Glenn Beck, a bloody neocon who calls himself a libertarian, and Penn, a vulgar libertarian who still doesn't know the logical conclusions of his own stance.
voted against NDAA (2 didn't vote) & honored their word by voting 100% of the time in a constitutional manner (The Freedom Index 8-8-11) on all other issues.S Myrick, NC Ron Paul TX, P Roe TN, B Posey FL, C Mack FL, T McClintock CA, R Labrador ID, T Huelskamp KS, T Johnson IL, W Jones NC, A Harris MD, T Graves GA, John Duncan, JR TN, Jeffery Duncan SC, J Campbell CA, J Chaffetz UT, J Amash MI, Rand Paul KY
What a pitiful record...18 out of 535 members of Congress are on your side.
Lord n Leige; morningstar's mine. Eagle's landed phoenix rising. don't trust the bush unless the bush is burning. Ordo ab Chao a Deo et Rege An al Haqq!
Well, what We do... is use anarchy to destroy the current world order... fuck your freedom tis a lie... no justice no peace; fuck the police from Austin to Greece. NWO by any means necessary! 666 Death n Hell follow Me! Behold a White Horse. Obama Osama Geronimo! We the illuminatitanimulli OFFICIALLY DECLARE WAR! Join Us or DIE!
@ihavemonkeysinmybutt well hey,the GrandSon of Allah,Allah Burlingame n Josephine LaLiberte was released on9/11for sending Anubi n hellfire after My neighbor.ahahahahaha those towers deserved to fall.oh b let's not talk bout Fight Club. what can I say;born this way, tis a bad romance n I shall have My sweet revenge. God complex runs in The Family. House of Pythias illuminatitanimulli legacy; child of Nephthys.brighter the light darker the shadow n that which bears the light must by nature b dark
@ihavemonkeysinmybutt Throw em all in a Babylonian brick oven n make Me some pizza ;-p tis a reason one oh Me call signs is BluMoonJoker ;-7 Colbert2012 to hell with all them there regular politicians n talking heads
@ihavemonkeysinmybutt Tail spin, whirlwind, hellfire n highwater; NWO by anymeans necessary.Kill Bill, I'm still king o da hill, so sit for this spell or I'll give u hell; tis a wyrd well n they deserve Jezebel.Heaven's Gate,Hell's Decree;fuck their freedom tis a lie. Take My advice or suffer the vice.Obama Osama Geronimo.Grist for the mind, no need to be kind. Winter's o fire, Summer's of ice; I tire o playin nice.Bloody fkn Christ.Clear the mirror, fk the smoke this planet's a bloody fkn joke!
@ihavemonkeysinmybutt another clueless monkey... useless fkn container... any wonder why We'll prob have to go ahead with the population reduction program? stfu n stop waisting My oxygen
@BlumoonNow rofl look at you. I saw your channel - you're nothing but a worthless hippie in denial. You've done nothing with your life and from the looks of it you never will. You are nothing more than a loser. Even calling you a loser is a compliment. Rofl you think you are so special huh? You ain't worth shit. Seriously just look at yourself in the mirror for once. You've hit rock bottom you delusional cunt.
@BlumoonNow rofl acting like your post had any truth in it whatsoever shows how much of a complete idiot you are. I was initially surprised you even knew what an ad hominem attack was. But I see now that you probably had to use this in your defense often since so many people before me obviously talked about your blatant flaws. Haha you didn't even use it right either - figures you are a brainless twerp who loves to throw shit around.
@ihavemonkeysinmybutt My main point on this comment thread is that We use anarchy to destroy the current order; that it is a means to an ends, n not the end. other than that the comments were a bit poetic imagery, invokations, n dark humor. Obama-Osama = MABUS
You know this sounds kina crazy but this video is kind of inspiring. It shows an outspoken Atheist and an outspoken Mormon getting along just fine and having a civil decent debate. No name calling, no yelling, no threats. In terms of beliefs they might be on the opposite end of the spectrum but they can agree to disagree and just be adults and have a good conversation. This is what America is about. Freedom, Diversity, Peace.
@CaptainRidley That's so true--this is a great counterpoint example to people who argue that differences in politic and dogma only tear us apart, when really, those differences are a great excuse for dialogue and an even better excuse to learn something.
you can have different views from different groups. you can have some Conservative ideas, you can have some liberal ones, some libertarian ideas etc etc etc. who is Beck or Penn to tell me what group I fall into?
@IhaveToVerifyAge Except that he is basically correct. If Anarchist get their way, ie no government, then society will devolve into tribes and gangs. The Anarchist utopia cannot exist, simply for the fact that humans are involved.
The anarchists do not all necessarily say "no government" , it says "no ruler". It is an individual concept! and not as a group/communal. IF you want government, that is your choice. ...panarchism...let govts be privately operated and competing in freed markets rather than state-opd
Your argument is just another blanket statement used by statists who are already at the conclusion the state is necessary, so you do not feel compelled to challenge your thoughts.
That's a complete generalization. Humans lived in anarcho-tribalistic communities free of a central State for thousands of years before Statism, and not one dictatorship was established.
A dictatorship constitutes Statism, which an Anarchist society does not provide.
I see that you are unaware of the fact that most tribes in the world have a dictatorship enshrined by superstitious ritual who are called "chiefs" by anthropologists. Tribal societies don't have states because they are basically less technically adept. States take organization and that is a complex business. Nation states are able to defend their territories and avoid becoming victims of genocide. Anarchists have a history of not doing that particularly well.
@formless777 I give that comment a thumbs up. The reality of the world and of nature is survival of the fittest (which is a pretty vague term that is decided not by human but by nature itself) and the fact of the matter is that an anarchy is unable to defend anything. Constitutionally limited republics that recognize individual sovereignty and rights are far superior to anarchy and all other forms of governance.
Do some reading and learn about subject matter (anarchy) before you make comments. Your last line says it all
"anarchy and all other forms of governance"
Yo failed - anarchy is " NO RULER" , anarchy is "VOLUNTARY ASSOCATION"
You can have your government but it must be VOLUNTARY and the markets must be FREE FROM FORCE, so it does not impose itself on others who DO NOT want it.
Anarchy is a very simple concept but the solutions to a free society are not simple.
@PositivelyBored You are conflating what a word literally means in its' latin translation with the definition that is currently used. Under your strictly literal translation, our current gov't has no rulers and is therefore an anarchy. Obviously, this is not the case. I for one am for limited constitutional republican form of government which acknowledges and abides by the fact that all humans are created equal with inalienable rights that cannot be taken away. Agree or don't.
"The first man who,having fenced in a piece of land,said "This is mine,"& found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the founder of civil society.From how many crimes,wars &murders,from how many horrors & misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind... Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." Jean-Jacques Rousseau"
Anarchy, by definition "without rulers", is an abstract ideal and not a system that could ever be stable in a scientific sense. When there is no ruler, it is called a power vacuum. The most powerful person who desires rule will then take rule, and you have tyranny. Perhaps all the other people fight back, and take down that leader, (which will be a very costly affair). They can either return to the power vacuum, and then tyranny, or decide to rule themselves, which is democracy.
Republicans can handle anarchy better than Anarchists. In Europe, there's a movement called the Anarcho-Nationalist movement. Personally, I like that idea. Everyone who opposes global government should join forces to resist with a clenched fist. We can settle our differences after we destroy the one-world state. Since Anarchists and Republicans both believe in freedom, they should be able to settle their differences, or even peacefully co-exist, in the realm of civil philosophical debate.
