Ammo For Sale

« « Best way to carry a gun while jogging? | Home | Chicks with guns » »

Buy that man a Wookiee suit

Penn Jillette on why he’s a libertarian: I don’t know

Trouble with other ideologies is the perceived need to do something. Even if it’s the wrong thing or they don’t know why or it never works. Doesn’t matter. We must do something. For the children. To make us feel better. Or a rainbow farting unicorn. Whatever.

I’ve often heard this bogus argument* that the trouble with libertarianism is that, gosh golly, you don’t offer an alternative plan. Why would I? The current road leads to ruin. Why would I try to patch that road?

And bonus points for Jillette for using government is force in the MSM.

* Not really an argument. More a logical fallacy implying that it’s stupid to offer no alternative to some current horrible set of circumstances and being unwilling to play the game. I’m not justifying anything. That doesn’t mean you’re not wrong.

17 Responses to “Buy that man a Wookiee suit”

  1. Bubblehead Les Says:

    Dig out his “Bullshit” episode on Gun Control. Only problem is I don’t know if they make Wookie Suits in his size. He’s a Big Boy!

  2. Phelps Says:

    And course, some goon in the CNN comments is already crying “child labor”.


  3. Mark Alger Says:

    He’s wrong. He doesn’t know, therefore he’s an agnostic. If he were to deny the existence of God, he’d be an atheist.

    Dunno which he really means, but he’s saying it inaccurately.


  4. M1_Rifleman Says:

    Mark – no, he doesn’t believe in god, so he’s an atheist.

    Whether he knows if there is or isn’t a god is a separate question. Gnosticism and Theism are not mutually exclusive. For example, my parents are agnostic theists (they don’t claim to know certainly that there is a god, but they believe in one anyways), and I am an agnostic atheist (I don’t know whether one exists or not, but I don’t believe either way).

  5. Borepatch Says:

    Sometimes it’s easier not to do something stupid than it is to do something smart.

  6. divemedic Says:

    Reading the comments is an education in itself. One person says, “So it’s every man for himself?”

    Since when does a person who says, “I give to the poor, but voting to force someone else to give to the poor is wrong” mean that he is advocating for “every man for himself?”

  7. A Critic Says:

    “I’ve often heard this bogus argument* that the trouble with libertarianism is that, gosh golly, you don’t offer an alternative plan. ”

    The current plan worldwide is to enslave everyone. Libertarianism is indeed an alternative plan: enslave no one.

    This confuses people because they don’t grasp the concept. “How can you enslave everyone by enslaving no one?”

  8. Kevin Baker Says:

    He doesn’t know, therefore he’s an agnostic. If he were to deny the existence of God, he’d be an atheist.

    Agnostics don’t “believe” either. They too, are atheists. The difference is the small “a” athiest says “I don’t believe in gods.” The big “A” Atheists say “I believe there are no Gods.”

    One is a statement of lack of belief. The other is a statement of faith.

  9. Rustmeister Says:

    I think one problem folks have with libertarianism is the charity thing will have to be turned back over to the church, and they don’t want that.

  10. Bryan S. Says:

    Why not? and what is stopping you from becoming your own charity, or helping out your neighbors? Why should it be big and impersonal?

  11. fucema Says:

    “Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” – Frédéric Bastiat (The Law, par. L. 102)

  12. Kevin Baker Says:

    @Bryan: If the “government” handles it, you don’t have to write a check yourself. You “gave at the office” so to speak. Instead of “someone should help” you get “I don’t have to help – the government is handling it.”

    Of course, they never say that.

  13. SDN Says:

    Bryan S., someone who’s read the Gospels knows that Christ preferred individual and anonymous charity. If you made a big display of it, then you weren’t giving for the sake of helping, but of puffing up your image.

    It always annoys liberals when I ask them to point to the Gospel verse where Christ commands that charity should be done at the point of a government gun.

  14. BobG Says:

    I consider myself to be an apathetic agnostic; don’t know, don’t care.

  15. Mark Alger Says:

    @M1_Rifleman: “No” backatcha. “I don’t know; therefore I am an atheist” is a non-sequitur. Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive sets. But WHY you are one or the other DOES define the limits of each.

    @BobG: ::grin::


  16. M1_Rifleman Says:

    Mark – What are you talking about? I said quite clearly that theism and gnosticism are not mutually exclusive! I think you need to pay closer attention… Your last sentence is meaningless, too. There is not necessarily overlap between the two domains. At all.

  17. Monte Says:

    @Bubblehead Les: Actually, I think Penn is a little on the short side for a wookiee.