You Call Yourself a Christian?

First there was this meme, challenging me to explain to my supposedly oppressed friends why I didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. A meme is that “unit of communication” invented in 1976 by the unregenerate Richard Dawkins.

Now comes another one, this time asking: “Why, when Jesus talks about feeding the poor, it’s Christianity but when a politician does it, it’s Socialism?”  (Never mind that, as with almost all memes, this one too stumbles over grammar.  Neither the word nor the concept of socialism is a proper name.  It does not need to be capitalized.  Or, to paraphrase Falkland’s maxim, which applies to the crafting of legislation but can be widely adapted: When it is not necessary to do it [capitalize], it is necessary not to do it.)

I have been challenged by variations of this meme, usually in phrasing like: “You want to separate children and parents at the border and you call yourself a Christian?” “You want to deny medical care to children and you call yourself a Christian?” “You object to feeding the hungry and yet you call yourself a Christian?”

Along the way it becomes obvious that the do-gooders in one particular political party in the U.S. have shrink-wrapped each of the party’s top issues into meme-ready non-sequiturs.

No, and No

Taking the last example above — a corollary to the first, and granting for the moment that it even deserves a response, my answers are No, and No.

No, I don’t object to feeding the hungry. And No, I don’t call myself a Christian.  Christian is your word — which is essentially what Jesus answered when Pilate asked whether he was king of the Jews: “King is your word.”

“Christian” falls within the language of collectivism — grouping people according to some contrived characteristic or one vaguely held in common. (See Groupthink and Eric Hoffer.) This expedites the mission of social do-gooders: They can elevate, exonerate, or vilify all members of the group, the better to apply group solutions to problems not all members share or apply pressure and enforce restrictions that not all members deserve.  It forces individuals, who do not perceive themselves as poor or distinguishable by skin color or harmed by derogatory epithets to line up like first-graders in the 1940s to be sprayed with the DDT of government protection.

I am a disciple of Jesus, the Christ — the Messiah presaged in the Old Covenant.  And I am a creature — an individual creation, of El-Elyon, in awe of my God.  I’ll confess straight up that Jesus deserves better disciples than I am.  I don’t, however, fit your catch-all category under the heading of “Christian.”

So, No to calling myself a Christian.  And No, I don’t think “we” should stop feeding the hungry or stop helping the poor or stop providing medical care to children.  (It’s already illegal to deny medical care to children or emergency care to anyone of any age.)

What’s this “we” bullshit, anyway?

Here is where your memes disintegrate under inspection.  There are two errors in the “we” part of your challenge.  “We” is where you bring in coercion.  And your “we” cannot answer Jesus’s challenge to me.  I cannot participate in covering for you and whatever you and your friends do can’t fulfill the call issued to me, for Jesus challenged us as individuals.

I especially can’t fulfill the call issued to me by joining a mob that is extorting money from people you and your friends are jealous of and by giving that money to a gang of lawyers who will sprinkle a trickle of that cash over the heads of a few recipients who fit the mob’s profile of a deserving group. (As we already know, according to the accusers behind the meme, Christians do not deserve assistance of any kind, only exclusion and ridicule.)  Jesus didn’t tell me to join a mob, then steal from one vilified group (rich people) and give it to a gang purporting to represent another group.

When Jesus talks about feeding the poor, he’s talking to me.  He is watching what I do — with my money and my other resources — for someone I can reach out to.  Jesus doesn’t care whether I funnel my charity through Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Jesus doesn’t call on me to first coerce someone else to open his purse so that I and my friends can redistribute the other man’s wealth. And Jesus especially doesn’t call on me to form or join some overwhelming mob/army/party/coalition and demand that others give to the poor at my mob’s behest.

 So, yes, when a politician talks about feeding the poor, it’s socialism.  It is grandstanding.  It’s telling you that, if you vote for the right politicians, who will force the rich to fork over bigger “voluntary” income taxes to the lawyers in government — if you just agree with that tactic, you, who do not have the big bucks won’t have to contribute a dime but the poor will be fed and you will have met your Christian duty — if you call yourself a Christian.

But what if “we” don’t compel the rich to contribute more? What if we little people, collectively, can’t feed the poor just on the strength of our taxes and the taxes already seized from the rich?

In this country, the United States, the top half of taxpayers pay 97% of all federal income tax. And the top one percent account for 37.3% of total income tax revenues.*  This isn’t their fair share?  And, yes, we continually hear that this or that billionaire didn’t pay a penny in taxes last year.  Really?  And they aren’t in jail?  Your trusted, innocent-eyed politicians have created the tax code.  Crucify them, not the rich guys who used the loopholes the politicians created and kept their own money.

