Penn Jillette is No Longer A Libertarian

good to see teller talked some sense into him
- I see what you did there.

I am a PJ fan and follower, but I am well aware that he has long been a naive idiot operating from a place of priviledge. He is well insulated from the pitfalls of the ideas he espouses, and it took an UNDENIABLE COLLAPSE into straight up Nazism for him to finally grasp it.
Luv ya Penn, but I ain't giving you any fucking medals
- Yeah, but the bar is through the floor at this point. I'll take anything I can get.
  
  And the more people come out and say "oh shit I was wrong" the easier it becomes for others to do the same.

anyone who claims to be "a libertarian" should be forced to watch the libertarian convention which YOU KNOW none of them have ever seen in their lives.
check out the ideas your "party" pushes. real big brain stuff.
there's nothing wrong with freedom, but regulation is necessary. to say otherwise is either ignorance, stupidity, or malice.
- to say otherwise is either ignorance, stupidity, or malice
  Why not all three?
  
  ¿Por qué no los tres?
- I'm a libertarian because the only thing I hate worse than Democrats are MAGA Republicans - And at least unlike Democrats and Republicans, I'm well aware that my party is a joke.
  And before you criticize me, I voted Democrat against that orange wannabe dictator THREE FUCKING TIMES, grinding my teeth and swearing as I did so every time, but I still fucking did so, so spare me the lectures.
  
  People like you should work on splitting the republican party.
  And after that establish a more fair voting system that isn’t primed to stall at a two party state from the beginning.
  
  Not going to try to preach or anything, but just wondering if you've ever read this article? Excellent read that sheds some light on real libertarian experiments and how they've gone wrong:
  A Libertarian Walks into a Bear: How a New Hampshire libertarian utopia was foiled by bears
  
  I wouldn't have. I've never voted party lines.

"A lot of the illusions that I held dear, rugged individualism, individual freedoms, are coming back to bite us in the ass. It seems like getting rid of the gatekeepers gave us Trump as president, and in the same breath, in the same wind, gave us not wearing masks, and maybe gave us a huge unpleasant amount of overt racism."
Hats off to a man willing to admit he made a mistake.
- We should remember that at the time there was a severe lack of masks of any kind available. So creating a masking culture and blocking as much as possible was seen as better than just rawdogging the atmosphere.

I haven't always agreed with him politically, but Penn Jillette seems like a good dude.
- he always seemed like more of a michael badnarik libertarian than the current far right social libertarians.

Being wrong admitting it and changing your mind with new information is absolutely amazing and a great character trait. Props to him.
- Except that he lives a life of high privilege and has spent YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS saying the rest if us were wrong and immoral. It took straight up Nazism for him to back down. If Kamala were President now he would have doubled down on his philosophy

Penn Jilletet pulled me 100 % onto the vaccine train with his ball and shield demonstration with teller on their bull shit show. Until this day, I still haven't seen any demonstration that was more convincing than that on any subject in the amount of time that they used.
- That series is really more relevant than ever.
- Searched for what you mean but can't find it. Can you link it?
  
  This looks like it (searched ball and shield penn teller vaccine on Invidious/YouTube)
  https://youtube.com/watch?v=RfdZTZQvuCo

There used to be a time back when libertarianism was anti-capitalist. Then right wingers stole it and turned it into a circus.
- Long before most of us were alive yes.
- Yep, in fact the first known person to describe themselves as libertarian was anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque^[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Libertarian_socialism_(1857%E2%80%931980s))]. It was only around the 1940s in the US where it turned into a term meaning liberal.
  As a trivia note, there's a socialist caucus in the US Libertarian Party, at least when I checked a few years ago. Quote from Vermin Supreme in 2020, who takes influence from Peter Kropotkin and Situationism among others:
  [The US Libertarian Party] has a spectrum. It has a left and right spectrum going on there. I’m talking to older lefties. It’s like, “You do know they have a Libertarian Socialist Caucus. Did you know that?”. Add they’re like, “Really?”. That simple fact that the Libertarian Party has a Libertarian Socialist Caucus, just that alone tends to make people really have to reconsider what they think that the Libertarian Party is. My own campaign is causing people to take a second look at it. I’ve got a fair amount of political goodwill and capital, and certainly I’ve taken some hits for my involvement with the Libertarian Party, but I have found so many beautiful people and they are quite receptive to the concept of mutual aid.
  I do not endorse or justify that party as a whole, again, this is a trivia note.
- I think this citation on Wikipedia pinpoints the turning point. Yet another thing ruined by conservative McCarthyism?
  Russell, Dean (1955). "Who is a libertarian?". Foundation for Economic Education. Archived from the original on 28 November 2019. Retrieved 28 November 2019.
  Many of us call ourselves 'liberals.' And it is true that the word 'liberal' once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian'.

I got to meet him in Vegas. He was really nice to a nervous nerd. Now I’m even more impressed he has the courage to change his beliefs in public.
- A sign of true intelligence is the ability to change your opinions after consideration and evidence. Penn always struck me as a very intelligent man.
- I used to practically idolize Penn and Teller and had all their books and STILL use their card-forces and other goofy, effective performances with friends. It made me a legend with friends and family.
  I lost track in adulthood but am glad to see that Penn didn't turn into a grifting chud like so many from the time, and practiced what he preached in using critical thought and self-examination.
- Yeah, they're really nice guys. I got to go up on stage for one of their shows and participate in a trick. We went to a lot of shows on that trip (seven, i think?), they were the only ones that stand outside the exit and greet ever person leaving that wants to meet them. They sign autographs, take pictures, etc. with hundreds of people after each show. And they stopped to talk to my friend and I for a couple minutes as we left and Penn thanked me for participating and let me keep a prop from the act as a souvenir. Great dudes.
  The souvenir is a good example of the libertarian aspects of their show. It was a metal card with the bill of rights on it, with the 4th amendment (the freedom from unwarranted search and seisure) highlighted in red. The premise was you should put it in your pocket when walking through the metal detectors or scanners at TSA at the airport. When the machines go off and they question you about out it, you were meant to pull it out and snarkily go "oh sorry, that's just my bill of rights". It was a good for a bit of a laugh in theory, but way too obnoxious to actually do in real life. I packed it away in my carry-on instead. I still have it in a keepsake box somewhere.

