Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Share PFP293 | Benjamin Marks, On H.L. Mencken as a Libertarian Model (PFS 2012)
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Share to email
Share to Facebook
Share to X
Or
PFP293 | Benjamin Marks, On H.L. Mencken as a Libertarian Model (PFS 2012)
Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 293.
Benjamin Marks (Australia), On H.L. Mencken as a Libertarian Model.
This lecture is from the 2012 meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. PFS 2012 Playlist. Text of article on which the speech was based is below; docx; pdf. Speech. Transcript also below.
Grok summary of article: H.L. Mencken’s conservatism, as explored in Benjamin Marks’ essay, is a defining trait that sets him apart as a libertarian thinker who held low expectations for societal reform. Unlike typical conservatism, Mencken’s brand is rooted in a deep skepticism of government and religion, viewing them as historically optimistic overreaches that clash with true conservative doubt. He saw many societal problems as insoluble or unlikely to be addressed due to human folly, yet found entertainment in the pretentiousness of events and the futility of reform efforts. His libertarianism was not driven by a desire to convert others but by a commitment to truth, expressed through sharp, clear prose that prioritized self-expression over activism.
Mencken’s approach was neither nihilistic nor despairing; he embraced the world’s flaws with a light-hearted cynicism, finding joy in critiquing its absurdities without expecting change. He believed people’s gullibility and resistance to reason made libertarian ideals unattainable in the near term, a view reinforced by his observations of failed revolutions and reforms that often worsened conditions. Marks argues that Mencken’s consistent, principled stance—free of moral indignation—offers libertarians a radical perspective: not as a competing utopianism, but as a clear-eyed rejection of romantic solutions. His influence, though significant in literature and culture, never popularized libertarianism, underscoring his realism about human nature and societal inertia.
Grok summary of transcript:
Two-Paragraph Summary for Show Notes
0:00–9:00: The speaker begins by expressing gratitude for being invited to the Property and Freedom Society conference, acknowledging the late Neville Kennard, a fervent supporter who passed away in June. Kennard, despite his frail condition, remained passionate about libertarianism, wearing a Rothbard “Enemy of the State” shirt during the speaker’s visit. The speaker introduces the topic, “H.L. Mencken as a Libertarian Model,” contrasting Mencken’s approach with Murray Rothbard’s. Mencken, unlike Rothbard, had no expectations of influencing society, viewing politics as entertainment and government as pathetic yet amusing. His pessimism, rooted in reason, led him to describe himself as a “specialist in human depravity,” focusing on diagnosing societal flaws rather than proposing solutions. This perspective, the speaker argues, is more realistic than Rothbard’s optimistic belief in a long-term libertarian revolution, as outlined in Rothbard’s 1965 essay, which the speaker dismisses as clichéd romanticism.
9:01–19:38: The speaker critiques libertarian optimism by addressing common arguments, such as the internet’s role in spreading libertarian ideas or the belief that economic crises will awaken people to libertarianism. Mencken’s responses, as interpreted by the speaker, highlight counterpoints: easy access to statist propaganda negates the internet’s benefits, and crises often lead to more government intervention. The speaker also challenges the romanticism of Albert J. Nock’s concept of the “remnant,” quoting Nock to show his own pessimism about societal change. Marcus Aurelius is cited to underscore the futility of expecting posthumous recognition. The speaker concludes by suggesting that libertarians can still find joy in critiquing government absurdities, as evidenced by the lively PFS speakers. For optimists, the speaker humorously recommends following Gina Rinehart, a wealthy Australian secessionist, as a potential catalyst for libertarian progress, while emphasizing Mencken’s view that libertarianism is about personal enjoyment, not necessarily societal change.
It was not included previously in the podcast since the video had been lost and I had assumed the audio had also been lost. However, I recently discovered the audio files for two of the speeches as well as Professor Hoppe’s Introductory and Concluding remarks had been preserved, namely those listed below. They are podcast here for the first time.
Grok summary of transcript:
Detailed Segment-by-Segment Summary for Show Notes
Segment 1: Introduction and Tribute to Neville Kennard (0:00–3:00)
Description: The speaker opens with gratitude for speaking at the Property and Freedom Society conference, noting their unfamiliarity among the distinguished lineup. They pay tribute to Neville Kennard, a libertarian supporter who died in June, recalling his enthusiasm despite being bedbound, wearing a Rothbard “Enemy of the State” shirt. The speaker shares an anecdote about visiting Kennard to recount last year’s PFS events, highlighting his passion for the society.
Summary: This segment sets a personal tone, honoring Kennard’s dedication to libertarianism and establishing the speaker’s connection to the PFS community. It foreshadows the talk’s focus on libertarian perspectives by referencing Rothbard early on.
Segment 2: Mencken’s Libertarian Model vs. Rothbard’s Optimism (3:01–9:00)
Description: The speaker introduces the talk’s theme, “H.L. Mencken as a Libertarian Model,” contrasting Mencken’s lack of ambition to influence with Rothbard’s optimistic vision of a libertarian revolution. Mencken’s quotes reveal his view of politics as entertainment and government as “pathetic, obscene, and criminal” but not intolerable, describing himself as a “specialist in human depravity.” The speaker critiques Rothbard’s 1965 essay advocating long-term optimism as romantic nonsense, arguing Mencken’s reasoned pessimism is more justified.
Summary: This segment establishes Mencken’s unique libertarian approach—detached, observational, and pessimistic—against Rothbard’s hopeful activism. It frames the talk’s central argument that Mencken’s realism is a more grounded model for libertarians.
Segment 3: Critiquing Romantic Libertarian Arguments (9:01–12:00)
Description: The speaker addresses common libertarian arguments for optimism, such as the internet’s role in spreading ideas, economic crises leading to libertarian awakenings, and historical victories like slavery’s abolition. Mencken’s counterpoints, as voiced by the speaker, highlight flaws: statist propaganda overshadows libertarian outreach, crises increase state power, and slavery’s abolition doesn’t negate ongoing forms of coercion. Examples like the minimum wage’s global rise and Rand Paul’s less principled stance compared to Ron Paul underscore the difficulty of libertarian progress.
Summary: This segment systematically dismantles optimistic libertarian narratives, using Mencken’s lens to argue that systemic barriers and human nature thwart significant change, reinforcing the speaker’s alignment with Mencken’s pessimism.
Segment 4: Debunking Nock’s Remnant and Historical Perspectives (12:01–16:00)
Description: The speaker challenges the romanticism of Albert J. Nock’s “remnant” concept, quoting Nock to reveal his own doubts about long-term influence. Marcus Aurelius is cited to critique the hope of posthumous recognition, and Mencken’s similar views question posterity’s judgment. Extensive Nock quotes emphasize his belief that societal improvement is nearly impossible due to human limitations and statism’s entrenched power, suggesting revolutions merely replace one form of oppression with another.
Summary: This segment deepens the critique of libertarian optimism by showing that even Nock, a revered figure, shared Mencken’s pessimism. It underscores the futility of expecting systemic change, aligning with Mencken’s detached enjoyment of societal flaws.
Segment 5: Enjoying Libertarianism Without Expectations (16:01–19:38)
Description: The speaker argues that libertarians can find joy in critiquing government absurdities without needing to influence others, citing the lively PFS speakers like Jeffrey Tucker as evidence. Marcus Aurelius and Nock are referenced again to highlight the spectacle of human folly as inherently entertaining. For optimists, the speaker humorously suggests following Gina Rinehart, a wealthy secessionist, as a potential libertarian catalyst. The talk concludes with Mencken’s view that libertarianism is about personal enjoyment, not necessarily progress, encouraging attendees to revel in the PFS experience.
Summary: This final segment ties the talk together, advocating for Mencken’s approach of finding amusement in libertarian critique without expecting societal change. It offers a lighthearted nod to optimists while reinforcing the core message of intellectual enjoyment over activism.
Note: The segment lengths vary (3–7 minutes) to align with natural shifts in the talk’s content, ensuring each block covers a cohesive topic or argument.
Mencken’s Conservatism
by Benjamin Marks, Economics.org.au editor-in-chief
I. Abstract
Why did H.L. Mencken, the most eloquent and popular of libertarians, have the lowest of expectations for libertarian reform?
One might think that grappling with this question would be a prerequisite of libertarian activism.
One might also think that libertarians would show Mencken — whom they hold in high regard — the respect of dealing with his reasoning, just as they do to statists — whom they do not hold in high regard.
Mencken found such situations amusing, predictable and inoperable.
II. Introduction and Overview
This essay emphasises Mencken’s conservatism above his other characteristics, as it is his primary distinguishing feature and the main reason he is misunderstood. His libertarianism — which overlaps with his conservatism — is also misunderstood, but plenty of literature is available defending libertarianism, whereas there is comparatively little intentionally defending conservatism.
Rarely is conservatism even acknowledged as having anything to do with reason, as something that could be right or wrong, justified or unjustified, probable or improbable. Usually it is uncritically dismissed as skeptical, iconoclastic, irreverent, curmudgeonly, eccentric, outspoken, opinionated, independent, sardonic, pessimistic, cynical, bitter and dated. Mencken is described in those terms — which are more comparative and superficial than descriptive and explanatory — far more often than he is described as correct and critical, or, for that matter, as incorrect and uncritical.