I think you have Republicans mixed up with Libertarians. While you will find many Republicans do indeed believed in reduced government, that the elimination of government is actually nowhere to be seen in their platform. The Republican ideology is (currently) one of reduced spending on social programs to increase the available funding for certain capital programs. The Libertarian platform is very clear and on paper quite attractive, their candidates are nuts, though.
yea a wall that is right. You can throw lies at this wall and its not gonna back down, you can force it to think like you and you can try and it will know the truth and not back down, that my friend is Glenn Beck.
anarchy is a left wing ideology... idk why the fuck people don't understand that. anarchists are socialists by necessity. libertarians are pro capitalism.... AKA anarchists are diametrically opposed to libertarians in the economic sector
@wbhyatt anarchy has been ideologically anti-marxist from its very beginnings with Joseph Proudhon. they share the same ends which are the end of inherited priviliges and elitism, and the liberation of the working class, but the means to those ends could not be more opposed.
@eleutheromaniac oh i agree with you there. but although it can be opposed to types of marxism, it's still left wing, just in a different way ya know?
@eleutheromaniac Correct! Anarchism is incompatible with Marxism. It might seem ironic, but it's actually more compatible with Nationalism (to an extent) with the exception of the concept of national borders and property rights. The elimination of bureaucratic elitism - and resistance against internationalism and fascism - are shared goals of both Anarchists and Nationalists.
Actually, no it isn't. The first utopian anarchist thought society should be organized along basically socialist lines, then came Bakunin and came up with anarcho-syndicalism, then Kromp with anarcho-communism. All of these recognize that wage slavery is just as bad as state top-down oppression. It's really not an oxymoron at all, the means of production are shared by the community. Are you just one of those anarchists that wears punk rock shirts and screams anarchy? fag
@Onepretentiousdude I never said I was an anarchist. Under anarcho-communism, society itself becomes the state. Majoritarianism is no better than autocratic hegemony. Bakunin believed that everything that lives does so at the expense of others, basically professing parasitism as not only inevitable but as a recommended mode of existence. Collectivism is the glorification of parasitism.
Anarchy is not, by book deffinition, incompatible with communism. Communism is an economic system in which there is effectively no ownership or property - everyone owns everything. Anarchy is a political system, that is, a system of deciding how to make decisions between people, where no one makes decisions for other people. Anarcho-communism would thus be a system where no one made decisions for other people and no one claimed ownership on anything.
In addendum; Anarchy has never survived in reality past the first time more than one person needing to make decisions. It is a beautiful ideal that becomes unstable and changes into Democracy almost instantly in the best cases (people all agree together) and Tyranny in the worst (One person makes everyone else do what he wants). Communism at least has some real world examples, but it is also an unstable system, which almost instantly changes to another.
@wbhyatt Left-anarchism is hypocritical. Freedom without property rights is an oxymoron. Collective ownership of property actually leads to greater exploitation. It just takes on a majoritarian facade rather than autocratic. Even a lot of left-anarchists don't have a problem with "pure" capitalism (people trading goods rather than robbing each other). Just keep in mind that a barter system isn't intended to function permanently. Eventually, people run out of stuff.
@IggyHazard isn't what you just said contradictory then? haha. and consensus isn't necessarily majority, but its majority based, then decisions are made from there according to the minority
Anarchy is perhaps the furthest thing from socialism. Please familiarize yourself with the topics. Socialism is an economic system where "society" owns everything, and then a government determines how to distribute the wealth on an arbitrary basis. Anarchy is the rejection of any form of government. Neither system can co exist, since socialism requires a government by definition.
@wbhyatt In addendum, Libertarian's proposed laissez-faire approach to unregulated capitalism is about as close to anarchy as one can get, while still acknowledging the need for some very minimal government. To say that they are diametrically opposed to anarchy is akin to saying that a cheeseburger is so opposed to a hamburger.
@osilion You don't know about anarchist theory then. Every anarchist in history opposed capitalism. Anarchy contains socialism and anti capitalism within the term. Socialism doesn't NEED a state, it just has in the past, but many argue that the USSR wasn't even socialist, it was just fascist. The idea of "bosses in the worplace" is bogus, and an anti- to freedom
@wbhyatt That depends on your perspective. Under theoretical "stateless" socialism, society itself becomes "the state" or "the boss." It requires so much sacrifice on the part of the individual that it inherently becomes a prison rather than a utopia. On the other hand, a boss in the workplace is there to do a job just like those who work under them. Responsibilities must be clearly defined. When they're not, that's when exploitation takes hold...
@wbhyatt ...a good boss favors the scroll over the sword. Their authority is based on knowledge like a mentor. I've worked with people like this. They usually consider themselves to be pro-freedom. The people who worked under them (including me) respected their expertise.
@wbhyatt Most anarchists don't have a problem with "the authority of knowledge." Let's say an individual is an expert marine biologist. They possess authority on the subject based on expertise. That authority can't be used to oppress anyone. It can only be used to spread knowledge and wisdom on that particular subject of study. Serious anarchists only oppose "the authority of power." That is, the unwarranted ability to destroy the lives of those under the charge of an oppressor.
@IggyHazard ... the fact that you just equated a workplace boss to a man that "only has knowledge" and that's why he's there is ridiculous. he's there because the lender of capital has authority over the one who needs it. he's not there because he "knows" things. Anarchists agree that in all aspects of life, authoritative figures aren't necessary. A boss has power. Anarchists want a democratic workplace; one without power or someone telling workers what to do, since they do the work anyway
@wbhyatt Just be aware that that would require an excessive amount of discipline. Having worked in a factory environment, myself, I'll say that I like having clearly-defined responsibilities. But then, I've always had good working relationships with my bosses, past and present. Some of them were even gamers like myself. One of them was a CoD fan. I tried to get him into STALKER but it wouldn't take.
I am aware what "Anarchists" think about themselves on a general basis; You are correct in saying that anarchists in the modern sense oppose capitalism; but equally do they abhor socialism. And "every" is a stretch, considering the origination of the anarchist movement (French authors in the 1500s) predate any conceptualization of capitalism (which being in use in practice since the end of feudalism was not written of as a system until the 1800s).
In addendum, because I write way to much, Socialism without a state is called "Communism" and can be seen operating in many places in the world. It is a different system entirely from Socialism (People who call any operating government "Communist" - up to and including the congress of McCarthy are wrong). Also, while Fascism certainly played a part in the USSR, let me assure you that whoever your "many" are that say it wasn't a socialist nation are entirely misinformed.
well if you define socialism as the workers owning the means of production, then you could say the USSR wasn't socialist. but then if you define it as the state owning the means of production than you could haha
@osilion: Socialism without a state is called socialism. Socialism has always meant the improvement of human society. Now socialism is a blanket term that encompasses many political theories. The USSR was state socialism and it's different from the socialism that anarchist advocate.
Socialism has always meant the same thing. You can pretend it isn't a state but the fact is that such a system only profits the lazy at the expense of the hard working.
@CSATexan: Horrible blunder. The meaning of socialism has not always been the same as it is today. Anybody with a simple sense of history about the word socialism could tell you that. People who use socialism to refer only to state socialism end up committing a fallacy when debating with anarchist.
There are several reasons that Socialism is flawed Most of all is that it elevates people with the most flaws. How else do you think that a sexual deviant would rise to such power?
If only they discussed instigators implanted by the police would they have something of real substance to talk about.
