Penn! I had so much respect for you before, but your libertarian religion is making you insane! Please explain to me you don't actually believe we should pay no taxes! Tell me you're not that stupid, please.
Rich people do have the option of paying more than they need. Instead of itemizing their deduction which helps rich people the most, they can just take the standard deduction. Also, you can write a check to the treasury. So Warren Buffet, if you think your money is better off with the government, then write them a check.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.
PS For sure...get a hair cut ya hippie bum;).....not just because it looks better but because it has to be more comfortable especially living in Vegas....BTW I love P&T keep up the good work!
If you believe we don't pay enough taxes, make your voluntary check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail to:
Or you could fight for a better functioning government... you know evolve. I love how libertarians assume the government is the only form of oppression.
"How noble libertarianism, in its majestic equality, that both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners! "
The problem with paying taxes over and above what you are required to pay is that there is no plan for that extra money. I would support higher taxes but not without a good plan to spend that money.
@Spokker Our school systems are in debt, so is the postal office. They have plenty of areas of planning that they could spend your money quite quickly on their debt. If you believe in Medicare they could use plenty of your money. If you didn't write stuff off the government could definately spend your money (I mean the governments money)... they are definately good at doing that :) They might not have to print off so much money either...
@mandylynn999 BTW the post office actually wanted to squash and or place a extra tax/charge on e-mail. Would that be to better the lifes of all Americans or to supplement its own wastefull existence???
First off we have many social programs, which ones do we cut? Education? law enforcment, Post office, fire dept.? Second Starbucks does a good job at making coffee but I do not want to pay more than what I get in return. The gov. is the only entity that can enforce or regulate for profit corporations such as health insurance compnays for the benifit of the masses. There should not be an OZ of profit in health care in the first place.
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
@pennsays What I can't understand when it comes to Liberals is the misunderstanding of how Government works. If you have BIG GOVERNMENT you have BIG LOBBYISTS (the CORPORATIONS you hate so much) funding their agendas who put SMALL (insignificant, putrid dick suckers)prostrating idiots in power! SIMPLE... more Gov power, more $ from YOU.
@pennsays The premise of Penn's argument is that an INDIVIDUAL can come up with a better use of his or her capital than Government. Yeah... there's corruption in government, that's why we don't want more of it...WTF?
that is a good point. and a good question but most people will only give what they have to. the poor always want more government because they more back than they give. I can't really argue that question I'm happy to know your not a tea bagger or a streaght republican. hey are you famous or something I know I've seen you somewhere before on tv or somewhere I live in Las vagas and you look so familler.
and if my kid was garanteed to go to heven I would kill him I don't want him fucking up.
Maybe you let your white hair grow out. It worked for Bob Barker. It would give you a bit more of a wizard appearance. While not really fitting with your type of magic it is worth considering.
I think I can answer his question: Yes, in some cases. Like most areas the housing market is down here & right now a lot people r appealing their property tax assessment, claiming (correctly, i might add) their house is worth less than the county assessment. In my case, house is assessed 31% higher than what I paid for it a year ago in a short sale, however I will not be appealing this because I know that my property taxes are used for school funding, i WOULD rather give it to them.
Nobody likes taxes, but they are beneficial. It's too easy to knock taxes without thinking because that is the popular opinion. Countries like Denmark, with the highest happiness, coincidentally have the highest taxes. The beauty of them is that they spread the cost across everyone. The sum is greater than the parts. Some may think they can spend the money better themselves but this is wrong on 2 counts. 1st, yu cant accomplish individually what all together can. 2nd, I'm out of room.
Most of us don't give unless we are forced to even if we would all benefit if all gave. That is what the government is for. We are prepared to give if we know others will do the same and the government ensures that. Thus we all benefit by a government requiring you to pay taxes.
As Penn says at 6:23, "... if you want bigger government... aaaaaaa write a f&@%ing check"
I have been using this with all my liberal friends for a while. If morally imperative to pay more, are you not being morally decrepit by YOUR own beliefs, aka hypocrisy?
Love these "pennsays" vids, great fodder for thoughts
No, because if only I give, I loose. If the state would not force it there would be too many freeloaders for the system to work. Everyone has to contribute to ensure that everybody wins.
It is like the classic game where you have 20 coins and can choose to give any amount of your coins to a pot that returns 150% but is split evenly amongst all players, or keep them for yourself. Without a forcing rule the players will only contribute a minor amount even though the group suffers from it.
@Hedning1390 Have you heard all the arguments against what you've said? Our founders worked precisely to keep government small and humble. I have nothing against government however I do have a problem when people, good people, decide they can't take care of themselves, it's just to hard, and hand over their lives to government. When enough people do that, those of that who want to be left alone have to suffer. I respect your opinion but also invite you to talk about it with me take care!
You do realize that in a true democracy the government is the people. So there is no contradiction there. Also, as you do live in a community you affect and are affected by people around you whether you like it or not.
But no, I haven't heard many anarchist/libertarian arguments, because where I am from I am on the right and are mostly debating socialists and communists, but those I have heard isn't convincing.
And if you believe in smaller government and lower taxes don't avail yourself of government. It wouldn't be possible. The services government provides can't be paid for individually. Does Penn use the post office? I mean really.
What magical characteristic of the state allows it to do something that other, mere mortals, cannot do?
As I understand it, the state is simply a collective of fallible people, anything they can do we can do.
And because private collectives are based on voluntary association, rather than violent coercion, they are forced to succeed, rather than fail continually as the state does.
I do not know if Penn does. I know I do when I have non-emergency letters that must be mailed. I do because it is against the law to compete with the US postal office. Mail could be done better. As tax payers we pay for the costs of it whether or not we use it. Why not pay more to send a letter only when you choose to mail?
While I think that certain service should be provided by the government to ensure that they are available and affordable for all people in the nation, that does not mean that I think they "spend the money best". There is a lot of inefficiency built into how the government functions, so if you give them 100,000$ to do something or if you give them 150,000$ to do something you will likely get similar results. Therefore while I think they should do these things, their funds should be limited.
We are the Government so sending more money would be sending more money to me. we as the government have already set an amount for how much we should pay on taxes. we also decided that if you want a certian org. to recive more of your money then its ok to pay more to them just not with the money you decided that is already set for somthing else. If you dont want the govenment to do for you the you dont need to live here you need to go build your own island and proclaim your citizenship there
I have been saying the same thing to all my liberal friends. If you think the government is doing a great job with our money and we need to pay more taxes....DO IT. No one is stopping you. Set the example...or shut up. Because the truth is, you really just want OTHERS to pay more taxes. Again, Penn has it right...if you believe in higher taxes, because the government is so darn good at spending your money...then GIVE GENEROUSLY.
@JimCoryan I am against the war in a least Iraq, and war contrived. But if we let people opt out of things like medi care or SS who takes care of them when they are old and have no family to pick up the tab?
@JimCoryan It will fall to some group or charity to do so. We are social animals and we need to have social insturments in place to make things run. People if left to their own devices will never put away for retirement, or health care ect. People put hair weaves or beer before things they should
@JimCoryan . We spend ten billion a month in Iraq, lets start by cutting the bloated military and quit being Irish relitives and never go home. We have bases in places that we aquired from the Spanish American war.
@edteach2u We need to spend 16 years to educate our children to B the Gretest in The World...And put an end to the frikken Meth and Crack destroying...Get outta Iraq...
I was in Intelligence.
Afghanistan was reported 2 B a loss if we went there...
So WTF??? Right? U wonder who is really runnin things once again.
LOL I think the goverment is lopsided. The things they should control run rampant. They things that should be left to the indiviual the government tries to keep a firm grasp on. What makes me laugh is most people live on credit that they shouldn't have. When things went sour and the economy dropped. A government that can't balance it's own checkbook was called in to fix the problem. I agree with Penn I can manage my money better than my government.
This is the conundrum we're in now. People want benefits from the government, but they want mostly other people to pay for them. There's no way you can insure 40million people and only raise taxes on the rich. It's too small a percentage of the population. And it wouldn't be reliable. Their weath fluxuates too much. It would become insolvent after another recession.
We vote for people to be in our government. So yes we do believe and expect government to help us. Penn probably doesn't vote. Why don't Penn and some like mind people move to a uninhabited island?
I had an idea similar to this a while back. When you file your taxes you would be asked what programs you support and only pay for those programs. Against the war? You don't pay for it! Don't support Medicare? You don't pay for it! It would be interesting to see which programs got funded if it worked that way.