Mencken is not just different. He does not merely have a valid point of view. His conservatism is not a blind faith in pessimism; it was not of immaculate conception. It is not pessimystic. His viewpoint can be analysed, not only to compare his conclusions with your own, but to compare his reasoning too.
Mencken was a conservative. He doubted the goodness, honesty and truth of all government and any religion. Despite the difference between this and what is usually called conservatism, this is the true conservatism. After all, government and religion, being proactive, hope-fuelled and high-expectation responses to whatever the situation happened to be at the time of their founding, are merely examples of historical anticonservatism.
In addition to a critical predisposition and lack of faith, Mencken’s conservatism is also an unashamed appreciation of the entertainment provided by: (1) the pretentiousness of both historical and current events; and (2) the hollowness of attempted improvements, including those that will fail due to irrevocable economic laws — that is, socialistic interventions into the market —, and those that will fail due to unpopularity — that is, reforms that would work, if only the populace were not so stubbornly stupid.
To rephrase and reframe, Mencken believed: (a) that many problems are insoluble; (b) that many other problems have solutions that would work, but are unlikely to be adopted; (c) that “problems” are often misidentified, or exaggerated in both severity and urgency; (d) that “solutions” are rarely as useful as their believers claim; (e) that if people have free will, they rarely use it wisely and are predictably corruptible, gullible and unreflective; (f) that there will always be “do-gooders” who try to do the impossible and unlikely, and are blindly enthusiastic about their chances; (g) that these “do-gooders” often sink to the level they try to get others to rise above; (h) that not much can be done about these “do-gooders,” and it is usually best not to; (i) that all this has been the case in the past and will be so in the future; and (j) that all this is fun to witness and proclaim.
Mencken’s fervour was this-worldly. His cynicism was light-hearted and deeply-felt. His pessimism was upbeat and vigilant. His paranoia was fuelled by neither hope nor fear. His crusade against error and injustice was devoid of envy. He was passionate and questioning and resigned and satisfied.
This position is almost always confused with what it is not. Even those who hold such beliefs often find explaining themselves, or keeping silent, too difficult and inconvenient, requiring more intelligence than they possess or independence than they can muster. Acceptance concerns them more than honesty or education. They categorise their behaviour using categories and clichés they have come across, rather than their own immediate sincere reflections. Lacking the language necessary to express themselves or the discipline necessary to be silent until they find the right words, they either cease interest altogether in what gave them these difficulties, or classify themselves as something they are not. If they do the latter, they often change their beliefs until they share all the views of the group that they, originally incorrectly, classed themselves with. Consider, for example, the descriptions in the previous paragraph, how rarely you find the terms therein collocated, your initial reaction — which may have been that they are contradictory – and your reappraisal — which may be that it actually makes surprisingly good sense.
Mencken’s inventive language, ducking and weaving of unhelpful idioms, and enlarged vocabulary, do much to explain why his beliefs go beyond, say, the professed faith in democracy, whatever that means, of others; and why his prose is, as he said, “clear and alive.” For example:
The imbeciles who have printed acres of comment on my books have seldom noticed the chief character of my style. It is that I write with almost scientific precision — that my meaning is never obscure. The ignorant have often complained that my vocabulary is beyond them, but that is simply because my ideas cover a wider range than theirs do. Once they have consulted the dictionary they always know exactly what I intend to say. I am as far as any writer can get from the muffled sonorities of, say, John Dewey.[1]
III. Mencken’s Motives and Expectations
In this essay, I quote many passages from Mencken’s writings, not despite their similarities, but because of them. Where I find different eloquent passages where he makes the same point, I include them all, because that itself makes many a point. Specifically, it provides evidence for these controversial and unpopular beliefs: (1) that a critical, cynical and pessimistic person can sincerely enjoy holding and expressing critical, cynical and pessimistic beliefs; (2) that such beliefs need be no disincentive to productivity or obstacle to satisfaction; (3) that a low opinion is justified of the reading public, including attempts to educate them; and (4) that a low opinion is also justified of the government the reading public is part of and supports.
Mencken was published prolifically in popular places, yet most of his beliefs were still misunderstood. Even if his aim was not primarily to educate the masses, critics will have a tough time finding where his low opinion of the masses is wrong and what he could have done better to educate them — for example, could his prose have had more appeal, bite, clarity, directness or eloquence, and could he have repeated his viewpoint more?
Mencken believed that readers didn’t only need to be given a message once, but that it was unlikely they would get it at all. He repeatedly made the same observations simply for the sake of art, habit and amusement. He wrote on pedagogical, political and moral issues without any pedagogical, political or moral purpose. He was a critic of novels, but he never wrote one. He was a critic of America’s defence policy, but he was not a German spy. He was a critic of Presidents, but he never became one. His objectivity made him suspect, because reason is rarely comprehended, and is not represented by any political party, job description, university qualification or cultural group. It also explains why many people failed to see that, despite never writing a novel, running for office or launching a revolution, he still had many good ideas for those who did.
Leading by example means your followers are looking at the back of your head. Mencken faced up to people, and told them what he was thinking.
Mencken was a libertarian theorist of the highest rank, but only an incidental activist. He did not believe that he could be a successful activist, and it was not one of his primary aims. He advocated libertarianism because that was what he believed to be the truth, not because he thought it was attainable, or something people wanted to, needed to or should hear. More than an academic, activist or job-holder, he considered himself an artist or animal, someone “diseased” with the thirst for truth and aesthetic sense.[2]
Here is some autobiographical insight from Mencken:
[A]n author, like any other so-called artist, is a man in whom the normal vanity of all men is so vastly exaggerated that he finds it a sheer impossibility to hold it in … Such is the thing called self-expression … The vanity of man is quite illimitable. In every act of life, however trivial, and particularly in every act which pertains to his profession, he takes all the pride of a baby learning to walk. It may seem incredible but it is nevertheless a fact that I myself get great delight out of writing such banal paragraphs as this one.[3]
I have never tried to convert anyone to anything. Like any other man bawling from a public stamp I have occasionally made a convert; in fact, in seasons when my embouchure has been good I have made a great many. But not deliberately, not with any satisfaction … I am, in fact, the complete anti-Messiah, and detest converts as much as I detest missionaries. My writings, such as they are, have had only one purpose: to attain for H.L. Mencken that feeling of tension relieved and function achieved which a cow enjoys on giving milk.[4]
IV. Mencken’s Conservatism and Christianity
In perhaps the best distillation of Mencken’s conservatism, he suggested everyone live not quite sober and not quite drunk, but “gently stewed.” He explained what this solution entails:
Putting a brake upon all the qualities which enable us to get on in the world and shine before our fellows — for example, combativeness, shrewdness, diligence, ambition —, it releases the qualities which mellow us and make our fellows love us — for example, amiability, generosity, toleration, humor, sympathy. A man who has taken aboard two or three cocktails is less competent than he was before to steer a battleship down the Ambrose Channel, or to cut off a leg, or to draw a deed of trust, or to conduct Bach’s B minor mass, but he is immensely more competent to entertain a dinner party, or to admire a pretty girl, or to hear Bach’s B minor mass.[21]
Footnotes
[1] H.L. Mencken, Minority Report (Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press, 2006), p. 293.
[2] H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy (New York: Vintage, 1982), pp. 442-49; see also H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: Fourth Series (New York: Octagon Books, 1985), pp. 269-77. A note on my referencing of Mencken: Much, but not all, of his work has been reprinted in many different essay versions and compilations. I only reference one location for each specific passage, based on my estimate of: (1) its most popular current location; and (2) where the best relevant discussion is. The Chrestomathies often include only part of a larger discussion, sometimes excising the best bits. I may reference and quote multiple locations for where Mencken makes the same point, but only ever one location when he makes the same point in the same way, as per the two criteria explained in the previous sentence.
[3] A Mencken Chrestomathy, p. 466; and H.L. Mencken, A Second Mencken Chrestomathy, ed. Terry Teachout (New York: Knopf, 1995), p. 489; see also H.L. Mencken, In Defense of Women (New York: Knopf, 1927), pp. 77-78.
[4] A Second Mencken Chrestomathy, pp. 483-84, 491. The second half of the paragraph Mencken wrote for use in his obituary.
[21] A Mencken Chrestomathy, pp. 388-89.