Anarchism isn't about smashing windows an many misinformed/sensationalist/reactionary people imagine. It's more along the lines of moral responsibility within one's community with an emphasis on autonomy.
A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behavior sanctified by the larger society. Libertines, also known as rakes, placed value on physical pleasures, meaning those experienced through the five senses.
@giant648 Well it's kind of a good incentive, if you think about it. "Peace" changes little. If you want to actually make progress, smacking someone over the head with a baseball bat changes their mind a lot faster than approaching them with a humble gaze and asking them to listen to you for a moment.
If the cops are the first to take things up a notch, protestors should take it up 2 notches. Then perhaps some actual progress will be made.
@giant648 Excuse me, but the police are like people like me. Not so much you as you would have gotten fired for insubordination. Anyhow, police enjoy keeping their jobs and getting paid. They can't exactly have both if the politically involved assholes above them hover and hover to make everything lean their favoring direction by any means (laws) possible.
@GeneralZap okay ill Excuse you. So you actually think Cops are helping this world? HAHAHA! you are wrong my friend cops are not the same as ordinary people, they might be ordinary people when they start being an officer but afterwards they are not the same person. Take alot of protests that go on and who usally gets more violent hmm? not the peaceful protester. have you actually done any research on cop behaviour? Taser much?
@pastafarianprophet What is your definition of anarchism? I've always been interested in how a world like that would operate. If your answer requires more than 500 characters please send me a message to my inbox because I'd like to understand your view and perhaps discuss it.
@TheTubePortal-- I think the one thing all "anarchists" will agree on is the idea that authority without justification is illegitimate. There are different beliefs about what types of authority are justified. Noam Chomsky uses a good example: say your daughter goes to run out into the street and you instinctively reach out to grab her and prevent her-- that's an authoritarian response, but one even an extreme anarchist will admit is justified. So there's a wide spectrum depending on who you are
@TheTubePortal-- I beleive Penn here is actually anarchist, but has been beat over the head with "libertarian" (read: corporate) propaganda. We don't want statist authority but we definitely don't want a new feudalism. So we need to keep and protect a powerful public gov't (emphasis on "public"). It's a tough balance-- but some would rather imagine some rough reality were truth is effortless and stick to thinking in absolutes... maintaining a low-resolution image of a high def reality
cont'd-- the result is precisely the type of oppression libertarians fear. They seem not to understand that fascism is corporate power, that the author of 1984 was a socialist, that blind self-interest does not balance out in society but imbalances society. Even John Nash debunked his own Randian theories. Catch up libertarians, you're three decades behind!
cont'd-- 4) There is no such thing as a free market. This is why we need a strong socialistic government by the people and for the people. Oh, but just look at our failed gov't you say? Take a look at what is causing that failure: the beneficiaries of the mythical free market (corporations, mostly) regularly try to take over the government so they can bend society to serve them. This is just another problem with free market libertarianism: it keeps gov't weak and big business strong.
@pastafarianprophet This is why libertarians WANT for free will to stop being an illusion, want people to be prosperous individually, want people to be less dependent on government so as to have more control of their own lives, and want a free market to make people more independent. Libertarians exist because they want to change the status quo from the socialist government that makes people completely dependent on society, to a more individual, free society.
@glagos93-- the libertarian impulse is something I am extremely sympathetic to. The problem is propaganda. Ideally, we want any authority out of our lives as much as possible, and that definitely includes gov't authority. The problem is that today's "libertarians" are only concerned with gov't power and remain stubbornly blind to the real dangers of private power. Private entities can assume authority by aquiring resources and the means of production. So we need a powerful public gov't.
@glagos93-- btw-- our biggest problem today is that powerful private interests have gained too much power and are exercising their own agenda through our gov't. So we're seeing the consequences of this problem. Where is that "libertarian" (anti-libertarian, I would say) propaganda coming from? The powerful private interests? hmmmm....
Jesus Penn pick up a book sometime. Libertarianism has been so thoroughly refuted that even Robert Nozick debunked his own arguments before he checked out. That kind of blind individualism is really pretty silly. Libertarians need to be educated on a few points: 1) free will is an illusion; 2) no one acheives anything in isolation, everyone is dependent upon society; 3) a social body is needed to protect the society against powerful sociopaths who hijack resources and subjugate the defenseless
@JonnyTHM429 Solid water is ice. Airline food is better than what a lot of people get to eat. Anarchist groups have been around for a long time... probably as long as their have been people in groups opposed to monarchies.
@Cyallaire Ice is now considered water linguistically even if it is chemically. The part about airline food is a joke, not to be taken seriously. The idea of anarchy is a lack of governance, i.e. no leadership, and among any group there is a leader, acknowledged or not.
@JonnyTHM429 I knew you were joking, except when it comes to the idea of anarchy. The popular conception of the term seems close to nihilism. "Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations." Since they form associations, though without any compulsion to declare a leader, then "groups" can apply.
There is a difference between plutocracy and liberty. Capitalism is rule by wealth. Patriotism and religion are just mascots. The sports analogy is a good one. Religious figures and flags are like mascots. Just because Bill Belichick coaches the New England Patriots doesn't make him an expert on John Adams. My dislike of Penn is from watching his show. On his shows he misquotes, lies and makes ridiculous statements.
Wow these guys are retarded. They're just a bunch of liberal nuts who hate themselves and their heritage. You can't change the world it will keep functioning as it always has. People develop into tribes which stem culture then from that come nationalities. It's part of being human. Our minds create and sustain culture because it's necessary for us to survive. The boundaries in the world exist to maintain stability and happiness. St Paul anarchists embrace the culture of their area. Hippocrits.
@Luigi84289 Boundaries exist to maintain stability and happiness? Do you realize how much war goes on over territory, resources and the shit ideologies people consider "culture"? Tribalism has never been good except in that it provided a small sense of community only within the tribe itself. Also, sustaining our culture is not a necessity to survival, the world would be a better place without patriotism (regarding ALL countries) and ideas of religious superiority.
@zachtaylore Tribalism is human nature. Even if we all accepted one culture and bred into one race tribalism and the different races would reemerge. Tribalism is a by-product of our limited brains and living in an ever changing diverse world as well as having familial bonds like all apes. Your ideology is utopian. Look at sports. People naturally support their own areas over others. Originally tribes consisted of one's family only. Do you love your family over the rest?
@Luigi84289 You are absolutely correct on that. That's why sports are so popular even among fat drunks incapable of participating. They identify with a team, display their logos, and cheer, sometimes even becoming violent. It's clearly that tribal instinct.
Beck and Jillette aren't libertarians--they are plutocrats. There is a difference between plutocracy and liberty. It's about the difference between being a paid lackey for a billionaire giving speeches to a controlled audience in an air conditioned Hilton conference room and someone who protests injustice despite police brutality and foul weather. These guys are just a couple of arrogant Babbitts.
The idea that Beck is talking about, of "self-governance" etc, is actually philosophical anarchism more than libertarianism. The throwing of bricks through windows is merely reactionary civil disobedience against private property. The connection between the two is only incidental, not ingrained. Anarchism is only the idea that people are capable of self-sufficiency and sovereignty. Besides various political and contra-civilizational examples, we exercise anarchy when we exercise free will.
@bjarczyk Ok....you go first. Come get my stuff. ;) Anarchy means I get to kill you without reprisal if you try it right? No laws.......just survival of the fittest. I embrace your world view whole heartedly........bring friends.