Jesus didn’t forbid us to contribute to organizations that we know are effectively helping people in need — a rare disease research foundation, the Soupman, the Red Cross — you can name several of your own. Jesus didn’t forbid us to work together to express our love for our neighbors, through a church, a local American Legion post, Habitat for Humanity, an ad hoc local committee to help a family who lost their home to a fire. For some generous people, a group effort is the most effective way to use their time, talent, and treasure. There is a chasm of difference between banding together voluntarily to help someone in need, and banding together to coerce others to pay for what you don’t want to pay for yourself.

Poverty in America

It seems to me that, before the welfare state was conceived and implemented in its modern form, there were the rich, there were the average folk, and there were the poor.  It seems to me, also, that in the ninety or so years of continuous and lavishly-funded welfare in the western world, there are still the rich, the average folk, and the poor — in about the same proportions.

In the first 50 years of the federal War on Poverty, 1964 to 2013, taxpayers provided $22 trillion to be redistributed to poor people, adjusted for 2012 dollars.** (When the program began, a dollar was defined as 0.925 of an ounce of silver. That definition was rescinded with the coinage of 1965.) You can do the math on how much that $22 trillion amounts to per poor person who has lived during that period.

The big difference is the general state of poverty.  What is now called poverty would have been pretty comfortable living conditions in this country a century ago. What was “middle class” (another collectivist term) when I was a kid is abject poverty today.  It’s a matter of perspective.  It’s not that the poor today lack food, although the truly poor do, and it’s not so much that those under today’s definition of poverty can’t meet the cost of rent plus other necessities, although the truly poor can’t.  The state of poverty today in the United States is hugely a matter of community living conditions.

People who have been herded into victim groups and corralled in ghettos by the political system, and cheated of learning by the education system, are culturally, more than financially, deprived.  The “solutions” arising from the instinct for collectivist intervention have solved nothing.

Public education suppresses individual inquiry.  Labor law suppressed individual enterprise.  Government funding of government-approved “arts” suppresses individual expression.  And you wonder why people have not escaped the ghettos.

Before I listen to your argument that there isn’t enough money among us average folk to feed the poor in our individual, non-governmental efforts, I’ll wait for you to look into where all the money the rich are already contributing in taxes is going. I’ll wait for you to explain how nearly $42,000 per year per poor household of three, in food and subsidies and extra government services, did not make a dent in poverty in 50 years.***

In the novel, Cold Morning Shadow, one character points out that governments nowadays expend great sums to extract gold from the ground only to bury it back underground.  It may as well not exist, he argues. It certainly does not exist for those of us who are supposedly in charge of our own government but can neither touch our gold or know where it is hidden.

Maybe we need to take the same attitude toward the ridiculously rich.  Ninety-seven percent of our tax revenue comes from the richest half of the population.  Maybe we just have to regard the rest of their money as we do our national hoard of gold — it’s beyond our reach.  Treat it as if it doesn’t exist.  Let them have it.  (Never mind, for the moment, that it is actually what sustains our economy by sustaining the industries and jobs which provide further tax revenue; that’s Economics 101 and is evidently beyond the comprehension of most Americans, thanks to public education.)

I am a child of God and a disciple of Christ.  I’ve been challenged by Jesus to look after others in need.  I’m not called to tell other people what to do. I’m not called to join with dozens or thousands or millions of my friends to make other people do something I think they ought to do. I’m not in a position to judge that the rich aren’t doing enough. Jesus can judge them if he wants to, and I won’t criticize him if he doesn’t.

I don’t know what any particular rich person is doing beyond the lens of public scrutiny.  I don’t expect the government (id est, you or me and millions of friends), under the leadership of self-righteous do-gooders, to steal from other people and do my duty for me.  I have no influence in the world anyway except in two small ways: I may, on my own, relieve someone else’s pressing need from day to day, and I may, just may, improve the world by improving the one human unit over which I have control: myself.

Examine your sanctimonious memes before you wave them in front of me.  I’m through responding to them.

=David A. Woodbury=


*Citation for tax information based on 2018 federal income tax returns: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2019/05/26/the-not-so-secret-reason-the-wealthiest-pay-the-most-in-income-taxes/?sh=781a4a49153a

**Citation for War on Poverty information: https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years

***Using 1989 figures from https://usafacts.org as the mean between 1964 and 2014: Mean U.S. population – 246,819,230, percentage in poverty – 12.8% (31,592,862), mean War on Poverty spending per year – $440,000,000,000.