***
TRANSCRIPT
0:00
looking through the amazing list of
0:01
speakers for this conference the only
0:03
name I don’t recognize is my own So it’s
0:06
a great privilege to be here Um and
0:09
thanks also to the late Neville Kennard
0:11
who was a big supporter and fan of the
0:12
Propriy and Freedom Society Um and died
0:15
in June this year Uh for a while at the
0:18
end he was bedbound at his country
0:20
property He was quite weak and frail and
0:22
surrounded with sheets and blankets But
0:24
when I came in he set up to see me and
0:27
the blankets fell away and he was
0:29
wearing his Rothbard enemy of the state
0:31
shirt Um Nev had to cancel his
0:34
attendance at last year’s PFS meeting
0:37
for medical reasons So the morning after
0:39
I arrived back in Australia after last
0:41
year’s PFS I drove down to his country
0:44
property to tell him what he missed Um
0:47
he invited me for breakfast but you know
0:49
we had so much to talk about that I
0:50
stayed for lunch and dinner and uh you
0:53
know all talking about all of you and he
0:55
was very interested and so now that he
0:58
has an even better excuse not to be here
1:00
I I guess I will have to report back to
1:02
him at even greater length Um also I’m
1:06
very sorry that Richard Lynn could not
1:08
be here I was uh very much looking
1:10
forward to his speech
1:13
Now the title of my talk is HL Menin as
1:16
a libertarian model What makes Menin as
1:19
a libertarian model so different from
1:22
other libertarian models like Rothbart
1:24
is that Menin had no expectation
1:26
whatsoever of being
1:29
influential But this did not in any way
1:31
stunt Menin’s productivity and passion
1:33
as a libertarian theorist and
1:35
stirer Because to quote Menin quote “An
1:39
author like any other so-called artist
1:42
is a man in whom the normal vanity of
1:44
all men is so vastly exaggerated that he
1:47
finds it a sheer impossibility to hold
1:49
it in such as the thing called
1:51
self-exression The vanity of man is
1:54
quite illimitable In every act of life
1:56
however trivial and particularly in
1:58
every act which pertains to his
1:59
profession he takes all the pride of a
2:01
baby learning to walk It may seem
2:04
incredible but it is nevertheless a fact
2:06
that I myself get great delight out of
2:08
writing such banal paragraphs as this
2:10
one End quote So men considered politics
2:14
a genre of entertainment and he
2:16
considered the corruption of politics
2:17
merely as ad breaks He thought
2:20
government pathetic obscene and criminal
2:22
but not hideous intolerable or in
2:24
unsightly As Menin said of his
2:27
libertarianism quote “My business is not
2:30
prognosis but diagnosis I am not engaged
2:33
in therapeutics but in pathology I am
2:36
not in fact protesting against anything
2:39
I am simply describing something not
2:41
even in sorrow but simply as a
2:43
specialist in human
2:45
depravity.” Such spectacles do not make
2:48
me indignant They simply interest me
2:50
immensely as a pathologist say is
2:53
interested by a beautiful gastric ulcer
2:56
It is perhaps a strange taste that is in
2:58
a country of reformers but there it is
3:00
end quote So the phrase specialist in
3:03
human depravity is quite brilliant I
3:06
think I mean think back to all the
3:07
speakers we have heard over the past few
3:09
days I think it is more descriptive to
3:11
call them all specialists in human
3:13
depravity rather than historians or
3:15
economists or journalists or or whatever
3:19
Um so Menin’s low expectations are I
3:23
think are much more justified than
3:25
Rothbart’s high expectations of future
3:28
long-term libertarian revolution uh or
3:32
pro progress In the 1965 essay The
3:36
Prospects of Liberty in the first issue
3:38
of Rothbard’s journal Left and Right
3:40
Mari Rothbud writes quote “While the
3:44
short-run prospects for liberty at home
3:46
and abroad may seem dim the proper
3:49
attitude for the libertarian to take is
3:52
that of unquenchable long-run optimism
3:55
For the libertarian the main task of the
3:58
present epoch is to cast off his
4:00
needless and debilitating pessimism to
4:03
set his sights on long run victory and
4:05
to set out on the road to its
4:08
attainment.” Now to me this is the most
4:11
cliched romantic rubbish It is just like
4:14
saying that positive thinking helps cure
4:16
cancer In fact it’s even worse than that
4:19
because Rothbart is saying that things
4:21
will get better in the long run even
4:23
though they won’t in the short term And
4:26
even worse it shows that Rothbide
4:27
totally ignored the fact that Menin’s
4:29
pessimism was entirely based in reason
4:32
It was not a baseless attitude Um
4:35
incidentally as an aside all men’s
4:38
biographers have failed to acknowledge
4:40
this central fact
4:41
Also however what Rothbud said makes
4:44
perfect sense If your aim in being a
4:46
libertarian activist is
4:48
exclusively to persuade and influence
4:51
others if persuading and influencing is
4:53
your exclusive aim then you must be
4:55
optimistic that you will persuade and
4:57
influence Otherwise you would not be a
4:59
libertarian activist But why would you
5:02
be optimistic that you can persuade and
5:04
influence
5:05
others here are some common answers that
5:08
many romantic libertarians use
5:10
accompanied by manennian
5:12
response responses Um so romantic
5:16
libertarians like to say that the
5:18
internet age is different because now
5:20
everyone has everyone has such easy
5:22
access to libertarian
5:24
propaganda But menians think that is
5:27
more than canceled out by there also
5:29
being easy access to status
5:31
propaganda Um romantic libertarians like
5:34
to say that government inter
5:36
intervention has become so extreme that
5:38
the economic situation will result in
5:40
people finally seeing the light and
5:42
becoming libertarians But menians think
5:44
it is more likely that hyperinflations
5:46
and depressions result in increased
5:48
government intervention and more
5:50
misplaced blame on on capitalism Um
5:54
romantic libertarians like to say that
5:56
slavery was abolished even though the
5:58
so-called realists said we should just
6:01
regulate the slave trade So they use
6:03
this to show that we should be radical
6:04
in abolishing taxes government
6:06
departments etc as they amount to forced
6:08
labor which is slavery But do you know
6:11
what this argument also says it admits
6:14
that actually we still have slavery
6:17
So
6:17
uh and like um so the radicals did not
6:22
succeed Um but I still like to use that
6:25
argument I think it’s a you know great
6:27
argument But
6:28
just in fact in the latest edition of
6:31
capitalism.hk which is on the book table
6:34
I uh I feature Robert Higgs using that
6:37
argument Um
6:39
uh and romantic libertarians like to say
6:42
that the minimum wage is a great example
6:44
of economic reasoning and the best way
6:46
to to successfully introduce people to
6:48
libertarian thought But what the case of
6:51
the minimum wage also proves is that an
6:53
ever growing number of countries all
6:55
around the world are implementing and
6:57
increasing the minimum wage including
6:59
Hong Kong which has just introduced the
7:01
minimum wage So in light of the
7:03
widespread and growing popularity of so
7:05
obvious a calamity as the minimum wage
7:07
how can anyone be optimistic for any
7:09
libertarian progress in more complicated
7:12
areas like surely minimum wage reform
7:15
would be the first place we’d see it if
7:17
it was a if it was coming Also Ron Paul
7:22
has attracted huge passionate and
7:23
growing following which is leading many
7:25
people to take to make all sorts of
7:27
romantic predictions But if Ron Paul is
7:30
so likely to s succeed how is it that
7:32
someone who owes Ron Paul so much as a
7:35
son does his father and has been
7:36
subjected to more of Ron Paul’s
7:38
arguments than anyone else namely his
7:40
most political child Randpaul is far
7:42
less principled than his father and many
7:44
of his supporters who have such high
7:46
expectations of of where the Ronpor
7:48
movement will lead Um libertarians often
7:52
show one one more example
7:54
of libertarian romanticism
7:58
uh libertarians often show that
7:59
governments of the past that are today
8:01
considered to be tyrannical and
8:02
unpopular even by the establishment
8:05
share the same characteristics with
8:06
popular governments today that are
8:08
considered to be free and popular With
8:11
this argument romantic libertarians hope
8:13
to bring about a widespread
8:14
enlightenment enlightenment which will
8:17
lead to a more just free and prosperous
8:19
society But their observation also
8:21
teaches something quite different which
8:23
libertarians often fail to acknowledge
8:26
As men can point it out quote “The fact
8:29
is that some of the things that men and
8:31
women have desired most ardently for
8:33
thousands of years are not near a
8:35
realization today than they were in the
8:37
time of Rammeses and that there is not
8:39
the slightest reason for believing that
8:41
they will lose their coiness on any near
8:43
tomorrow Plans for hurrying them over
8:47
have been tried since the beginning
8:49
Plans for forcing them overnight are in
8:51
copious and antagonistic operation today
8:53
And yet they continue to hold off and
8:55
elude us and the chances are that they
8:57
will continue holding off and eluding
9:00
us To further communicate that Menin’s
9:04
pessimism was justified I think the most
9:07
effective thing would be for us to see
9:09
that Albert J No did not believe in the
9:12
remnant
9:13
Speaking to the remnant is long-term
9:16
romanticism which in a way is the most
9:18
extreme form of hopefilled romanticism
9:21
And Albert J No is the author of
9:23
Isaiah’s job the most referenced essay
9:25
pointing putting forward being
9:26
influential in the long term and
9:28
expecting that people will find you and
9:30
they will be convinced by what you say
9:33
eventually Um but before I quote no to
9:36
show that he himself did not believe in
9:38
the remnant no fa favorite author Marcus
9:40
Aurelius offered the best criticism of
9:43
those libertarian romantics like Murray
9:45
Rothbard who believed in the remnant and
9:48
are optimists for long-term libertarian
9:50
progress
9:52
Quote they are misunderstood by their
9:54
contemporaries the people whose lives
9:56
they share but they expect to be
9:58
understood by post posterity people
10:00