The difference between anarchists (Noah Chomsky and the socialist movement) and lamborghini libertarians like Jillette and Beck is the difference between Martin Luther King Jr. and Donald Trump. MLK was a socialist who put his life on the line for freedom while Donald Trump is a hack. It is the difference between conscience and freedom and irresponsibility and decadence.
0:04 Lol what anarchists where active in Darfur? He doesn't know what libertarianism is, as he demonstrates thoroughly through out the interview, but he is libertarian leaning? How did Glenn Beck get his own show on tv?
It's funny how the "anarchists" captivates the dialogue for their destructiveness at the RNC in St. Paul when Democracy now!, the very journalists Penn mentions, were savagely beaten and arrested without cause by police at that same incident. Democracy Now! has won a landmark settlement from the secret service and law enforcement earlier this month because of the arrests, but the "anarchists" are the violent chaotic ones.
@DoctorCapitalist self-ownership? Like the ability to pollute, destroy collective bargaining (or any bargaining), child labor and the like? Libertarian self-ownership is a fallacy and more akin to wage slavery. Once, again. No fucking thanks.
Anarchism is NOT about throwing things. How the heck did this guy get to be an authority on this?
paxguerilla 3 days ago
Anarchy is not a bad thing, but humanity is not ready for it yet.
KevZen2000 4 days ago
Open your mind and just listen to what these people think. Think now, talk later.
xxguitarhero48xx 2 weeks ago
He couldn't remember Amy GOODMAN's name? C'mon son.
xjtbarnesx 2 weeks ago 2
"Comment about how stupid Glenn Beck is because it is cool to hate him."
LetsGetWilly 2 weeks ago
@LetsGetWilly "comment to get attention, because I have nothing relevant to say".
robair9911 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"generally being reckless & stupid" as opposed to the right-wing policies which were responsible & intelligent :.\
TheRacistsMustDie 2 weeks ago
"generally being reckless & stupid" as opposed to the right-wing policies which were responsible & intelligent :.\
TheRacistsMustDie 2 weeks ago
This is just cringeworthy.
Glenn Beck, a bloody neocon who calls himself a libertarian, and Penn, a vulgar libertarian who still doesn't know the logical conclusions of his own stance.
fountainherz 2 weeks ago
@fountainherz It's sad when neither side is all that likable.
YaoiHuntressEarth 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fountainherz
Glenn Beck is like a Neo Liberalism Conservative like Reagan but with a little bit of Libertarian
& Neo Con too.
IKiLLNRapeCOMMUNISTS 1 week ago
Jillette knows what he's talking about
livingdeadgrl18 3 weeks ago 9
glenn beck is just a character played by fred savage
thegeniei 3 weeks ago
@thegeniei thats rush
darthbentley 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
voted against NDAA (2 didn't vote) & honored their word by voting 100% of the time in a constitutional manner (The Freedom Index 8-8-11) on all other issues.S Myrick, NC Ron Paul TX, P Roe TN, B Posey FL, C Mack FL, T McClintock CA, R Labrador ID, T Huelskamp KS, T Johnson IL, W Jones NC, A Harris MD, T Graves GA, John Duncan, JR TN, Jeffery Duncan SC, J Campbell CA, J Chaffetz UT, J Amash MI, Rand Paul KY
What a pitiful record...18 out of 535 members of Congress are on your side.
possumpistol 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lord n Leige; morningstar's mine. Eagle's landed phoenix rising. don't trust the bush unless the bush is burning. Ordo ab Chao a Deo et Rege An al Haqq!
peh el peh adaber bo
BlumoonNow 3 weeks ago
Well, what We do... is use anarchy to destroy the current world order... fuck your freedom tis a lie... no justice no peace; fuck the police from Austin to Greece. NWO by any means necessary! 666 Death n Hell follow Me! Behold a White Horse. Obama Osama Geronimo! We the illuminatitanimulli OFFICIALLY DECLARE WAR! Join Us or DIE!
BlumoonNow 3 weeks ago
@BlumoonNow lol
ihavemonkeysinmybutt 3 weeks ago
@ihavemonkeysinmybutt well hey,the GrandSon of Allah,Allah Burlingame n Josephine LaLiberte was released on9/11for sending Anubi n hellfire after My neighbor.ahahahahaha those towers deserved to fall.oh b let's not talk bout Fight Club. what can I say;born this way, tis a bad romance n I shall have My sweet revenge. God complex runs in The Family. House of Pythias illuminatitanimulli legacy; child of Nephthys.brighter the light darker the shadow n that which bears the light must by nature b dark
BlumoonNow 3 weeks ago
@BlumoonNow Rofl you are hilarious even though I have absolutely no clue what you just said.
ihavemonkeysinmybutt 3 weeks ago
@ihavemonkeysinmybutt Throw em all in a Babylonian brick oven n make Me some pizza ;-p tis a reason one oh Me call signs is BluMoonJoker ;-7 Colbert2012 to hell with all them there regular politicians n talking heads
BlumoonNow 3 weeks ago
@ihavemonkeysinmybutt Tail spin, whirlwind, hellfire n highwater; NWO by anymeans necessary.Kill Bill, I'm still king o da hill, so sit for this spell or I'll give u hell; tis a wyrd well n they deserve Jezebel.Heaven's Gate,Hell's Decree;fuck their freedom tis a lie. Take My advice or suffer the vice.Obama Osama Geronimo.Grist for the mind, no need to be kind. Winter's o fire, Summer's of ice; I tire o playin nice.Bloody fkn Christ.Clear the mirror, fk the smoke this planet's a bloody fkn joke!
BlumoonNow 3 weeks ago
@BlumoonNow lol I dont even think you have a clue about what you just said.
ihavemonkeysinmybutt 3 weeks ago
@ihavemonkeysinmybutt another clueless monkey... useless fkn container... any wonder why We'll prob have to go ahead with the population reduction program? stfu n stop waisting My oxygen
BlumoonNow 3 weeks ago
@BlumoonNow rofl look at you. I saw your channel - you're nothing but a worthless hippie in denial. You've done nothing with your life and from the looks of it you never will. You are nothing more than a loser. Even calling you a loser is a compliment. Rofl you think you are so special huh? You ain't worth shit. Seriously just look at yourself in the mirror for once. You've hit rock bottom you delusional cunt.
ihavemonkeysinmybutt 3 weeks ago
@ihavemonkeysinmybutt why respond to worthless ad hominem attacks? oh look another monkey that loves to throw shit around
BlumoonNow 3 weeks ago
@BlumoonNow rofl acting like your post had any truth in it whatsoever shows how much of a complete idiot you are. I was initially surprised you even knew what an ad hominem attack was. But I see now that you probably had to use this in your defense often since so many people before me obviously talked about your blatant flaws. Haha you didn't even use it right either - figures you are a brainless twerp who loves to throw shit around.
ihavemonkeysinmybutt 3 weeks ago
@ihavemonkeysinmybutt My main point on this comment thread is that We use anarchy to destroy the current order; that it is a means to an ends, n not the end. other than that the comments were a bit poetic imagery, invokations, n dark humor. Obama-Osama = MABUS
BlumoonNow 3 weeks ago
You know this sounds kina crazy but this video is kind of inspiring. It shows an outspoken Atheist and an outspoken Mormon getting along just fine and having a civil decent debate. No name calling, no yelling, no threats. In terms of beliefs they might be on the opposite end of the spectrum but they can agree to disagree and just be adults and have a good conversation. This is what America is about. Freedom, Diversity, Peace.
