← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · texoma
Thread ID: 3516 | Posts: 26 | Started: 2002-11-14
2002-11-14 16:00 | User Profile
[url=http://www.wirkman.com/instead_of_a_blog/2002.11.12.shtml]Who Reads Mencken Now?[/url]
Blurbcraft can ascend to the level of a high art, I am sure; but it usually wallows in the depths, providing nothing other than unintended comedy.
Case in point: George F. Will's encomium for the new Mencken biography. If ever there existed a media pundit whose good repute rests entirely upon the luck of having written long after Mencken wrote, he is it. What a windbag! What a solemn purveyor of inanity and buncombe! Imagine how Mencken would have written about Will's idiotic Statecraft as Soulcraft, and then wonder. Surely Will knows how Mencken would have treated him. How did Weill ever dare mention Mencken? (Of course, the truth is probably as simple as a Republican: Will is surely a friend of the biography's author.)
Who now reads Mencken? Will asks. Well, lots of people. Enough? Of course not. And why not? Because most people would judge Mencken's writing how Will does, as astonishing. Not merely because it is so good (so much better than Will's, or mine, or yours), but also because Mencken dared think, as we say these days, outside the box, but without cliches. In Mencken we have a writer who could not be contained by any simple label, which is why most readers, for comfort's sake, feel compelled to dismiss him.
Reading the reviews of the new biography, I've learned again just how sensitive most people remain to Mencken's methodg. (I wrote on this in a Laissez Faire Books column; if you are curious, click here.) Most reviewers have so eagerly swallowed the anti-individualism of collective identity and its props (politically correct and oh-so-sensitive speech) that they have no idea how a person such as Mencken could have cultivated a vital demonology of stereotypes while at the same time practicing judicious thought and action towards individuals.
I won't defend Mencken here, or explain what should be obvious. If you find some of Mencken's language offensive, then I suggest you read Mencken some more, think anew about the nature of generalizations and judgments, and then maybe you'll begin to understand. If not, that's OK. You are not required to enjoy every style or manner of thought.
But if you insist on yammering about Mencken's moral failings, remember that turnabout is fair play: those adult enough to comprehend Mencken's method may take that method and apply it against you. (Morality is all about reciprocity, I'm told!)
The reviews of the new biography, as I say, are many, and mostly silly. For every good observation there's a corker. One writer combines both extremes in one sentence: But unlike those great writers [Voltaire, G. B. Shaw, Dr. Johnson], who managed to build lasting monuments on the swamp-ground of punditry, Mencken wrote very little that survives. I have to admire that phrase swamp-ground of punditry, but not the judgment. George Will asks who reads Mencken now?; I remind this reviewer that almost no-one reads Johnson, and unread monuments are not as important as read, living testaments. And as for surviving literature, the Prejudices contain some of Mencken's best writing, and if few read these essay collections today it is probably for the same reason that few today bother even opening the pages of Voltaire's Philosophical Dictionary: not for want of merit in the book, but want of merit in the readers.
Alas, the reviewers are not the only bad readers. The Economist's benighted reviewer made some good points before presenting the point of utter condemnation now required when writing about Mencken. But one reader, writing within the maelstrom of the emailstream, reacted to the review in as absurd a way as any paid critic:
[L]auding Nietzsche ââ¬â now there's an invaluable service to Western civilization: without Nietzsche, we might have had to do without Schickelgruber and Derrida, and where would we be then? Since Nietzsche loathed and castigated both anti-Semitism and German nationalism (he called himself a good European), he should surely not be blamed for the rise of the Nazis. And as for Derrida, well, for all the convolution in his thought and prose, I'd rather caught reading him than any newspaper reviewer I've subjected myself to this past week.
Now, it's true that Mencken's book on Nietzsche, though entertaining, tells more about Mencken's sympathies than with Nietzsche's philosophy. Still, the book is worth reading, as is Nietzsche's work. Nietzsche's contentions deserve to be confronted by all people curious about what it means to be human. His critique of Christianity and his explorations of morality still provoke thought ââ¬â as well as hysterical denunciation. (The thought would have pleased Nietzsche; the hysteria would have solidified his darkest suspicions.) Mencken, for all that may be said against him, confronted Nietzsche as best he could, and did so honestly. As one of the first intelligent critics in America to convey Nietzsche's thought to the public, Mencken provided a great service.