Penn Gilette has always seemed to be driven by a level of honesty and compassion and valued the freedom to choose where to direct that compassion. I think earlier on he viewed other libertarians as having the same level of honest compassion as he does but over time it's become more and more clear that libertarians are overwhelmingly selfish rich white guys who don't want to be called Repuiblicans.
I mean in the early 2000s he was calling bullshit on the hysteria over the vaccine autism link saying the alternative of kids dying to preventable diseases is so much worse. He even gave the tenuous link a benefit of the doubt and accepted that even if they did cause autism,t he alternative is so much worse.
- There aren't many people who are willing to evaluate their entire political decisions and come to the conclusion that they were wrong. Even fewer who will admit it publicly. Even fewer still who will accept responsibility and then do something about it.
  Of the people I have respectfully disagreed with, the fact that he's come around is a huge testament to his willingness to be humbled and corrected.
  
  There aren't many people who are willing to evaluate their entire political decisions and come to the conclusion that they were wrong
  I doubt that his ideology actually changed much, but instead he just realized that the Libertarian Party didn't actually match it like they claimed to do.
- he viewed other libertarians as having the same level of honest compassion as he does but over time it’s become more and more clear that libertarians are overwhelmingly selfish rich white guys who don’t want to be called Repuiblicans
  I had a similar progression myself when I was in my teens, maybe even early 20s.
  The basic principle of libertarianism is appealing: mind your own damn business and I'll mind mine. And I still agree with that in general — it's just that a single generality does not make a complete worldview. It took me a while to realize how common it is for self-identifying libertarians to lack any capacity for nuance. The natural extreme of "libertarianism" is just anarchy and feudalism.
  In a sane world, I might still call myself a libertarian. In a sane world, that might mean letting people live their own damn lives, not throwing them to the wolves (or more literally, bears ) and dismantling the government entirely.
  I'm all for minding my own business, but I also acknowledge that maintaining a functional society is everybody's business (as much as I occasionally wish I could opt out and go live in a cave).
  
  One problem with libertarianism and the other selfish philosophies is that humanity absolutely cannot survive at all without a massive amount of cooperation.
  Assholes who think they can do it on their own are completely delusional.
  If you eliminate everything from your life that required the cooperation of another human being, it's likely you're naked, starving, and freezing to death.
  "Oh, I can hunt for food.'
  Really? With just your bare hands? Maybe your naked ass will get lucky and nail a squirrel with a rock, but what are you going to do when a mountain lion decides you're the squirrel?
  Even if you manage to make some rock tools and weapons, you didn't figure that out on your own. Someone told you about it.
  Knowledge is the biggest advantage humans have going for them. Without sharing knowledge that others discovered, most people wouldn't last long enough to matter.
  
  The core political belief I hold is that so long as you are not directly harming someone else, you should be free to do that. That said, I have a lot built up on that.
  I do not extend it to corporations or government. I believe that regulation is undoubtedly necessary for a functioning society.
  And with laws, nuance is in everything. Nothing is ever so black and white to have a zero tolerance policy.
  
  The basic principle of libertarianism is appealing: mind your own damn business and I'll mind mine. And I still agree with that in general — it's just that a single generality does not make a complete worldview
  The problem is obviously that nobody lives in isolation. Everyone takes actions which impact other people.
  If there are going to be laws, then the government needs a police force and a judiciary that are big enough to enforce those laws. If there are going to be companies, the government has to be bigger than the biggest company, otherwise it won't be able to effectively enforce anything. The bigger the biggest company gets, the bigger the government has to be in order to be able to enforce the laws. But, big government is antithetical to the libertarian philosophy. If you want to limit the size of the government but still want government to be able to enforce laws, you need to limit the size of companies. But that's a regulation, and government regulations are antithetical to the ideas of libertarianism.
  Arguing for the idea that the government should generally let people mind their own business as long as nobody is getting hurt, or that consenting adults are knowingly and willingly consenting to being hurt, that's fine. Same with the idea that regulations shouldn't be overly burdensome. There's always going to have to be a line drawn somewhere, but it's fine if you tend to want that line to be drawn in a way that allows for more freedom vs. more babysitting by the government.
  The ridiculous bit is when libertarians try to argue that some extreme form of libertarianism is possible. Anarchy is certainly possible, but it isn't something that most people, even libertarians, think is a great plan.
  
  You might consider Anarchism ironically. It's leftist libertarian basically, and is not "no government." It's about removing hierarchy, which destroys freedoms of people.
  I used to call myself a Libertarian too, and I eventually ended up on Anarchism.
- The libertarian party used to be considerably different as well. It certainly became something different entirely around 2012-2016.
  
  All the Koch sucking the party did.
- Yeah, I don't have any problem with libertarianism in theory. Pro-civil liberties, anti-racism, anti-war, pro-choice, pro-guns, free markets, etc. I disagree with the value of some of it, but I can see why someone might thoughtfully and sincerely come to that sort of rationale. I've never really had a problem with Penn's (and Teller's) views because of that.
  But the reality is that the majority of modern libertarians are just narcissist capitalists that do not like rules or laws that restrict them from doing anything they want. That or, way worse, they're Ayn Rand ideologues who genuinely believe that self-service is a moral imperative, charity is immoral, poverty is personal failure, human life is measured in productivity, and the sick, poor, or malformed should be left to whatever fate the market gives them. Those types are some of the worst people on the planet. They see a wealthy capitalist as inherently a leader and role model and think he should be unconstrained from accumulating more wealth without concern for society, employees, or individual rights. We're living in the light version of their ideal, and it gets closer to that ideal every day.
- Agreed. If right-libertarianism could work at all, they'd need to be on the frontlines of boycotting companies that do bad things.
  They claim that the government doesn't need to force desegregated lunch counters; people would stop eating there until that place either changed or went out of business. Alright. Are they going to be the first ones to stand up and boycott companies that do anything like that? Because from what I saw, they were the first ones to say "they technically have a right to do that" and then do nothing. Almost like letting them get away with it was the actual point.
  Gilette seems to have caught on to this trick at some point.
  
