatively wealthy, so he probably is happy to get lower taxes even if it means his limo will have higher toll fees. But now, with a disease threatening old, overweight people- suddenly he wants the government forcing other people to protect him from nature.
To quote a show I used to love, That's Bullshit!
(and the science is not clear here)
Actually the science isn't that unclear, which is why the people pushing for masking insist on keeping it unclear. It's basically pushed by pro-masking people as a kind of Pascal's wager. The number of pro-mask quotes in the media about how the "presence of masks on people's faces makes them feel safer" is proof of how they're banking on the lack of clarity.
The science is that there has never been a cure for a coronavirus and after the mRna hoopla promoted by government and media including Reason that continues to be the case. As far as we know that will always be the science. Fuck this crybaby asshole. If he can't live in the real world he can put a bullet in his head and make the real world a better place.
I've just gone deep into this video, and it is so bad. Penn has gotten Covid like 4 times, and he still thinks the appropriate response is to force kids to wear muzzles all day? He has lost his god damn mind.
He's just an asshole. Always has been.
Thank you for listening so I didn't have to. If Penn has gotten COVID 4 times and is still available for the interview, then something in his narrative about COVID isn't adding up. Unless this interview is being given as a 'last will and testament' before the libertarian physicians compassionately assist him with his suicide?
You're a braver man than I ever could. I stop listening at that intro. Two years of listening to ignoramuses make false analogies and break every rule of logic has broken my back, brain and balls.
the childless Penn had no problem hating schools
Uh, the internet says he's got two kids, Zolten and Moxie CrimeFighter. It wouldn't surprise me at all that at one point in his life/career he dreamed up and espoused a perfectly cromulent argument about why he wouldn't have kids only to, a couple years later, conveniently forget his perfectly principled stance behind his cromulent argument.
he's got two kids, Zolten and Moxie CrimeFighter.
He clearly hates kids.
He, since the beginning, has always struck me as a cowardly, morally-detached misanthrope.
driving drunk is not equivalent to walking around without a mask
But what if you are driving drunk and you park to sleep it off and then the bear in the trunk of your car gets out and mauls someone?
No argument here. Common sense bear control can't happen too soon from my perspective. Here in bear free Illinois.
Is there really a bear in the trunk though? Or is this more lion?
Is this Schröedinger's Bear? Is it alive or dead?
"driving drunk is not equivalent to walking around without a mask. "
for as much as hyperbole gets tossed around to make a point here..... it a bit disappointing this seems to be the only thing most of you are fixated on.
The patently absurd comment gets attention. Who woulda thunk it??
if you are not trying to make the correlation literal, is isn't all that absurd. it is engaging in risky behavior that puts other people at risk. drunk driving is used as an example because only the most brain dead can't understand how that is an act of aggression....... which is why you selfish pricks need to try and distance the lack of responsibility you want to engage in from it so bad..... the fact that it makes the point so well is why you are all so desperate to miss the point.
"if you are not trying to make the correlation literal"
What a nonsense statement. If you were to make any analogy literal, the analogy wouldn't stand.
"is isn't all that absurd."
It is in fact absurd. If walking around without a mask is an unacceptable risk, then DRIVING is an unacceptable risk. And yet I wouldn't be shocked to find that you drive around all the time in a car.
You are trying to equate knowingly impairing yourself before operating heavy machinery with walking around at the farmers market. You are absurd. And the fact that you feel like other people need to mitigate even the tiniest risk for your behalf makes you the selfish prick, not me.
oh look.... the dimwit is intentionally missing the point again....
are they of the same magnitude?.... obviously not.
are you making a conscious decision in both that creates a risk to others?... absolutely.
"And the fact that you feel like other people need to mitigate even the tiniest risk for your behalf makes you the selfish prick, not me."
would you say the same to someone who has a desire not to get killed by a drunk driver? most drunk drivers do it many times before they kill anyone, and any given individual has a small chance of getting killed when they do..... am i selfish prick for not wanting people to drive drunk? it is a relatively minor risk to me, personally. by your logic, anyone who thinks drunk driving is wrong is a selfish prick.
like i said.... the fact that the comparison makes the point so well is why you are all so obsessed with knocking it down.
