What Would You Ask Penn Jillette?

I just want to say that I read your posts through Facebook just about every day and as someone who was raised X-tian and reached the age of reason a few years ago, I find your posts to be very enlightening and they definitely help stay focused! So, thank you! Also, I’m happy to have to opportunity to ask Penn a question. “Hi, Penn! Big fan, can’t wait to see your show in Vegas soon! My question is What do you think is the best way for humans to reach a state of peace? What steps should the average person take to actually affect change on a global scale? Thanks, Ryan Jones in Appleton, WI

I’ve seen some serious backlash against Penn from self-proclaimed skeptics lately for his libertarian political views, some even going so far as to assert that it’s impossible to be both a skeptic and libertarian. I’d like to hear his take on this, and also whether he think that being a skeptic, atheist, and libertarian are just compatible or if any of them actually require one or both of the other two. 

My questions (and background)  — I agree with almost everything he says philosophically and I really enjoy his point of view because it often lines up with my own (limited government, war on drugs, economy, war) — but it seems that people who agree with that point of view are in the minority, not just in the USA but worldwide.  How do you deal with this?
Do you think the United States will EVER give up the drug war?  
What hope is there for the future if people like Obama stay in power and shove it in everyones face that THEY did drugs and didn’t get caught, but people who do get caught deserve to have their freedom taken away?  Also one last question — what can people do who feel like there’s no hope for the future and that politicians will continue to lock up and stigmatize drug users for the next 100 years (I’m probably one of these people)?

Gretchen’s skeptic/libertarian question is a good one.  But I’m getting curious about something else. We’re developing it seems a stable of what might be called “celebrity skeptics” —  PZ,  for example, and Richard Dawkins and Penn Jillette too.  I’ve started to wonder whether some like Mr. Jillette sees a problem with being a “celebrity atheist,” where the “me” part can get to overcome the “message” part [as some have suggested about the last two thirds of his book].  Does he have to make an effort to keep ego in check as celebrity rises, and the message [whatever it is] to the fore?  Does he see this as a problem?  Just curious. 

Wondering how he feels about 
Gerry McCambridge’s exposure of his bullet catch.

hi,ask him if he would like to come to Dundee Scotland for my daughters 8th birthday?il provide 1 nights bed and breakfast.also what does think of all the republicans saying that god told them to run for president?should they be jailed for telling lies to American voters?or sent to the chair in Texas….

In the past Penn used tactics similar to those used by evolution deniers to attack climate change science. Is he still a climate change denier or has the evidence presented by scientists changed him mind?

What Robert said.  I simply distrust libertarian economic theories.  What really ends up happening is some sort of libertarian paternalism or quasi-fascism.  In other words, libertarianism only looks good on paper, like a math equation.  It doesn’t work in practice. 

As atheists, we recognize that there is no after-life to
look forward to.  This is the only life we get.  Therefore, we are
more respectful of those living in this one life.  As we are generally not
sadists (some exceptions), one of our goals is to minimize suffering. 
Libertarianism, or at least the outcomes of Libertarianism policy, is in direct
conflict with this.

I am partial to Buckminster Fuller’s outlook, however, I don’t
see it as a realistic goal in today’s society, but it’s something to shoot for:

“Wealth is our organized capability to cope effectively
with the environment in sustaining our healthy regeneration and decreasing both
the physical and metaphysical restrictions of the forward days of our
lives.” – Buckminster Fuller

Self-proclaimed? Is there any other kind? How do we prove we’re skeptics? I have serious issues with Penn Jillette, and his libertarianism is only one of them, but I do think that the association between libertarianism makes for an interesting question. I don’t think there’s any evidence at all for many libertarian claims, so I’m fascinated by those who think that skepticism requires libertarianism. I don’t think it precludes libertarianism, but it ought to make one think long and hard about exactly what claims it makes and what evidence exists for an against those claims.

Yeah, until he comes up with a good answer to this question I don’t want to hear a thing come out of this jerk’s face. Please ask him this question.

 Because liars and mentally disturbed ind’uhviduals deserve the electric chair?

Penn, did you feel at all bad about talking over the credits for MST3K?

Pennsylvania?

How can you justify the position that the free market free of governmental oversight serves as an effective solution to corporate malfeasance when even your own show has demonstrated time and time again (such as the shows on new age medicine, bottled water, and environmentalism when people signed petitions to ban water from the environment) that consumers are easily fooled by dishonest marketing, consumers often don’t act in their own best interests, and that corporations rarely voluntarily choose to be responsible citizens and act in the best interests of their communities?