The Disadvantages of Being Educated

As he explained that the State is a different beast from government, so also Albert Jay Nock argued that education and job training are pursued by following different paths of learning with different compass headings; that, what’s more, an educated person may be entirely unemployable, incapable of self-sufficiency, and of no practical use to society while a well-trained person may evince no signs of being educated. Someone who wants to be both educated and self-supporting may do best to pursue, by turns, both knowledge for the sake of enlightenment and training for the sake of employment. An educated person, moreover, understands that learning is lifelong and encompasses no end of diverse subjects.

An educated person is one who pursues a college degree, for instance, chiefly for edification, to study the world, to better appreciate why life is worth living. Nock himself was a college student in a period when colleges concentrated on offering a classical education in the arts and sciences, leaving job training to the job creators. In the Twentieth Century, as employers came to require college degrees in more and more job positions, to the point, as we know, where it came to matter not what course of study the degree represents but merely that the job candidate has one, colleges hurried to tailor their programs around job training instead of erudition. Now a person studying at the college level for his own edification is an anachronism. That, in fact, is exactly the word that my academic adisor at the University of Maine used to describe me, right around 1975, when I told him I was studying wildlife ecology (the science, not the politics of ecology) for my own edification and not just to meet the job requirements to become a game warden or wildlife biologist.

I had started college in the 1960s as a music performance major (piano) and had switched to languages after interrupting college to serve in the Army, but had come around to the fundamental sciences in the end. My University of Maine advisor told me that I should not have been taking up space in the wildlife and forestry program if I didn’t intend to seek employment in the field, because there were people who wanted to work in those careers who had been turned away from the program.

As it turned out, when I graduated, there were six or seven job openings across New England and, of those earning degrees when I did, six or seven were women. They were offered the jobs, and I had to pursue a career in something else — which was fine with me; that had been my intent from the start.

With more of a classical education in the arts and sciences than was common even in the mid-Twentieth Century, spanning several languages, the best of the world’s literature, music composition and performance, mechanical engineering and mathematics, and the sciences related to biology, I do sometimes find myself starved for intellectual company in a remote enclave where almost no one has any concept of those subjects.

Nock laid out his thesis in the essay, “The Disadvantages of Being Educated,” which is included in a book of that title (containing 16 other essays), arranged and introduced by Robert M. Thornton. The book is available at Amazon.

=David A. Woodbury=

Marcus Goncalves, in an archived article at Benzinga.com, has written a splendid reprise of Nock’s essay as well.

In case of difficulties with the direct link above, here is the text of Marcus Goncalves’s article.


The Disadvantages of Being Educated

6 December 2011, Marcus Goncalves for Benzinga

Never had it occurred to me, as Nock would put it, that there might be disadvantages to being educated. I had always looked at it from an educator’s point of view, where education provided so much gain, rather than from the standpoint of today’s typical college student, eager to enter the workplace. At some point there must have been a cultural shift in many of our colleges and universities, causing what Bloom called the “closing of the American minds.”

Since the 1960s, there has been a decay of the study of humanities that has turned into a refugee camp of sorts, where intellects that are driven out of their jobs, or into retirements, tend to idle. Learning has been made much of, while forgetting has been deprecated, causing pedantry to become well established throughout the civilized world at the expense of culture. What has changed?

Historically, the goal of education was to prepare individuals for life, shaping intellect and character, and instilling ethical and moral values. Today’s version appears more focused on proficiency, and has transformed into training. It incorrectly assumes that training and education are synonymous. The distinction between the two has practically been eradicated. Nowadays, students take a very vocational approach to their studies, with the attitude that if the subject matter cannot be directly applied to their jobs or to revenue stream, then it is not worth studying.

But can proficient individuals, successful in their fields, be regarded as educated? Well-trained professionals welcome the accolades for possessing proficiency in their field. Their education, however, if they had any, is another matter, as it lies behind their proficiency, and should not be confused with it. This proficiency is a result of excellent training, enabling them to do and get what they want, while the education does not help with either, as it determines who and what they can become and be.

Stacked against such vocational, training-oriented programs, a true education does have its disadvantages. First, education deprives students of one of the most precious possessions: a sense of cooperation with one another. In this fast-paced world of compressed degrees, online learning, and expensive tuitions, students can only afford to be trained and are focusing their energies on a single narrow discipline. They have set their sights in one direction: to become a professional… Education discourages against such precise actions, while training embodies it.