CaptainRidley 3 weeks ago 20
@CaptainRidley That's so true--this is a great counterpoint example to people who argue that differences in politic and dogma only tear us apart, when really, those differences are a great excuse for dialogue and an even better excuse to learn something.
GalacticEgg 6 days ago
@CaptainRidley glenn and penn are actually really good friends lol i love both of them
sk8erfreak9242 6 days ago
you can have different views from different groups. you can have some Conservative ideas, you can have some liberal ones, some libertarian ideas etc etc etc. who is Beck or Penn to tell me what group I fall into?
BloodJunkie11 1 month ago
glen; glasses don't make you look smart, they make you look like a douche.
mattybock 1 month ago
Laughing my head off at becks so called "libertarian leaning" remark he is as conservitive replublican as a red elephants ass crack
pbrskater26 1 month ago
Anarchists are dictators. They want to rule over those who do not believe in a government.
CognitiveNetwork 1 month ago
@CognitiveNetwork
Congratulations, that was the dumbest comment I've read on youtube this month.
IhaveToVerifyAge 1 month ago
@IhaveToVerifyAge Except that he is basically correct. If Anarchist get their way, ie no government, then society will devolve into tribes and gangs. The Anarchist utopia cannot exist, simply for the fact that humans are involved.
qhack 1 month ago
@qhack
The anarchists do not all necessarily say "no government" , it says "no ruler". It is an individual concept! and not as a group/communal. IF you want government, that is your choice. ...panarchism...let govts be privately operated and competing in freed markets rather than state-opd
Your argument is just another blanket statement used by statists who are already at the conclusion the state is necessary, so you do not feel compelled to challenge your thoughts.
PositivelyBored 3 weeks ago
@CognitiveNetwork
Dictatorship is entirely contradictory to the ideology of Anarchy. Troll elsewhere.
AGeekWithAShotgun 1 month ago
@AGeekWithAShotgun
Except that Dictatorship is the inevitable outcome of Anarchy.
formless777 1 month ago
@formless777
That's a complete generalization. Humans lived in anarcho-tribalistic communities free of a central State for thousands of years before Statism, and not one dictatorship was established.
A dictatorship constitutes Statism, which an Anarchist society does not provide.
AGeekWithAShotgun 1 month ago
@AGeekWithAShotgun
I see that you are unaware of the fact that most tribes in the world have a dictatorship enshrined by superstitious ritual who are called "chiefs" by anthropologists. Tribal societies don't have states because they are basically less technically adept. States take organization and that is a complex business. Nation states are able to defend their territories and avoid becoming victims of genocide. Anarchists have a history of not doing that particularly well.
formless777 1 month ago
@formless777 I give that comment a thumbs up. The reality of the world and of nature is survival of the fittest (which is a pretty vague term that is decided not by human but by nature itself) and the fact of the matter is that an anarchy is unable to defend anything. Constitutionally limited republics that recognize individual sovereignty and rights are far superior to anarchy and all other forms of governance.
dlstb 1 month ago
@dlstb
Do some reading and learn about subject matter (anarchy) before you make comments. Your last line says it all
"anarchy and all other forms of governance"
Yo failed - anarchy is " NO RULER" , anarchy is "VOLUNTARY ASSOCATION"
You can have your government but it must be VOLUNTARY and the markets must be FREE FROM FORCE, so it does not impose itself on others who DO NOT want it.
Anarchy is a very simple concept but the solutions to a free society are not simple.
PositivelyBored 3 weeks ago
@PositivelyBored You are conflating what a word literally means in its' latin translation with the definition that is currently used. Under your strictly literal translation, our current gov't has no rulers and is therefore an anarchy. Obviously, this is not the case. I for one am for limited constitutional republican form of government which acknowledges and abides by the fact that all humans are created equal with inalienable rights that cannot be taken away. Agree or don't.
dlstb 3 weeks ago
Penn needs to go ancap ASAP.
MrUnicorn1995 1 month ago
That was very un-confrontational/un-crazy, and it upsets me.
LoudTristero 1 month ago
LOL "infiltrating the libertarian movement"
Anarchists were using the word libertarian decades before the current "libertarian" movement.
ayguey100 1 month ago 2
there's a line between the 2, but that line is mainly getting off your ass and doing shit. Fuck the system :D
Cestdesconneries 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The first man who,having fenced in a piece of land,said "This is mine,"& found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the founder of civil society.From how many crimes,wars &murders,from how many horrors & misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind... Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody." Jean-Jacques Rousseau"
Hasshasser 1 month ago
Anarchy, by definition "without rulers", is an abstract ideal and not a system that could ever be stable in a scientific sense. When there is no ruler, it is called a power vacuum. The most powerful person who desires rule will then take rule, and you have tyranny. Perhaps all the other people fight back, and take down that leader, (which will be a very costly affair). They can either return to the power vacuum, and then tyranny, or decide to rule themselves, which is democracy.
osilion 1 month ago
@osilion Well said
Bjjscorpion 1 month ago
Republicans can handle anarchy better than Anarchists. In Europe, there's a movement called the Anarcho-Nationalist movement. Personally, I like that idea. Everyone who opposes global government should join forces to resist with a clenched fist. We can settle our differences after we destroy the one-world state. Since Anarchists and Republicans both believe in freedom, they should be able to settle their differences, or even peacefully co-exist, in the realm of civil philosophical debate.
IggyHazard 1 month ago
@IggyHazard
I think you have Republicans mixed up with Libertarians. While you will find many Republicans do indeed believed in reduced government, that the elimination of government is actually nowhere to be seen in their platform. The Republican ideology is (currently) one of reduced spending on social programs to increase the available funding for certain capital programs. The Libertarian platform is very clear and on paper quite attractive, their candidates are nuts, though.
osilion 1 month ago
Comment removed
IggyHazard 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@osilion Perhaps Libertarians are "Republican" in the 18th century sense.
IggyHazard 1 month ago
yea a wall that is right. You can throw lies at this wall and its not gonna back down, you can force it to think like you and you can try and it will know the truth and not back down, that my friend is Glenn Beck.
Sherbags 1 month ago
@Sherbags
Please use grammar properly. Things like punctuation, capitalization and coherent sentences can stop you from looking like an idiot.
osilion 1 month ago
anarchy is a left wing ideology... idk why the fuck people don't understand that. anarchists are socialists by necessity. libertarians are pro capitalism.... AKA anarchists are diametrically opposed to libertarians in the economic sector
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@wbhyatt anarchy has been ideologically anti-marxist from its very beginnings with Joseph Proudhon. they share the same ends which are the end of inherited priviliges and elitism, and the liberation of the working class, but the means to those ends could not be more opposed.
eleutheromaniac 1 month ago
@eleutheromaniac oh i agree with you there. but although it can be opposed to types of marxism, it's still left wing, just in a different way ya know?
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@eleutheromaniac Correct! Anarchism is incompatible with Marxism. It might seem ironic, but it's actually more compatible with Nationalism (to an extent) with the exception of the concept of national borders and property rights. The elimination of bureaucratic elitism - and resistance against internationalism and fascism - are shared goals of both Anarchists and Nationalists.
IggyHazard 1 month ago
@IggyHazard anarchy can be compatible with certain types of libertarian Marxism, but generally, it cannot be, so i agree
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@IggyHazard
>Anarchism is incompatible with Marxism
No it isn't dumbass. Have you not heard of anarcho-communism?
