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.

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).

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.

The libertarian party used to be considerably different as well. It certainly became something different entirely around 2012-2016.

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'll thank you not to refer to Princeton that way.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I agree with you but it's just difficult when you have groups like Libertarians of NH posting this shit

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.

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.

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.