Second, training tends to put students in step with their peers, while education causes them to reflect, disclosing other channels of interest, making many look inviting. Education may give rise to views that the interests students have in a multitude of disciplines may not be worth the time spent laboring on them, when they could rather spend it becoming proficient in something.

Third, education inevitably shows students what types of people their peers eventually become as they focus all their energy on one interest or “concentration,” making it harder to reconcile the thought of becoming like them, the “trained ones.” Conversely, training does not cause such disturbances of thought, allowing students to continue with one focused study, without any uncertainty or loss of confidence. They are part of a crowd.

Fourth, education is divisive and separatist. Training, to the contrary, induces an exhilarating sense of a cohort; one is doing with others what others do, and thinking the thoughts that others think. Training promotes cohesive thought, to the point of discerning from which school a student hails.

Education leads people to ask a great deal more from life than just life in its current form. This begets dissatisfaction with the rewards that life in a trained world offers. Training, however, tends to satisfy people with very moderate and simple returns, such as a salary, and the usual run of comforts and conveniences. Training not only allows people to acquire these rewards quickly, but also provides for an inert and comfortable contentment. After all, these are all that a trained society can offer. Politicians understand this concept well, wielding the dream of food on the table and two cars in the garage as symbols of aspiring social ideals and accomplishment.

Reading skills? For what if you are a mathematician? Math skills? For what if you are a writer? Science skills? For what if all you need is on Wikipedia? Not surprisingly, among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the U.S. now scores 14th in reading, 25th in math, and 17th in science, losing by a wide margin from the top five ranking countries; South Korea, Finland, Canada, New Zealand, and Japan respectively.

In time, things may improve. Some schools are already making progress, upping their game. The joy and satisfaction of an education for education’s sake should still be what commencement speakers say it is. Something must be done to mature the national resources of intellect and character, as well as proficiency. Respect for education needs to be rehabilitated as a social asset; otherwise, we will become a country unable to compete in the global marketplace. Worse, we may become a society that truly, and mistakenly, believes in the disadvantages of being educated.

Marcus Goncalves, Ed.D., Ph.D., Boston UniversityAdministrative Studies, Faculty Member
Nichols College, International Business, Faculty Member

Benzinga adds: The preceding article is from one of our external contributors. It does not represent the opinion of Benzinga and has not been edited.

Albert Jay Nock’s Job

Nicholas Silia, Jr., Monday, July 1, 1968 — reprinted from the Foundation for Economic Education

Mr. Silia, a member of The Nockian Society, is a free-lance writer and poet.

Occasionally the smoke-screen generated by public opinion polls, manipulated news media, and other socio-political forms of gamesman­ship tends to daunt even the most ardent proponent of liberty. For we are all human, and yield at times to discouragement.

However, it is during such times that we should try to marshall our inner strength and re-examine our outer goals, for things are not al­ways what they seem. It is, there­fore, in our own best interest, as well as the interest of liberty, not to judge by appearances, but in terms of the realities involved.

But how to distinguish one from the other, you ask? Perhaps Albert Jay Nock, founder and editor of the old Freeman, has the best so­lution.

For example, in his classic es­say, “Isaiah’s Job,” Nock made it abundantly clear that his goal was not to convert the masses to any particular philosophy.

“The mass-man,” wrote Nock, “is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the prin­ciples issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to these prin­ciples steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such peo­ple make up the great, the over­whelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses.”

So, Nock’s duty as he saw it was to tend the Remnant, those unique individuals who had, or were will­ing to develop, the necessary in­sight and ability to understand and employ ideas on liberty. In distinguishing them from the masses Nock noted: “The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to ap­prehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.”

So Nock’s primary purpose, then, was not to alter public opin­ion, manipulate news, or convert others to his way of thinking. He merely sought to improve himself and thereby become ever more capable of furnishing other seek­ers with the inspiration and in­sight which might further their own personal unfoldment. His job, in short, was to be a sort of cata­lytic agent for the Remnant.

Knowing beforehand that the masses were not to be transformed or converted, Nock did not be­come discouraged in his task of servicing the Remnant. And once you clearly see his point you will understand its soundness.

In other words, if your goal is to reform the world to your liking, you are slated for failure from the outset. For that task is im­possible — as well as unnecessary. But if your goal is to reform your­self, and incidentally present the truth as you know it to others, then you cannot fail.