But what are we to make of Mencken today? And who are his readers? Our email critic sums up one view of the great writer:
An argument could be made that undergoing a Mencken phase may be a good ââ¬â even an unavoidable ââ¬â experience for some adolescents. And an admiration for his technical skill is justifiable. (At least, those are my excuses for myself.) This has it completely wrong. Unlike most other literary and social critics, Mencken stands up well as adult reading, long after his reputation has eclipsed. He cut through a great deal of bombast, while his competition suffers either from either childishness or unreadability.
As R.W. Bradford pointed out to me long ago, Mencken's basic literary method is to speak of the lofty in terms of the vulgar, and of the vulgar in terms of the lofty. This simple and habitual word preference provides a constant spark of wit to nearly every sentence of his work ââ¬â enabling the prose to sparkle without descending into a stream of jokes, as contemporary humorists Dave Barry and P.J. O'Rourke must dredge up every other sentence.
Further, his essays ââ¬â such as his classic on Thorstein Veblen ââ¬â are marvels of economy and good sense; they are also very, very funny. But Mencken himself should have the last word on his prose:
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 almost scientific precision ââ¬â 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. ââ¬â Minority Report, p. 293 (final words) And unlike Ayn Rand (who is surely the prime example of a writer who appeals most to bright people enmired in an Adolescent Phase), he does not embarrass well-read adults with dogmatism. He labeled his root convictions prejudices and did not pretend that he had a System That Proved every one of his contentions.
Here we stumble upon the major reason why so few people read Mencken today. He is a writer for adults. It used to be that smart adults had grown-up tastes. Today, most adults prefer to ape their children. The cult of unending childhood dominates the airwaves and the newspapers. Who doesn't want to protect the children, even at the expense of infantilizing adults? Who doesn't want to become, again, as little children? Who doesn't embrace the logic in the Apostle Paul's excessive consideration for his weaker brethren, those who still must take milk instead of strong wine?
In such a culture, Mencken cannot be appreciated. He offends, again and again. While the pornography of his day can now be shown in prime time and printed in Reader's Digest, his criticisms still shock. The nature of adult has changed.
Which is why some adult readers still read Mencken. It's not that we find his writings shocking. It's that, as we struggle to put away so much of our childish culture, we savor an adult mind. Mencken viewed the world through a grown-up's eyes. His readers try this, too.
2002-11-14 16:23 | User Profile
The answer to 'who reads Mencken?' is tricky-simple: almost nobody, thanks to the concurrent mongrelization and 'social-engineering' that have left American schools in tatters. Geo Will knows, but won't ask, the real question: who OUGHT to read Mencken? Everyone. And in the Bad Old Days, a lot more of us did.
Who reads Twain nowadays? Bierce? James? Why, lots of people, ol' George would surely huff. But that answer, too, is: not nearly as many people as once did. And those numbers, too, will keep spiraling down and down and down.
How can one be well-read - or more precisely, well-versed in the history of American letters - and yet remain docile as the National Devolution continues apace? And the answer is you can't. So the easy out for pseudo-intellects like Will is pay the proper lip service, grudgingly or not, and don't forget to stage-sigh loudly every now and then at declining standards and IQs. But never infuse either the lip-service, or the sighing, with enough fire and passion and steely conviction to spur anyone into reading such writers. That might somehow constitute an endorsement of Dead White Racist Males and that is very bad for business; that sort of thing can get out of hand very quickly, and before you know it you're having trouble paying the mortgage on your summer home. Best to direct your readership towards the biographies which take pains to point out so-and-so's 'racism' or 'sexism' or 'xenophobia' in no uncertain terms, than to recommend the actual work of the writers being profiled.
2002-11-14 21:00 | User Profile
Curious topic.