@kuhlraum Democracy gives the people the right to be thier own oppressors. In order to keep the mob from voting in the dumbest of fads or low brow whim we are supposed to elect people with good character and competency to run the affairs that the public can not reasonably do privately. The constitution is supposed to keep these elected officials and the mob in check {IE you cant vote to rape someone (mobocracy) or give too much authority to a con artist (elected officials)}, unless u ignore it
I think Penn's question was absolutely the right one to ask! The fact is very few people who want more Government want to pay for it themselves; they only want other people to pay for it. And as the comments below have already pointed out, the people that want Government to do everything usually give the least to charity. That's been well-established.
But I don't understand what any of this has to do with tigers eating people. The description is what made me watch this in the first place.
What I think should be done is that people should only have to pay the amount of taxes necessary to pay for things they support or will use in the future. If I don't plan on or want to use the welfare state in the future, I should be able to sign up to be a list to be ineligible, and therefore, I won't have to pay the taxes necessary. If you wanna use those programs or support them, pay for it with your own tax money. that's obviously the fairest and most efficient system.
It's been proven for a while now that the Left tends to give less in charity than people of other ideologies. But they're the LOUDEST when it comes to demanding GOVERNMENT pay for this shit. So, let's get this straight: They don't want to pay their own money to private efforts to alleviate these problems, but they think it's ok to FORCE all taxpayers to subsidize it, whether or not they support the welfare state?
Is that FAIR, mr. Obama? You talked a lot about raising taxes for "fairness."
Big government is a travesty. Pay your own tax dollars to it, I don't care. But don't force ME to subsidize it without even having the decency to ask! That's the problem with government: no one asks the citizens if they approve of this shit. A new president just assumes he has a mandate for everything. Obama actually thinks just b/c he was voted in over McCain that everyone now wants HUGER government and tons of more debt. Healthcare deform is more like it. More gov't is not reform.
Of course, the libs and Dems obviously don't see it that way. They just assume we all agree on bigger gov't and the welfare state, and therefore, it's ok to take our money and spend it on all these programs. It's ok for the Right to spend all this money on a bloated military-industrial complex. I'm getting a little sick of it!
Why not freedom, for a change??? If war hawks wanna fund the Iraq War, do it! I'm not gonna fund it, though. I'll fund sensible defense.
I'm getting tired of the collectivist excuses for why we must all support all these programs with our tax dollars that a lot of us DON'T support. This country was founded on the premise that INDIVIDUALS have worth. The collective isn't all that wise half the time. Why should we trust them?
it is amazing, but your comment is so true. I am an accountant and we pretty much know our clients political affiliations. We always joke around about how cheap Democrats are when it comes to giving to charities. In fact, many do not give anything to charities. Also, I can honestly say, in general, they are usually the ones who cheat and have big time IRS problems. It is pretty amazing.
Well stated argument about the size of government and taxes. However, why must you make an attack on the Christian faith regarding killing one's children? That was a cheap shot.
You call your position liberatarian. It sure sounds Republican to me. Why not come join us! :) We area big tent and have room for atheist.
Government should be as small as possible. Anyone who says that the government will spend their money better than they can is admitting that they are an idiot. And anyone who says that the government can spend OTHER people's money better than they can are ARROGANT FUCKS who think that everyone else is an idiot. Conservatives say "You can do it. Here are some tools to do it with." Liberals say, "You can't do it without out us!" They think the government should rule everyone's lives.
Good point, I prefer to give to local charities where more of the money goes towards those that need help. The government spits out only a buck for every 5 they take in to help people. Just look at where the gas taxes go, supposed to go to the roads and bridges, less than a 1/3 does. If our taxes go up, those local charities will cease to exist eventually. Oh, did you hear the UK Federal Tax alone is now 50%? Is Europe really a good model for the US? I don't think so.
On my tax return, I felt I was getting quite a bit back, so I used some of it for medical research and environmental preservation. Not a ton, but technically I could have gotten more back. That doesn't mean I want a HUGE government, but I DO want a government that funds both of those things.
So I guess... yeah I did, Penn. Might just be because I'm too lazy to research charities to the two in-depth, though.
C'mon, Penn. You're smarter than this. Nobody wants "bigger gov't". They think gov't should do certain things with certain resources, not just be "bigger"; your target group is the null set. Re: taxes: (1) people sending money if they feel like it does not spread burden fairly; (2) general taxes vs. specific charity is apples & oranges; (3) gov't serves everyone's needs - charity serves causes that are popular. There are good reasons for universal gov't programs funded by universal taxes.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Bingo. And those who really want "security" expropriate other people's money in their quest for "the good of man." it's all patently and hideously immoral. Nuff said.
Forcing other to take care of others is not moral. Punishing productive people with higher taxes is also not moral. Right on, Penn. Socialized medicine is immoral and would be hideous. Penn speaks the truth.
Allowing people to prosper miles beyond their needs at the expense of millions is immoral and unacceptable. REWARDING people for exploitation and appeasing them is immoral and unacceptable.
Yes, and you will be determining what "miles beyond their needs" is I suppose. That's a scary statement. A govt must use force to determine what "miles beyond their needs" actually is. Again, that statement in practice is drenched in blood. So if you earn your money HONESTLY and without use of coercion through free association, then that is exploitation? And then your immoral govt has the right to confiscate it as it sees fit? That is no objective definition of morality.
"Yes, and you will be determining what "miles beyond their needs" is I suppose."
No, not me, DEMOCRACY, all of us. A government must also use force to stop someone from breaking the law, there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
And yes they do use cohersion. If you don't believe that corporate commercial control over the mass media doesn't effect how people behave, then you need to take a sociology/phychology/marketing class.
We don't live in a democracy in America. We live in a constitutional republic -- although the constitution has sadly long been forgotten. Of course the govt must use force to stop law breaking. Who disputes that? You can try to coerce me through the mass media, but trust me, coercion with a gun pointed at you is much more effective. Big bad evil corporations will try to convince you to buy products. Govts will convince you to comply with a gun. Big difference and one you fail to acknowledge.
I don't have a problem with cohersion providing it's purpose. Corporations manipulate and subvert the public for personal profit. My ideal of a government uses force, by democratic means, for the purpose of bettering the most amount of lives possible.
It is not moral to use force to "better the most amount of lives possible." That is a scary idea, and I hope you realize it someday. I say that in all sincerity. You are thoughtful, but you are not occupying the moral high ground. I respect your opinion. However, every brutal dictator has acted "for the public good." We should not sacrifice liberty for security. Check out Atlas Shrugged, which is now on the top 10 Amazon list despite the fact that it is more than 50 years old. No coincidence.
I'am not even actualy argueing from morality, I just mentioned it in response to you bringing it up. I'am actually argueing from practicallity and utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism = bloodshed. Ayn Rand is a joke? Hmmm. Why are you commenting on a Penn Jillette video? Penn is an ardent Ayn Rand admirer. I would ask why Ayn Rand is a joke, but I doubt you would be able to articulate on that which you know nothing about. All I can say is that your kind scares me. It would be "practical" in some sense to force someone with a 2-bed apartment to take in a homeless person, and countless other violent "practical" remedies. Your reliance on coercion is truly sad.
It makes sense. I have often wondered how Stalin could have killed 20 million plus in the name of a noble ideal. He did it with people like yourself. We must kill, purge, and ban to gulags to keep communism alive. And the utilitarian bloodshed "for the good of the people" went on and on. I talked with Penn this week (you won't believe me but that's ok) and we talked about Atlas Shrugged and the parallels to today. He loves the market of ideas, but he would use vile language to dispute your ilk.
Keep goose stepping through life. We individualists (including Penn) will be wary of you and ready for that matter. At least I base my philosophy on morality and not practicality. I have read socialist treatises and marxist ones. You have never read Friedman or Rand or Hayek. You speak from ignorance, but that is to be expected. Penn would call you a name that blow your socks off and he would blow your market of ideas out of the water. Trust me on that. I am more polite.
"At least I base my philosophy on morality and not practicality."
Really? Because I've heard my fair share of libertarians say that freedom comes before life, including Penn, who said that people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want even if it were proven to result in more murders. Also, that people should be free to drink and drive.
I don't know what kind of morality that is, but...
We were talking about government policy not drinking and driving. Driving is a privilege and not a right. I've never heard the phrase "Freedom comes before life" but if all the govt guns and force and coercion meant that life could be extended a bit, freedom would be the better choice. Fortunately, that choice never need be made and it's a red herring. Nice try though. No mas. Good luck. Continue to believe in force and coercion over liberty. It's a free country.
You are either very young or have zero understanding of the concept of rights. No person who at least went through college could make that statement.
If you do not violate the law, the govt can't take away your rights. There is a fundamental concept of natural rights such as "life" that are not granted and sustained by govt.
I hope you are just young. Read, learn, understand. Come back in 4 years.