Onepretentiousdude 1 month ago
@Onepretentiousdude Of course, I've heard of it. It's an oxymoron.
IggyHazard 1 month ago
@IggyHazard
Actually, no it isn't. The first utopian anarchist thought society should be organized along basically socialist lines, then came Bakunin and came up with anarcho-syndicalism, then Kromp with anarcho-communism. All of these recognize that wage slavery is just as bad as state top-down oppression. It's really not an oxymoron at all, the means of production are shared by the community. Are you just one of those anarchists that wears punk rock shirts and screams anarchy? fag
Onepretentiousdude 1 month ago
@Onepretentiousdude I never said I was an anarchist. Under anarcho-communism, society itself becomes the state. Majoritarianism is no better than autocratic hegemony. Bakunin believed that everything that lives does so at the expense of others, basically professing parasitism as not only inevitable but as a recommended mode of existence. Collectivism is the glorification of parasitism.
IggyHazard 1 month ago
@Onepretentiousdude
Anarchy is not, by book deffinition, incompatible with communism. Communism is an economic system in which there is effectively no ownership or property - everyone owns everything. Anarchy is a political system, that is, a system of deciding how to make decisions between people, where no one makes decisions for other people. Anarcho-communism would thus be a system where no one made decisions for other people and no one claimed ownership on anything.
osilion 1 month ago
@osilion anarchism is a political system just like bald is a hair style
sikok93453 1 month ago
@Onepretentiousdude
In addendum; Anarchy has never survived in reality past the first time more than one person needing to make decisions. It is a beautiful ideal that becomes unstable and changes into Democracy almost instantly in the best cases (people all agree together) and Tyranny in the worst (One person makes everyone else do what he wants). Communism at least has some real world examples, but it is also an unstable system, which almost instantly changes to another.
osilion 1 month ago
@wbhyatt Left-anarchism is hypocritical. Freedom without property rights is an oxymoron. Collective ownership of property actually leads to greater exploitation. It just takes on a majoritarian facade rather than autocratic. Even a lot of left-anarchists don't have a problem with "pure" capitalism (people trading goods rather than robbing each other). Just keep in mind that a barter system isn't intended to function permanently. Eventually, people run out of stuff.
IggyHazard 1 month ago
@IggyHazard many left anarchists would argue that right-anarchism is hypocritical. it wouldn't be majoritarian if you implement consensus democracy
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@wbhyatt Consensus = majority.
"Consensus is the absense of leadership."
~Margaret Thatcher
But then, "leadership" isn't an anarchist concept.
IggyHazard 1 month ago
@IggyHazard isn't what you just said contradictory then? haha. and consensus isn't necessarily majority, but its majority based, then decisions are made from there according to the minority
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@wbhyatt
Anarchy is perhaps the furthest thing from socialism. Please familiarize yourself with the topics. Socialism is an economic system where "society" owns everything, and then a government determines how to distribute the wealth on an arbitrary basis. Anarchy is the rejection of any form of government. Neither system can co exist, since socialism requires a government by definition.
osilion 1 month ago
@wbhyatt In addendum, Libertarian's proposed laissez-faire approach to unregulated capitalism is about as close to anarchy as one can get, while still acknowledging the need for some very minimal government. To say that they are diametrically opposed to anarchy is akin to saying that a cheeseburger is so opposed to a hamburger.
osilion 1 month ago
@osilion You don't know about anarchist theory then. Every anarchist in history opposed capitalism. Anarchy contains socialism and anti capitalism within the term. Socialism doesn't NEED a state, it just has in the past, but many argue that the USSR wasn't even socialist, it was just fascist. The idea of "bosses in the worplace" is bogus, and an anti- to freedom
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@wbhyatt That depends on your perspective. Under theoretical "stateless" socialism, society itself becomes "the state" or "the boss." It requires so much sacrifice on the part of the individual that it inherently becomes a prison rather than a utopia. On the other hand, a boss in the workplace is there to do a job just like those who work under them. Responsibilities must be clearly defined. When they're not, that's when exploitation takes hold...
IggyHazard 1 month ago
@wbhyatt ...a good boss favors the scroll over the sword. Their authority is based on knowledge like a mentor. I've worked with people like this. They usually consider themselves to be pro-freedom. The people who worked under them (including me) respected their expertise.
IggyHazard 1 month ago
@IggyHazard a boss can be good or bad, i agree. but its the fact that he has power that makes it so unpleasant to begin with
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@wbhyatt The state is worse than any boss.
IggyHazard 1 month ago
@IggyHazard they're in the same category: "authority"
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@wbhyatt Most anarchists don't have a problem with "the authority of knowledge." Let's say an individual is an expert marine biologist. They possess authority on the subject based on expertise. That authority can't be used to oppress anyone. It can only be used to spread knowledge and wisdom on that particular subject of study. Serious anarchists only oppose "the authority of power." That is, the unwarranted ability to destroy the lives of those under the charge of an oppressor.
IggyHazard 1 month ago
@IggyHazard ... the fact that you just equated a workplace boss to a man that "only has knowledge" and that's why he's there is ridiculous. he's there because the lender of capital has authority over the one who needs it. he's not there because he "knows" things. Anarchists agree that in all aspects of life, authoritative figures aren't necessary. A boss has power. Anarchists want a democratic workplace; one without power or someone telling workers what to do, since they do the work anyway
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@wbhyatt Just be aware that that would require an excessive amount of discipline. Having worked in a factory environment, myself, I'll say that I like having clearly-defined responsibilities. But then, I've always had good working relationships with my bosses, past and present. Some of them were even gamers like myself. One of them was a CoD fan. I tried to get him into STALKER but it wouldn't take.
IggyHazard 1 month ago
@wbhyatt
I am aware what "Anarchists" think about themselves on a general basis; You are correct in saying that anarchists in the modern sense oppose capitalism; but equally do they abhor socialism. And "every" is a stretch, considering the origination of the anarchist movement (French authors in the 1500s) predate any conceptualization of capitalism (which being in use in practice since the end of feudalism was not written of as a system until the 1800s).
osilion 1 month ago
@osilion most modern Anarchists support socialism haha. That's the economic system they favor because there's no boss in the workplace
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@wbhyatt
I think you mean fat cat corperate bosses!!
pbrskater26 1 month ago
@wbhyatt
In addendum, because I write way to much, Socialism without a state is called "Communism" and can be seen operating in many places in the world. It is a different system entirely from Socialism (People who call any operating government "Communist" - up to and including the congress of McCarthy are wrong). Also, while Fascism certainly played a part in the USSR, let me assure you that whoever your "many" are that say it wasn't a socialist nation are entirely misinformed.
osilion 1 month ago
well if you define socialism as the workers owning the means of production, then you could say the USSR wasn't socialist. but then if you define it as the state owning the means of production than you could haha
wbhyatt 1 month ago
@osilion: Socialism without a state is called socialism. Socialism has always meant the improvement of human society. Now socialism is a blanket term that encompasses many political theories. The USSR was state socialism and it's different from the socialism that anarchist advocate.
HispanicIsNotARace1 1 month ago
@HispanicIsNotARace1
Socialism has always meant the same thing. You can pretend it isn't a state but the fact is that such a system only profits the lazy at the expense of the hard working.
CSATexan 1 month ago
@CSATexan: Horrible blunder. The meaning of socialism has not always been the same as it is today. Anybody with a simple sense of history about the word socialism could tell you that. People who use socialism to refer only to state socialism end up committing a fallacy when debating with anarchist.