I read Mencken about 20 years back entirely on the recommendation of the then-Young Turk of Conservatism, Emmett Tyrell. For anyone who remembers how useful The American Spectator was in the Late Carter years, this was reason enough.
Emmett Tyrell seems to have based his entire early personal and style on Mencken, as a quick look at Tyrell's output from that time (collected in a book called Public Nuisances) will prove. Tyrell even uses Mencken's anachronisms and the house style of the Baltimore paper Mencken worked on!
Alas, the Spectator got lousy before Reagan left DC and it also stopped peddling Mencken's books. Perhaps respectability did that. But for a few years there Mecken was read by a hell of a lot of us and I suspect we have strange old Emmett to thank for that.
2002-11-14 23:14 | User Profile
H.L. Mencken was the greatest American journalist of the 20th century. Never was he politically correct. I went at great lengths to quote him in my book.
On the American wealthy of the North> **H.L. Mencken found no trace of Junker spirit amongst Vanderbilts, Morgans, Garys and other American barons. They only had the spirit of the pawn shop. **
On American entry into World War I.> *[color=red] From Baltimore H.L. Mencken blamed American entry into that war on the management of news by the British ably assisted by Jews. He had been in Basel and Copenhagen in 1917 and found the news had been shaped by Jews ostensibly employed by American newspapers, but whose primary loyalty was to British interests.[/color] American readers never got a firsthand presentation of the German side. Mencken assigned that grave error to publishers who chose to print British interpretations. American academics who should have been available to interpret the German argument had spent years studying in Germany without picking up enough German to read a newspaper. Germany, since the Middle Ages had been surrounded by powerful and unconscionable enemies. Germany had been provoked and had fought magnificently. Even in 1918 exhausted by war for four years and badly outnumbered, the army of the Kaiser would have mauled the American army in the fair fight so beloved by American patriots. Mencken stated his opinion was shared by French officers who had seen four years of war. The sage of Baltimore regarded the belief of the American populace that one of "Our Boys" taken at random could fight 10 Englishmen, 20 Germans, 30 Frogs, 40 Wops, 50 Japs or 100 Bolsheviki was the faith of little children.*
Preparing for Prohibition.> **After the armistice was signed in November 1918, the United States reverted to its preferred position of insular cultural superiority. No joining of the League of Nations by the United States as we did not feel our society should be sullied by association with foreigners. With the onset of social engineering by righteous puritans and the banning of alcoholic drink many prescient hedonists made preparations in haste. H.L. Mencken was so concerned he sold his Studebaker, the first and only car he ever owned, at Christmas 1918. With the money Mencken invested every cent in the best wines and liquors he could buy. The vault was packed to the ceiling with alcoholic drink, and just after Mencken noticed a severe shortage of booze, the short drought that followed prohibition was over. Bootleggers were in position to replenish the stock. The free market had worked. **
Stalin and Hitler.> **. In May 1936 Mencken wrote Upton Sinclair then campaigning to become the savior of California. Mencken berated him for only protesting Hitler and neglecting Stalin whose crimes were a thousand times worse. In comparison to the Moscow brigands Hitler was only a common Ku Kluxer. **
Mencken and myself on Arkansas aborigines.> Some 60 years previously American newspaperman, H.L. Mencken, had written after crossing from Oklahoma to Arkansas that he had never seen such barbaric white people in his life. These primitives would soon send one of their sons to campaign for the presidency of the United States. The pride of the state was William Jefferson Clinton, the perpetual boy governor. Mr. Clinton first ran for state office at the age of 28. Arkansas had many areas where the opening of a McDonalds' Restaurant was regarded as an improvement on local cuisine. These areas were ones where the unveiling of new automobile models by Detroit each year was a cultural highlight and caused much discussion among the cognoscenti who would debate the changes for many months.
South -not New York Jews - established America's greatest culture.> In another neglected American classic, Lanterns on the Levee, William Alexander Percy of Mississippi recounted his life as a descendant of the planter class of the old South. This class was identified by H.L. Mencken as the only aristocracy that America ever had and producer of its greatest culture.