they’ve never met and never will that’s
10:03
what they set their hearts on You might
10:05
as well be upset at not being a hero to
10:07
your great-grandfather End quote And uh
10:10
Menin made a very similar comment to
10:12
Marcus Aurelius in a kind of a different
10:14
context but it’ll it’ll be clear Quote
10:18
“There is a notion that judgments of
10:19
living artists are impossible They are
10:22
bound to be corrupted we are told by
10:24
prejudice false perspective mob emotion
10:26
error The question whether this or that
10:29
man is great or small is one which only
10:31
posterity can answer a silly begging of
10:34
the question for doesn’t posterity also
10:36
make mistakes end quote So because of
10:39
how popular among libertarian circles
10:42
the myth of no as optimist and reformer
10:44
he is like even if it’s very long term I
10:47
will now read out several passages
10:49
showing that no himself did not believe
10:51
in Isaiah’s job To start with it is
10:55
worth noting that no himself in the
10:57
essay Isaiah’s job itself said “If I
11:01
were young and had the notion of
11:03
embarking in the prophetical line I
11:05
would certainly take up this branch of
11:07
the business aiming aiming at long-term
11:11
influence and expecting that those who
11:13
appreciate your work will eventually
11:15
find you and eventually lead to progress
11:17
in a libertarian direction And therefore
11:19
I have no hesitation about recommending
11:21
it as a career for anyone in that
11:23
position So anyone who’s young and
11:27
prophetical Um but no was not young when
11:30
he wrote it and he was not interested on
11:32
embarking on a career in the prophetical
11:35
line So when people talk of no’s remnant
11:38
they do not talk of a remnant that no
11:40
wrote intentionally for So here are some
11:43
more passages showing that no was
11:45
thoroughly pessimistic about the
11:47
prospects for
11:49
liberty Quote the only thing that the
11:53
psychically human being can do to
11:54
improve society is to present society
11:57
with one improved unit Very few among
12:00
mankind have either the force of
12:01
intellect to manage this method
12:03
intelligently or the force of character
12:05
to apply it constantly Hence if one
12:08
regards mankind as being what they are
12:10
the chances seem to be that the
12:12
deceptively easier way will continue to
12:14
prevail among them throughout an
12:16
indefinitely long
12:18
future It is easy to prescribe
12:20
improvement for others It is easy to
12:22
organize something to institutionalize
12:24
this or that to pass laws multiply
12:26
bureaucratic agencies form pressure
12:28
groups start revolutions change forms of
12:31
government tinker at political theory
12:33
The fact that these expedients have been
12:35
tried unsuccessfully in every
12:37
conceivable combination for 6,000 years
12:40
has not noticeably impaired a credulous
12:42
unintelligent willingness to keep on
12:45
trying them again and
12:47
again This being so it seems highly
12:49
probable that the hope for any
12:51
significant improvement of society must
12:54
be postponed End quote Here’s another
12:57
not paragraph quote “If it were in my
13:00
power to pull down its whole structure
13:01
overnight and set up another of my own
13:03
devising to abolish the state out of
13:06
hand and replace it by an organization
13:08
of the economic means I would not do it
13:11
for the minds of Americans are far from
13:13
fitted to any such great change as
13:15
this.” End quote Here’s another knock
13:18
paragraph Quote taking the sum of the
13:20
state’s physical strength with the force
13:22
of powerful spiritual influences behind
13:25
it one asks what can be done against the
13:28
state’s progress in self
13:30
agrandisement simply nothing So far from
13:34
encouraging any hopeful contemplation of
13:36
the unattainable the student of
13:38
civilized man will offer no conclusion
13:40
but that nothing can be done End quote
13:44
and another quote “Even a successful
13:47
revolution if such a thing were
13:49
conceivable against the military tyranny
13:51
which is statism’s last expedient would
13:54
accomplish nothing The people would be
13:56
as thoroughly indoctrinated with statism
13:58
after the revolution as they were before
14:00
and therefore the revolution would be no
14:02
revolution but a coup d’eta by which the
14:04
citizen would gain nothing but a mere
14:06
change for
14:07
presses There have been me many
14:09
revolutions in the last 25 years and
14:12
this has been the sum of their history
14:14
They amount to no more than an
14:15
impressive testimony to the great truth
14:17
that there can be no right action except
14:20
there be right thinking behind it As
14:22
long as the easy attractive superficial
14:24
philosophy of statism remains in control
14:26
of the citizen’s mind no bene bene
14:29
beneficent social change can be affected
14:32
whether by revolution or by any other
14:34
means End quote And one one last one
14:39
quote “Sometimes people who knew my
14:41
politics have wondered that I do not
14:43
crusade for it or even say much about it
14:45
but much more than a sound economic
14:47
system is necessary You have to have
14:49
sound people to work it.” The wise
14:51
social philosophers were those who
14:53
merely hung up their ideas and left them
14:56
hanging for men to look at or pass by as
14:59
they chose Jesus and Socrates did not
15:01
even trouble trouble to write theirs out
15:03
and Marcus Aurelius spoke his only
15:05
encrabed memoranda for his own use never
15:08
thinking anyone else would would see
15:10
them.” End quote So this passage
15:12
mentions Marcus Aurelius whom we quoted
15:15
earlier and no was
15:17
like no knock often said it’s his
15:20
favorite author Um so here’s another
15:22
Marcus Aurelius passage Quote evil the
15:26
same old thing Whatever happens keep
15:28
this in mind It’s the same old thing
15:30
from one end of the world to the other
15:32
It fills the history books ancient and
15:34
modern and the cities and the houses too
15:37
familiar transient Look at the past
15:40
Empire succeeding empire and from that
15:43
extrapolate the future the same thing No
15:47
escape from the rhythm of events Which
15:48
is why observing life for 40 years is as
15:50
good as a thousand Would you really see
15:53
anything new end
15:55
quote So that knock like Men enjoyed the
15:58
spectacle and was not disappointed by it
16:01
Here is one more knock passage Quote
16:03
“The war was detestable enough but the
16:06
anthropoid job holders who engineered it
16:08
and the masses whom they coerced and
16:09
exploited were doing the best that the
16:11
limitations of their nature admitted of
16:14
their doing and one could expect no more
16:16
than that There was even a certain grave
16:19
beauty such as one obser observes in a
16:22
battle of snakes or sharks in the
16:24
machinations which they continued which
16:26
which they contrived in order to fulfill
16:28
the law of their being One regarded
16:30
these creatures with aor ahorance Yes
16:33
Sometimes with boredom and annoyance yes
16:36
But with dis despondency and
16:38
disappointment no So yes sometimes as no
16:42
said pol politics fills meenians with
16:45
boredom Um but there aren’t many forms
16:47
of entertainment that don’t have
16:49
occasional slow patches and off days But
16:52
really I think everyone here can find
16:54
enough enjoyment in being a libertarian
16:56
theorist and stirer without needing
16:58
to think that they are helping people
17:00
and being
17:02
influential I don’t think I need to tell
17:04
anyone here how amu am amusing
17:06
government is I mean government does not
17:08
tax our our enjoyment It subsidizes it
17:11
Did Jeffrey Tucker look miserable in his
17:14
speech earlier today when he was
17:16
describing how tough government makes
17:17
his life you know as the title of his
17:20
speech seemed to hint um have any of the
17:23
PFS speakers appeared sad about
17:25
government i don’t think so Everyone
17:28
here appears to enjoy the absurdity of
17:30
government and to enjoy enjoy speaking
17:32
against
17:33
it Uh but I understand that many people
17:36
here need to believe that they can make
17:38
a difference by influencing others And
17:41
of
17:41
course being a man I I don’t expect to
17:45
change your minds So to offer you people
17:47
something from this talk um I recommend
17:50
that you learn all you can about the
17:52
Western Australian mining magnate Gina
17:54
Reinhardt Being the richest woman in the
17:57
world she is getting increasing
17:59
international media attention and many
18:01
uh news reports predict her becoming the
18:04
richest person in the world in the not
18:05
too distant future She is now an even
18:08
bigger prospect for bringing on the
18:09
libertarian revolution than Ron Paul I I
18:13
discovered an interview in an Australian
18:14
women’s magazine in
18:16
1975 where she said that she listed her
18:19
occupation on her passport as
18:23
secessionist Her father was not afraid
18:25
to call Australia’s political parties
18:27
public servants industry groups
18:29
university students and journalists all
18:31
a bunch of socialists And Mrs Reinhardt
18:34
is is definitely a big fan of her
18:36
father’s politics Moreover she is
18:38
spending hundreds of millions of dollars
18:40
trying to get media influence although
18:43
none of that’s come to me Um so I hope
18:46
all you uh I hope you all you optimists
18:48
out there feel that you’ve got something
18:50
out of this talk Um in
18:52
conclusion menians might hope that
18:56
libertarian progress will be made even
18:59
if that will unfortunately compromise
19:01
our gargantuan enjoyment watching the
19:03
greedy and gullible passionately support
19:06
people who will be betray them in our
19:09
gloriously corrupt and unprincipled
19:11
commonwealth of morons for a manin
19:14
phrase So we can hope manians can hope
19:17
for libertarian progress but we don’t
19:19
expect any progress but to repeat that
19:22
does not mean that there are not many
19:24
other reasons for being a libertarian
19:26
theorist in shitster and uh one of the
19:29
best of those reasons would be to enjoy
19:31
yourself at hoppers property and freedom
19:33
society Thank you
19:38
[Applause]
View all episodes
By The Property and Freedom Society
4.7
77 ratings
Property and Freedom Podcast, Episode 293.
Benjamin Marks (Australia), On H.L. Mencken as a Libertarian Model.