You said, "a right is something the law allows you to do." You went off the rails and there is no going back. Society does not give you rights or take away your rights. You have a lot to learn ignorant youngster. You will look back on your hideous statement years from now and realize its idiocy. Penn would not be as kind as I am. His response would be filthy, I assure you, and dead-on correct. I can only assume that you are young and stupid. You'll get older, but probably not wiser.
You are so ignorant that you don't even know when you are using my own argument. Slavery was govt enforced. There can be no right to enslave. That is precisely why it is so dangerous to empower govt. Get it? If not, continue to close your mind and spew on about that which you know nothing about. I have read the books. You call Ayn Rand a joke when you have not read her. For you, ignorance is truly bliss. Go back to the slavery argument and your original insane quote. Figure it out.
The government? Which is a dmocratic-republic. Which means, slavery wasn't upheld by some foreign tyrant, it was upheld by SOCIETY. What the fuck is wrong with you? You think the vast majority of southern slave owners didn't want to, and thought blacks were totally equal, but the BIG BAD GOVERNMENT forced them to?
I'm beginning to think you don't actually mean what you say since you are so incoherent. I got caught by a troll. Govt has a monopoly on the use of force. If you empower govt too much, you constantly supersede any definition of natural rights/human rights. It is govt that sponsors attrocities -- Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, slavery, etc. Even leftists today acknowledge this. Read The Fountainhead if you dare. I'm going on vacaton, so you can spout to cyberspace and continue to troll. Good riddance.
OK, so the idea of rights is made up. Even Penn would agree that there is no objective inherent right and wrong. The libertarian argument is simple: We can't MAKE people do what WE 'know' is right. Whether or not we are right or not, we (and by extension the government), should not interfere in people's lives unless it is necessary to protect life, liberty or property (since libertarianism is liberal).
You can choose to agree or disagree, but don't say it doesn't make sense, because it does.
"We can't MAKE people do what WE 'know' is right."
We CAN make people do what we BELIEVE is right. That which we collectively (as a democratic majority) agree is the best for society.
"we should not interfere in people's lives unless it is necessary to protect life, liberty or property"
Life and liberty, yes. Property, no. No one has any god-given right to material things from their enviroment. Should we grant SOME of it to indivuals? Sure, but we should also see most of it as utility
...Because? I mean, when we look at our history, we can see that the majority hasn't always fit our definition of right... And just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD make people do anything - if it doesn't harm you directly, you have no 'right' to intervene.
"Property, no"
Communism, much? We have a right to the property we are entitled to by having earned or gained it in another legitimate way - that is how our society works.
In theory, in a liberal democratic state, you own your property more than in a communist one. The problem is when undemocratic (dictatorial, maybe?) institutions are added into a democratic state (Patriot Act, for example).
If by taking your property, someone has WRONGED you, that means you have a RIGHT to property - not so in Communism, where there is no such thing as 'your property'. Just because the U.S. has managed to screw up liberalism in some ways does not mean liberalism is screwed up.
"your" house for example, since even after you have bought the house you still must pay a proporty "tax" to be able to keep it, if you dont the government will come and take it away and give it to whever it see's fit, or will pay more money for the stolen house. you will then end up in jail or have to buy a new home. i see that the taxes pay for utilities to the home but even if you own a wooden shack with no electricity, sewage, or water.........
.... you still must pay the property tax. so your car, isnt yours either, i you have any guns, those arnt yours too. what you fail to realize is that CONTROL = OWNERSHIP. the gov't has the control and therefor has the ownership, because if someone denies gov't control over what tax they pay for the house, that house gets taken away and repossessed.
thats the libertarian point - you shouldn't have to pay taxes for things that are yours - the only taxes you need to pay are for things that are 100% necessary for a state to function: the military, the police, the courts... your property taxes as well as your income taxes should only be to pay for services (like running water or 911 emergencies) - if you WANT to pay for other people's schooling you can make a donation, but nobody should force you to do what's 'nice', only what's necessary.
none of those things are 100% necessarily a state run entity, there could be a fire department that charged you a bill after they put out your house, or a police that charged whenever they helped you out
It's just that libertarians are hypocrites when it comes to things that THEY use.
As a socialist I'll gladly answer Penn's question. I absolutely will give more money, as much as I can afford even, as soon as the government reflects true socialism. Currently, the American government is a corporate regiment, sending money to the government at this point in time is simply sending money to our lobbyist controlled, cherade. It wouldn't accomplish anything I believe in.
ok why do u want socialism do u want ur freedom do u like ur libertys if u want socialism move to russia or china do u understand that if u give government more power like natializing the banks they have control of YOUR MONEY and look at the great job the government did with aig i mean come on or are wonderful government putting billions of dollars into the economy so that when inflation comes around r money will b worth nothing so where will that leave us?IN THE SAME FUCKING PLACE WE R NOW
"ok why do u want socialism do u want ur freedom do u like ur libertys"
Only a fool would equate socialism to athoritarianism. You must be a product of red-scare propaganda. I'am only interested in democratically insured socialism. Speaking of freedoms, I have a bend so far left in the 'personal freedoms'/'social rights' department it makes chompsky look like a communitarian.
Great post Penn. Have you seen the Aaron Russo Video: FreedomToFascism ?
If not, I'd encourage you to check it out because it's a research project about a gigantic tax-fraud racket - and the GOVERNMENT is behind it.
Non partisian and a favorite of those who adhere to Libertarian thinking - super interesting & eye opening. Aaron was terminally ill while doing the documentary. It's kind of the capstone on his life work.
G00GLE FreedomToFascism & watch the video on G00GLE online.
When my heart explodes and I am faced with nothingness it all comes down to options. Will my family be screwed if I live? I would like to know that I can avoid hurting my family by having treatment but if my longevity kills my kids chance at success then let the hand grenade go off. But... wouldn't it be amazing if I didn't have to make that choice?
And you're either a moron or a dishonest jackass for asking it.
To explain: If I want Universal Health Care (which IS the right thing to do), how is me sending more $ to the gov't right now going to help that? The $'s just gonna go to more illegal black ops, AIG bonuses, overpriced military weaponry we don't need, etc. Once we get rid of such waste & we actually have Universal Healthcare, THEN I'll gladly pay more to support it.
DarwinOrwell If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! Sorry ,Dar I don't want to pay for your healthcare. No bail out for Dar & Dar no one will ever know that you've had a lobotomy, if you wear a wig to hide to the scars & learn to control the slobbering.
Penn I like your hair the other way, but hey, it's Spring try a new style!
Our corrupt Healthcare-for-Profit system (run by insurance companies) is ALREADY the most expensive in the world! Far more costly than the socialized healthcare that most Europeans enjoy. Our cost would GO DOWN & service would improve if we just followed their example.
Have you ever been to Europe? Ever talked to Europeans?
Ask them if they'd prefer our Healthcare system to theirs and the vast majority will say: Hell No! They know our brutal insurance-controlled system is fucked and they want none of it.
Read some essay's by Roderick Long on the matter, you might learn that privatiztion does not equal capitalism, facism is largely privatization, but with government help in its matters, kinf of like today. Seems like you have a superficial knowledge of economics as most people so just read. Maybe I am wrong.
Actually, your employer is the one who pays the taxes, unless you are self employed. In which case you are the one paying your own federal income tax.
I dont over pay per se, but I dont bother to declare if its < $100. I also beleive smaller goverment starts with WHAT they spend on, not HOW MUCH they spend. And that requires being active on goverement, not sitting around bitching.
i'm due a refund of over $1000 here in california and the state government says they're going to keep it because they need it. in the meantime i get an IOU. they're taking money of mine that they weren't supposed to have in the first place.
a boss of mine, who i've known for 5 years or so, was telling me how his relatives all thought paying taxes was a privilege and an honor and liked living in a country where they could pay taxes for things the government did. i listened and then asked him if they ever overpaid intentionally. he immediately answered that YES they did. it is the only time as long as i've known him that i'm 100% certain he was lying. he's always otherwise been an honest guy.
Paying ANY taxes to an unconstitutional government is overpaying. Read "Taxpayers in Revolt" by David Beito, leading libertarian intellectual. He points out that there was 25% nonpayment of taxes in great depression-era Chicago. Also, "locofoco-Democrats" in NY, opposed Tammany Hall w/ laissez-faire ideas. BTW: Geez: The force worshippers are all hypocrites, Penn, it's a requirement of their non-philosophy. See the Cato Institute's videos.
To me it's more about how the money I'm already sending is spent. Certain things need you need the government for. Things for the common good of the community. Like the fire department, or say I want a subway in my city. I can't afford a subway and since every one in the city will benefit from the subway or the fire department we should all chip in.
I would like to see a lot more projects for the public good funded by redirecting some of the $700 billion dollars we spend on the military.