"are they of the same magnitude?.... obviously not."
Oh, you poor dear. Settle down for a second and re-read what I wrote. I was not arguing this was a "Difference of Degree". I was arguing that it was a "Difference of Kind". You do appreciate the distinction?
Not wearing a mask. Drunk Driving: Difference of Kind.
Not wearing a mask at the farmer's market. Driving to the farmers market: Difference of degree.
"are you making a conscious decision in both that creates a risk to others?... absolutely."
No in fact that is untrue. A healthy person walking around town has not consciously "created a risk to others"- unless it is your argument that driving to the farmer's market and walking around is "consciously creating a risk to others."
A disease is an act of nature. It is not "created consciously" by anyone (let's avoid the Wuhan Lab stuff at this point). It is like a blizzard, wolves, or the hot sun.
When you are arguing that a person "should" wear a mask, you are saying that a person "should" take steps to protect OTHERS from an act of nature. It is a "Difference of degree" from saying that I am a selfish asshole for not bringing a coat to the farmer's market to protect a stranger from the cold.
A difference of degree (or magnitude) from driving drunk would be visiting your positive-testing friend and licking their face to get infected (drinking), and upon showing symptoms (getting drunk) going to the farmer's market (driving).
Do you see the distinction? Or are you going to retreat back to name calling because talking about this is missing the bigger picture?
"I was not arguing this was a "Difference of Degree". I was arguing that it was a "Difference of Kind"."
oooooh..... so you're even dumber than i was giving you credit for.... the only question is how intentional your ignorance is. (there is definitively some level of deliberate self delusion to avoid seeing reality, but i now see there is some genuine stupidity in the mix too.)
"A healthy person walking around town has not consciously "created a risk to others""
the primary spread is not through people who KNOW they are sick, dumb ass. it is the people who are presymptomatic or asymptomatic, but who are contagious. (between 3 days to a week, typically.) unless you are testing yourself daily, you don't know, and you are making the same choice to roll the dice that a drunk does when they get behind the wheel.
"(let's avoid the Wuhan Lab stuff at this point)"
thanks for the chuckle, but i wouldn't have bit anyway. as the origin is probably ultimately un-provable, it is just a pointless distraction. your delusions there are safe, because they are meaningless. (although it has always surprised me the way people who think the virus was manufactured with nefarious purposes are the ones least motivated to do anything about it.)
"When you are arguing that a person "should" wear a mask, you are saying that a person "should" take steps to protect OTHERS from an act of nature."
that is one of the weakest arguments i have heard yet..... the thing you fail to recognize is that you are making a deliberate choice to do something that increases other people's exposure to "nature." it is like blowing a dam and blaming the water for all the dead people. more people don't get sick because of "nature" they get sick because of your deliberate decision. this isn't you not protecting them, it is exposing them to greater risk than if you were not there at all. you are CREATING risk. the mask isn't protection from nature, it is protection from you..... the mask is the drunk deciding to take a cab. you are basically advocating that it should be ok for drunks to drive, because car accidents happen..... "i should not have to protect others from car accidents by not driving drunk, because.... 'nature'..."
"the primary spread is not through people who KNOW they are sick, dumb ass. it is the people who are presymptomatic or asymptomatic, but who are contagious."
It is hilarious that you think this proves your point. Please explain to me how someone who does not know they are contagious is "consciously" risking others. Explain how that is merely a difference of degree from someone who consciously engages in an act (like drinking) that will leave them impaired. You cannot, because one is out of that person's control (not a conscious act) and one happens due to their actions (a conscious choice).
"unless you are testing yourself daily, you don't know, and you are making the same choice to roll the dice that a drunk does when they get behind the wheel."
Following this argument, people should not be allowed to engage in any activity, ever. You have argued that Drunk driving is merely a "difference of degree" from walking around unmasked, and therefore both are immoral. But that just means walking around WHILE MASKED is also immoral.
Regardless of the science you choose to follow, masking is anywhere between 0% and 75% effective at reducing your risk of passing on the virus. That means going out with a mask is also "rolling the dice". Even if you believe the risk is lowered, you have still chosen to put other people at risk by engaging in the freedom of movement and association.