HispanicIsNotARace1 1 month ago
@HispanicIsNotARace1
Socialism is the philosophy of common good over individual good. It isn't and the socialist who said it was a sexual deviant
CSATexan 1 month ago
@CSATexan Classic words of retardation.
Attacking the person who has an idea and then claiming that the idea is invalid because the person who owns that idea has flaws.
I see this too often and it blows my mind at how people can think that such an argument can be valid in this context.
Borridd 1 month ago
@Borridd
There are several reasons that Socialism is flawed Most of all is that it elevates people with the most flaws. How else do you think that a sexual deviant would rise to such power?
CSATexan 1 month ago
Glenn Beck believes that in the 1800's a 14 year old boy went into the woods by himself and had a meeting with God and Jesus.
DarkHorse0863 1 month ago
@DarkHorse0863 glenn beck is a mormon?
MrAmericanidiot1995 1 month ago
@MrAmericanidiot1995 Yep.
DarkHorse0863 1 month ago
I like how Penn stifled a laugh when Glenn said he was "Libertarian leaning"
sporky111 1 month ago
If only they discussed instigators implanted by the police would they have something of real substance to talk about.
Anarchism isn't about smashing windows an many misinformed/sensationalist/reactionary people imagine. It's more along the lines of moral responsibility within one's community with an emphasis on autonomy.
RaoulPrompt69 1 month ago
Penn Jillette 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
bonzai348 1 month ago
all the measures of the government are directed to the purpose of making the rich richer and the poor poorer - william henry harrison
buryedalive 2 months ago
A libertine is one devoid of most moral restraints, which are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behavior sanctified by the larger society. Libertines, also known as rakes, placed value on physical pleasures, meaning those experienced through the five senses.
TheeWreck 2 months ago
I like how Penn answered every single question and retort with his first explanation. This video could have ended at 1:18...
JonClark89 2 months ago
there is no such thing as peaceful protesting anymore thanks to the cock sucking police which over react every thing.
giant648 2 months ago
@giant648 Well it's kind of a good incentive, if you think about it. "Peace" changes little. If you want to actually make progress, smacking someone over the head with a baseball bat changes their mind a lot faster than approaching them with a humble gaze and asking them to listen to you for a moment.
If the cops are the first to take things up a notch, protestors should take it up 2 notches. Then perhaps some actual progress will be made.
SeedsOfHatred 1 month ago
@giant648 Excuse me, but the police are like people like me. Not so much you as you would have gotten fired for insubordination. Anyhow, police enjoy keeping their jobs and getting paid. They can't exactly have both if the politically involved assholes above them hover and hover to make everything lean their favoring direction by any means (laws) possible.
GeneralZap 1 month ago
@GeneralZap okay ill Excuse you. So you actually think Cops are helping this world? HAHAHA! you are wrong my friend cops are not the same as ordinary people, they might be ordinary people when they start being an officer but afterwards they are not the same person. Take alot of protests that go on and who usally gets more violent hmm? not the peaceful protester. have you actually done any research on cop behaviour? Taser much?
giant648 1 month ago
Love Penn now
NDB1790 2 months ago
Bullshit! Love that show and Penn rocks.
ilazernerd 2 months ago
Am I the only one who heard someone tell Beck to "move on" around the 2:07 mark???
kmcook01 2 months ago
All anarchists are libertarians but not all libertarians are anarchists.
4n0nym0us0ne 2 months ago
Both of these people are clueless about anarchism.
Make an end to hierarchy. Fight all governments, there is no authority but yourself.
Sharangir 2 months ago
Comment removed
Sharangir 2 months ago
Comment removed
Sharangir 2 months ago
we dont need any Statist government. anarcho-libertarianism is the only plausible working system.
SanguineBullet667 2 months ago
And anarchy hasn't anything to do with what these guys are saying...
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
@pastafarianprophet What is your definition of anarchism? I've always been interested in how a world like that would operate. If your answer requires more than 500 characters please send me a message to my inbox because I'd like to understand your view and perhaps discuss it.
TheTubePortal 2 months ago
Comment removed
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheTubePortal-- I think the one thing all "anarchists" will agree on is the idea that authority without justification is illegitimate. There are different beliefs about what types of authority are justified. Noam Chomsky uses a good example: say your daughter goes to run out into the street and you instinctively reach out to grab her and prevent her-- that's an authoritarian response, but one even an extreme anarchist will admit is justified. So there's a wide spectrum depending on who you are
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
Comment removed
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
@TheTubePortal-- I beleive Penn here is actually anarchist, but has been beat over the head with "libertarian" (read: corporate) propaganda. We don't want statist authority but we definitely don't want a new feudalism. So we need to keep and protect a powerful public gov't (emphasis on "public"). It's a tough balance-- but some would rather imagine some rough reality were truth is effortless and stick to thinking in absolutes... maintaining a low-resolution image of a high def reality
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
Comment removed
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
cont'd-- the result is precisely the type of oppression libertarians fear. They seem not to understand that fascism is corporate power, that the author of 1984 was a socialist, that blind self-interest does not balance out in society but imbalances society. Even John Nash debunked his own Randian theories. Catch up libertarians, you're three decades behind!
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
cont'd-- 4) There is no such thing as a free market. This is why we need a strong socialistic government by the people and for the people. Oh, but just look at our failed gov't you say? Take a look at what is causing that failure: the beneficiaries of the mythical free market (corporations, mostly) regularly try to take over the government so they can bend society to serve them. This is just another problem with free market libertarianism: it keeps gov't weak and big business strong.
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
@pastafarianprophet This is why libertarians WANT for free will to stop being an illusion, want people to be prosperous individually, want people to be less dependent on government so as to have more control of their own lives, and want a free market to make people more independent. Libertarians exist because they want to change the status quo from the socialist government that makes people completely dependent on society, to a more individual, free society.
glagos93 2 months ago
Comment removed
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glagos93-- the libertarian impulse is something I am extremely sympathetic to. The problem is propaganda. Ideally, we want any authority out of our lives as much as possible, and that definitely includes gov't authority. The problem is that today's "libertarians" are only concerned with gov't power and remain stubbornly blind to the real dangers of private power. Private entities can assume authority by aquiring resources and the means of production. So we need a powerful public gov't.
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
Comment removed
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@glagos93-- btw-- our biggest problem today is that powerful private interests have gained too much power and are exercising their own agenda through our gov't. So we're seeing the consequences of this problem. Where is that "libertarian" (anti-libertarian, I would say) propaganda coming from? The powerful private interests? hmmmm....
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
@glagos93-- so the "public" part of gov't is the most important. this is where "libertarians" unintentionally undermine their own liberty.
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
Jesus Penn pick up a book sometime. Libertarianism has been so thoroughly refuted that even Robert Nozick debunked his own arguments before he checked out. That kind of blind individualism is really pretty silly. Libertarians need to be educated on a few points: 1) free will is an illusion; 2) no one acheives anything in isolation, everyone is dependent upon society; 3) a social body is needed to protect the society against powerful sociopaths who hijack resources and subjugate the defenseless
pastafarianprophet 2 months ago
@pastafarianprophet "Libertarians need to be educated on a few points: 1) free will is an illusion"
Thanks, but I choose not to believe it. : )
"2) no one acheives anything in isolation, everyone is dependent upon society"
Nice red herring. Libertarians are not anti-social.