  I feel the same with Unions and the broader Right. Like the whole point of Unions is they're the "free market" equivalent of government regulation. If you're pro free market but anti-union, then you're not actually pro free market, you're just pro exploitation.
  
  They don't just think companies have the right to do that. They also think companies have a right to create restrictions that prevent you from doing anything. If you go to a protest you may be fired, for example. It creates a situation where the ruling class can prevent dissent because you need food, water, and shelter at minimum, and they can take that away if you are a dissident.
- When I was younger I called myself a libertarian. This was progression from a somewhat conservative family, with my ideal that people should be left to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm others. I eventually progressed towards a leftist mindset and now consider myself an anarchist. Same idea, except libertarians mostly want no protections and are pro-hierachy, which leads to a lack of freedom not more freedom. If companies are free to do what they want they will use their position to remove the freedom of workers to make choices freely, for example.
  I still hold most of the same ideals as I did then, as I'm sure Penn Jillette probably does too. I just have a better view of the consequences of the policies that they push for.
  
  Edit: reread this and it comes off as accuaation. Im not accuijng you, just typed the thing in second person.
  Often l have found that libertarians aren't so much pro hierarchy, so much as blind to the role they play in the existing heirarchy.
  It seems common to not turn a critical eye to yourself to see where you actually fit into the scene of things, and missing that you are in fact doing harm yo others by being ignorant of the impact of your actions is super on brand.
  Libertarianism always felt like 2/3s of the way there, where the only remaining domino is to recognize "wealth is a thing I have because of circumstance... If someone else had this wealth, what would they do with it, and if they had Elon Musk billions what would that look like?"

"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative" - John Stuart Mill

The smartest people in the room are those who are willing to admit a mistake, or that their opinions have changed.
- The wisest people in the room will be able to do that, but I don't think you have to have had different/the wrong opinion to have that status. The wisest people listen, consider, and use all available information to make the best possible decisions.
  
  Wise is definitely the better word to use here.
- Reminds me of an anecdote about Robert Kennedy Sr. He was approached by a reporter on the campaign trail that asked him his stance on capital punishment.
  "I'm against it," Kennedy told the reporter.
  “When you were at the Justice Department, that wasn’t your position.”
  Kennedy replied, "That was before I read Camus."
  
  Our media now rails on politicians "flip flopping" if their opinion is different than it was in the past. I always get angry when I hear them say that because, to me, it's a good thing. I want someone who has new experiences and changes their opinions with that. I don't want someone who learns something and dismisses any information they gained because it doesn't match their current beliefs.
- That explains why selling "sticking to your principles" and "tradition" go so easily for politicians.
  Most people are thick as a pail of pigshit.

Self awareness is such a precious thing in people but it is a prerequisite for this type of personal growth. It can be difficult but ultimately it is rewarding and fulfilling to realise there are things that you don't like about yourself and set about correcting them.

I've always considered myself a libertarian, but I'm coming to realize I need to find another word. I used to be able to explain that assholes were ruining the name, but now the assholes outnumber people like me by too much.
I think the real turning point was when Jo Jorgensen said, "It is not enough to be passively not racist, we must be actively anti-racist," and then she had to walk it back because the libertarian party was so fucking racist. Like, that's not even a political statement. It's a moral one, and it's one I agree with.
Then when the Libertarian Party changed their stance on abortion, I was done with them. I clung to the lowercase L label, but at this point it doesn't seem worth it anymore.
I just think the government should be limited to things that only the government can handle. Policing? Roads? Business regulations? Those are all things that can only be handled by the government. Restrictions on what kind of stove I can buy? Restrictions on what I can put in my body or how I dress or what my kids can read at school? Those are all bullshit.
I guess it helps that I align with Democrats on most of the major issues now, but I still won't consider myself a Democrat.
- Stoves are a great example of why the richest among us want to push libertarianism. You see the freedom to buy a gas stove. They see the freedom to make products that are one penny cheaper but kill their users.
  Libertarianism and anarchism in general fail to account for sociopaths who are willing to make others suffer for their own gain.
  
  Libertarianism and anarchism in general fail to account for sociopaths who are willing to make others suffer for their own gain.
  Yeah this is the main thing keeping me from adopting anarchism in any meaningful way... I like the concept of mutual aid, but I think anarchism itself relies too heavily on the idea that all people are inherently good. I think that the events of the past decade or so have eliminated all doubt for me that this isn't the case.
  
  Stoves that kill their users should be a violation of the Harm principle. If this isn't hyperbole then please provide a link to libertarians advocating this — I'm curious to see if/how they've carved an exception or otherwise addressed it or weaseled out of it; please link.
  
  Anarchism accounts for them just fine. The solution is to kick them out of society.
  It's just a damn shame that we've all proven to be cowards and unwilling to do it.
- Conservatives didn't ruin libertarianism. Libertarianism has always been bad.
  Restrictions on what kind of stove I can buy?
  Stuff like this is a perfect example of the issues with libertarian ideology. They want freedom to continue to destroy the environment.
  
  I don't want to destroy the environment. I just like cooking. Surely there are solutions that allow me to still have a nice stove.
- Libertarianism is just Conservative Lite. They do t want to look like they are associated with the crazy Ultra-Right but still want to participate.
  
  That's not the case for me.
- I’ve always considered myself a libertarian, but I’m coming to realize I need to find another word.
  Other libertarian here. Let me know when you find one.
  Then when the Libertarian Party changed their stance on abortion, I was done with them.
  Oh, that enraged me. How the hell can these mother fuckers claim to be against big government when they support the government literally policing people's bodies?
  I guess it helps that I align with Democrats on most of the major issues now, but I still won’t consider myself a Democrat.
  Same here. Democrats spent too many years telling me I'm "toxic" and "privileged" and treating me as if I'm a problem to be dealt with rather than a human being, plus let's face it, they're fucking pussies with no spine who will never grow balls big enough to stand up to Trump in any meaningful way. The ONLY reason I voted Democrat the last three Presidential elections was because Trump and MAGA were obviously worse.
- That was pretty much my story until a few years ago, but once I moved past the 'us vs them' paradigm, I switched. I'm a Democrat now
- I don't really identify with parties. I just tell people I'm "me".
  
