Penn Point

Not bad for an atheist. Penn Jillette.

From here:

Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Penn Point

  1. James says:

    I suspect Penn is a truth seeker. He’s comfortable observing and forming logical conclusions that may be unpopular. Hence the “Bullshit” series.

    The other responsibility modern society shirks is family. There were few nursing homes a century ago. Multi-generations lived under one dwelling. Parents provided financial support for college. “Charity begins at home.”

    In my family, my parents pay for my niece’s room and board, I pay her college tuition. That four year plan is completing this spring.

    A few years ago, a “free” medical clinic opened, and liberals were there with signs demanding more “free” services. One middle aged man with a sign told me his aunt was barely making it financially and needed government help. I told him if he loved her, he’d be helping her, not dumping her on the rest of us.

  2. Jim22 says:

    What was his answer, James? Or did he just start calling you names? My guess is the latter.

  3. James says:

    Conversation ended at that point.
    He gave an argument that after all this country has been through – WWII, Korean war, we owed it to our country. He was tight lipped when I told him I called it “stealing.”

    R.D.’s post yesterday had an impact on me. My thinking was wrong. I had the mistaken belief that liberals could be reasoned with, converted. I was thinking I could change them. Wrong. Now, all I want is their corruption and theft to stop interfering with my life. They can think and do whatever they want, otherwise. Of course, I still will believe they are the nasty, lying, stealing, segment of human society.

  4. cornbread says:

    James, you have now stepped fully into the darkside. Welcome!!!

  5. Uke says:

    I’ve really come into the Penn Jillete camp within the last year or two. Guy is right on the money in so much.

    Truth-seeker, indeed.

    P.S. Have I ever mentioned how much I love that libertarian positions really do speak to logic and commonsense so well?

  6. Matt says:

    The rest of Jillette’s quote is good as well:

    People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment — suggesting on that someone not pay his or her taxes is probably a federal offense, and I’m a nut, but I’m not crazy.). When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force — literally, not figuratively.

    I don’t believe the majority always knows what’s best for everyone. The fact that the majority thinks they have a way to get something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, I don’t believe you really know jack. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up against the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.

  7. R.D. Walker says:

    Well said, Matt.

  8. Lyun says:

    It is better to give than receive……all you Bible bashers better believe that and practice it, or else you’ll all be hypocrites.

    A percentage of your tax burden will be given to those that need it more than you…..look for your rewards in Heaven and die happy.

    If you look back to see where your money has gone you will be turned into a pillar of salt…..don’t you read your Bibles?

  9. Uke says:

    It is better to give than receive……all you Bible bashers better believe that and practice it, or else you’ll all be hypocrites.

    I presume you mean “Bible thumpers” instead of “Bible bashers.”

    So given that…

    Did you not even read the OP, Lyun? There’s honestly nothing to debate here until you have, because Mr. Jillete outlines the key difference between charity via personal decision, and “charity” via government force.

    Individuals can (and should be) charitable themselves. There is absolutely nothing charitable about compelling legislators to redistribute the wealth of others.

    Put it this way:
    Imagine a scenario in which some guy gets mugged in an alley. Do you think the man being robbed is being charitable? Even if the mugger is poorer than the man he’s mugging? Of course not. Because there’s nothing voluntary about the giving in this case. Charity must be voluntary in order to reasonably qualify as charity; if the left constantly questions the integrity of charitable contributions based on mere tax deductions, where does that leave the legitimacy of charity at the point of a gun?

    A quote which doesn’t precisely illustrate the difference, but does shed some light on the “benevolence” of government intentions:

    The Highwayman

    “The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: “Your money, or your life.” And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.

    The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.

    The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.” –Lysander Spooner

  10. slinger says:

    Lyun, we “Bible bashers” DO practice that. I ask you why it is that conservatives give far and above more percentage of their income to charity than liberals?

    Paying taxes is absolutely NOT giving to those in need. Do I need to tell you how 90% of my charity dollars go DIRECTLY to those in need? Do you care to guess how much of my taxes go to those in need? Guess how much bureaucracy is required for the government to give money away? Is someone in need just because they choose not to work? In many countries of this world, people will work all day just for enough food to feed their family for a single day. Show me ANYONE in this country that has that problem.

  11. James says:

    “A percentage of your tax burden will be given to those that need it more than you……”

    By whose definition? Who will decide? And how much? Which angels of society will decide for us?

    That is not freedom of choice. And it certainly is not charity. Lyon, clearly you need to reread the post.