"3) a social body is needed to protect the society against powerful sociopaths who hijack resources and subjugate the defenseless"
We agree we need a social body to protect us from socialists.
MillionthUsername 2 months ago
"There's lots of people calling themselves libertarian and they are just nuts, like me"
nerdwonder 2 months ago
LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE:
Penn > Monkeys > Flies > Bacteria > Plants > Rocks > Glenn Beck
foojuice101 2 months ago
One's a real libertarian, the other one is lying. If you can't tell why should Glenn Beck's audience.
brpowerful 2 months ago
"Anarchist groups" are only oxymoronic if anarchists themselves aren't oxymoronic.
discobob59841 2 months ago
Someone doesn't know what an oxymoron is
wambo333 2 months ago
Wait, did he start off saying "anarchist groups"? that's an oxymoron. Like solid water, or airline food.
JonnyTHM429 2 months ago
@JonnyTHM429 Solid water is ice. Airline food is better than what a lot of people get to eat. Anarchist groups have been around for a long time... probably as long as their have been people in groups opposed to monarchies.
Cyallaire 2 months ago
@Cyallaire Ice is now considered water linguistically even if it is chemically. The part about airline food is a joke, not to be taken seriously. The idea of anarchy is a lack of governance, i.e. no leadership, and among any group there is a leader, acknowledged or not.
JonnyTHM429 2 months ago
@JonnyTHM429 I knew you were joking, except when it comes to the idea of anarchy. The popular conception of the term seems close to nihilism. "Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical voluntary associations." Since they form associations, though without any compulsion to declare a leader, then "groups" can apply.
Cyallaire 2 months ago
There is a difference between plutocracy and liberty. Capitalism is rule by wealth. Patriotism and religion are just mascots. The sports analogy is a good one. Religious figures and flags are like mascots. Just because Bill Belichick coaches the New England Patriots doesn't make him an expert on John Adams. My dislike of Penn is from watching his show. On his shows he misquotes, lies and makes ridiculous statements.
perdondaris 2 months ago
glenn beck isn't even a libertarian by any standard.
brodythompson1 2 months ago
So glad the douche-bag Glenn Beck is gone from TV.
bigboy45454545 2 months ago
Wow these guys are retarded. They're just a bunch of liberal nuts who hate themselves and their heritage. You can't change the world it will keep functioning as it always has. People develop into tribes which stem culture then from that come nationalities. It's part of being human. Our minds create and sustain culture because it's necessary for us to survive. The boundaries in the world exist to maintain stability and happiness. St Paul anarchists embrace the culture of their area. Hippocrits.
Luigi84289 2 months ago
@Luigi84289 Boundaries exist to maintain stability and happiness? Do you realize how much war goes on over territory, resources and the shit ideologies people consider "culture"? Tribalism has never been good except in that it provided a small sense of community only within the tribe itself. Also, sustaining our culture is not a necessity to survival, the world would be a better place without patriotism (regarding ALL countries) and ideas of religious superiority.
zachtaylore 2 months ago
@zachtaylore Tribalism is human nature. Even if we all accepted one culture and bred into one race tribalism and the different races would reemerge. Tribalism is a by-product of our limited brains and living in an ever changing diverse world as well as having familial bonds like all apes. Your ideology is utopian. Look at sports. People naturally support their own areas over others. Originally tribes consisted of one's family only. Do you love your family over the rest?
Luigi84289 2 months ago
@Luigi84289 You are absolutely correct on that. That's why sports are so popular even among fat drunks incapable of participating. They identify with a team, display their logos, and cheer, sometimes even becoming violent. It's clearly that tribal instinct.
wrjamescom 2 months ago
Beck and Jillette aren't libertarians--they are plutocrats. There is a difference between plutocracy and liberty. It's about the difference between being a paid lackey for a billionaire giving speeches to a controlled audience in an air conditioned Hilton conference room and someone who protests injustice despite police brutality and foul weather. These guys are just a couple of arrogant Babbitts.
perdondaris 2 months ago
@perdondaris Beck is no libertarian at all, but Penn Jillete is absolutely a libertarian, virtually a purist.
wrjamescom 2 months ago
I thought Penn would know that mentioning Emma Goldman's name on television is a no no.
ronimacarroni 2 months ago
Glenn Beck does not know the difference between Libertarian and Libertine. Not surprising since he's a moron.
TheeWreck 2 months ago 14
@TheeWreck I read that as mormon... Really, I thought thats what you said. but yes he is a moron!
nobudy33 2 months ago
@TheeWreck Glenn Beck does not know the difference between "cat" and "dog"
junskey 2 months ago
@TheeWreck Isn't Libertine a font?
blenderpanzi 2 months ago
The idea that Beck is talking about, of "self-governance" etc, is actually philosophical anarchism more than libertarianism. The throwing of bricks through windows is merely reactionary civil disobedience against private property. The connection between the two is only incidental, not ingrained. Anarchism is only the idea that people are capable of self-sufficiency and sovereignty. Besides various political and contra-civilizational examples, we exercise anarchy when we exercise free will.
TheWanderingPrimate 2 months ago
glen beck is a jerk off!
latinfukcpl 2 months ago
Fuck these capitalist douchebags, Long live anarchy! Their days of plenty are numbered. (A)
bjarczyk 3 months ago
@bjarczyk Ok....you go first. Come get my stuff. ;) Anarchy means I get to kill you without reprisal if you try it right? No laws.......just survival of the fittest. I embrace your world view whole heartedly........bring friends.
ZoomieMSgt 3 months ago
@ZoomieMSgt Yeah exactly comrade!
bjarczyk 3 months ago
THIS IS THE WORST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN, DO NOT CREDIT ANARCHO CAPS, THEY NEED TO STAY ON THE INTERNETS ONLY
artofcoffins 3 months ago
The difference between anarchists (Noah Chomsky and the socialist movement) and lamborghini libertarians like Jillette and Beck is the difference between Martin Luther King Jr. and Donald Trump. MLK was a socialist who put his life on the line for freedom while Donald Trump is a hack. It is the difference between conscience and freedom and irresponsibility and decadence.
perdondaris 3 months ago
0:04 Lol what anarchists where active in Darfur? He doesn't know what libertarianism is, as he demonstrates thoroughly through out the interview, but he is libertarian leaning? How did Glenn Beck get his own show on tv?
accidomunam1869 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's funny how the "anarchists" captivates the dialogue for their destructiveness at the RNC in St. Paul when Democracy now!, the very journalists Penn mentions, were savagely beaten and arrested without cause by police at that same incident. Democracy Now! has won a landmark settlement from the secret service and law enforcement earlier this month because of the arrests, but the "anarchists" are the violent chaotic ones.
accidomunam1869 3 months ago
Comment removed
accidomunam1869 3 months ago
Arguing with Glenn Beck is like arguing with a wall.
TheBlueManChoo 3 months ago 25
No, dumbass, you don't know what they want. They know exactly what they want,
thatkamikid 3 months ago
Penn Jillette is shameful. Libertarianism is based upon ownership. Ownership of people. No fucking thanks.
AtheistDaddy 3 months ago
@AtheistDaddy If by ownership of people you mean self-ownership, then yes you'd be right.
DoctorCapitalist 3 months ago
@DoctorCapitalist self-ownership? Like the ability to pollute, destroy collective bargaining (or any bargaining), child labor and the like? Libertarian self-ownership is a fallacy and more akin to wage slavery. Once, again. No fucking thanks.
AtheistDaddy 3 months ago