This lecture is from the 2012 meeting of the Property and Freedom Society. PFS 2012 Playlist. Text of article on which the speech was based is below; docx; pdf. Speech. Transcript also below.
Grok summary of article: H.L. Mencken’s conservatism, as explored in Benjamin Marks’ essay, is a defining trait that sets him apart as a libertarian thinker who held low expectations for societal reform. Unlike typical conservatism, Mencken’s brand is rooted in a deep skepticism of government and religion, viewing them as historically optimistic overreaches that clash with true conservative doubt. He saw many societal problems as insoluble or unlikely to be addressed due to human folly, yet found entertainment in the pretentiousness of events and the futility of reform efforts. His libertarianism was not driven by a desire to convert others but by a commitment to truth, expressed through sharp, clear prose that prioritized self-expression over activism.
Mencken’s approach was neither nihilistic nor despairing; he embraced the world’s flaws with a light-hearted cynicism, finding joy in critiquing its absurdities without expecting change. He believed people’s gullibility and resistance to reason made libertarian ideals unattainable in the near term, a view reinforced by his observations of failed revolutions and reforms that often worsened conditions. Marks argues that Mencken’s consistent, principled stance—free of moral indignation—offers libertarians a radical perspective: not as a competing utopianism, but as a clear-eyed rejection of romantic solutions. His influence, though significant in literature and culture, never popularized libertarianism, underscoring his realism about human nature and societal inertia.
Grok summary of transcript:
Two-Paragraph Summary for Show Notes
0:00–9:00: The speaker begins by expressing gratitude for being invited to the Property and Freedom Society conference, acknowledging the late Neville Kennard, a fervent supporter who passed away in June. Kennard, despite his frail condition, remained passionate about libertarianism, wearing a Rothbard “Enemy of the State” shirt during the speaker’s visit. The speaker introduces the topic, “H.L. Mencken as a Libertarian Model,” contrasting Mencken’s approach with Murray Rothbard’s. Mencken, unlike Rothbard, had no expectations of influencing society, viewing politics as entertainment and government as pathetic yet amusing. His pessimism, rooted in reason, led him to describe himself as a “specialist in human depravity,” focusing on diagnosing societal flaws rather than proposing solutions. This perspective, the speaker argues, is more realistic than Rothbard’s optimistic belief in a long-term libertarian revolution, as outlined in Rothbard’s 1965 essay, which the speaker dismisses as clichéd romanticism.
9:01–19:38: The speaker critiques libertarian optimism by addressing common arguments, such as the internet’s role in spreading libertarian ideas or the belief that economic crises will awaken people to libertarianism. Mencken’s responses, as interpreted by the speaker, highlight counterpoints: easy access to statist propaganda negates the internet’s benefits, and crises often lead to more government intervention. The speaker also challenges the romanticism of Albert J. Nock’s concept of the “remnant,” quoting Nock to show his own pessimism about societal change. Marcus Aurelius is cited to underscore the futility of expecting posthumous recognition. The speaker concludes by suggesting that libertarians can still find joy in critiquing government absurdities, as evidenced by the lively PFS speakers. For optimists, the speaker humorously recommends following Gina Rinehart, a wealthy Australian secessionist, as a potential catalyst for libertarian progress, while emphasizing Mencken’s view that libertarianism is about personal enjoyment, not necessarily societal change.
It was not included previously in the podcast since the video had been lost and I had assumed the audio had also been lost. However, I recently discovered the audio files for two of the speeches as well as Professor Hoppe’s Introductory and Concluding remarks had been preserved, namely those listed below. They are podcast here for the first time.
Grok summary of transcript:
Detailed Segment-by-Segment Summary for Show Notes
Segment 1: Introduction and Tribute to Neville Kennard (0:00–3:00)
Description: The speaker opens with gratitude for speaking at the Property and Freedom Society conference, noting their unfamiliarity among the distinguished lineup. They pay tribute to Neville Kennard, a libertarian supporter who died in June, recalling his enthusiasm despite being bedbound, wearing a Rothbard “Enemy of the State” shirt. The speaker shares an anecdote about visiting Kennard to recount last year’s PFS events, highlighting his passion for the society.
Summary: This segment sets a personal tone, honoring Kennard’s dedication to libertarianism and establishing the speaker’s connection to the PFS community. It foreshadows the talk’s focus on libertarian perspectives by referencing Rothbard early on.
Segment 2: Mencken’s Libertarian Model vs. Rothbard’s Optimism (3:01–9:00)
Description: The speaker introduces the talk’s theme, “H.L. Mencken as a Libertarian Model,” contrasting Mencken’s lack of ambition to influence with Rothbard’s optimistic vision of a libertarian revolution. Mencken’s quotes reveal his view of politics as entertainment and government as “pathetic, obscene, and criminal” but not intolerable, describing himself as a “specialist in human depravity.” The speaker critiques Rothbard’s 1965 essay advocating long-term optimism as romantic nonsense, arguing Mencken’s reasoned pessimism is more justified.
Summary: This segment establishes Mencken’s unique libertarian approach—detached, observational, and pessimistic—against Rothbard’s hopeful activism. It frames the talk’s central argument that Mencken’s realism is a more grounded model for libertarians.
Segment 3: Critiquing Romantic Libertarian Arguments (9:01–12:00)
Description: The speaker addresses common libertarian arguments for optimism, such as the internet’s role in spreading ideas, economic crises leading to libertarian awakenings, and historical victories like slavery’s abolition. Mencken’s counterpoints, as voiced by the speaker, highlight flaws: statist propaganda overshadows libertarian outreach, crises increase state power, and slavery’s abolition doesn’t negate ongoing forms of coercion. Examples like the minimum wage’s global rise and Rand Paul’s less principled stance compared to Ron Paul underscore the difficulty of libertarian progress.
Summary: This segment systematically dismantles optimistic libertarian narratives, using Mencken’s lens to argue that systemic barriers and human nature thwart significant change, reinforcing the speaker’s alignment with Mencken’s pessimism.
Segment 4: Debunking Nock’s Remnant and Historical Perspectives (12:01–16:00)
Description: The speaker challenges the romanticism of Albert J. Nock’s “remnant” concept, quoting Nock to reveal his own doubts about long-term influence. Marcus Aurelius is cited to critique the hope of posthumous recognition, and Mencken’s similar views question posterity’s judgment. Extensive Nock quotes emphasize his belief that societal improvement is nearly impossible due to human limitations and statism’s entrenched power, suggesting revolutions merely replace one form of oppression with another.
Summary: This segment deepens the critique of libertarian optimism by showing that even Nock, a revered figure, shared Mencken’s pessimism. It underscores the futility of expecting systemic change, aligning with Mencken’s detached enjoyment of societal flaws.
Segment 5: Enjoying Libertarianism Without Expectations (16:01–19:38)
Description: The speaker argues that libertarians can find joy in critiquing government absurdities without needing to influence others, citing the lively PFS speakers like Jeffrey Tucker as evidence. Marcus Aurelius and Nock are referenced again to highlight the spectacle of human folly as inherently entertaining. For optimists, the speaker humorously suggests following Gina Rinehart, a wealthy secessionist, as a potential libertarian catalyst. The talk concludes with Mencken’s view that libertarianism is about personal enjoyment, not necessarily progress, encouraging attendees to revel in the PFS experience.
Summary: This final segment ties the talk together, advocating for Mencken’s approach of finding amusement in libertarian critique without expecting societal change. It offers a lighthearted nod to optimists while reinforcing the core message of intellectual enjoyment over activism.
Note: The segment lengths vary (3–7 minutes) to align with natural shifts in the talk’s content, ensuring each block covers a cohesive topic or argument.
Mencken’s Conservatism
by Benjamin Marks, Economics.org.au editor-in-chief
I. Abstract
Why did H.L. Mencken, the most eloquent and popular of libertarians, have the lowest of expectations for libertarian reform?
One might think that grappling with this question would be a prerequisite of libertarian activism.
One might also think that libertarians would show Mencken — whom they hold in high regard — the respect of dealing with his reasoning, just as they do to statists — whom they do not hold in high regard.
Mencken found such situations amusing, predictable and inoperable.
II. Introduction and Overview
This essay emphasises Mencken’s conservatism above his other characteristics, as it is his primary distinguishing feature and the main reason he is misunderstood. His libertarianism — which overlaps with his conservatism — is also misunderstood, but plenty of literature is available defending libertarianism, whereas there is comparatively little intentionally defending conservatism.
Rarely is conservatism even acknowledged as having anything to do with reason, as something that could be right or wrong, justified or unjustified, probable or improbable. Usually it is uncritically dismissed as skeptical, iconoclastic, irreverent, curmudgeonly, eccentric, outspoken, opinionated, independent, sardonic, pessimistic, cynical, bitter and dated. Mencken is described in those terms — which are more comparative and superficial than descriptive and explanatory — far more often than he is described as correct and critical, or, for that matter, as incorrect and uncritical.
Mencken is not just different. He does not merely have a valid point of view. His conservatism is not a blind faith in pessimism; it was not of immaculate conception. It is not pessimystic. His viewpoint can be analysed, not only to compare his conclusions with your own, but to compare his reasoning too.