Thinking that the government can do better than you with your money is not required to think bigger government is a good thing. That's the flaw in your argument.
You've got a good point there (that is if you're checking something that was posted months back). In all honesty, if I believed that the government would spend my money in more efficient ways and I could spare the extra cash, then yeah, i would send it along.
However I don't agree with how the current government is spending the money we give them, so I prefer doing things myself and trying to get other people I know to help out as well.
yes, i would give a firearm to a mentally healthy child. after he can recite the 4 rules of gun saftey and show a good understanding of firearms. during their whole firearms expirience they will be under close supervision.
nothing wrong with that. if a person picks up a gun, they dont just magically fall over and die. a person who does not misuse a gun will never hurt themselves or others accidentally. its just a tool, it cannot do anything by itself.
What i find funny about the argument 'if everyone had guns and followed the rules there would be no accidence and criminals couldn't use guns to attack others'. The rules include not having a loaded gun unless you plan to fire it. So people will be walking around with unloaded guns, and when a criminal starts threatening them they will somehow have time to take out there gun, load it, aim and fire? Or everyone can walk around with loaded guns and the number of accidental gun deaths will rocket.
would you like to show me that saftey rule? ive never seen it.
in a gun culture, respect and responsibility are taught at an early age. since we dont live in a dominant gun culture, this lifestyle isnt taught to our youth.
look at switzerland's crime and suicide rates. there is a select fire assualt rifle in every house, and many have more than one gun.
I can't help noticing, by their absence, the pricks who keep claiming that Penn is a "shill" of the Cato institute from this video. Probably because they have got NO-F***ING-ANSWER to his reasoning here...
It isn't until you have lived in a socialist country when you realise the damage of a larger government. Quite frankly having seen 50 years of socialism in New Zealand - I'd sooner see an alternative to it.
Penn! I had so much respect for you before, but your libertarian religion is making you insane! Please explain to me you don't actually believe we should pay no taxes! Tell me you're not that stupid, please.
Enginmaster 5 months ago
Rich people do have the option of paying more than they need. Instead of itemizing their deduction which helps rich people the most, they can just take the standard deduction. Also, you can write a check to the treasury. So Warren Buffet, if you think your money is better off with the government, then write them a check.
Jebusrulez 5 months ago
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence.
PS For sure...get a hair cut ya hippie bum;).....not just because it looks better but because it has to be more comfortable especially living in Vegas....BTW I love P&T keep up the good work!
DK0526 1 year ago
Having seen his hair straight, I reckon he and Mick Thomson from Slipknot are one and the same.
whokilledzekeiddon 1 year ago
As a matter of fact there is ...
If you believe we don't pay enough taxes, make your voluntary check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail to:
Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
Problem solved ... LOL
dread77706 1 year ago
He's so goth. I like it ^_^
Deadite369 1 year ago
fuck govt
ducksrule1234 1 year ago
I believe that Penn should start his own university. He can put it in Massachusetts and call it Penn State.
sempergumbyusmc 1 year ago
Or you could fight for a better functioning government... you know evolve. I love how libertarians assume the government is the only form of oppression.
"How noble libertarianism, in its majestic equality, that both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners! "
Mike Huben, paraphrasing Anatole France
lucifugal 1 year ago
The problem with paying taxes over and above what you are required to pay is that there is no plan for that extra money. I would support higher taxes but not without a good plan to spend that money.
Spokker 1 year ago
@Spokker Our school systems are in debt, so is the postal office. They have plenty of areas of planning that they could spend your money quite quickly on their debt. If you believe in Medicare they could use plenty of your money. If you didn't write stuff off the government could definately spend your money (I mean the governments money)... they are definately good at doing that :) They might not have to print off so much money either...
I encourage you to give the government more money
mandylynn999 1 year ago
@mandylynn999 BTW the post office actually wanted to squash and or place a extra tax/charge on e-mail. Would that be to better the lifes of all Americans or to supplement its own wastefull existence???
DK0526 1 year ago
First off we have many social programs, which ones do we cut? Education? law enforcment, Post office, fire dept.? Second Starbucks does a good job at making coffee but I do not want to pay more than what I get in return. The gov. is the only entity that can enforce or regulate for profit corporations such as health insurance compnays for the benifit of the masses. There should not be an OZ of profit in health care in the first place.
edteach2u 1 year ago
@edteach2u I we got the aliens that R inside our prisons extradited OUTTA the US...
We might have money to feed our poor and aged...
Check the stats on prisons/inmates/aliens...
And My God has Never told me 2 Kill my baby.
After all it is a Commandment remember?
funkateerkitty 1 year ago
Hi Penn fans. Penn Says videos have been discontinued, so you won't be seeing any new content on here. You can check out our Profile on our Channel Page for more info. We'll still be checking in, so hope to keep chatting with you all! Thanks!
pennsays 1 year ago
@pennsays No man...I am 51 and I think Ur Long Hair is Hot!
It's Really Rasta man :)
Now There is Already a way they can invest in the government...
Savings Bonds...The US gets 2 Invest Their money...
I myself buy items of worth to a Pawn Shop...
Or tons of Antique garbage...
Oh...btw...As a Disabled Veteran :)
Fuk the government!
Kitty from The Wild West.
funkateerkitty 1 year ago
@pennsays My brother does taxes...
He e-mailed me the new rule...
We must add the cost of our individual healthcare 4 our individual family needs...
to the amount of our INCOME...
Then we get taxed in a larger tax bracket!
This way we R paying 4 those who WON'T.
~ A hardened Conservative, gun-slinging, chick from AZ.
funkateerkitty 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pennsays What I can't understand when it comes to Liberals is the misunderstanding of how Government works. If you have BIG GOVERNMENT you have BIG LOBBYISTS (the CORPORATIONS you hate so much) funding their agendas who put SMALL (insignificant, putrid dick suckers)prostrating idiots in power! SIMPLE... more Gov power, more $ from YOU.
logoscreature1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pennsays The premise of Penn's argument is that an INDIVIDUAL can come up with a better use of his or her capital than Government. Yeah... there's corruption in government, that's why we don't want more of it...WTF?
logoscreature1 1 year ago
that is a good point. and a good question but most people will only give what they have to. the poor always want more government because they more back than they give. I can't really argue that question I'm happy to know your not a tea bagger or a streaght republican. hey are you famous or something I know I've seen you somewhere before on tv or somewhere I live in Las vagas and you look so familler.
and if my kid was garanteed to go to heven I would kill him I don't want him fucking up.
hollywoodjokerpicalo 1 year ago
This simple question is like big government kryptonite.
supahsekzy 1 year ago
Maybe you let your white hair grow out. It worked for Bob Barker. It would give you a bit more of a wizard appearance. While not really fitting with your type of magic it is worth considering.
Pyrolonn 1 year ago
I think I can answer his question: Yes, in some cases. Like most areas the housing market is down here & right now a lot people r appealing their property tax assessment, claiming (correctly, i might add) their house is worth less than the county assessment. In my case, house is assessed 31% higher than what I paid for it a year ago in a short sale, however I will not be appealing this because I know that my property taxes are used for school funding, i WOULD rather give it to them.
tmontana48154 1 year ago 2
Nobody likes taxes, but they are beneficial. It's too easy to knock taxes without thinking because that is the popular opinion. Countries like Denmark, with the highest happiness, coincidentally have the highest taxes. The beauty of them is that they spread the cost across everyone. The sum is greater than the parts. Some may think they can spend the money better themselves but this is wrong on 2 counts. 1st, yu cant accomplish individually what all together can. 2nd, I'm out of room.
polarbear2020 1 year ago
I think this is an excellent point. It seems like most people want the Government to spend more and more of everyone's-except-mine money.
ShawnRavenfire 1 year ago
HAHAAH!@!! Penn, just be a snot man..fuck it. you ended up saying "REALLY THOUGH! anyways...lol these are awesome.
Poonard 2 years ago
I like PennSays even more than BULL$HIT :) Keep it up Penn!
Poonard 2 years ago
I like your hair curly.
caseyledbetter 2 years ago
Most of us don't give unless we are forced to even if we would all benefit if all gave. That is what the government is for. We are prepared to give if we know others will do the same and the government ensures that. Thus we all benefit by a government requiring you to pay taxes.
Hedning1390 2 years ago
Hedding, put up or shut up, IMO
As Penn says at 6:23, "... if you want bigger government... aaaaaaa write a f&@%ing check"
I have been using this with all my liberal friends for a while. If morally imperative to pay more, are you not being morally decrepit by YOUR own beliefs, aka hypocrisy?