In the following clip, Penn directly states that he thinks “that nobody wants to be more careful about how they treat their customers than business people”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIU38qQxjw8

He couches his rhetoric in words like “I like to think”, which seems to be to just another way of saying “I have faith in X” and I’m willing to risk human lives on that faith. Even his own show demonstrates this claim is plainly false. Tobacco companies are looking out for their customers? Ridiculous! And this is the kind of myth perpetuated by the corporations themselves, such as Big Tobacco. There’s a funny clip from the film Thank You For Smoking where a tobacco lobbyist says the same thing, that it’s in the best interest of Big Tobacco to keep their customers alive and healthy:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HC3xwlfcFM 

If Penn believes that sort of bullshit, he makes a lousy skeptic.

i would ask him to tell me a joke. that’s his profession, and what he’s really good at doing. 

sorry to be a debbie downer, but i’m sick and tired of trying to use celebrities as spokespeople for serious causes. teller doesn’t suck, but he’s no scholar, no professional who works in religious studies/issues. he’s an entertainer. and he does it well! but just like mine and yours, his opinion about any matter relating to religion is just a general one, a common one. when i want spokespeople for our cause, i want them to be experts. celebrity worship is as bad as religious worship, in my opinion. 

Funny, I am surprised that there are atheists that are also libertarians and that therefore end up supporting right wing theists for office or end up voting for people like Ron Paul (who is also a theist incidentally, at least according to his public pronouncements). 
I wonder how does it feel to have your vote and your support ultimately going to a political party that is now lock, stock and barrel in bed with fundamental Christianity.

One thing that I have to admit, is that Libertarianism is a lot more in tune with “natural Selection” as adapted to human economies and societies. However, my love for the elegance of the theory is matched only by my repulsion for what it actually means in reality. When the same principals are adapted to our society I would hope that through progress and technology we would be able to overcome its more horrible consequences.

In addition, as others have pointed out, libertarian economic theories have never been tested. One could argue that the deregulation of Wall Street in the late 90’s would have made a good test case. And look what happened: they could not help themselves and took down the world economy. 

I would think that the beginning of the industrial revolution was a good examples of what happens when you give corporation the power to shape the world.  It wasn’t pretty. A lot of progress and profit was made but the human and environmental cost was enormous.

So, no. I am not a fan of the libertarian ideals. For that matter I am also not a fan of anarchism. Neither have any basis in reality and both make a very good case on paper. 

Why reject the unsupported & falsified claims of religion, but then accept unsupported & falsified claims in politics?

Why does he believe the Global Warming is a hoax? When I asked him that question at TAM6, his reply was that “Al Gore is a lying sack of shit”, not exactly a stelalr reason, and at that point he irrevocably sunk in my esteem. 

Penn, do you retract your episode of Bullshit! where you questioned climate change and brought out the same old tired (and debunked) denialist arguments like “b-b-b-b-b-b-ut scientists said it was going to get colder in the 1970s”?

Naperville!

Really? Please do fll us with wisdom vis-a-vis libertarianism’s dogma.

No, I am not a full-on libertarian, but for you to use dogma in this is utterly ridiculous, but then again, based on previous interactions withyou you have shown a true lack of reasoning and logic.

And wait, let me save you the time….yeah yeah yeah I am a misogynist….or some other unfounded accusation because I am not with you 100 percent.

Made no statement about levels, equality, etc. Merely noted that PZ has become something of a celebrity atheist. [Take a look at his invitations, speaking engagements, etc. around the US and the world over the last eighteen months.] I think the question I asked about celebrity status overcoming the message does apply to him as well as Mr. Jillette, and to Sam Harris and others. You’re drawing inferences from my post that were not intended and cannot be supported from the post I put up.

okay, that may be what you intended, and if so, great. However, look at the quality of affairs PZ gets sent to, and for thos big ‘uns he goes to, he is playing the back-rooms and side shows of the big events.

PZ is simply not of the same caliber as Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc.. Thing is, you can just tell that galls him to no end and he is desperately scrambling to try and get that attention. He is the quintessential example of “Look at me in the pretty dress”.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=365527523508410

Actually, responsibly owning and carrying a handgun saved my life, and quite possibly my friends life. I am certain that the police officers would not have arrived before we were both stabbed. Thankfully the guy backed down and I didn’t have to shoot him.
I’m curious, have you met anyone who carries a firearm? Not all of us are paranoid rednecks.

They could also bond on the whole hating feminists thing. Bet you they could chat for hours.

Pretty much all of the questions are political. Look, I’m not a Libertarian either, but I’ll gladly invite Libertarian Atheists into the movement. The goal is to fight religion, to agree on every issue.

Wow, look at the backlash. Liberatarianism is in direct conflict with minimizing suffering? You have been listening to the liberal/conservative  rhetoric. Libertarianism simply is someone that is a social liberal and fiscal conservative. The opposite of libertarianism  is Fascism. Most of us do not say that we need to privatize everything, most of us are saying that we need to be fair.  Understand that ‘people’ like Ron Paul are not representative of the Libertarian party. Christianity is not compatible with my idea of the Libertarian party. Christianity does not want social freedom and neither do the two major political parties. The only political party that is for social freedoms is the Libertarian party. The other side of the coin is that we think you should have freedom but you should also be responsible for yourself.