Mencken was a conservative. He doubted the goodness, honesty and truth of all government and any religion. Despite the difference between this and what is usually called conservatism, this is the true conservatism. After all, government and religion, being proactive, hope-fuelled and high-expectation responses to whatever the situation happened to be at the time of their founding, are merely examples of historical anticonservatism.
In addition to a critical predisposition and lack of faith, Mencken’s conservatism is also an unashamed appreciation of the entertainment provided by: (1) the pretentiousness of both historical and current events; and (2) the hollowness of attempted improvements, including those that will fail due to irrevocable economic laws — that is, socialistic interventions into the market —, and those that will fail due to unpopularity — that is, reforms that would work, if only the populace were not so stubbornly stupid.
To rephrase and reframe, Mencken believed: (a) that many problems are insoluble; (b) that many other problems have solutions that would work, but are unlikely to be adopted; (c) that “problems” are often misidentified, or exaggerated in both severity and urgency; (d) that “solutions” are rarely as useful as their believers claim; (e) that if people have free will, they rarely use it wisely and are predictably corruptible, gullible and unreflective; (f) that there will always be “do-gooders” who try to do the impossible and unlikely, and are blindly enthusiastic about their chances; (g) that these “do-gooders” often sink to the level they try to get others to rise above; (h) that not much can be done about these “do-gooders,” and it is usually best not to; (i) that all this has been the case in the past and will be so in the future; and (j) that all this is fun to witness and proclaim.
Mencken’s fervour was this-worldly. His cynicism was light-hearted and deeply-felt. His pessimism was upbeat and vigilant. His paranoia was fuelled by neither hope nor fear. His crusade against error and injustice was devoid of envy. He was passionate and questioning and resigned and satisfied.
This position is almost always confused with what it is not. Even those who hold such beliefs often find explaining themselves, or keeping silent, too difficult and inconvenient, requiring more intelligence than they possess or independence than they can muster. Acceptance concerns them more than honesty or education. They categorise their behaviour using categories and clichés they have come across, rather than their own immediate sincere reflections. Lacking the language necessary to express themselves or the discipline necessary to be silent until they find the right words, they either cease interest altogether in what gave them these difficulties, or classify themselves as something they are not. If they do the latter, they often change their beliefs until they share all the views of the group that they, originally incorrectly, classed themselves with. Consider, for example, the descriptions in the previous paragraph, how rarely you find the terms therein collocated, your initial reaction — which may have been that they are contradictory – and your reappraisal — which may be that it actually makes surprisingly good sense.
Mencken’s inventive language, ducking and weaving of unhelpful idioms, and enlarged vocabulary, do much to explain why his beliefs go beyond, say, the professed faith in democracy, whatever that means, of others; and why his prose is, as he said, “clear and alive.” For example:
The imbeciles who have printed acres of comment on my books have seldom noticed the chief character of my style. It is that I write with almost scientific precision — that my meaning is never obscure. The ignorant have often complained that my vocabulary is beyond them, but that is simply because my ideas cover a wider range than theirs do. Once they have consulted the dictionary they always know exactly what I intend to say. I am as far as any writer can get from the muffled sonorities of, say, John Dewey.[1]
III. Mencken’s Motives and Expectations
In this essay, I quote many passages from Mencken’s writings, not despite their similarities, but because of them. Where I find different eloquent passages where he makes the same point, I include them all, because that itself makes many a point. Specifically, it provides evidence for these controversial and unpopular beliefs: (1) that a critical, cynical and pessimistic person can sincerely enjoy holding and expressing critical, cynical and pessimistic beliefs; (2) that such beliefs need be no disincentive to productivity or obstacle to satisfaction; (3) that a low opinion is justified of the reading public, including attempts to educate them; and (4) that a low opinion is also justified of the government the reading public is part of and supports.
Mencken was published prolifically in popular places, yet most of his beliefs were still misunderstood. Even if his aim was not primarily to educate the masses, critics will have a tough time finding where his low opinion of the masses is wrong and what he could have done better to educate them — for example, could his prose have had more appeal, bite, clarity, directness or eloquence, and could he have repeated his viewpoint more?
Mencken believed that readers didn’t only need to be given a message once, but that it was unlikely they would get it at all. He repeatedly made the same observations simply for the sake of art, habit and amusement. He wrote on pedagogical, political and moral issues without any pedagogical, political or moral purpose. He was a critic of novels, but he never wrote one. He was a critic of America’s defence policy, but he was not a German spy. He was a critic of Presidents, but he never became one. His objectivity made him suspect, because reason is rarely comprehended, and is not represented by any political party, job description, university qualification or cultural group. It also explains why many people failed to see that, despite never writing a novel, running for office or launching a revolution, he still had many good ideas for those who did.
Leading by example means your followers are looking at the back of your head. Mencken faced up to people, and told them what he was thinking.
Mencken was a libertarian theorist of the highest rank, but only an incidental activist. He did not believe that he could be a successful activist, and it was not one of his primary aims. He advocated libertarianism because that was what he believed to be the truth, not because he thought it was attainable, or something people wanted to, needed to or should hear. More than an academic, activist or job-holder, he considered himself an artist or animal, someone “diseased” with the thirst for truth and aesthetic sense.[2]
Here is some autobiographical insight from Mencken:
[A]n author, like any other so-called artist, is a man in whom the normal vanity of all men is so vastly exaggerated that he finds it a sheer impossibility to hold it in … Such is the thing called self-expression … The vanity of man is quite illimitable. In every act of life, however trivial, and particularly in every act which pertains to his profession, he takes all the pride of a baby learning to walk. It may seem incredible but it is nevertheless a fact that I myself get great delight out of writing such banal paragraphs as this one.[3]
I have never tried to convert anyone to anything. Like any other man bawling from a public stamp I have occasionally made a convert; in fact, in seasons when my embouchure has been good I have made a great many. But not deliberately, not with any satisfaction … I am, in fact, the complete anti-Messiah, and detest converts as much as I detest missionaries. My writings, such as they are, have had only one purpose: to attain for H.L. Mencken that feeling of tension relieved and function achieved which a cow enjoys on giving milk.[4]
IV. Mencken’s Conservatism and Christianity
In perhaps the best distillation of Mencken’s conservatism, he suggested everyone live not quite sober and not quite drunk, but “gently stewed.” He explained what this solution entails:
Putting a brake upon all the qualities which enable us to get on in the world and shine before our fellows — for example, combativeness, shrewdness, diligence, ambition —, it releases the qualities which mellow us and make our fellows love us — for example, amiability, generosity, toleration, humor, sympathy. A man who has taken aboard two or three cocktails is less competent than he was before to steer a battleship down the Ambrose Channel, or to cut off a leg, or to draw a deed of trust, or to conduct Bach’s B minor mass, but he is immensely more competent to entertain a dinner party, or to admire a pretty girl, or to hear Bach’s B minor mass.[21]
Footnotes
[1] H.L. Mencken, Minority Report (Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins University Press, 2006), p. 293.
[2] H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy (New York: Vintage, 1982), pp. 442-49; see also H.L. Mencken, Prejudices: Fourth Series (New York: Octagon Books, 1985), pp. 269-77. A note on my referencing of Mencken: Much, but not all, of his work has been reprinted in many different essay versions and compilations. I only reference one location for each specific passage, based on my estimate of: (1) its most popular current location; and (2) where the best relevant discussion is. The Chrestomathies often include only part of a larger discussion, sometimes excising the best bits. I may reference and quote multiple locations for where Mencken makes the same point, but only ever one location when he makes the same point in the same way, as per the two criteria explained in the previous sentence.
[3] A Mencken Chrestomathy, p. 466; and H.L. Mencken, A Second Mencken Chrestomathy, ed. Terry Teachout (New York: Knopf, 1995), p. 489; see also H.L. Mencken, In Defense of Women (New York: Knopf, 1927), pp. 77-78.
[4] A Second Mencken Chrestomathy, pp. 483-84, 491. The second half of the paragraph Mencken wrote for use in his obituary.
[21] A Mencken Chrestomathy, pp. 388-89.