So by your own logic, why are you not a selfish asshole for walking around masked and "rolling the dice"? In fact, since tests are not 100% accurate, even going out after testing yourself is "rolling the dice". And even further, you need to accept the risk that *your* reading of the science is inaccurate. There is a chance that masking is 0% effective, and therefore going outside masked is not reducing the risk of infecting others *at all*. The only way to be sure that you are not spreading the disease is to stay home, perpetually.
This is your problem with logic. Because you have conflated "declining to lower risk" with "taking an active action to create risk", your entire construction is completely arbitrary. There is no logic that allows you to call a person a selfish asshole for declining to mask that doesn't allow me to call you a selfish asshole for declining to stay home perpetually.
So when will you pledge to stay home perpetually, you selfish asshole?
"it is like blowing a dam and blaming the water for all the dead people. more people don't get sick because of "nature" they get sick because of your deliberate decision."
No, this is where your inability to follow logic is failing you. The correct analogy would be that it is like me refusing to build a dam (take a an action, put on a mask) on my property on the off chance that a rainstorm (COVID) upstream (transmitted to me without my control) floods my property and yours downstream (infecting me, and then you without my knowledge).
The fact is, when you own a property with a river running through it, you accept a risk that nature brings with running water. That water may rise, or lower, causing you damages. That water may have contaminants in it. You accept that risk by living on that stream. I have no moral obligation to damn that river upstream from you to protect you from floods, just as I have no obligation to treat that water for pathogens just because it happens to run through my property on the way to you. As long as I don't actively take an action that actually increases danger to you (like dumping sewage into the water), I have not violated the NAP.
Likewise, when you go out in public, you accept a risk that all sorts of natural phenomena will hurt you. Many of these phenomena have evolved for millions of years to develop the capability to move through our lives like birds through the sky, beyond our control. This is the risk you take for living. It is the risk we all take for living. And if you want to decrease this risk to yourself, you can stay home all day. You do not have any claim on me to take an action to stop these natural forces.
"you are basically advocating that it should be ok for drunks to drive, because car accidents happen"
No, you are equating "declining to take an action to reduce risk" with "taking an action that increases risk". These things are "Differences of Kind" and your failure to understand the principles at play has left you looking very foolish, regardless of how much you insist otherwise.
oh, going back up the thread, now....
"No, you are equating "declining to take an action to reduce risk" with "taking an action that increases risk". "
just like the drunk driver who declines to take a cab...... sorry this is all so hard for you to understand. dumb and indoctrinated is a tough combo to crack through. you are not just declining to take action, you are deliberately choosing ANOTHER action that increases the risk to others. you are choosing to get home without calling the cab. getting home is going to a crowded public place, not calling a cab is not wearing a mask. if you do A without doing B, you create risk people would not otherwise be exposed to. you can choose not to call a cab all you want.... until it is time to get somewhere in a vehicle while you are drunk.
"just like the drunk driver who declines to take a cab"
No, not like a drunk that declines to take a cab. The Drunk needs to take a cab because of an action he did (Drinking to the point of impairment). You are arguing that just "living life"- going to the market, whether you have reason to believe you are infected or not- is the same as actively deciding to drink.
So have you given up? I asked you a simple question- if it is selfish to risk the public by going about your life unmasked, why isn't it selfish to go about your life with a mask on? We know that masks are not 100% effective. The only way to be sure that you are not risking infecting others is to stay home. Full stop.
"The Drunk needs to take a cab because of an action he did "
just like you are choosing to expose others to your potential pathogens...... still not clear how much of your stupidity is deliberately missing the point, and how much is just sincere stupidity.
"So have you given up? I asked you a simple question- if it is selfish to risk the public by going about your life unmasked, why isn't it selfish to go about your life with a mask on? "
that isn't a simple question, it is a really stupid one. if taking no precautions is selfish, isn't it selfish to take precautions? that is what you are asking...... that is how fucking stupid you are.
"if taking no precautions is selfish, isn't it selfish to take precautions? that is what you are asking...... that is how fucking stupid you are."