  "I'm not a member of any organized political party; I'm a Democrat."
- I just think the government should be limited to things that only the government can handle.... Business regulations? Those are all things that can only be handled by the government. Restrictions on what kind of stove I can buy? ....Those are all bullshit.
  So the government should be able to regulate what businesses can do, but not what businesses are allowed to sell? Seems legit.

- I mean, libertarianism in essence, arrived at purely through your own reasoning, is pretty based. Every person should be free to do as they please right up until it infringes on their neighbors' own similar freedom; the government should be limited in scope to services which uphold that goal.
  In practice, its proponents are either selfish pricks who think libertarianism means they specifically get to do whatever they want, or they wind up reinventing the government with Citizen Advocacy Boards and such.
  The principle is valid, the company is pretty cringe tho.
  
  It's that line of "infringing on the freedom of others". If you think it's the government role to free people of their oppressive burdens (e.g. free them from poverty, free them from ill-heath) then concentration of wealth is "infringing on the freedoms of others". So it needs to be regulated against.
  
  Somewhat ironically, we can see virtual libertarianism/Anarcho capitalism evolve by following EVE online: Some of the larger player corporations became de facto states
  
  Right, that's exactly the problem I have with most people who call themselves libertarian. In a nutshell, they truly believe that we all should get to do whatever we want, as long as it doesn't affect others. Except, everything we do affects other people. Some of the ways are profound, and some are trivial. The libertarian-type people are so selfish, or solipsistic, they think that only their own judgement applies whether the effect infringes freedom it not.
  We see that with vaccines: The government shouldn't mandate what they put in their bodies. That's infringes freedom. But they're more than happy to spread virus into other people's bodies, and if immuno-compromised people think that it's hurting them, too bad. Or the libertarian types think that they should be allowed to drive the biggest brodozer available, because it doesn't affect anybody else, and the freedom of other people who get hit and crushed under the wheels, the other drivers blinded by eye-level headlights, or the taxpayers who have to subsidize more free parking space and street maintenance, doesn't matter.
  It's always the same pattern: Anything that stops me from doing what I want is an unreasonable infringement of freedom, and any effects I have on other people are just the reality of living in society and they should suck it up.
  
  It's good to remind people that the term "libertarianism" ("Libertaire") was coined by French anarcho-communists in the 1850s when the French government outlawed speech advocating anarchism specifically by name, and that for a full century is was used by anarchists throughout the western world to refer specifically to non-hierarchical modes of socialism and communism, ideologies that are founded on concepts like mutual aid, social solidarity, worker's control, anti-authoritarianism, etc. It wasn't until the 1950s when the American Murray Rothbard colonized the term to advocate for the exact opposite in an attempt to obfuscate the inseparable relationship between capitalism and the state. His attempt worked.
  Ideologically I'm a true believer in communalism, a sociopolticial practice that is not quite anarchist and therefore is best described as a "libertarian socialist" tendency. But thanks to that ancap rat bastard Rothbard that description does not aid in helping most people to understand me.
  
  I think it's cool if you take it far enough for it to become anarchism, but if there's still property it just becomes an excuse for exploitation.
  
  Libertarian socialism with democracy in the workplace woud be a better alterantive that libertarian capitalism ... we're just stuck in the end of history way of thinking that people cant grasp life without capitalism
- I feel smart because I met Penn in his dressing room in Vegas few years back and discussed Gary Johnson's running for President. But I came to my senses years ago...
- LMAO I'm a libertarian who fully realizes that my party is bullshit.
  I mean, Democrats and Republicans are both total bullshit too, but at least I'm self-aware enough to know my party is bullshit.

Cool to see the meme applied to someone who genuinely went to clown college!
- I'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way.
  
  Eh, Princeton WISHES it were as effective and useful as Clown College
  
  Sorry, I thought he went to Princeton-Plainsboro.

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
John Kenneth Galbraith
I think Penn went there with a different mindset than those occupying the space now.
- Galbraith wrote one of my favorite books!
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Affluent_Society

As a big fan of P&T, this is a major win.
Not to mention the veganism which is also closely related to rejecting fascism.
https://vegnews.com/magician-penn-jillette-goes-vegan-for-the-animals
(Full disclosure: I saw an interview where Penn says he went vegan for health and weight loss. But maybe he's evolved to animal liberation as well.)
- Not to mention the veganism which is also closely related to rejecting fascism.
  I mean...
  Technically a vegan did shoot hitler in the head that lead to the end of WW2...
  But that's a weird way to say hitler was a vegan.
  
  Hitler wasn’t a vegan. He ate eggs and dairy products, according to his doctor.
  
  Vegetarian* FTFY
- it's gives me hope to see this. i made a career change recently from one that's so utterly dominated by libertarians like this meme that it's costed me jobs and inflicted trauma upon my psyche.
  i've also been trying to drop the carnist behavior that i learned as a child; and also for health & weight loss goals; and learning that someone with a high profile that's familiar to me, has done it successfully is helpful; thanks for sharing this.
  
  Hey, you got this. Meatlessness is a difficult switch but once you get recipes and habits built up it gets easier. At this point meat doesn't smell like food to me and while there are things I miss, it's not like I worried it would be when I started
- IMO petrochemical textiles are a way bigger moral and existential problem than wool or even leather, so while there are many genuine concerns with the livestock industry I cannot support "full" veganism. We might get there eventually with biodegradable plastics but we aren't there now.
- Didn’t know he was vegan. Weren’t they both guests at the chefs table on Hell’s Kitchen recently? Do they make anything vegan on that show?

Another massive W for Thought, the chief glory of mankind.

I considered myself a Libertarian for a few years. I was a disillusioned Republican during the George Bush days and Libertarianism really grew on me. I voted for Gary Johnson twice.
As I became more concerned about climate change, I could not see a viable Libertarian solution to it. Private business is more than happy to keep chugging away with fossil fuels until it's far too late.
For Libertarianism to work, these same private businesses need to do the right thing voluntarily. In Atlas Shrugged, those businessmen and women are doing what is right for their business and it just so happens to be what is right for everyone else, that isn't always the case. All too often, what is right for business goes against what is right for society. Once I realized this, everything unraveled for me.
So anyway, here I am, years later, voting for Democrats because I've got no other option as the GOP became more and more insane since I left.
- Anyone who is a libertarian is unfamiliar with game theory. Some problems happen when individual people act in their own self-interest, but the collective outcome is harmful. Climate change is a prime example.
  
