I don't agree with him on a lot of points, but kudos to him for making his points in an eloquent and considered way.

psychotic power hungry people have always ruled the world and it's really difficult to stop them because they're sneaky lying fucks that can say anything they want and have a mass of idiot supporters back them?

people that aren't ruthless lying scum, on the other hand, get taken advantage of and have no hope of changing the world because they're not sneaky enough to charm the masses?

This.

This is why I cringe every time someone mentions "free market". The ONLY way the free market works is if everyone is honest and responsible. Libertarianism only works if EVERYONE is a libertarian. As soon as you have someone who isn't, the whole system falls apart. The Free Market is ultimately anarchy.

They can't say anything they want.

You don't get Hitler without the Great Depression.

You don't get Donald Trump without a Tea Party.

They do have to say what people want to hear to take advantage of them. I've said it before, but the real problem with Donald Trump isn't Donald Trump. It's the number of people who would actually be willing to vote for him.

As is the case in many areas, good people do nothing, and the wrong type of people fill the void.
This is why good people need to speak up, and get involved, even if it's against their very nature. It's a simple case of keeping the wrong people out of the system.

IMO the whole system needs to change. A progressive society would have a committee of elite scientists at the top of the hierarchy setting out the overall agenda for humanity through evidence based reasoning. The scientists themselves would be elected through their achievements and contributions to humankind alone, as a way to weed out those who are doing it for power or money.

Political parties would still exist, but below the top level, and their role would be to choose which parts of the agenda to work on first, so that the general public can elect the political party that represents their own priorities. The politicians pay would depend on how much of the scientist listed agenda has been achieved during their term.

Politicians themselves would get paid decent figures, but they would never be allowed to work, receive financial or material support of any kind to ensure that they cannot be "bought".

Political donations would go into a central repository, accessible by all parties.

He's just lucky his big mouth found a big brain (Teller) to hitch itself to, 'cause the brain it came with would not have seen him to the level of success he's had.

I like Penn, but I also think he's an idiot.

Woah he looks so different since he's lost weight.

I disagree on many points, but I respect the man. However, it irks me that the 'ask' is to straight to 'Gary Johnson'. Why don't Libertarians starting getting into local government and implementing policy, show that it works ? The other parties had to build coalitions and prove their policies work. Why do I only really hear about Libertarians on the presidential election ? And why should I take a risk on a candidate with ideals but no background/data/experience/party to back it up ?

I feel like most people who are rabid libertarians are actually just anarchists. Like most, I would agree and disagree with the esteemed magician.

The last 3 min are the best.