YOU are the one who argued that "Driving Drunk" and "Going Maskless" are "Differences of Degree". That was you, not me. Your argument was that choosing to drink to impairment and driving is the same as choosing to go out knowing that you may be contagious without knowing it.
You are the one who insisted that going maskless is wrong like driving drunk because they are only *different by degree*. That is, the only thing separating them is how risky they are- but taking either risk is wrong. But again, masks aren't a magic talisman that stop all disease. Depending on the science you use, it is still 25 - 75% as risky to go out masked.
If a person goes out without a mask after isolating 5 days, they are actually posing LESS risk than a masked person. If they go out without a mask after taking (and passing) a quick test, they are actually posing LESS risk than a masked person. Why is it wrong for someone to create X risk, but it isn't wrong for you to "create" .75 * X risk?
"YOU are the one who argued that "Driving Drunk" and "Going Maskless" are "Differences of Degree". "
again.... not clear if your stupidity is intentional, because you don't have an argument to make otherwise.... or if you really are this stupid.... for one, you really are not using this term correctly.... and even under that incorrect usage, you are applying it with unbridled stupidity.
"If a person goes out without a mask after isolating 5 days, they are actually posing LESS risk than a masked person. If they go out without a mask after taking (and passing) a quick test, they are actually posing LESS risk than a masked person. Why is it wrong for someone to create X risk, but it isn't wrong for you to "create" .75 * X risk? "
are you actually suggesting that you are advocating for people to not wear masks, because they are taking other countermeasures? are you advocating for other preventive actions INSTEAD of masks? if you want to take a quick test instead of wearing a mask, more power to ya....... (most people can't get their hands on enough tests to do this with any meaningful regularity.) if you have taken other steps to ensure you are not contagious, then you have already taken the actions to not deliberately expose others to increased risk. you called a friend for a ride instead of a cab. you still had to do SOMETHING.
but you and i both know that is complete horseshit, because what you want is to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. you don't want to call a cab, uber, friend for a ride, take the bus, walk, etc........ anything other than get in your car and drive drunk...... you don't want to take a quick test instead of wear a mask, you want to do nothing...... i have yet to see one person being a whiny bitch about wearing a mask be committed to any of the alternative risk reduction methods you describe.
that you even have to offer these alternatives in your weak ass argument demonstrates that, deep down, you know doing nothing is making a deliberate choice to expose others to increased risk...... (bringing us back to the question of how much of your stupidity is deliberate.)
Think of it this way Overt. All of those guys that are banging your wife probably don't have an STD but would you prefer they wear a condom?
Your posts are full of silly nonsense like this. When someone makes a point that I disagree with, I point it out and explain why it is wrong. This is called discussion.
You on the other hand think it is "disappointing" to discuss these finer points. Instead you want to ignore all these things and make broad, categorical claims about "what's wrong with libertarians". And when people point out logical flaws in these conclusory statements, you stomp your feet and insist that details don't matter.
The problem is that you are wrong. You are wrong on the details that you claim don't matter, and that makes you wrong on the conclusions you draw. You should understand that this leads people to conclude that you are concern trolling- that you don't care about libertarian philosophy or the NAP. So you pretend to want what's best for libertarianism and go on to complain about the caricatures you've made up in your head.
"You on the other hand think it is "disappointing" to discuss these finer points."
starts with saying something "for the 800th time," ends by pretending that obsession is looking at the "finer points."
smh
"pretending that obsession is looking at the finer points"
I made no such pretense. I pointed out how wrong you are because you decline to discuss the finer points. This thread is full of such bleating.
You want to make silly conclusory statements about people declining to "take responsibility" or vague platitudes like, "you should not do something, and you should not be forced to do it". But when people point out that you are wrong- that your view of what people *should* do is inconsistent with libertarian values- you retreat to emotional appeals, like, "do you want to know what is killing the libertarian brand or not?"
Just in case you weren't aware, it is not "settled" that kids "should" mask. It is not settled that it is helpful. It is not settled it isn't bad for them. So acting with head-shaking disbelief that people won't just "go with you" on this is stealing a base. It is either the sign that you are a disingenuous concern troll, or that you are just incapable of basic argumentative rhetoric.
here is your quote AGAIN:
"You on the other hand think it is "disappointing" to discuss these finer points."
tell me again how you made no such pretense?
