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.
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.
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Germany/Turkey), Welcome and Introductions
- Karl-Peter Schwarz (Austria), Between Restitution and Re-Expropriation: Desocialization in Eastern Europe
- Benjamin Marks (Australia), On H.L. Mencken as a Libertarian Model
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Concluding Remarks, Tributes, and Announcements
Grok summary of transcript:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Mencken’s Conservatism
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
looking through the amazing list of
speakers for this conference the only
name I don’t recognize is my own So it’s
a great privilege to be here Um and
thanks also to the late Neville Kennard
who was a big supporter and fan of the
Propriy and Freedom Society Um and died
in June this year Uh for a while at the
end he was bedbound at his country
property He was quite weak and frail and
surrounded with sheets and blankets But
when I came in he set up to see me and
the blankets fell away and he was
wearing his Rothbard enemy of the state
shirt Um Nev had to cancel his
attendance at last year’s PFS meeting
for medical reasons So the morning after
I arrived back in Australia after last
year’s PFS I drove down to his country
property to tell him what he missed Um
he invited me for breakfast but you know
we had so much to talk about that I
stayed for lunch and dinner and uh you
know all talking about all of you and he
was very interested and so now that he
has an even better excuse not to be here
I I guess I will have to report back to
him at even greater length Um also I’m
very sorry that Richard Lynn could not
be here I was uh very much looking
forward to his speech
Now the title of my talk is HL Menin as
a libertarian model What makes Menin as
a libertarian model so different from
other libertarian models like Rothbart
is that Menin had no expectation
whatsoever of being
influential But this did not in any way
stunt Menin’s productivity and passion
as a libertarian theorist and
stirer Because to quote Menin quote “An
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 as the thing called
self-exression 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 End quote So men considered politics
a genre of entertainment and he
considered the corruption of politics
merely as ad breaks He thought
government pathetic obscene and criminal
but not hideous intolerable or in
unsightly As Menin said of his
libertarianism quote “My business is not
prognosis but diagnosis I am not engaged
in therapeutics but in pathology I am
not in fact protesting against anything
I am simply describing something not
even in sorrow but simply as a
specialist in human
depravity.” Such spectacles do not make
me indignant They simply interest me
immensely as a pathologist say is
interested by a beautiful gastric ulcer
It is perhaps a strange taste that is in
a country of reformers but there it is
end quote So the phrase specialist in
human depravity is quite brilliant I
think I mean think back to all the
speakers we have heard over the past few
days I think it is more descriptive to
call them all specialists in human
depravity rather than historians or
economists or journalists or or whatever
Um so Menin’s low expectations are I
think are much more justified than
Rothbart’s high expectations of future
long-term libertarian revolution uh or
pro progress In the 1965 essay The
Prospects of Liberty in the first issue
of Rothbard’s journal Left and Right
Mari Rothbud writes quote “While the
short-run prospects for liberty at home
and abroad may seem dim the proper
attitude for the libertarian to take is
that of unquenchable long-run optimism
For the libertarian the main task of the
present epoch is to cast off his
needless and debilitating pessimism to
set his sights on long run victory and
to set out on the road to its
attainment.” Now to me this is the most
cliched romantic rubbish It is just like
saying that positive thinking helps cure
cancer In fact it’s even worse than that
because Rothbart is saying that things
will get better in the long run even
though they won’t in the short term And
even worse it shows that Rothbide
totally ignored the fact that Menin’s
pessimism was entirely based in reason
It was not a baseless attitude Um
incidentally as an aside all men’s
biographers have failed to acknowledge
this central fact
Also however what Rothbud said makes
perfect sense If your aim in being a
libertarian activist is
exclusively to persuade and influence
others if persuading and influencing is
your exclusive aim then you must be
optimistic that you will persuade and
influence Otherwise you would not be a
libertarian activist But why would you
be optimistic that you can persuade and
influence
others here are some common answers that
many romantic libertarians use
accompanied by manennian
response responses Um so romantic
libertarians like to say that the
internet age is different because now
everyone has everyone has such easy
access to libertarian
propaganda But menians think that is
more than canceled out by there also
being easy access to status
propaganda Um romantic libertarians like
to say that government inter
intervention has become so extreme that
the economic situation will result in
people finally seeing the light and
becoming libertarians But menians think
it is more likely that hyperinflations
and depressions result in increased
government intervention and more
misplaced blame on on capitalism Um
romantic libertarians like to say that
slavery was abolished even though the
so-called realists said we should just
regulate the slave trade So they use
this to show that we should be radical
in abolishing taxes government
departments etc as they amount to forced
labor which is slavery But do you know
what this argument also says it admits
that actually we still have slavery
So
uh and like um so the radicals did not
succeed Um but I still like to use that
argument I think it’s a you know great
argument But
just in fact in the latest edition of
capitalism.hk which is on the book table