Love these "pennsays" vids, great fodder for thoughts
bammcgn41 2 years ago
No, because if only I give, I loose. If the state would not force it there would be too many freeloaders for the system to work. Everyone has to contribute to ensure that everybody wins.
It is like the classic game where you have 20 coins and can choose to give any amount of your coins to a pot that returns 150% but is split evenly amongst all players, or keep them for yourself. Without a forcing rule the players will only contribute a minor amount even though the group suffers from it.
Hedning1390 2 years ago
@bammcgn41 Great to hear about the fodder, bammcgn41!
pennsays 2 years ago
@Hedning1390 Have you heard all the arguments against what you've said? Our founders worked precisely to keep government small and humble. I have nothing against government however I do have a problem when people, good people, decide they can't take care of themselves, it's just to hard, and hand over their lives to government. When enough people do that, those of that who want to be left alone have to suffer. I respect your opinion but also invite you to talk about it with me take care!
Poonard 2 years ago
You do realize that in a true democracy the government is the people. So there is no contradiction there. Also, as you do live in a community you affect and are affected by people around you whether you like it or not.
But no, I haven't heard many anarchist/libertarian arguments, because where I am from I am on the right and are mostly debating socialists and communists, but those I have heard isn't convincing.
Hedning1390 2 years ago
"Cynic! Cynic! Cynic!", the villagers will all shout; "Come all, and gather your pitchforks!" I smell an effigy burning a-coming...
JoeDeceiver 1 year ago
You really need to ask that to like 95% of this country, maybe the dumb fucks will see the point
TurtleHydro 2 years ago
a guy my age is stupid anyway?
whats he got against us metalheads and kultists, ravers and goths?
(only the first two are musically related to each other)
Paradoxical003 2 years ago
And if you believe in smaller government and lower taxes don't avail yourself of government. It wouldn't be possible. The services government provides can't be paid for individually. Does Penn use the post office? I mean really.
martinheideggershut 2 years ago
What magical characteristic of the state allows it to do something that other, mere mortals, cannot do?
As I understand it, the state is simply a collective of fallible people, anything they can do we can do.
And because private collectives are based on voluntary association, rather than violent coercion, they are forced to succeed, rather than fail continually as the state does.
Jcolinsol 2 years ago
I do not know if Penn does. I know I do when I have non-emergency letters that must be mailed. I do because it is against the law to compete with the US postal office. Mail could be done better. As tax payers we pay for the costs of it whether or not we use it. Why not pay more to send a letter only when you choose to mail?
MrHambergator 2 years ago
thats as ignorant as ignorance gets
i want lower taxes and less govt. doesnt mean i shouldnt use the portions of govt that i believe the govt SHOULD provide.
i pay for and want raod construction, police/fire protection, clean water...
i DONT pay my taxes to study the effects of cow farts, or to give a new home buyer a discount on their new house
Zaxxon2008 2 years ago
Yeah, but we're not really under control of where the money is going.
JoeDeceiver 1 year ago
While I think that certain service should be provided by the government to ensure that they are available and affordable for all people in the nation, that does not mean that I think they "spend the money best". There is a lot of inefficiency built into how the government functions, so if you give them 100,000$ to do something or if you give them 150,000$ to do something you will likely get similar results. Therefore while I think they should do these things, their funds should be limited.
DanCityDesperado 2 years ago
We are the Government so sending more money would be sending more money to me. we as the government have already set an amount for how much we should pay on taxes. we also decided that if you want a certian org. to recive more of your money then its ok to pay more to them just not with the money you decided that is already set for somthing else. If you dont want the govenment to do for you the you dont need to live here you need to go build your own island and proclaim your citizenship there
wrongserver 2 years ago
I have been saying the same thing to all my liberal friends. If you think the government is doing a great job with our money and we need to pay more taxes....DO IT. No one is stopping you. Set the example...or shut up. Because the truth is, you really just want OTHERS to pay more taxes. Again, Penn has it right...if you believe in higher taxes, because the government is so darn good at spending your money...then GIVE GENEROUSLY.
JimCoryan 2 years ago 7
@JimCoryan I am against the war in a least Iraq, and war contrived. But if we let people opt out of things like medi care or SS who takes care of them when they are old and have no family to pick up the tab?
edteach2u 1 year ago
@JimCoryan It will fall to some group or charity to do so. We are social animals and we need to have social insturments in place to make things run. People if left to their own devices will never put away for retirement, or health care ect. People put hair weaves or beer before things they should
edteach2u 1 year ago
@edteach2u Hair weaves...hah hah hah
U got me on that 1 my friend!
funkateerkitty 1 year ago
@JimCoryan . We spend ten billion a month in Iraq, lets start by cutting the bloated military and quit being Irish relitives and never go home. We have bases in places that we aquired from the Spanish American war.
edteach2u 1 year ago
@edteach2u We need to spend 16 years to educate our children to B the Gretest in The World...And put an end to the frikken Meth and Crack destroying...Get outta Iraq...
I was in Intelligence.
Afghanistan was reported 2 B a loss if we went there...
So WTF??? Right? U wonder who is really runnin things once again.
funkateerkitty 1 year ago
LOL I think the goverment is lopsided. The things they should control run rampant. They things that should be left to the indiviual the government tries to keep a firm grasp on. What makes me laugh is most people live on credit that they shouldn't have. When things went sour and the economy dropped. A government that can't balance it's own checkbook was called in to fix the problem. I agree with Penn I can manage my money better than my government.
RavenTheBlack 2 years ago 3
This is the conundrum we're in now. People want benefits from the government, but they want mostly other people to pay for them. There's no way you can insure 40million people and only raise taxes on the rich. It's too small a percentage of the population. And it wouldn't be reliable. Their weath fluxuates too much. It would become insolvent after another recession.
charlesvan13 2 years ago
Overpaid taxes go, I believe directly to the debt. And yes I have sent money to pay for the debt.
rejershnivit 2 years ago
We vote for people to be in our government. So yes we do believe and expect government to help us. Penn probably doesn't vote. Why don't Penn and some like mind people move to a uninhabited island?
solidysnake1 2 years ago
I had an idea similar to this a while back. When you file your taxes you would be asked what programs you support and only pay for those programs. Against the war? You don't pay for it! Don't support Medicare? You don't pay for it! It would be interesting to see which programs got funded if it worked that way.
kuhlraum 2 years ago 12
@kuhlraum Ur idea is outstanding!
funkateerkitty 1 year ago
@kuhlraum Democracy gives the people the right to be thier own oppressors. In order to keep the mob from voting in the dumbest of fads or low brow whim we are supposed to elect people with good character and competency to run the affairs that the public can not reasonably do privately. The constitution is supposed to keep these elected officials and the mob in check {IE you cant vote to rape someone (mobocracy) or give too much authority to a con artist (elected officials)}, unless u ignore it
DK0526 1 year ago
I think Penn's question was absolutely the right one to ask! The fact is very few people who want more Government want to pay for it themselves; they only want other people to pay for it. And as the comments below have already pointed out, the people that want Government to do everything usually give the least to charity. That's been well-established.
But I don't understand what any of this has to do with tigers eating people. The description is what made me watch this in the first place.
kittyprydekissme 2 years ago 2
the hair looks great!
and i agree completely!
kiah666necr0 2 years ago
Live free or dye, man.
VeniVidiVid 2 years ago 3
Is it government's job to alleviate poverty? Some might say yes, but I say NO! A big fat N-O.
whoo689 2 years ago 2
What I think should be done is that people should only have to pay the amount of taxes necessary to pay for things they support or will use in the future. If I don't plan on or want to use the welfare state in the future, I should be able to sign up to be a list to be ineligible, and therefore, I won't have to pay the taxes necessary. If you wanna use those programs or support them, pay for it with your own tax money. that's obviously the fairest and most efficient system.
whoo689 2 years ago
unless the government retains monopoly powers, it would be nothing more than a private company, and that system is known as anarcho-capitalism.
and that is the most fair.
castleahh 2 years ago
It's been proven for a while now that the Left tends to give less in charity than people of other ideologies. But they're the LOUDEST when it comes to demanding GOVERNMENT pay for this shit. So, let's get this straight: They don't want to pay their own money to private efforts to alleviate these problems, but they think it's ok to FORCE all taxpayers to subsidize it, whether or not they support the welfare state?
Is that FAIR, mr. Obama? You talked a lot about raising taxes for "fairness."
whoo689 2 years ago
Big government is a travesty. Pay your own tax dollars to it, I don't care. But don't force ME to subsidize it without even having the decency to ask! That's the problem with government: no one asks the citizens if they approve of this shit. A new president just assumes he has a mandate for everything. Obama actually thinks just b/c he was voted in over McCain that everyone now wants HUGER government and tons of more debt. Healthcare deform is more like it. More gov't is not reform.
whoo689 2 years ago
Of course, the libs and Dems obviously don't see it that way. They just assume we all agree on bigger gov't and the welfare state, and therefore, it's ok to take our money and spend it on all these programs. It's ok for the Right to spend all this money on a bloated military-industrial complex. I'm getting a little sick of it!