Pretense of what?
so, YOU don't even bother reading what you write.... got it.
The breeze freshens. Twist away.
Foo_dd: Libertarians would be so much more acceptable to me if they would stop insisting they have the right to do bad behavior like [X].
Libertarians: Why do you believe that [X] is bad?
Foo_dd: I don't want to talk about [X]. Stop being obsessed about [X] . Just accept [X] is bad so that my point carries the day. RHEEEE!
oh boy... we have moved on to the making shit up part.... how exciting.
and it thinks it is a libertarian.... how cute.
It's very clear. By solid science and basic simple observation.
It's absurd and irrational to even think they do much.
WORD!!!
"Let's be clear for the 800th time: driving drunk is not equivalent to walking around without a mask. "
Let's be clear for the very first time. It's called an analogy.
He wasn't overweight in the video. Start again.
>>"But I cannot see any argument for driving drunk and that is what not wearing a mask is. It's not risking yourself, it's risking the people around you."
restraint before quote likely would have been more ideal
And his quote clearly relies on the one-way maskinization theory of covid. You have to wear a mask to protect him, his use of the mask to protect himself is literally irrelevant- from his perspective.
If you're afraid of covid, wear a mask, that seems reasonable, even to this embittered culture warrior. I have little argument with people who mask themselves, beyond the annoyance I have with parents who mask their toddlers outdoors. But the idea that if you're masked, but I'm not, you are in a state of zero protection is laughably unscientific. Even rags like the Atlantic admit that a "proper" face mask protects YOU regardless of the maskinating state of others.
Oh what a difference a day makes, no?
imagine if he had simply said "Science hasn't answered the question yet"
"Science hasn't answered the question yet"
That would certainly be Bullshit!(tm).
The biggest trick of Statists is making my behavior your problem. Who cares that I drive a big SUV? Well, I'm flooding your house with the ocean if I do so. Who cares if smoke? Second hand smoke! Who cares if I vax or mask? You are driving drunk, bitch!
The formula is so transparently obvious, but statists just latch onto them at every opportunity.
Oh, huh.
So the answer is a pretty obvious 'No' and to at least some of us. His leftward swing isn't the least bit surprising (kinda like a lot of closeted homosexuals in the 80s and 90s). But, for some odd Reason *drink* this magazine can't figure out if he's libertarian or not and devoted pages and video to demonstrate the illustrious power of their collective brain trust at solving this conundrum.
I was working up half a dozen snarky followups to this, but then I just thought, "Fuck it, it's not that complicated."
Trump really broke people. I mean really broke them. Irreparably it seems. For those in the "libertarian" spectrum, the ONLY libertarian solution was to Oppose Trump-- at ANY cost and in exchange for ANY outcome, even if that outcome were Gestapo knocking on your door, demanding to have your children paraded in front of the inquisitors to make sure they were masked to their satisfaction, and being strapped to a gurney and forced into a medical procedure with an experimental serum.
I have no quarrel with any libertarian (self-described) who opposes Trump. None whatsoever, but when that opposition turns into support for something that is objectively unlibertarian to the point of being objectively worse than Trump in almost every aspect, then I'm going to have a quarrel with you. Setting the country on fire (literally AND figuratively) and inviting racists into your midst because you share the common goal of getting rid of Trump isn't Rational, nor Reasonable.
In most case, TDS is terminal. Sadly, it's a slow acting disease.
This guy gets it.
Preach it, brother!
"None whatsoever, but when that opposition turns into support for something that is objectively unlibertarian to the point of being objectively worse than Trump in almost every aspect, then I'm going to have a quarrel with you."
I genuinely believe this is the reflexive reaction to the Mises Caucus people, btw. They aren't sufficiently outraged by Trump. Since the MC's every move isn't calculated to RESIST! (tm) The Orange Man (r), that automatically makes them suspect.