I uh I feature Robert Higgs using that
argument Um
uh and romantic libertarians like to say
that the minimum wage is a great example
of economic reasoning and the best way
to to successfully introduce people to
libertarian thought But what the case of
the minimum wage also proves is that an
ever growing number of countries all
around the world are implementing and
increasing the minimum wage including
Hong Kong which has just introduced the
minimum wage So in light of the
widespread and growing popularity of so
obvious a calamity as the minimum wage
how can anyone be optimistic for any
libertarian progress in more complicated
areas like surely minimum wage reform
would be the first place we’d see it if
it was a if it was coming Also Ron Paul
has attracted huge passionate and
growing following which is leading many
people to take to make all sorts of
romantic predictions But if Ron Paul is
so likely to s succeed how is it that
someone who owes Ron Paul so much as a
son does his father and has been
subjected to more of Ron Paul’s
arguments than anyone else namely his
most political child Randpaul is far
less principled than his father and many
of his supporters who have such high
expectations of of where the Ronpor
movement will lead Um libertarians often
show one one more example
of libertarian romanticism
uh libertarians often show that
governments of the past that are today
considered to be tyrannical and
unpopular even by the establishment
share the same characteristics with
popular governments today that are
considered to be free and popular With
this argument romantic libertarians hope
to bring about a widespread
enlightenment enlightenment which will
lead to a more just free and prosperous
society But their observation also
teaches something quite different which
libertarians often fail to acknowledge
As men can point it out quote “The fact
is that some of the things that men and
women have desired most ardently for
thousands of years are not near a
realization today than they were in the
time of Rammeses and that there is not
the slightest reason for believing that
they will lose their coiness on any near
tomorrow Plans for hurrying them over
have been tried since the beginning
Plans for forcing them overnight are in
copious and antagonistic operation today
And yet they continue to hold off and
elude us and the chances are that they
will continue holding off and eluding
us To further communicate that Menin’s
pessimism was justified I think the most
effective thing would be for us to see
that Albert J No did not believe in the
remnant
Speaking to the remnant is long-term
romanticism which in a way is the most
extreme form of hopefilled romanticism
And Albert J No is the author of
Isaiah’s job the most referenced essay
pointing putting forward being
influential in the long term and
expecting that people will find you and
they will be convinced by what you say
eventually Um but before I quote no to
show that he himself did not believe in
the remnant no fa favorite author Marcus
Aurelius offered the best criticism of
those libertarian romantics like Murray
Rothbard who believed in the remnant and
are optimists for long-term libertarian
progress
Quote they are misunderstood by their
contemporaries the people whose lives
they share but they expect to be
understood by post posterity people
they’ve never met and never will that’s
what they set their hearts on You might
as well be upset at not being a hero to
your great-grandfather End quote And uh
Menin made a very similar comment to
Marcus Aurelius in a kind of a different
context but it’ll it’ll be clear Quote
“There is a notion that judgments of
living artists are impossible They are
bound to be corrupted we are told by
prejudice false perspective mob emotion
error The question whether this or that
man is great or small is one which only
posterity can answer a silly begging of
the question for doesn’t posterity also
make mistakes end quote So because of
how popular among libertarian circles
the myth of no as optimist and reformer
he is like even if it’s very long term I
will now read out several passages
showing that no himself did not believe
in Isaiah’s job To start with it is
worth noting that no himself in the
essay Isaiah’s job itself said “If I
were young and had the notion of
embarking in the prophetical line I
would certainly take up this branch of
the business aiming aiming at long-term
influence and expecting that those who
appreciate your work will eventually
find you and eventually lead to progress
in a libertarian direction And therefore
I have no hesitation about recommending
it as a career for anyone in that
position So anyone who’s young and
prophetical Um but no was not young when
he wrote it and he was not interested on
embarking on a career in the prophetical
line So when people talk of no’s remnant
they do not talk of a remnant that no
wrote intentionally for So here are some
more passages showing that no was
thoroughly pessimistic about the
prospects for
liberty Quote the only thing that the
psychically human being can do to
improve society is to present society
with one improved unit Very few among
mankind have either the force of
intellect to manage this method
intelligently or the force of character
to apply it constantly Hence if one
regards mankind as being what they are
the chances seem to be that the
deceptively easier way will continue to
prevail among them throughout an
indefinitely long
future It is easy to prescribe
improvement for others It is easy to
organize something to institutionalize
this or that to pass laws multiply
bureaucratic agencies form pressure
groups start revolutions change forms of
government tinker at political theory
The fact that these expedients have been
tried unsuccessfully in every
conceivable combination for 6,000 years
has not noticeably impaired a credulous
unintelligent willingness to keep on
trying them again and
again This being so it seems highly
probable that the hope for any
significant improvement of society must
be postponed End quote Here’s another
not paragraph quote “If it were in my
power to pull down its whole structure
overnight and set up another of my own