  It seems to me like American libertarianism isn't truly libertarianism - its focus is on freedom for capitalists, not freedom for people (corporations are not people). In theory, libertarianism is guided by the principal of non-aggression. Passing laws to fight climate change does not violate the principal of non-aggression, despite what the capitalists claim.
  
  Or they're so used to their privilege that they don't understand how protected they are by society.
  
  American Libertarians have no experience dealing with other people and are incredibly naive. At least one customer service job would be very horizon-broadening for them.
- As I became more concerned about climate change, I could not see a viable Libertarian solution to it.
  The libertarian solution to climate change would involve privatizing the commons: sell off the atmosphere to some private entity which would then issue licenses for emitting, have standing to sue unlicensed polluters for violating its property rights, etc.
  In other words, basically cap & trade but with a for-profit corporation in charge instead of the government, for no good reason.
  At least, that'd be the theory. In reality, that's how you get Spaceballs.
- Libertarianism also was my first stop out of my childhood religious right upbringing. I still tend to see issues from a libertarian framing -- i.e., if it's not hurting anybody why should the government care? -- but most US libertarians seem weirdly fixated on ideas like "why can't I dump 5,000 gallons of hydrofluoric acid into a hole in the ground if the hole is on my own property?" or "why shouldn't I be allowed to enter into a contract with somebody that allows me to hunt them for sport?" or especially "why can't I have sex with a minor if they say it's OK?", where there's really obvious personal and societal harms involved and the only way that you can think otherwise is if you've engaged in some serious motivated reasoning.
  Whereas my thinking these days is more like, "who does it hurt if somebody decides to change their outward appearance to match how they feel inside?" and the like -- i.e., the right to personal autonomy and free expression, rather than the right to do whatever I want to others as long as I can somehow coerce them into agreeing to it. I don't have much patience for the anarchist side of left-libertarianism -- in my experience you need robust systems in place to keep bad actors from running amok, and a state without a monopoly on violence is simply ceding that monopoly to whoever wants to take it up for their own ends -- but that starting point of libertarian thought, that people sold be free in their choices until those choices run up against somebody else's freedoms -- is still fundamentally valid.
- I always say it's not crazy to become a Libertarian as much as it is to remain one. It just astounds me that anyone could debate those positions for a length of time without starting to realize how tenuous most of them are.
- The problem with Communism is that if requires non greedy people.
  The problem with Libertarianism is that it requires non greedy rich people.
  
  Exactly. We're nothing but monkeys in trousers. We have a lot of evolving yet to do, psychologically speaking.
- Disclaimer: I support pigouvian taxes on greenhouse gas emissions.
  Long ago, one libertarian solution to climate change was insurance. So you'd buy disaster insurance for your house, then the insurer would bet that pollution would go up. This creates a financial incentive to reduce emissions. Best case scenario, your insurance payments are a slight reimbursement for a voluntary reduction. Worst case scenario, your insurance payments essentially bribe their workers to sabotage.
  However, the Coase Theorem says this only works while transaction costs are low. And you'd need long-term contracts that aren't realistic with today's interest rates. So it would take decades to establish the financial infrastructure necessary.
- Genuine question: why do you care about climate change if you would be dead by then?
  
  ... It's happening right now bro. You're alive right now, and we're having extreme weather events right now.
  Climate change isn't a point in which either before that point nothing happens and after that point something bad happens, instead as we continue with bad practices, things get continually worse.
  We're having extreme heat, right now. Places with longer hurricane seasons, or where hurricanes are now way worse, etc. And things can still worsen.
  What you seem to be saying is that, you don't care about your future and minimizing future issues, but also don't care about any family or friends that you have. Society has done so much, that here you are born, with Internet access to a federated app, electricity, many of life's privileges compared to our ancestors, people now and in the future would appreciate what help you can provide now.
  
  Genuine question: why do you care about climate change if you would be dead by then?
  Empathy, or caring about how other people are affected, even if it doesn't affect you personally. Empathy is normal and healthy.
  Better question is, why are 60+yo Capitalists who already have more wealth than they could possibly spend before they die, so desperate to hold and collect even more wealth?
  
  "Why should I care about other people?" is a question that comes up a lot, and I am deeply suspicious of people who don't care about others.
  
  Because "A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit" - Greek proverb
  If we don't cover the things that our children (or nieces/nephews) will benefit from, no one else will. There are no adults in the room. It's just us.
  
  ...do you not care?
  
  I'm sorry to see downvotes on a genuine question. From a libertarian point of view, the question is very valid.

Libertarianism is just a way to soft-sell Totalitarian Plutocracy.
- I was about to say "letting the rich fuck us in the ass without even the courtesy of a reacharound" but your answer is more acceptable in polite society.
- Now, now, they also weaponized it to siphon off democratic votes BEFORE they started pushing the current Totalitarian Plutocracy.
  It can do two things!

I got turned towards Libertanianism when I lived in Germany for a while and if you ever had you'd know why. Then I lived in Asia where it's the exact opposite and that turned me towards socialism. My point being is that there's definitely a golden mean to freedoms and any absolutist should be immediately ignored because they are objectively wrong.
- I got turned towards Libertanianism when I lived in Germany for a while and if you ever had you'd know why.
  Living in Germany rn. I don't get it? Can you please explain?
  
  Not OP and couldn't see myself moving towards Libertarianism, but I can kinda see where OP is coming from. Germany does have a huge amount of regulations for almost everything. A lot of projects take far too long because there are so so many rules and laws to be considered. People working in administration got so used to that, that they tend to avoid responsibilities and hide behind rules and regulations (saying this as someone working in administration, trying to establish better digital processes, which tends to be quite frustrating). On an individual level, everything (except the Autobahn without its speed limit) is always made, so even the biggest idiot can't hurt himself. Sometimes that ruins the fun for everyone else...
  