A Libertarian does believe that smaller government is better. I personally think that things can be handled locally a lot more efficiently than at the national level. In other words when money is sent to Washington, less of it gets used for the intended purpose. I can’t understand how it is possible to think that the Washington fat cats have the best interests of the nation at heart. I mean one of the first things the Obama administration did when taking office was to give money to the banks so that they could gobble up smaller banks and create mega-banks that have no other purpose than to take your money. Perhaps if everyone paid there fair share of taxes AND we didn’t squander the money keeping the rich rich, maybe we would see an actual economic revival.

Personally I find it gross how much I pay in taxes so that my government can give it away to others that are better off than me. When a disabled US Veteran has to work to make ends meet and still might lose his house when people are sitting up in Washington complaining that he doesn’t pay enough tax, I have to wonder how the Democrat party is the party of compassion. 

No, I reject the hypothesis that Libertarians are not compassionate, are Christians or are swallowing dogma. You have us confused with the Republicans. I can see where the confusion came from, after all we seem to be the dumping ground for failed Republican candidates.

Sure, but what are the interesting lines of questioning with Penn? He’s not a scientist, not a philosopher, on whether homeopathy works or whether there’s a god he may have something pithy to say, but to an audience of skeptics and atheists, is there really anything new to glean there? I think not.

I see two interesting lines of questioning, one is relating to the interface of skepticism and magic/entertainment (which at least a few of us suggested questions related to), and the other is his politics and whether or not it trumps his skepticism (I think you can see on his show many examples of his ideology, or at least devotion to spectacle and entertainment, trumping a good skeptical approach.

Of these two lines of questioning, the political angle is where his disagreements are going to show up, they’re the tough questions. So you can ask the softball questions all day long, or you can ask the questions that are actually interesting. No, we’re not supposed to all agree, so why not ask him about the areas where there’s substantial disagreement instead of just asking questions whose answers will simply generate nods of agreement? 

 (why do we say” softball question”? Softballs aren’t very soft, and when a good pitcher throws one at you, it’s not easy to hit and it hurts if it hits you…) 

No one said he had no right to speak, only that we don’t care to listen. There’s a big difference.

name one major book PZ has written. Name one mainstream TV show he produced wrote or acted in. Name one MAJOR seminar he has presented to a room full of international journalists.

He isn’t even on the same level of celebrity as men who have truly acheieved. PZ= inbred stepchild to the adult and accomplished.

answer the question kitten.

I’m willing to hear what he has to say, since he’s often so entertaining, but  I obviously will think less of him for that article, just as I was deeply disappointed in Hitchens’ article about women not being humorous.  Even great minds can retain small compartments of nonsense.

I believe that science is the best descriptor of the natural world, which really is all the world there is.  Is that what you mean? Or do you mean what do I do for money?

Lets see Libertarian dogma, how about the myth that the individual motivated by self interest will always make more rational decisions than a group of individuals acting in common interest?

I may be wrong but I think that’s the fundamental myth of libertarianism. It leads to the myth that private enterprise will always perform better than governments.

I know, right!? But it has been a long day and I tire easily.

At least it wasn’t potty-humor. Going scat is the lowest form of humor out there….

I too have been in a similar situation.  When a man high out of his mind is trying to break his way into your front door it’s at least nice to have an option while you’re waiting the 10 minutes for the police to arrive.  But besides those few minutes of time, my pistol sits in the draw of my nightstand and you know what, it’s never jumped out and killed anyone.  It takes a person with malicious intent to use it for malicious purpose.

I’m an RN

I haven’t seen the ‘Bullshit’ episode on climate change, just read Penn’s quotes on the issue, and he definitely talks like a denialist. The most recent quotes I’ve seen have been from 2008-2009 where he refuses to give a straight answer about global warming, just goes on a rant about Al Gore and how he doesn’t believe in anything Al Gore says.

I’m guessing that he’s not a denialist but at the same time he doesn’t want to upset his friends at CATO. Which highlights for me the dogmatism inherent in libertarianism. Here is one of the greatest threats, challenges  to face our species and libertarianism offers no solutions.  Libertarians are reduced to obfuscation and denialism.  For the simple reason that AGW is the ‘tragedy of the commons’ writ large, a concept anathema to libertarian dogma.

“I don’t want to hear a thing [he has to say]” is not the same as “he shouldn’t be allowed to say anything ever,” which is exactly the point Gus Snarp just made.

Most atheists aren’t Libertarians for the same reason most atheists are Scientologists: breaking free of theism has made us suspicious of ALL faith-based belief systems.