***
TRANSCRIPT
0:00
looking through the amazing list of
0:01
speakers for this conference the only
0:03
name I don’t recognize is my own So it’s
0:06
a great privilege to be here Um and
0:09
thanks also to the late Neville Kennard
0:11
who was a big supporter and fan of the
0:12
Propriy and Freedom Society Um and died
0:15
in June this year Uh for a while at the
0:18
end he was bedbound at his country
0:20
property He was quite weak and frail and
0:22
surrounded with sheets and blankets But
0:24
when I came in he set up to see me and
0:27
the blankets fell away and he was
0:29
wearing his Rothbard enemy of the state
0:31
shirt Um Nev had to cancel his
0:34
attendance at last year’s PFS meeting
0:37
for medical reasons So the morning after
0:39
I arrived back in Australia after last
0:41
year’s PFS I drove down to his country
0:44
property to tell him what he missed Um
0:47
he invited me for breakfast but you know
0:49
we had so much to talk about that I
0:50
stayed for lunch and dinner and uh you
0:53
know all talking about all of you and he
0:55
was very interested and so now that he
0:58
has an even better excuse not to be here
1:00
I I guess I will have to report back to
1:02
him at even greater length Um also I’m
1:06
very sorry that Richard Lynn could not
1:08
be here I was uh very much looking
1:10
forward to his speech
1:13
Now the title of my talk is HL Menin as
1:16
a libertarian model What makes Menin as
1:19
a libertarian model so different from
1:22
other libertarian models like Rothbart
1:24
is that Menin had no expectation
1:26
whatsoever of being
1:29
influential But this did not in any way
1:31
stunt Menin’s productivity and passion
1:33
as a libertarian theorist and
1:35
stirer Because to quote Menin quote “An
1:39
author like any other so-called artist
1:42
is a man in whom the normal vanity of
1:44
all men is so vastly exaggerated that he
1:47
finds it a sheer impossibility to hold
1:49
it in such as the thing called
1:51
self-exression The vanity of man is
1:54
quite illimitable In every act of life
1:56
however trivial and particularly in
1:58
every act which pertains to his
1:59
profession he takes all the pride of a
2:01
baby learning to walk It may seem
2:04
incredible but it is nevertheless a fact
2:06
that I myself get great delight out of
2:08
writing such banal paragraphs as this
2:10
one End quote So men considered politics
2:14
a genre of entertainment and he
2:16
considered the corruption of politics
2:17
merely as ad breaks He thought
2:20
government pathetic obscene and criminal
2:22
but not hideous intolerable or in
2:24
unsightly As Menin said of his
2:27
libertarianism quote “My business is not
2:30
prognosis but diagnosis I am not engaged
2:33
in therapeutics but in pathology I am
2:36
not in fact protesting against anything
2:39
I am simply describing something not
2:41
even in sorrow but simply as a
2:43
specialist in human
2:45
depravity.” Such spectacles do not make
2:48
me indignant They simply interest me
2:50
immensely as a pathologist say is
2:53
interested by a beautiful gastric ulcer
2:56
It is perhaps a strange taste that is in
2:58
a country of reformers but there it is
3:00
end quote So the phrase specialist in
3:03
human depravity is quite brilliant I
3:06
think I mean think back to all the
3:07
speakers we have heard over the past few
3:09
days I think it is more descriptive to
3:11
call them all specialists in human
3:13
depravity rather than historians or
3:15
economists or journalists or or whatever
3:19
Um so Menin’s low expectations are I
3:23
think are much more justified than
3:25
Rothbart’s high expectations of future
3:28
long-term libertarian revolution uh or
3:32
pro progress In the 1965 essay The
3:36
Prospects of Liberty in the first issue
3:38
of Rothbard’s journal Left and Right
3:40
Mari Rothbud writes quote “While the
3:44
short-run prospects for liberty at home
3:46
and abroad may seem dim the proper
3:49
attitude for the libertarian to take is
3:52
that of unquenchable long-run optimism
3:55
For the libertarian the main task of the
3:58
present epoch is to cast off his
4:00
needless and debilitating pessimism to
4:03
set his sights on long run victory and
4:05
to set out on the road to its
4:08
attainment.” Now to me this is the most
4:11
cliched romantic rubbish It is just like
4:14
saying that positive thinking helps cure
4:16
cancer In fact it’s even worse than that
4:19
because Rothbart is saying that things
4:21
will get better in the long run even
4:23
though they won’t in the short term And
4:26
even worse it shows that Rothbide
4:27
totally ignored the fact that Menin’s
4:29
pessimism was entirely based in reason
4:32
It was not a baseless attitude Um
4:35
incidentally as an aside all men’s
4:38
biographers have failed to acknowledge
4:40
this central fact
4:41
Also however what Rothbud said makes
4:44
perfect sense If your aim in being a
4:46
libertarian activist is
4:48
exclusively to persuade and influence
4:51
others if persuading and influencing is
4:53
your exclusive aim then you must be
4:55
optimistic that you will persuade and
4:57
influence Otherwise you would not be a
4:59
libertarian activist But why would you
5:02
be optimistic that you can persuade and
5:04
influence
5:05
others here are some common answers that
5:08
many romantic libertarians use
5:10
accompanied by manennian
5:12
response responses Um so romantic
5:16
libertarians like to say that the
5:18
internet age is different because now
5:20
everyone has everyone has such easy
5:22
access to libertarian
5:24
propaganda But menians think that is
5:27
more than canceled out by there also
5:29
being easy access to status
5:31
propaganda Um romantic libertarians like
5:34
to say that government inter
5:36
intervention has become so extreme that
5:38
the economic situation will result in
5:40
people finally seeing the light and
5:42
becoming libertarians But menians think
5:44
it is more likely that hyperinflations
5:46
and depressions result in increased
5:48
government intervention and more
5:50
misplaced blame on on capitalism Um
5:54
romantic libertarians like to say that
5:56
slavery was abolished even though the
5:58
so-called realists said we should just
6:01
regulate the slave trade So they use
6:03
this to show that we should be radical
6:04
in abolishing taxes government
6:06
departments etc as they amount to forced
6:08
labor which is slavery But do you know
6:11
what this argument also says it admits
6:14
that actually we still have slavery
6:17
So
6:17
uh and like um so the radicals did not
6:22
succeed Um but I still like to use that
6:25
argument I think it’s a you know great
6:27
argument But
6:28
just in fact in the latest edition of
6:31
capitalism.hk which is on the book table
6:34
I uh I feature Robert Higgs using that
6:37
argument Um
6:39
uh and romantic libertarians like to say
6:42
that the minimum wage is a great example
6:44
of economic reasoning and the best way
6:46
to to successfully introduce people to
6:48
libertarian thought But what the case of
6:51
the minimum wage also proves is that an
6:53
ever growing number of countries all
6:55
around the world are implementing and
6:57
increasing the minimum wage including
6:59
Hong Kong which has just introduced the
7:01
minimum wage So in light of the
7:03
widespread and growing popularity of so
7:05
obvious a calamity as the minimum wage
7:07
how can anyone be optimistic for any
7:09
libertarian progress in more complicated
7:12
areas like surely minimum wage reform
7:15
would be the first place we’d see it if
7:17
it was a if it was coming Also Ron Paul
7:22
has attracted huge passionate and
7:23
growing following which is leading many
7:25
people to take to make all sorts of
7:27
romantic predictions But if Ron Paul is
7:30
so likely to s succeed how is it that
7:32
someone who owes Ron Paul so much as a
7:35
son does his father and has been
7:36
subjected to more of Ron Paul’s
7:38
arguments than anyone else namely his
7:40
most political child Randpaul is far
7:42
less principled than his father and many
7:44
of his supporters who have such high
7:46
expectations of of where the Ronpor
7:48
movement will lead Um libertarians often
7:52
show one one more example
7:54
of libertarian romanticism
7:58
uh libertarians often show that
7:59
governments of the past that are today
8:01
considered to be tyrannical and
8:02
unpopular even by the establishment
8:05
share the same characteristics with
8:06
popular governments today that are
8:08
considered to be free and popular With
8:11
this argument romantic libertarians hope
8:13
to bring about a widespread
8:14
enlightenment enlightenment which will
8:17
lead to a more just free and prosperous
8:19
society But their observation also
8:21
teaches something quite different which
8:23
libertarians often fail to acknowledge
8:26
As men can point it out quote “The fact
8:29
is that some of the things that men and
8:31
women have desired most ardently for
8:33
thousands of years are not near a
8:35
realization today than they were in the
8:37
time of Rammeses and that there is not
8:39
the slightest reason for believing that
8:41
they will lose their coiness on any near
8:43
tomorrow Plans for hurrying them over
8:47
have been tried since the beginning
8:49
Plans for forcing them overnight are in
8:51
copious and antagonistic operation today
8:53
And yet they continue to hold off and
8:55
elude us and the chances are that they
8:57
will continue holding off and eluding
9:00
us To further communicate that Menin’s
9:04
pessimism was justified I think the most
9:07
effective thing would be for us to see
9:09
that Albert J No did not believe in the
9:12
remnant
9:13
Speaking to the remnant is long-term
9:16
romanticism which in a way is the most
9:18
extreme form of hopefilled romanticism
9:21
And Albert J No is the author of
9:23
Isaiah’s job the most referenced essay
9:25
pointing putting forward being
9:26
influential in the long term and
9:28
expecting that people will find you and
9:30
they will be convinced by what you say
9:33
eventually Um but before I quote no to
9:36
show that he himself did not believe in
9:38
the remnant no fa favorite author Marcus
9:40
Aurelius offered the best criticism of
9:43
those libertarian romantics like Murray
9:45
Rothbard who believed in the remnant and
9:48
are optimists for long-term libertarian
9:50
progress
9:52
Quote they are misunderstood by their
9:54
contemporaries the people whose lives
9:56
they share but they expect to be
9:58
understood by post posterity people
10:00
they’ve never met and never will that’s
10:03
what they set their hearts on You might
10:05
as well be upset at not being a hero to
10:07