Whether anyone accepts the ideas you present is immaterial to your goal. Even though you may convert no one, you still improve society by improving one of its units — yourself.

Nevertheless, you can be sure that your self-improvement will attract the Remnant’s attention, although you may not be aware of it. Or as Nock said, “… in any given society the Remnant are al­ways so largely an unknown quan­tity. You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them: first, that they exist; second, that they will find you. Ex­cept for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness.”

This, then, was Nock’s job. It is likewise the job of all those who are interested in promoting the cause of liberty. And to them, Nock offers this bit of encourage­ment: “If, for example, you are a writer or a speaker or a preacher, you put forth an idea which lodges in the Unbewusstsein of a casual member of the Remnant and sticks fast there. For some time it is in­ert; then it begins to fret and fester until presently it invades the man’s conscious mind and, as one might say, corrupts it. Mean­while, he has quite forgotten how he came by the idea in the first instance, and even perhaps thinks he has invented it; and in those circumstances, the most interest­ing thing of all is that you never know what the pressure of that idea will make him do.”

This endeavor will, of course, strike a responsive chord only in those rare individuals who are ready to work for the Remnant.

This site also includes Albert Jay Nock’s essay, Isaiah’s Job.
=David A. Woodbury=

Democracy or Republic

The Constitution, Article IV, Section 4, declares “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”  Nothing in the Constitution suggests that this country was ever intended to be a democracy.  The critical difference is in the matter of rights.

John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he wrote, “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”  An individual has a right to his life, a right to defend himself against an aggressor, a right to protect his family, a right to use and to dispose of the fruits of his labor as he sees fit, a right to speak, a right to associate and assemble with others of his choosing, a right to turn his back and walk away, a right to manifest faith in a God, and a right to attempt to persuade — but not to coerce — others.

A republic is the one form of government that is designed to protect the rights of an individual against the whims, fashions, emotions, fervor, and ignorance of the many.  A democracy confers on the majority the temptation to interfere with these rights, to introduce new, arbitrary privileges, and to do either according to popular zeal.  A monarch or dictator may also presume to interfere with the fundamental rights that John Adams described.  Even under a dictatorship, those fundamental rights exist; it’s just a question whether an individual or group of individuals will assert them.

The United States is confused, nowadays, about its form of government.  It is not a democracy, although the original republican form of government has been corrupted into a semblance of democracy.  And the people are deluded into thinking that a republic and a democracy are one and the same, even that a democracy is somehow superior to the antiquated and presumably unworkable concept that we are a republic.

In a democracy, you see, the majority rules (supposedly, and that is debatable, because those hungry for power, whom the majority has elected, effectively rule), while in a republic, the individual is protected from the majority.  In a democracy, the people’s representatives identify groups, often called “communities,” who need special privileges in order to remain more loyal as voters, and the people’s representatives create new “rights” to soothe those groups.  Generally these are “rights” to be free from discomfort and almost by definition infringe on the real rights of every individual.

With this distinction clear, consider now a passage from Nock’s The Theory of Education in the U.S.:

So the popular idea of democracy postulates that there shall be nothing worth enjoying for anybody to enjoy that everybody may not enjoy; and a contrary view is at once exposed to all the evils of a dogged, unintelligent, invincibly suspicious resentment.

The whole institutional life organised under the popular idea of democracy, then, must reflect this resentment.  It must aim at no ideals above those of the average man; that is to say, it must regulate itself by the lowest common denominator of intelligence, taste, and character in the society which it represents.

In a republic, where all the population are free to create, invest, and exercise patience or engage in self-indulgence, an individual may prosper and enjoy comfort that many others do not.  This prosperity may have come his way by birth and inheritance, by effort and good judgment, by sheer luck, or by a convergence of these advantages.  In a republic, a person who enjoys some prosperity may share his good fortune with others, or may choose not to do so.  In a republic, an individual chooses how to dispose of his income and assets, and takes responsibility for the consequences of his actions.  In a democracy, where all the population are free to create, invest, and exercise patience or engage in self-indulgence, an individual may prosper and enjoy comfort that others do not only until those others, many of whom do not want to take responsibility for their own choices, are goaded by people who ache on their behalf and are whipped into mass action that denies a moderate person the fruit of his labor.