Did Penn really say "adopted" when he meant infiltrated? The Austin Texas LP had a brilliant candidate in Fred Ebner in the 1980s. Fred revived the 1770s idea of bonding a candidate against ever voting for a tax increase. In a discussion of anarchist whackos he commented that when he tried to imagine what an agent provocateur sent to infiltrate the LP would look and sound like, Jeff Hummel came to mind. Today the LP is assailed by anarcho-communist (Spike Cohen, Henchman) and anarcho-fascist (Dave Smith, Anschluss Caucus) infiltrators. Four million Gary votes REALLY scared the daylights out of The Kleptocracy.
Perhaps the LP could go the route of the New Atheism movement after it was internally destroyed by wokeness, accusations of racism, sexism etc. That could start a new movement called Libertarianism Plus.
Shit... that's it... THAT'S it... The words came out of my mouth, but it didn't hit me... that's the answer. Libertarianism Plus.
Libertarianism that isn't just about rugged individualism, liberty and freedom, but an additional component that guides what makes you a "good" libertarian, or one with the proper moral outlook and disposition. I'm a genius!
Actually I think Reason has already identified that path we must all follow. It's now called liberaltarianism. Don't you even OBL? Seriously dude you're sounding like a racist.
That is really what "Thick Libertarianism" is about. And I hate to tell you, but they coined this in the 80s or earlier.
Pfft, I like Libertarianism Plus... because it matches the New Atheism movement which ripped itself to shreds over wokeness.
Ayn Rand’s ghost on line one….She sounds pissed!
"Atheists Against Questions"
One thing I've noticed about Atheism+ Sites is an almost complete lack of any actual Atheist content.
Rest assured, individual Atheists are still out there speaking up on all topics in every available medium regardless of what any Wokesters think. When you use other tools as leverage, perhaps this is more effective way of getting out a message than organizations that can be co-opted.
If I attend any Atheist conventions soon, I 'll wear a DIY T-Shirt that says:
"I take the stairs. Come chase me, bitch!" 🙂
As for his belief that choosing to go maskless is equivalent to drunk driving, I say, "Fuck him in his fucking neck!"
Sooooooooooooooo,
No libertarian moment?
Libertarian nanosecond, in a galaxy far, far away, a long time ago.
What? Libertarianism has a compassionate side?
Mostly for food trucks.
Here’s an article about Penn that reveals everything you need to know about him:
https://www.takimag.com/article/and-a-child-shall-mislead-them/
He sounds like he never was libertarian. Not wearing a mask is like driving drunk? Really? He assumes masks actually work. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that they do. Then me NOT wearing one will not affect you so long you wear one. That is an almost perfect libertarian stance - my decision only affects me. Penn is sounding like every Hollywood liberal - you know, the ones he used to ridicule.
"Then me NOT wearing one will not affect you so long you wear one."
Kind of like condoms. You don't need to wear one when the guy fucking you is, assuming they actually work, of course.
Longtime reader, first time poster. Lifetime small ‘l’ Libertarian, Unregistered voter (can vote in any Primary), former GOP staffer and congressional campaign manger, I enjoyed “Bullsh!t” and considered it a libertarian leaning program… just so you know where I’m coming from. I also believe that it should be self-evident that individuals who lobby to ban religions are inherently, by the most simple definitions, not libertarians; especially in a country founded largely on freedom of religion.
From my perspective, the average American’s understanding of what it means to be a libertarian or Libertarian Party member has drastically changed since 2008, when Twitter came into our lives and most all other social media platforms started bringing Citizens whom had never before been interested in politics into political conversations; including people who had never voted. These Americans, on both the left and the right or neither, did not go out and seek political involvement, rather algorithms fed them content that they would find most engaging in order to make more money through advertising. I witnessed the rapid populist change social media brought about, which, initially, in my view was responsible for the election of Barack Obama and a Democratic surge. My campaign that year lost.
As other posters have said, in recent years libertarianism in the American vernacular has seemed to become a measure of the extremity of one’s rightward leanings, as opposed to an alternative to the two major political parties. A prerequisite to being an American libertarian (in my view) is the desire to live as a Citizen of our Federal and local Governments; this requires the understanding that compromises must be made in order for citizens to successfully live together in the same America. For this reason—putting aside my and your views on whether Covid is real or the efficacy of masks—Penn’s analogy between drunk driving and mask wearing seems very appropriate. To believe one should be able to do whatever one desires regardless of whether it harms other citizens would not be consistent with my original understanding of libertarianism, but rather would make one a classic Anarchist who desires no laws whatsoever.