  It's just Kafka-esque bureaucracy of everything. It's almost impossible to get anything done and it's incredibly demotivating.
- Maybe I'm oversimplifying but I tend to think money is the problem. Supposing all wealth were equally distributed, libertarianism makes a lot of sense to me as maximizing personal freedoms. It generally becomes a problem when people use wealth to abuse others, either by hoarding wealth and restricting the freedom of others that way, or by using inequality to purchase things that no person should be able to purchase.
  
  Another thing to keep in mind is that libertarianism wants everyone to focus on the individual, when society itself is an organized group that looks toward the collective (ideally, anyway)
  Without guardrails or penalties for being caught, people that abuse the system will hoard wealth and power until they can call the shots
  
  These thought experiments are fun and truthful and all but I really dont see much value in this speculation tbh. In my 40something years in different cultures I've became a staunch believer in Golden Mean of politics. Use the right tool for the right job. Times are good - work on more fteedoms, times are harder - maybe it's time to tighten up the belts.
- I can certainly second this as an American who emigrated to Germany. I considered myself a strong "Bernie-leftist" in the States yet gravitate more towards the political center here.

I mean, good. Because F libertarians.
- As a libertarian, I will also say fuck libertarians. Seriously, don't vote for us. Our party is a fucking joke and many of us are wacky nutjobs.

I found Libertarianism sorta interesting in the 90's, but after school shootings became the norm, and they decided they still support absolute gun rights, I had to nope out. It's only gotten nuttier since.
- Ron Paul got me interested with the proposal to legalize weed; noped out when I learned Libertarians also believe that businesses should not be regulated at all.
  I don't know how you can claim to have progressive social ideas while letting corporations cause harm by not setting rules they must follow.
  
  I was a very serious libertarian in my youth. I grew up deep in red country. I had no positive intellectual influences in my life whatsoever. It was Christians versus everyone else. I was the only atheist I knew.
  The best friend I have ever had in my life was college educated, deeply intelligent, deeply flawed, but a very beautiful, loving, and brilliant person. He was the only atheist I had ever met. I was 18 years old, he was 15 years my senior.
  He introduced me to all of the objectivist/libertarian thinkers and their works. I had never had anyone in my life who had any kind of serious intellectual interests. He gave me a place to start when I wouldn’t have otherwise had one.
  I went all in.
  It’s funny, because he told me when I was 20 years old. “I promise you, 20 years from now you and I are going to have a conversation and you will have become a bleeding heart liberal, 100%. I promise you. I can tell by the way you think about almost everything.”
  He was right. It’s funny because he is as liberal as I am today. His son and my daughter are very close, very political, and very gay. They’ve moved the needle for him big time, I think.
  For me, the moment that put me on this road was a very simple one. I was driving to work one day and I stopped at a red light. I seen this man struggling to walk, his right foot was turned around backwards. It just hit me like a ton of bricks, we are not on an even playing field at all. This man cannot help that his foot is on backwards. I can’t help if I’m dumber or smarter than the next guy. I can’t help what opportunities I have or have not had. I can’t help my bad luck or my good luck. It isn’t my fault that my dad is a junkie and doors are closed to me that are open to people with connections that I don’t have.
  Why do two brothers from the same family with the same moral upbringing take such radically different paths? One becomes a junkie and the other becomes a preacher. Is there something beyond our control that guides us? If there is, should we not look out for one another? Should those of us at an advantage help those of us at a disadvantage? Surely we can’t leave them to die.
  It was Bernie Sanders who finally flipped me completely.
  Someone who was passionately empathetic, who was guided by the thought that we as a species can be better. It was before he ran for president, just some videos I seen of him on YouTube.
  Most libertarians I have known are good people. They believe deeply in individualism, to the point that as long as any individual is living a life that brings harm to no one else, that person should be free to live how they choose.
  The problem is, they idolize success, and fail to see how a successful person takes advantage of everyone else to get there.
  When I meet a libertarian now, I trust that person. Maybe it’s because I shared that view so deeply at one point, but they all really do mean well. The ones that I have known have been very idealistic and believed that people would choose to do good for goodness sake.
  Obviously, some very shitty people can grab onto any ideology, but anecdotally, the ones that I have met are just misguided and most of the socially liberal libertarians I knew when I was younger are now very progressive people.
  
  Libertarians also believe that businesses should not be regulated at all.
  Yup. It's insanity.
- Libertarianisn has always been nutty.
  You've just grown as a person and are more easily able to identify it now, than you were back then.
- Yeah, the reaction to Sandy Hook was what broke my illusions about libertarianism. And like the loose thread on a sweater it began unraveling the entire political philosophy. I saw how self centered and egotistical the entire belief system behind it really was.
- Once I got past the "college student w/ first mustache" phase it lost its appeal.

South Park guys too.
Politics so bad, you made the comedians who were mocking both sides in the 2000s apologize.
- South Park guys too.
  Source?
  
  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8653070/

Has he thoroughly rejected his former arguments about secondhand smoke? Wasn’t there an entire episode of BS! that claimed that secondhand smoke was essentially harmless, and bans on it were government overreach and hysteria?
I think there’s a clip of him talking about it somewhere that I saw on an episode of Knowing Better, but it was really mealy mouthed. I watched that show obsessively in high school and even then thought that was odd.
- For what it's worth, here's a 12 year old video where he walks it back a little.
  https://youtube.com/watch?v=3s8yqj3EL7A
- Smoking is interesting. Most of the direct harm from smoking comes from the radioactive lead and polonium that the tobacco absorbs from the soil.
  Not that other parts of inhaling burning hot smoke aren't damaging, but the worst of it are those radioisotopes.
  I don't know how much of that shit is deposited vs exhaled, and would need to see studies on it. But there's a laundry list of other harmful shit in cigarette smoke.

Libertarianism is pleasure worship.
- Slaanesh approves of this message.

Cool

He's a true man of reason and rationality. I respect Penn for that!
- Well, eventually.

Penn Jillette is one of my favorite people to just listen to talk.
He has softened a lot over the years from the loud and in your face personality he was and talks a lot about some of his bad takes or moments in his career that we would play differently today.
He may just be a fucking juggler but sometimes he has cool shit to say :)
- Penn is great but Teller is more fun to listen to....
  No really, have you watched Tim's Vermeer?
  