Why not freedom, for a change??? If war hawks wanna fund the Iraq War, do it! I'm not gonna fund it, though. I'll fund sensible defense.
whoo689 2 years ago
I'm getting tired of the collectivist excuses for why we must all support all these programs with our tax dollars that a lot of us DON'T support. This country was founded on the premise that INDIVIDUALS have worth. The collective isn't all that wise half the time. Why should we trust them?
whoo689 2 years ago
it is amazing, but your comment is so true. I am an accountant and we pretty much know our clients political affiliations. We always joke around about how cheap Democrats are when it comes to giving to charities. In fact, many do not give anything to charities. Also, I can honestly say, in general, they are usually the ones who cheat and have big time IRS problems. It is pretty amazing.
TripperLV 2 years ago
I should go sign up for SSI.
Also, at least he has hair still.
ScaryGuy255 2 years ago
agreed Penn.
wickjamesgtar 2 years ago
Well stated argument about the size of government and taxes. However, why must you make an attack on the Christian faith regarding killing one's children? That was a cheap shot.
You call your position liberatarian. It sure sounds Republican to me. Why not come join us! :) We area big tent and have room for atheist.
m1tanker64 2 years ago
He did say anything about the Christian faith, he said if you believe in God, which would be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Pagans, Jews ect.
korleonis 2 years ago
His position is fiscally conservative, and the modern Republican party is not fiscally conservative.
LafinJack 2 years ago
Government should be as small as possible. Anyone who says that the government will spend their money better than they can is admitting that they are an idiot. And anyone who says that the government can spend OTHER people's money better than they can are ARROGANT FUCKS who think that everyone else is an idiot. Conservatives say "You can do it. Here are some tools to do it with." Liberals say, "You can't do it without out us!" They think the government should rule everyone's lives.
DavidDevlin666 2 years ago
Penn should talk about gun control and future gun grabs. That has been such a phenomenon when you did it on Bullshit.
hdl13 2 years ago
I might be willing to pay more taxes as long as everyone else does too. I'm not really willing to pay more taxes if I'm the only one doing it.
copperblade 2 years ago
Good point, I prefer to give to local charities where more of the money goes towards those that need help. The government spits out only a buck for every 5 they take in to help people. Just look at where the gas taxes go, supposed to go to the roads and bridges, less than a 1/3 does. If our taxes go up, those local charities will cease to exist eventually. Oh, did you hear the UK Federal Tax alone is now 50%? Is Europe really a good model for the US? I don't think so.
bigdaddymp977 2 years ago
Lol fight the power! Long hair on older men is distinguised? =)
EsoteriChris 2 years ago
Direct, unusual response to this video:
On my tax return, I felt I was getting quite a bit back, so I used some of it for medical research and environmental preservation. Not a ton, but technically I could have gotten more back. That doesn't mean I want a HUGE government, but I DO want a government that funds both of those things.
So I guess... yeah I did, Penn. Might just be because I'm too lazy to research charities to the two in-depth, though.
TKnightcrawler 2 years ago
C'mon, Penn. You're smarter than this. Nobody wants "bigger gov't". They think gov't should do certain things with certain resources, not just be "bigger"; your target group is the null set. Re: taxes: (1) people sending money if they feel like it does not spread burden fairly; (2) general taxes vs. specific charity is apples & oranges; (3) gov't serves everyone's needs - charity serves causes that are popular. There are good reasons for universal gov't programs funded by universal taxes.
ktkeith 2 years ago
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
Bingo. And those who really want "security" expropriate other people's money in their quest for "the good of man." it's all patently and hideously immoral. Nuff said.
pitbull103 2 years ago
"essential Liberty"
Owning a gun is not an essential liberty.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
What is liberty?
Mastikator 2 years ago
Over payments to the gov't are treated as charitable deductions and are not taxable in the next tax year.
I don't know whether the cap at 28% rate for deductions for charity would affect this.
Any way, the gov't typically gets less than $200K in charitable tax payments in a given year. (thats with a little less than 200 million filers).
Icharys 2 years ago
Forcing other to take care of others is not moral. Punishing productive people with higher taxes is also not moral. Right on, Penn. Socialized medicine is immoral and would be hideous. Penn speaks the truth.
pitbull103 2 years ago
Allowing people to prosper miles beyond their needs at the expense of millions is immoral and unacceptable. REWARDING people for exploitation and appeasing them is immoral and unacceptable.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
Yes, and you will be determining what "miles beyond their needs" is I suppose. That's a scary statement. A govt must use force to determine what "miles beyond their needs" actually is. Again, that statement in practice is drenched in blood. So if you earn your money HONESTLY and without use of coercion through free association, then that is exploitation? And then your immoral govt has the right to confiscate it as it sees fit? That is no objective definition of morality.
pitbull103 2 years ago
"Yes, and you will be determining what "miles beyond their needs" is I suppose."
No, not me, DEMOCRACY, all of us. A government must also use force to stop someone from breaking the law, there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
And yes they do use cohersion. If you don't believe that corporate commercial control over the mass media doesn't effect how people behave, then you need to take a sociology/phychology/marketing class.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
We don't live in a democracy in America. We live in a constitutional republic -- although the constitution has sadly long been forgotten. Of course the govt must use force to stop law breaking. Who disputes that? You can try to coerce me through the mass media, but trust me, coercion with a gun pointed at you is much more effective. Big bad evil corporations will try to convince you to buy products. Govts will convince you to comply with a gun. Big difference and one you fail to acknowledge.
pitbull103 2 years ago
I don't have a problem with cohersion providing it's purpose. Corporations manipulate and subvert the public for personal profit. My ideal of a government uses force, by democratic means, for the purpose of bettering the most amount of lives possible.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
It is not moral to use force to "better the most amount of lives possible." That is a scary idea, and I hope you realize it someday. I say that in all sincerity. You are thoughtful, but you are not occupying the moral high ground. I respect your opinion. However, every brutal dictator has acted "for the public good." We should not sacrifice liberty for security. Check out Atlas Shrugged, which is now on the top 10 Amazon list despite the fact that it is more than 50 years old. No coincidence.
pitbull103 2 years ago
I'am not even actualy argueing from morality, I just mentioned it in response to you bringing it up. I'am actually argueing from practicallity and utilitarianism.
I'am not argueing in favor of a dictatorship.
Ayn Rand is a joke.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
Utilitarianism = bloodshed. Ayn Rand is a joke? Hmmm. Why are you commenting on a Penn Jillette video? Penn is an ardent Ayn Rand admirer. I would ask why Ayn Rand is a joke, but I doubt you would be able to articulate on that which you know nothing about. All I can say is that your kind scares me. It would be "practical" in some sense to force someone with a 2-bed apartment to take in a homeless person, and countless other violent "practical" remedies. Your reliance on coercion is truly sad.
pitbull103 2 years ago
"Utilitarianism = bloodshed"
That makes no sense
"Penn is an ardent Ayn Rand admirer."
I'am a fan of Penn's. If you were a fan too you'd know that Penn is a big supporter of prostelyzation and debate. The market of ideas, no?
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
It makes sense. I have often wondered how Stalin could have killed 20 million plus in the name of a noble ideal. He did it with people like yourself. We must kill, purge, and ban to gulags to keep communism alive. And the utilitarian bloodshed "for the good of the people" went on and on. I talked with Penn this week (you won't believe me but that's ok) and we talked about Atlas Shrugged and the parallels to today. He loves the market of ideas, but he would use vile language to dispute your ilk.
pitbull103 2 years ago
Oh how righteuous you must feel, evoking Stalin unto me like that.
Stalin was not a Democratic socialist, he wasn't even a communist he was a STALINIST.
Stalin was as much a utilitarianist as Hitler was a neitzsche-existentiialist.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
Keep goose stepping through life. We individualists (including Penn) will be wary of you and ready for that matter. At least I base my philosophy on morality and not practicality. I have read socialist treatises and marxist ones. You have never read Friedman or Rand or Hayek. You speak from ignorance, but that is to be expected. Penn would call you a name that blow your socks off and he would blow your market of ideas out of the water. Trust me on that. I am more polite.
pitbull103 2 years ago
"At least I base my philosophy on morality and not practicality."
Really? Because I've heard my fair share of libertarians say that freedom comes before life, including Penn, who said that people should be allowed to own as many guns as they want even if it were proven to result in more murders. Also, that people should be free to drink and drive.