your great-grandfather End quote And uh
10:10
Menin made a very similar comment to
10:12
Marcus Aurelius in a kind of a different
10:14
context but it’ll it’ll be clear Quote
10:18
“There is a notion that judgments of
10:19
living artists are impossible They are
10:22
bound to be corrupted we are told by
10:24
prejudice false perspective mob emotion
10:26
error The question whether this or that
10:29
man is great or small is one which only
10:31
posterity can answer a silly begging of
10:34
the question for doesn’t posterity also
10:36
make mistakes end quote So because of
10:39
how popular among libertarian circles
10:42
the myth of no as optimist and reformer
10:44
he is like even if it’s very long term I
10:47
will now read out several passages
10:49
showing that no himself did not believe
10:51
in Isaiah’s job To start with it is
10:55
worth noting that no himself in the
10:57
essay Isaiah’s job itself said “If I
11:01
were young and had the notion of
11:03
embarking in the prophetical line I
11:05
would certainly take up this branch of
11:07
the business aiming aiming at long-term
11:11
influence and expecting that those who
11:13
appreciate your work will eventually
11:15
find you and eventually lead to progress
11:17
in a libertarian direction And therefore
11:19
I have no hesitation about recommending
11:21
it as a career for anyone in that
11:23
position So anyone who’s young and
11:27
prophetical Um but no was not young when
11:30
he wrote it and he was not interested on
11:32
embarking on a career in the prophetical
11:35
line So when people talk of no’s remnant
11:38
they do not talk of a remnant that no
11:40
wrote intentionally for So here are some
11:43
more passages showing that no was
11:45
thoroughly pessimistic about the
11:47
prospects for
11:49
liberty Quote the only thing that the
11:53
psychically human being can do to
11:54
improve society is to present society
11:57
with one improved unit Very few among
12:00
mankind have either the force of
12:01
intellect to manage this method
12:03
intelligently or the force of character
12:05
to apply it constantly Hence if one
12:08
regards mankind as being what they are
12:10
the chances seem to be that the
12:12
deceptively easier way will continue to
12:14
prevail among them throughout an
12:16
indefinitely long
12:18
future It is easy to prescribe
12:20
improvement for others It is easy to
12:22
organize something to institutionalize
12:24
this or that to pass laws multiply
12:26
bureaucratic agencies form pressure
12:28
groups start revolutions change forms of
12:31
government tinker at political theory
12:33
The fact that these expedients have been
12:35
tried unsuccessfully in every
12:37
conceivable combination for 6,000 years
12:40
has not noticeably impaired a credulous
12:42
unintelligent willingness to keep on
12:45
trying them again and
12:47
again This being so it seems highly
12:49
probable that the hope for any
12:51
significant improvement of society must
12:54
be postponed End quote Here’s another
12:57
not paragraph quote “If it were in my
13:00
power to pull down its whole structure
13:01
overnight and set up another of my own
13:03
devising to abolish the state out of
13:06
hand and replace it by an organization
13:08
of the economic means I would not do it
13:11
for the minds of Americans are far from
13:13
fitted to any such great change as
13:15
this.” End quote Here’s another knock
13:18
paragraph Quote taking the sum of the
13:20
state’s physical strength with the force
13:22
of powerful spiritual influences behind
13:25
it one asks what can be done against the
13:28
state’s progress in self
13:30
agrandisement simply nothing So far from
13:34
encouraging any hopeful contemplation of
13:36
the unattainable the student of
13:38
civilized man will offer no conclusion
13:40
but that nothing can be done End quote
13:44
and another quote “Even a successful
13:47
revolution if such a thing were
13:49
conceivable against the military tyranny
13:51
which is statism’s last expedient would
13:54
accomplish nothing The people would be
13:56
as thoroughly indoctrinated with statism
13:58
after the revolution as they were before
14:00
and therefore the revolution would be no
14:02
revolution but a coup d’eta by which the
14:04
citizen would gain nothing but a mere
14:06
change for
14:07
presses There have been me many
14:09
revolutions in the last 25 years and
14:12
this has been the sum of their history
14:14
They amount to no more than an
14:15
impressive testimony to the great truth
14:17
that there can be no right action except
14:20
there be right thinking behind it As
14:22
long as the easy attractive superficial
14:24
philosophy of statism remains in control
14:26
of the citizen’s mind no bene bene
14:29
beneficent social change can be affected
14:32
whether by revolution or by any other
14:34
means End quote And one one last one
14:39
quote “Sometimes people who knew my
14:41
politics have wondered that I do not
14:43
crusade for it or even say much about it
14:45
but much more than a sound economic
14:47
system is necessary You have to have
14:49
sound people to work it.” The wise
14:51
social philosophers were those who
14:53
merely hung up their ideas and left them
14:56
hanging for men to look at or pass by as
14:59
they chose Jesus and Socrates did not
15:01
even trouble trouble to write theirs out
15:03
and Marcus Aurelius spoke his only
15:05
encrabed memoranda for his own use never
15:08
thinking anyone else would would see
15:10
them.” End quote So this passage
15:12
mentions Marcus Aurelius whom we quoted
15:15
earlier and no was
15:17
like no knock often said it’s his
15:20
favorite author Um so here’s another
15:22
Marcus Aurelius passage Quote evil the
15:26
same old thing Whatever happens keep
15:28
this in mind It’s the same old thing
15:30
from one end of the world to the other
15:32
It fills the history books ancient and
15:34
modern and the cities and the houses too
15:37
familiar transient Look at the past
15:40
Empire succeeding empire and from that
15:43
extrapolate the future the same thing No
15:47
escape from the rhythm of events Which
15:48
is why observing life for 40 years is as
15:50
good as a thousand Would you really see
15:53
anything new end
15:55
quote So that knock like Men enjoyed the
15:58
spectacle and was not disappointed by it
16:01
Here is one more knock passage Quote
16:03
“The war was detestable enough but the
16:06
anthropoid job holders who engineered it
16:08
and the masses whom they coerced and
16:09
exploited were doing the best that the
16:11
limitations of their nature admitted of
16:14
their doing and one could expect no more
16:16
than that There was even a certain grave
16:19
beauty such as one obser observes in a
16:22
battle of snakes or sharks in the
16:24
machinations which they continued which
16:26
which they contrived in order to fulfill
16:28
the law of their being One regarded
16:30
these creatures with aor ahorance Yes
16:33
Sometimes with boredom and annoyance yes
16:36
But with dis despondency and
16:38
disappointment no So yes sometimes as no
16:42
said pol politics fills meenians with
16:45
boredom Um but there aren’t many forms
16:47
of entertainment that don’t have
16:49
occasional slow patches and off days But
16:52
really I think everyone here can find
16:54
enough enjoyment in being a libertarian
16:56
theorist and stirer without needing
16:58
to think that they are helping people
17:00
and being
17:02
influential I don’t think I need to tell
17:04
anyone here how amu am amusing
17:06
government is I mean government does not
17:08
tax our our enjoyment It subsidizes it
17:11
Did Jeffrey Tucker look miserable in his
17:14
speech earlier today when he was
17:16
describing how tough government makes
17:17
his life you know as the title of his
17:20
speech seemed to hint um have any of the
17:23
PFS speakers appeared sad about
17:25
government i don’t think so Everyone
17:28
here appears to enjoy the absurdity of
17:30
government and to enjoy enjoy speaking
17:32
against
17:33
it Uh but I understand that many people
17:36
here need to believe that they can make
17:38
a difference by influencing others And
17:41
of
17:41
course being a man I I don’t expect to
17:45
change your minds So to offer you people
17:47
something from this talk um I recommend
17:50
that you learn all you can about the
17:52
Western Australian mining magnate Gina
17:54
Reinhardt Being the richest woman in the
17:57
world she is getting increasing
17:59
international media attention and many
18:01
uh news reports predict her becoming the
18:04
richest person in the world in the not
18:05
too distant future She is now an even
18:08
bigger prospect for bringing on the
18:09
libertarian revolution than Ron Paul I I
18:13
discovered an interview in an Australian
18:14
women’s magazine in
18:16
1975 where she said that she listed her
18:19
occupation on her passport as
18:23
secessionist Her father was not afraid
18:25
to call Australia’s political parties
18:27
public servants industry groups
18:29
university students and journalists all
18:31
a bunch of socialists And Mrs Reinhardt
18:34
is is definitely a big fan of her
18:36
father’s politics Moreover she is
18:38
spending hundreds of millions of dollars
18:40
trying to get media influence although
18:43
none of that’s come to me Um so I hope
18:46
all you uh I hope you all you optimists
18:48
out there feel that you’ve got something
18:50
out of this talk Um in
18:52
conclusion menians might hope that
18:56
libertarian progress will be made even
18:59
if that will unfortunately compromise
19:01
our gargantuan enjoyment watching the
19:03
greedy and gullible passionately support
19:06
people who will be betray them in our
19:09
gloriously corrupt and unprincipled
19:11
commonwealth of morons for a manin
19:14
phrase So we can hope manians can hope
19:17
for libertarian progress but we don’t
19:19
expect any progress but to repeat that
19:22
does not mean that there are not many
19:24
other reasons for being a libertarian
19:26
theorist in shitster and uh one of the
19:29
best of those reasons would be to enjoy
19:31
yourself at hoppers property and freedom
19:33
society Thank you
19:38
[Applause]
More shows like Property and Freedom Podcast
View all
The Joe Rogan Experience
229,674 Listeners
The Peter Schiff Show Podcast
5,709 Listeners
The Tom Woods Show
3,367 Listeners
Part Of The Problem
4,935 Listeners
Scott Horton Show - Just the Interviews
974 Listeners
The Bitcoin Standard Podcast
427 Listeners
"YOUR WELCOME" with Michael Malice
2,182 Listeners
Judging Freedom
941 Listeners
The Tucker Carlson Show
16,982 Listeners
Mises Institute
18 Listeners