=David A. Woodbury=

The Individual Who Can Think and Create

In the words of AJN: Our society has made no place for the individual who is able to think, who is, in the strict sense of the word, intelligent; it merely tosses him into the rubbish heap… Intelligence is the power and willingness always and disinterestedly to see things as they are, an easy accessibility to ideas, and a free play of consciousness upon them, quite regardless of the conclusions to which this play may lead.

Now, the experienced mind is aware that all the progress in actual civilisation that society has ever made has been brought about, not by machinery, not by political programmes, platforms, parties, not even by revolutions, but by right thinking.

[M]ankind’s five fundamental social instincts — the instinct of workmanship, of intellect and knowledge, of religion and morals, of beauty and poetry, of social life and manners. A civilized society is one which organizes a full collective expression of all these instincts, and which so regulates this expression as to permit no predominance of one or more of them at the expense of the rest; in short, one which keeps this expression on continual harmony and balance.


…organizes it by social assent, not by edict or influence of the State. -DAW


I should say, too, that there would be relatively little difficulty in finding subsidies to almost any extent for promising individuals, although it is true, I think, that our rich men do not as yet go in as much for this form of patronage, which is the oldest, and still seems to get the best results, as they do for the institutional form. For my part, I wish they would do more for it. I know that if I were a rich man I would do precious little endowing institutions, and content myself with nosing out individuals of the right sort, and endowing them.


These four short passages are lifted from Cogitations, which was compiled by Robert M. Thornton in 1970 for the Nockian Society. They are taken from three separate works of Nock. As for the last paragraph, it occurs to me that a rich man does not patronize an individual because he is more interested in the tax write-off for his charity and therefore contributes to State-approved institutions (those which are eligible for IRS 501(c)(3) status). Were the wealthy to patronize individuals of talent, we might find another Tchaikovsky or Dickens in our midst who, for lack of discovery and patronage, is punching the clock at the back of a Ford dealership instead. -DAW

Demagogue and Demaslave

Henry Louis Mencken was a contemporary and acquaintance of Albert Jay Nock.  In The Superfluous Men, a volume of comparative essays compiled by Robert M. Crunden (ISI Books, 1999), Mencken is described as “an enormously prolific writer and editor of newspapers and magazines” who “had great impact on college students and the educated young adults of the first three decade of the twentieth century.”  For H. L. Mencken, “American life was a comedy of conformity, envy, and plutocracy.”  This passage is from Mencken’s Notes on Democracy (Knopf, 1926).


The winds of the world are bitter to Homo vulgaris.  He likes the warmth and safety of the herd, and he likes a bell-wether with a clarion bell.

The art of politics, under democracy, is simply the art of ringing it.  Two branches reveal themselves.  There is the art of the demagogue, and there is the art of what may be called, by a shot-gun marriage of Latin and Greek, the demaslave.  They are complementary, and both of them are degrading to their practitioners.  The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots.  The demaslave is one who listens to what these idiots have to say and then pretends that he believes it himself.  Every man who seeks elective office under democracy has to be either the one thing or the other, and most men have to be both.  The whole process is one of false pretences and ignoble concealments.  No educated man, stating plain the elementary notions that every educated man holds about the matters that principally concern government, could be elected to office in a democratic state, save perhaps by a miracle…

The typical American law-maker… knows the taste of boot-polish…  His public life is an endless series of evasions and false pretences.  He is willing to embrace any idea, however idiotic, that will get him votes, and he is willing to sacrifice any principle, however sound, that will lose them for him.  I do not describe the democratic politician at his inordinate worst; I describe him as he is encountered in the full sunshine of normalcy.


H. L. Mencken seemed to enjoy the exposure and notice afforded him by the privilege of writing editorials, (which is not to understate the effect of his articles and books).  Albert J. Nock, also an editor and author, seemed content, on the other hand, merely to lay his thoughts on paper and take no heed whether he had made an impression or a difference.  But both men were sharp observers of the behavior of people under the influence of demagogues, and both came to approximately the same dismal prognosis for democracy in America.  -David A. Woodbury-

Opposing Interests

The State is no proper agency for social welfare, and never will be, for exactly the same reason that an ivory paperknife is nothing to shave with.  The interests of society and of the State do not coincide; and any pretense that they can be made to coincide is sheer nonsense.  Society gets on best when people are most happy and contented, which they are when freest to do as they please and what they please; hence society’s interest is in having as little government as possible.  The State, on the other hand, is administered by jobholders; hence its interest is in having as much government as possible.  It is hard to imagine two sets of interests more directly opposed than these. -AJN, Snoring As A Fine Art and Twelve Other Essays, p. 191