I don't know what kind of morality that is, but...
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
We were talking about government policy not drinking and driving. Driving is a privilege and not a right. I've never heard the phrase "Freedom comes before life" but if all the govt guns and force and coercion meant that life could be extended a bit, freedom would be the better choice. Fortunately, that choice never need be made and it's a red herring. Nice try though. No mas. Good luck. Continue to believe in force and coercion over liberty. It's a free country.
pitbull103 2 years ago
A privledge is something your parents allow you to do. A right is something the law allows you to do.
Driving is a legal right, provided you have a license of course, exactly the same as gun ownership.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
"A right is something the law allows you to do?"
What in the world are you talking about?
You are either very young or have zero understanding of the concept of rights. No person who at least went through college could make that statement.
If you do not violate the law, the govt can't take away your rights. There is a fundamental concept of natural rights such as "life" that are not granted and sustained by govt.
I hope you are just young. Read, learn, understand. Come back in 4 years.
pitbull103 2 years ago
I could care less for your condescending bullshit.
There is no such thing as natural rights, they were MADE UP. INVENTED FROM THIN AIR. They mean absolutely NOTHING.
The only thing that gives you a 'right' to do something is society, laws.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
You said, "a right is something the law allows you to do." You went off the rails and there is no going back. Society does not give you rights or take away your rights. You have a lot to learn ignorant youngster. You will look back on your hideous statement years from now and realize its idiocy. Penn would not be as kind as I am. His response would be filthy, I assure you, and dead-on correct. I can only assume that you are young and stupid. You'll get older, but probably not wiser.
pitbull103 2 years ago
"Society does not give you rights or take away your rights."
Slavery.
"You will look back on your hideous statement years from now and realize its idiocy."
Like most libertarians, to compensate for your lack of critical thought you have to rely on condescending ad hominens.
Seems YOU have a lot to learn about how formal debate works.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
You are so ignorant that you don't even know when you are using my own argument. Slavery was govt enforced. There can be no right to enslave. That is precisely why it is so dangerous to empower govt. Get it? If not, continue to close your mind and spew on about that which you know nothing about. I have read the books. You call Ayn Rand a joke when you have not read her. For you, ignorance is truly bliss. Go back to the slavery argument and your original insane quote. Figure it out.
pitbull103 2 years ago
"Slavery was govt enforced"
The government? Which is a dmocratic-republic. Which means, slavery wasn't upheld by some foreign tyrant, it was upheld by SOCIETY. What the fuck is wrong with you? You think the vast majority of southern slave owners didn't want to, and thought blacks were totally equal, but the BIG BAD GOVERNMENT forced them to?
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
I'm beginning to think you don't actually mean what you say since you are so incoherent. I got caught by a troll. Govt has a monopoly on the use of force. If you empower govt too much, you constantly supersede any definition of natural rights/human rights. It is govt that sponsors attrocities -- Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, slavery, etc. Even leftists today acknowledge this. Read The Fountainhead if you dare. I'm going on vacaton, so you can spout to cyberspace and continue to troll. Good riddance.
pitbull103 2 years ago
"I got caught by a troll"
Keep telling yourself that, whatever makes you more comfortable with your irrational beliefs.
"Govt has a monopoly on the use of force."
*We* are the government. VOTE.
"It is govt that sponsors attrocities -- Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler"
No, that's AUTHORITARIANISM, not government. It was other governments, democracies and the militaries they built that STOPPED Hitler.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
OK, so the idea of rights is made up. Even Penn would agree that there is no objective inherent right and wrong. The libertarian argument is simple: We can't MAKE people do what WE 'know' is right. Whether or not we are right or not, we (and by extension the government), should not interfere in people's lives unless it is necessary to protect life, liberty or property (since libertarianism is liberal).
You can choose to agree or disagree, but don't say it doesn't make sense, because it does.
derfos666 2 years ago
"We can't MAKE people do what WE 'know' is right."
We CAN make people do what we BELIEVE is right. That which we collectively (as a democratic majority) agree is the best for society.
"we should not interfere in people's lives unless it is necessary to protect life, liberty or property"
Life and liberty, yes. Property, no. No one has any god-given right to material things from their enviroment. Should we grant SOME of it to indivuals? Sure, but we should also see most of it as utility
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
"We CAN make people do what we BELIEVE is right"
...Because? I mean, when we look at our history, we can see that the majority hasn't always fit our definition of right... And just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD make people do anything - if it doesn't harm you directly, you have no 'right' to intervene.
"Property, no"
Communism, much? We have a right to the property we are entitled to by having earned or gained it in another legitimate way - that is how our society works.
derfos666 2 years ago
so you think that in the U.S you own "your" property or house any more than in a communist society, i think wrong.
crazy1russian 2 years ago
In theory, in a liberal democratic state, you own your property more than in a communist one. The problem is when undemocratic (dictatorial, maybe?) institutions are added into a democratic state (Patriot Act, for example).
If by taking your property, someone has WRONGED you, that means you have a RIGHT to property - not so in Communism, where there is no such thing as 'your property'. Just because the U.S. has managed to screw up liberalism in some ways does not mean liberalism is screwed up.
derfos666 2 years ago
The way i see it is different. to make it short.
"your" house for example, since even after you have bought the house you still must pay a proporty "tax" to be able to keep it, if you dont the government will come and take it away and give it to whever it see's fit, or will pay more money for the stolen house. you will then end up in jail or have to buy a new home. i see that the taxes pay for utilities to the home but even if you own a wooden shack with no electricity, sewage, or water.........
crazy1russian 2 years ago
.... you still must pay the property tax. so your car, isnt yours either, i you have any guns, those arnt yours too. what you fail to realize is that CONTROL = OWNERSHIP. the gov't has the control and therefor has the ownership, because if someone denies gov't control over what tax they pay for the house, that house gets taken away and repossessed.
crazy1russian 2 years ago
thats the libertarian point - you shouldn't have to pay taxes for things that are yours - the only taxes you need to pay are for things that are 100% necessary for a state to function: the military, the police, the courts... your property taxes as well as your income taxes should only be to pay for services (like running water or 911 emergencies) - if you WANT to pay for other people's schooling you can make a donation, but nobody should force you to do what's 'nice', only what's necessary.
derfos666 2 years ago
@derfos
none of those things are 100% necessarily a state run entity, there could be a fire department that charged you a bill after they put out your house, or a police that charged whenever they helped you out
It's just that libertarians are hypocrites when it comes to things that THEY use.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
No one has an inherent 'right' to 'own' material or land, that's a load of shit humans invented. Right to own property needs to be GRANTED.
This is too difficult to debate over youtube
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
What? You're presupposing the very thing you're trying to prove! How can it be granted by someone who did not have the right to begin with?
DentalFlossBush1 2 years ago
As a socialist I'll gladly answer Penn's question. I absolutely will give more money, as much as I can afford even, as soon as the government reflects true socialism. Currently, the American government is a corporate regiment, sending money to the government at this point in time is simply sending money to our lobbyist controlled, cherade. It wouldn't accomplish anything I believe in.
I voted Nader though.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
ok why do u want socialism do u want ur freedom do u like ur libertys if u want socialism move to russia or china do u understand that if u give government more power like natializing the banks they have control of YOUR MONEY and look at the great job the government did with aig i mean come on or are wonderful government putting billions of dollars into the economy so that when inflation comes around r money will b worth nothing so where will that leave us?IN THE SAME FUCKING PLACE WE R NOW
ooferman 2 years ago
"ok why do u want socialism do u want ur freedom do u like ur libertys"
Only a fool would equate socialism to athoritarianism. You must be a product of red-scare propaganda. I'am only interested in democratically insured socialism. Speaking of freedoms, I have a bend so far left in the 'personal freedoms'/'social rights' department it makes chompsky look like a communitarian.
Well maybe not, but close.
BronzeEleven 2 years ago
Great post Penn. Have you seen the Aaron Russo Video: FreedomToFascism ?
If not, I'd encourage you to check it out because it's a research project about a gigantic tax-fraud racket - and the GOVERNMENT is behind it.
Non partisian and a favorite of those who adhere to Libertarian thinking - super interesting & eye opening. Aaron was terminally ill while doing the documentary. It's kind of the capstone on his life work.
G00GLE FreedomToFascism & watch the video on G00GLE online.
g0ysorg 2 years ago
It definitely makes you look younger.
xKeeganxxx 2 years ago
When my heart explodes and I am faced with nothingness it all comes down to options. Will my family be screwed if I live? I would like to know that I can avoid hurting my family by having treatment but if my longevity kills my kids chance at success then let the hand grenade go off. But... wouldn't it be amazing if I didn't have to make that choice?
tee1up 2 years ago
Yes Penn, it iS a stupid question.