  He also has speaking roles in Big Bang Theory. I want to say... Amy's dad? I can't remember
  
  I have not watched it. I will check that out. Thank you!
- "Penn Jillette is one of my favorite people to just listen to talk."
  I've listened to his podcast since it started. He's hilarious and has some of the best stories ever

We need to start sending the youths to the last bastion of American education.
This clown school graduate is walking circles around the Harvard and Yale doctorates.

I’d like to see them do an updated Bullshit series. They really lampooned veganism at the time when I was on the fence about it, and even then I knew they weren’t giving it a fair argument.
- IIRC they never did anything specifically on veganism. They have attacked various diet fads and in particular (S07E06) the organic food hype. They definitely picked on that guy who was getting in peoples' faces about raw-food-only, but to be fair that guy was also acting like a prick. In the episode on PETA, Penn repeatedly comments on "skinny vegetarians," but also consistently represents himself as a "fat [carnivore] fuck," so there's that.
  It's been many years since I watched the entire show, so maybe there's a bit I don't remember. But they definitely did not do an episode devoted to it.
- I enjoyed the series, and rewatched it recently but I did disagree on several episodes/topics.
  I'd love to see a new series though.

I still think the word libertarian should be reclaimed by the left. Fuck the ancaps who took it. Westerners are too scared of it, despite it originally meaning a socialist. Places where white peopl aren't the majority have no issue with the word. My Filipino family understand that liberty is just another word for freedom, but think socialism is just state communism. Socialists will never win against capitalist propaganda without violence. Too many people hate anarchists and "socialists" but are not at all afraid of the principles of anarchist socialism. It needs better branding, and the word libertarians was literally designed for that. And the ignorant western liberals believed them and hate the word libertarian because of it instead of being educated.
- I agree with you but it's just difficult when you have groups like Libertarians of NH posting this shit
  
  Ugh. New Hampshire once again proves they are the worst of New England, by a huge margin!
  
  Trust me I'm very well aware of the libertarian party and its various caucuses etc. They're part of the problem.
  I still think the root word of liberty has meaning to Americans that can make it easy to grasp anarchist socialism, even if they don't fully buy in to the anarchist part. As long as Americans don't associate it with communism or socialism they can often buy socialist anarchist ideas. It's stupid, but it is what it is
- It's funny, because in Europe we classify liberals as right wing too.
  Over here, Liberals are the people who want liberal economic policies, meaning less rules for the rich. Our left wing are socialdemocratic, with liberal social policies (meaning freedom to live how you want)
  In America, they call their left wing liberals, because they are scared of socialism and just the thought of people getting to decide how to live their own lives are semi-radical.
  For so many years the American left wing has only been focusing on social issues, while neglecting the more important stuff like healthcare, education, workers rights and affordable housing.
  I get wanting to fight for acceptance for all, but its just distractions man. And as soon as gays became accepted, trans people became the new out group. The fascists will always create a perceived enemy that normal people have to defend.
  You can fight for their rights without letting it take focus away from the oligarchs trying to fuck everyone.
  
  Yup.
  Although I would definitely argue that "Liberal" probably IS more accurate for what the American left is. Even going back to bush era republicans... we as a country tend to be right of center. With the American Left being fairly center-right/center-left and still prioritizing liberal politics to protect donors.
  The left/right distinction is just one axis and makes all these discussions complicated (hence the confusion over where anarchy and libertarianism actually falls or the belief that socialism/communism is fundamentally left wing). But it is also important for people to realize that overton windows actually are very important to understand when discussing regional politics.
  
  Which is funny because to me it’s very clear liberal philosophy is leftist. Rawls being more modern liberal is basically distributionist. Classically Rousseau and even Smith were definitely not neoliberal.
  I think the right hijacked liberal just like they did with libertarian, but in this case they did it wrong. The left needs liberalism or else they go the way of Stalin and Mao, they need core principles that they don’t sway from even for revolutionary ends such as justice, rule of law, freedom of speech, etc. The Marxist immoralism gave them far too much freedom to be opportunists in their principles basing them literally on material conditions rather than principles like rights and freedoms. As I often say, what revolution is worth anything without principles? If it was just scientific necessity, who would care to do the work?
- As an Anarcho-Syndicalist I am far more of a Libertarian than the average US "Libertarian". However I mostly would rather use the word Anarchist due to wanting to absolish all coercion. At the same time "left-libertarian" works, hopefully one day actural Libertarians wont need to differentiate as leftist just as Anarchists dont need to.
  
  How in the world would one abolish all coercion? That seems a basic fact of human nature. People will always try to influence others.
- There's libertarian socialism. And anarcho-syndicalism. I'm small government on weed but big government on preventing pollution. Pollution violates the non aggression pact but what's left of libertarians don't see it that way.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism
- Left libertarians and right libertarians are both separate real things and they don't agree on everything at all. It keeps them from gaining traction which our two uniparties appreciate because it keeps them in power. I'm anti-authoritarian so I dislike both parties for different reasons. Many libertarians describe themselves as classic liberals, saying "the party left me" but we've never had leadership that reflected either right or left libertarians whatsoever. Although I'm anti-authoritarian, I don't consider myself libertarian. It's too full of abuses like wanting child labor and approval of sex with minors that enables child sex trafficking. And complete removal of any regulation. The US has too much regulation, but there is good regulation.
- I actually think the newer meanings is more accurate. Libertarian is now distinguished from anarchism by the presence of a limited government. That’s a necessary distinction. But what should that government do? Right libertarians say defend property rights, Left libertarians would say things like organize production.
  