I’m saddened to see so much name-calling and insults in the comments on this site. Individuals who’ve read this far on Reason are going to be ideologically similar—I feel this speaks to the biggest issue facing America which is our inability to have civil political discourse; if individuals who self-identify politically the same can’t talk to each other (as a result of social media/comments sections) it does not bode well for the future of our Republic which was founded and relies on productive agreement—especially in the times of a powerful and centrally controlled Chinese Communist Party armed with TikTok…just to name one direct and imminent threat.
"To believe one should be able to do whatever one desires regardless of whether it harms other citizens would not be consistent with my original understanding of libertarianism, but rather would make one a classic Anarchist who desires no laws whatsoever."
But this is not at all what you are describing. No one is arguing that you have a right to "do whatever one desires, regardless of whether or not it harms other citizens." That is only the case if walking around maskless HARMS OTHER CITIZENS.
Which, of course, is why you want us to "put aside my and your views on whether Covid is real or the efficacy of masks". You want to steal a base and just assume that walking around without a mask is harming other citizens or, at least, carries a significant risk of harming other citizens.
Libertarians are supposed to be the party of Reason (natch!), so we should be willing to logically reason this out. Walking around unmasked is not anything logically like driving drunk. When you are driving drunk you have specifically put yourself in an impaired condition where you are unable to operate equipment safely. But if you walk around maskless, you have done no such thing. Even if we accept that masks reduce your likelihood to transmit the virus, being masked only works *if you are sick*. So you see, the correct analogy is that WALKING AROUND SICK is tantamount to driving drunk.
So your next argument will be, "But COVID can be asymptomatic, and you might spread it...." But you need to understand how un-libertarian you are getting now. You are saying that an individual has a responsibility to protect their neighbor from nature.
I can understand the collectivist appeal here- the desire to tell people they are obligated to provide coats to people in need. That they are obligated to saccrifice for their country. But that isn't libertarian, and confused souls like yourself insisting so doesn't help. There is already a party for people like yourself.
You're absolutely right that there are a lot of important differences between driving drunk and not wearing a mask.
But, what I think Penn meant by the analogy is that there is also a kind of similarity that is important, too. If you are making yourself statistically more likely to be a vector of a disease that can kill millions of people, you might be doing something irresponsible. Not just risking your own health, but that of others.
I don't think Penn advocated for a mandate. He just didn't want to advocate against wearing masks.
I now have watched the video. Yes, it was a somewhat poor analogy to compare non-masking to drunk driving. Chalk that up to lack of Vitamin B-12 so characteristic of Vegans. * At the same time, however, Penn Gillette didn't call for mandating anything, so why the call to yank his libertarian card?
* It was funny hearing The Jacket say he was Vegan for several years, but gave it up for "health reasons."
Duh? Isn't health supposed to be the standard by which one measures a diet in the first place?
"so why the call to yank his libertarian card?"
No one is really calling for anything. Penn specifically called out libertarians. He chose to say that libertarians who object to masking are tantamount to drunk drivers. So if his libertarian card is missing, it is because he chose to turn it in.
Late last year I saw his show at the Las Vegas Rio, It was boring and nothing like his tv show.
And why should I give a rat's patootie what Penn Jillette thinks? Just another big ego who thinks celebrity equates to wisdom. I guess masks work by some of that famous stage magic. Fool me, eh, Penn?
"And why should I give a rat's patootie what Penn Jillette thinks? "
What about Sean Penn? You think he's any better?
Does anyone know if Dave Barry’s still libertarian?
The comedian Bill Maher often refers to himself as a "classic liberal" to distinguish himself from the more woke progressives. Listening to Penn Jillette I am thinking he may well be the "classic libertarian" who doesn't want government mandates, but at the same time will not condemn something because it is or has been mandated. He acknowledges the need for distancing and masks at the same time he says he doesn't want mandates for these things. He acknowledges the good of vaccines encourages their use but doesn't advocate mandates. He certainly seems more libertarian than many today who would claim the title.