And you're either a moron or a dishonest jackass for asking it.
To explain: If I want Universal Health Care (which IS the right thing to do), how is me sending more $ to the gov't right now going to help that? The $'s just gonna go to more illegal black ops, AIG bonuses, overpriced military weaponry we don't need, etc. Once we get rid of such waste & we actually have Universal Healthcare, THEN I'll gladly pay more to support it.
DarwinOrwell 2 years ago
DarwinOrwell If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free! Sorry ,Dar I don't want to pay for your healthcare. No bail out for Dar & Dar no one will ever know that you've had a lobotomy, if you wear a wig to hide to the scars & learn to control the slobbering.
Penn I like your hair the other way, but hey, it's Spring try a new style!
sixletter 2 years ago
NEWSFLASH for Sixletter:
Our corrupt Healthcare-for-Profit system (run by insurance companies) is ALREADY the most expensive in the world! Far more costly than the socialized healthcare that most Europeans enjoy. Our cost would GO DOWN & service would improve if we just followed their example.
DarwinOrwell 2 years ago
Dar, Dar, I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.
Totally clueless aren't you?!
sixletter 2 years ago
Sixletter,
Have you ever been to Europe? Ever talked to Europeans?
Ask them if they'd prefer our Healthcare system to theirs and the vast majority will say: Hell No! They know our brutal insurance-controlled system is fucked and they want none of it.
Prove me wrong.
DarwinOrwell 2 years ago
Read some essay's by Roderick Long on the matter, you might learn that privatiztion does not equal capitalism, facism is largely privatization, but with government help in its matters, kinf of like today. Seems like you have a superficial knowledge of economics as most people so just read. Maybe I am wrong.
fps0chris 2 years ago
The check is in the mail HaHA
leofrankfurter 2 years ago
I do not pay taxes.....ever
MyViewerMail 2 years ago
No, of course not. That's only for the 'rich' people.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Nono!
if you watch my video on this"Taxes"
i mean......we do not pay tax......the government takes taxes of us
PoetryCarvedInFlesh 2 years ago
Actually, your employer is the one who pays the taxes, unless you are self employed. In which case you are the one paying your own federal income tax.
nurbSoldier 2 years ago
Not to sound horrid
but IF you watch my vids......not saying"Watch em" but if......you watch
they have more info on this subject so i know what i am on about
plus......theres no need for income tax...ever,there is NO law what so ever that says this RULE is right and legel
either watch me or other intelligent videos on the subject
thankyou
PoetryCarvedInFlesh 2 years ago
I dont over pay per se, but I dont bother to declare if its < $100. I also beleive smaller goverment starts with WHAT they spend on, not HOW MUCH they spend. And that requires being active on goverement, not sitting around bitching.
Krieghandt 2 years ago
LOL and no Penn, men your age with long hair is perfectly sexy!
faeriemama2007 2 years ago
Hmm straight or not straight. I like the straight hair, it's sexy. I wish I was brave enough to use a straightener on my husband's hair!
faeriemama2007 2 years ago
I hope I go to heaven... whatever the hell that is.
harlowsolid 2 years ago
let's not forget INFLATION (the printing of money) and borrowing from other countries, which is how most of our government is funded.
RakeRocter 2 years ago
i'm due a refund of over $1000 here in california and the state government says they're going to keep it because they need it. in the meantime i get an IOU. they're taking money of mine that they weren't supposed to have in the first place.
words don't describe how wrong this is.
RakeRocter 2 years ago 5
a boss of mine, who i've known for 5 years or so, was telling me how his relatives all thought paying taxes was a privilege and an honor and liked living in a country where they could pay taxes for things the government did. i listened and then asked him if they ever overpaid intentionally. he immediately answered that YES they did. it is the only time as long as i've known him that i'm 100% certain he was lying. he's always otherwise been an honest guy.
non-straightened hair, i say.
RakeRocter 2 years ago
Hahaha! These vids are both hilarious and make points that need be made. Penn, I love you man, in a totally asexual way.
giggan1 2 years ago
Paying ANY taxes to an unconstitutional government is overpaying. Read "Taxpayers in Revolt" by David Beito, leading libertarian intellectual. He points out that there was 25% nonpayment of taxes in great depression-era Chicago. Also, "locofoco-Democrats" in NY, opposed Tammany Hall w/ laissez-faire ideas. BTW: Geez: The force worshippers are all hypocrites, Penn, it's a requirement of their non-philosophy. See the Cato Institute's videos.
libertarianjury 2 years ago
Comment removed
libertarianjury 2 years ago
Government takes care of your own country but donate to charity to take care of other countries. There you go theres your answer from a socialist.
ArmesPryein 2 years ago
u make a good point!
and its a little late, but i vote 4 straight hair !
kittygirl792 3 years ago
To me it's more about how the money I'm already sending is spent. Certain things need you need the government for. Things for the common good of the community. Like the fire department, or say I want a subway in my city. I can't afford a subway and since every one in the city will benefit from the subway or the fire department we should all chip in.
I would like to see a lot more projects for the public good funded by redirecting some of the $700 billion dollars we spend on the military.
ArchNME 3 years ago
"if you want bigger govornment write a fucking check" lol
im going to start saying that
borderlinebuddhist 3 years ago 2
i tried to overpay my taxes a couple years ago...the federal govtment sent me the difference back...
hellasow 3 years ago
Thinking that the government can do better than you with your money is not required to think bigger government is a good thing. That's the flaw in your argument.
nawitus 3 years ago
how does government get bigger without money? when people say "bigger government", what they mean is government that spends more money.
RakeRocter 2 years ago
LOL!
thats brilliant!
BlackTofu22 3 years ago
This is a very good point!
freedom3001 3 years ago
i vote the hair straight is good, keep it that way
areeweblind 3 years ago
You've got a good point there (that is if you're checking something that was posted months back). In all honesty, if I believed that the government would spend my money in more efficient ways and I could spare the extra cash, then yeah, i would send it along.
However I don't agree with how the current government is spending the money we give them, so I prefer doing things myself and trying to get other people I know to help out as well.
basilmemories 3 years ago
OH MY GOD PENN! what are you doing?
there are sheeple watching this show.
its like giving a loaded gun to mentally ill children.
now the government is gunna have more money to reward the lazy and piss on our rights!
mattussr 3 years ago
'sheeple'?
God your an idiot.
So you would give a gun to mentally healthy child?
iamrorschach 3 years ago
yes, i would give a firearm to a mentally healthy child. after he can recite the 4 rules of gun saftey and show a good understanding of firearms. during their whole firearms expirience they will be under close supervision.
nothing wrong with that. if a person picks up a gun, they dont just magically fall over and die. a person who does not misuse a gun will never hurt themselves or others accidentally. its just a tool, it cannot do anything by itself.
mattussr 3 years ago
What i find funny about the argument 'if everyone had guns and followed the rules there would be no accidence and criminals couldn't use guns to attack others'. The rules include not having a loaded gun unless you plan to fire it. So people will be walking around with unloaded guns, and when a criminal starts threatening them they will somehow have time to take out there gun, load it, aim and fire? Or everyone can walk around with loaded guns and the number of accidental gun deaths will rocket.
iamrorschach 3 years ago
would you like to show me that saftey rule? ive never seen it.
in a gun culture, respect and responsibility are taught at an early age. since we dont live in a dominant gun culture, this lifestyle isnt taught to our youth.
look at switzerland's crime and suicide rates. there is a select fire assualt rifle in every house, and many have more than one gun.
they have very little crime.
an armed society is a polite society.
mattussr 3 years ago
I can't help noticing, by their absence, the pricks who keep claiming that Penn is a "shill" of the Cato institute from this video. Probably because they have got NO-F***ING-ANSWER to his reasoning here...
alexanderheritage 3 years ago
excellent point...WOW why didnt I think of this one!
mikrobious 3 years ago
It isn't until you have lived in a socialist country when you realise the damage of a larger government. Quite frankly having seen 50 years of socialism in New Zealand - I'd sooner see an alternative to it.
kaiwaig 3 years ago 2
Excellent!!!!!!!!!!!
Nobody does that. Big govt advocates are all hypocrites.
AlanCom1 3 years ago
You look like you're one bad gust of wind away from becoming cousin Itt.
And it's a very fair question.
Course this is 3 months later so your hair's probably different now.
happymyster 3 years ago
No. Penn's hair is always long, straight, and black. At least from what I've seen, which is a lot.
shurterb 3 years ago
But isn't it usually kind of jagged or crimped? It's never flat and entirely straight.
happymyster 3 years ago
Ya your probably right. He must have had some kind of motivation that day lol
shurterb 3 years ago