devising to abolish the state out of
hand and replace it by an organization
of the economic means I would not do it
for the minds of Americans are far from
fitted to any such great change as
this.” End quote Here’s another knock
paragraph Quote taking the sum of the
state’s physical strength with the force
of powerful spiritual influences behind
it one asks what can be done against the
state’s progress in self
agrandisement simply nothing So far from
encouraging any hopeful contemplation of
the unattainable the student of
civilized man will offer no conclusion
but that nothing can be done End quote
and another quote “Even a successful
revolution if such a thing were
conceivable against the military tyranny
which is statism’s last expedient would
accomplish nothing The people would be
as thoroughly indoctrinated with statism
after the revolution as they were before
and therefore the revolution would be no
revolution but a coup d’eta by which the
citizen would gain nothing but a mere
change for
presses There have been me many
revolutions in the last 25 years and
this has been the sum of their history
They amount to no more than an
impressive testimony to the great truth
that there can be no right action except
there be right thinking behind it As
long as the easy attractive superficial
philosophy of statism remains in control
of the citizen’s mind no bene bene
beneficent social change can be affected
whether by revolution or by any other
means End quote And one one last one
quote “Sometimes people who knew my
politics have wondered that I do not
crusade for it or even say much about it
but much more than a sound economic
system is necessary You have to have
sound people to work it.” The wise
social philosophers were those who
merely hung up their ideas and left them
hanging for men to look at or pass by as
they chose Jesus and Socrates did not
even trouble trouble to write theirs out
and Marcus Aurelius spoke his only
encrabed memoranda for his own use never
thinking anyone else would would see
them.” End quote So this passage
mentions Marcus Aurelius whom we quoted
earlier and no was
like no knock often said it’s his
favorite author Um so here’s another
Marcus Aurelius passage Quote evil the
same old thing Whatever happens keep
this in mind It’s the same old thing
from one end of the world to the other
It fills the history books ancient and
modern and the cities and the houses too
familiar transient Look at the past
Empire succeeding empire and from that
extrapolate the future the same thing No
escape from the rhythm of events Which
is why observing life for 40 years is as
good as a thousand Would you really see
anything new end
quote So that knock like Men enjoyed the
spectacle and was not disappointed by it
Here is one more knock passage Quote
“The war was detestable enough but the
anthropoid job holders who engineered it
and the masses whom they coerced and
exploited were doing the best that the
limitations of their nature admitted of
their doing and one could expect no more
than that There was even a certain grave
beauty such as one obser observes in a
battle of snakes or sharks in the
machinations which they continued which
which they contrived in order to fulfill
the law of their being One regarded
these creatures with aor ahorance Yes
Sometimes with boredom and annoyance yes
But with dis despondency and
disappointment no So yes sometimes as no
said pol politics fills meenians with
boredom Um but there aren’t many forms
of entertainment that don’t have
occasional slow patches and off days But
really I think everyone here can find
enough enjoyment in being a libertarian
theorist and stirer without needing
to think that they are helping people
and being
influential I don’t think I need to tell
anyone here how amu am amusing
government is I mean government does not
tax our our enjoyment It subsidizes it
Did Jeffrey Tucker look miserable in his
speech earlier today when he was
describing how tough government makes
his life you know as the title of his
speech seemed to hint um have any of the
PFS speakers appeared sad about
government i don’t think so Everyone
here appears to enjoy the absurdity of
government and to enjoy enjoy speaking
against
it Uh but I understand that many people
here need to believe that they can make
a difference by influencing others And
of
course being a man I I don’t expect to
change your minds So to offer you people
something from this talk um I recommend
that you learn all you can about the
Western Australian mining magnate Gina
Reinhardt Being the richest woman in the
world she is getting increasing
international media attention and many
uh news reports predict her becoming the
richest person in the world in the not
too distant future She is now an even
bigger prospect for bringing on the
libertarian revolution than Ron Paul I I
discovered an interview in an Australian
women’s magazine in
1975 where she said that she listed her
occupation on her passport as
secessionist Her father was not afraid
to call Australia’s political parties
public servants industry groups
university students and journalists all
a bunch of socialists And Mrs Reinhardt
is is definitely a big fan of her
father’s politics Moreover she is
spending hundreds of millions of dollars
trying to get media influence although
none of that’s come to me Um so I hope
all you uh I hope you all you optimists
out there feel that you’ve got something
out of this talk Um in
conclusion menians might hope that
libertarian progress will be made even
if that will unfortunately compromise
our gargantuan enjoyment watching the
greedy and gullible passionately support
people who will be betray them in our
gloriously corrupt and unprincipled
commonwealth of morons for a manin
phrase So we can hope manians can hope
for libertarian progress but we don’t
expect any progress but to repeat that
does not mean that there are not many
other reasons for being a libertarian
theorist in shitster and uh one of the
best of those reasons would be to enjoy
yourself at hoppers property and freedom
society Thank you
[Applause]
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 19:46 — 7.6MB)
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.