  The problem is liberals don't even grasp the concept of a left libertarian. It's an oxymoron to a liberal. They immediately assume you're a right winger unfortunately in America at least. Then you have to just say you're a socialist and then they think you want to put them in the gulags. Then you say well I'm the anarchist kind and then they think you're going to kill them for liking money or something.
  My primary complaint is liberals believe the right when the right try to say what libertarian means, and I think liberals should instead be educated on the word but they are often can't be convinced , and it's often too much energy to even try.
  (I'm including the modern liberal and conservative in that definition of liberal).
- You... should really educate yourself on what libertarianism actually is. Just because the root word "liberty" is in there does not mean it is a socialist concept.
  In fact, libertarianism is kind of anti-socialism as one of the founding principles is individual autonomy. That is in direct opposition to the idea of social ownership of the means of production.
  Ironically, you are highlighting what led to a LOT of people self identifying as libertarians in the early 00s. You hear a word that sounds nice to you and figure that must be a good thing. When it is actually in direct opposition to your implied claim of being pro-socialism.
  Now, I COULD go on a long rant about how the vast majority of modern socialists ALSO don't actually understand the political ideology they claim to support. But that just makes people pissy.
  
  You're just factually wrong. The word 'libertarian' was first used to describe a political ideology in 1857 by the French Anarcho-Communist philosopher Joseph Déjacque specifically to differentiate his ideology from the mutualist anarchism of Proudhon.
  The term 'libertarian' took off in popularity in France in the 1880s when the French government began to suppress anarchist newspapers. They just switched to using the word "libertarian" rather than "anarchist" to get around the censor. This is exemplified in the weekly newspaper founded in 1895 called The Libertarian (Le Libertaire in French).
  The anarchists in the Russian Revolution and in the Spanish Civil War called themselves interchangeably 'anarchists', 'libertarians', and 'libertarian socialists'.
  The term didn't come to be associated with classical liberalism and right-wing ideologies as it is today until the middle of the 20th century. It was a specific attempt by right-wing American political philosophers who held an allegiance to Locke-style 18th century classical liberalism, but felt that the term "liberal" had become too associated with left-wing (within the American context) politics.
  Here's a quote from 1955 from the libertarian writer Dean Russell:
  Many of us call ourselves "liberals." And it is true that the word "liberal" once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word "libertarian."
  Here's a quote from the libertarian writer and philosopher Murray Rothbard from the early 1970s:
  One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over.
  Here's a quote from Ronald fucking Reagan in 1975:
  believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism
  Modern libertarianism in the context of American politics is synonymous with classical liberalism and conservatism (up until the MAGA movement co-opted conservatism and just made it synonymous with fascism). But in the US prior to the middle of the 20th century, and outside of the US until much more recently, libertarianism was synonymous with anarchism and was very much a leftist ideology.
  
  You... should really educate yourself on what libertarianism actually is. Just because the root word "liberty" is in there does not mean it is a socialist concept.
  It seems to me that @dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com actually has a better grasp on the historical context of "libertarianism" than you.
  "Libertarian socialist" was what you called collectivist/communist anarchists in French.
  
  I think you missed their point. Contemporary US style libertarianism has taken over the term, historically it meant something very different. They are arguing that people should start using the word again to mean things other than US style libertarianism. They are very obviously not confused about what libertarianism actually is given their knowledge of the history of the term; ironically it seems like you are unaware of this history and are doing something akin to what you accuse OP of doing.
  I do agree though that people are generally very ignorant about this sort of stuff and often latch onto words to describe their politics without any genuine understanding of what those words actually mean.

The vast majority of self identifying Libertarians are actually wealthy fascist bootlickers.
- This is absolutely not my experience. Usually the libertarians I talk to are first and foremost contrarians who don't want to appear politically mainstream but also usually haven't thought too hard about politics before.
  
  This is spot on

Now I would like to meet him.

Neither am I. We'll maybe I'm kinda in the socialist libertarian space a bit.
Huge difference from my ancap past self of 6 years ago.

Good for him!

PRoblem is that it wasnt only his politics that were shit, it was a lot of his general opinions too.
good on the people harassing him for finally forcibly excavating his head from his ass, I guess.

What if the government is like Reddit? We move to lemmy to get away from their influence and to have our own values.
Why does this not make sense when it comes to politics? Communities are captured by network effects. It's an uphill battle to make things right if the idiots have to be dragged along.
Even when it comes to racism, let people be racist somewhere. Let them live their miserable life while there is no need to waste resources on making them treat all humans with respect. However, unlike the North after the war, help those who are stuck with them, to get away.
- What?
  let people be racist somewhere
  No.
  Let them live their miserable life while there is no need to waste resources on making them treat all humans with respect.
  Where exactly is that supposed to happen? And how do you envision this working? You want us to enable a state run entirely by people who are racist and violent and give them their own place to do whatever they want? What exactly do you propose we do with the folks who live wherever this is already? Because it seems like in your scenario their choices are leave or live with racist assholes. Have you not even heard of Israel? Or are you just a racist fan of genocide?
  However, unlike the North after the war, help those who are stuck with them, to get away.
  ...
  
  Because it seems like in your scenario their choices are leave or live with racist assholes.
  If it is not a matter of principles, what is so bad about moving as long as you are supported? When done right, things should be better than living with assholes.
  
  Have you not even heard of Israel?
  Good point. There is just no need to support that.
  Many libertarians believe that the concept of freedom is in accord with the Non-Aggression Principle, according to which each individual has the right to live as they choose, as long as they do not violate the rights of others by initiating force or fraud against them.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Now do "progressives" that don't understand the importance of voting.

I don't even know who this guy is.
- Penn Jillette of Penn and Teller.
  
  Ok that makes sense. Did not know his political view.

His name is Rebo.

Why is it important to put the race variable here? "Libertarianism is just rich () guys that dont want to be TAXED"
- Because the racial part is true, it's mostly white guys. And the racial part is important, specifically when taking libertarian views on civil rights.
  
  Because the racial part is true
  Even when true it can be a bit sketchy to make such points
  
  I don't know if it is only your crazy country, but in mine, there are rich people right wing that are native Americans.

Endorsing a libertarian for president seems to be a contradictory statement, if it implies that a libertarian tries to run for president.
I mean, ok, there is a loophole in beliefs so to say, that non-libertarian politics may not be just or obligatory or possess that legal sacredness non-libertarians attribute them, but participating in those is not contradictory to being a libertarian. Even running for president still calling yourself a libertarian.
I suppose in USA the last pic is true. In Russia libertarians are mostly teenagers and adults of teenager mentality, and also the only real category of lone gloomy types not interested in activism and such.