Not quite the American patriot.> A crushing revelation by Mencken came in his diary during World War II when 62 years of age he confessed that despite both parents being born in the United States he felt like he had been a foreigner in America in his life. His social club, The Saturday Night Club, met for 40 years and played classical music with him pounding the piano. Afterwards they would drink and eat. The anthem of the club was "I am a 100% American - Goddamn!". His seemingly humorous denigration of the average American and his mores did have its dark side.
Attention [color=yellow]Yellow [/color] Polichinello> **The sage of Baltimore Henry Mencken described the Bible as unquestionably the most beautiful book in the world even allowing for the barbarities of the Old Testament and the silly theology of the New. Unlike Freud, but writing after World War II, Mr. Mencken thought Jews as commonly encountered as predominantly unpleasant, and noted that everywhere they seemed to be disliked. This dislike was not based on their religion, but on their uncouth manners and their curious lack of tact. He granted them their extraordinary capacity to offend goyim, and not infrequently these affronts would engender brutal wars. Yet he continued to describe Jews as the foremost dreamers of the Western world and its greatest poets. Earlier in his prewar edition Mencken had been caustic to the extent of describing them as plausibly being the most unpleasant race ever heard of. The type most commonly encountered lacked traits of the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease and confidence. They had vanity with no pride, ostentation with no taste and learning with no wisdom. Mr. Mencken accused them of wasting their fortitude on childish objects and of using charity as a form of display. **
All Americans with pretensions of culture should be able to discuss him.
2002-11-14 23:24 | User Profile
The Prejudices (First Series) online :
[url=http://docsouth.unc.edu/mencken/mencken.html#men59]http://docsouth.unc.edu/mencken/mencken.html#men59[/url]
2002-11-15 00:20 | User Profile
Why am I not surprised that there are other Menckenthuiasts in this forum. I did not need Tyrell to switch me onto the Sage of Baltimore ---- I read volume after volume as consolation during the heyday of the "Great Society."
Textbooks usually mention Mencken's magnum opus, The American Language. He is also mentioned in connection with the Scopes Monkey Trial and they may even reprint his classic "In Memoriam: WJB" written on the death of William Jennings Bryan. "Sahara of the Bozart" may be exerpted and cited as a swipe against the South. (Even a close reading of that essay shows that he regarded Lincoln's victory as an unmitigated tragedy for the North as well as the South.) Sinclair Lewis dedicated "Elmer Gantry" to him and he inspired Anita Loos to write "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes." A good many of his quips are familiar quotations, e.g.: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."
Who reads Mencken? A lot more people than will read George Will long after he is gone. Let's revisit this topic often and do our part to increase Mencken's readership.
2002-11-15 01:46 | User Profile
Originally posted by AntiYuppie@Nov 14 2002, 19:11 There is no coercion in America. There are no laws stopping Joe Six-Pack from going into a public library or bookstore and buying Mencken, or far more controversial books for that matter. That he's content to watch Seinfeld instead is not the fault of social engineers, but of Joe Sixpack himself. Nationalists and other defenders of Western high culture didn't betray the rank and file, the rank and file betrayed themselves.
I believe that Mencken expressed best what I think is the at the root of this in 'The Collapse of Protestantism'
'That Protestantism in this great Christian realm is down with a wasting disease must be obvious to every amateur of ghostly pathology. One half of it is moving, with slowly accelerating speed, in the direction of the Harlot of the Seven Hills: the other is sliding down into voodooism. THe former carries the greater part of Protestant money with it; the latter carries the greater part of Protestant libido. What remains in the middle may be likened to a torso without either brains to think with or legs to dance - in other words, something that begins to be professionally attactive to the mortician, though it still makes shift to breathe.'
2002-11-15 05:09 | User Profile
Yes, H.L. Mencken was one of the greatest American journalist of the 20th century. But he could not be called a conservative. I find odd to see so many conservatives praise H.L. Mencken. Did he not hate Puritans, Americans, Christians, Southerns, and Conservatives? Given that my Forefathers were Ozarkians, Puritans, Americans, Christians, Southerns, and Conservatives, I do like to see them attacked. His attacks at time come close to the cultural marxist of the left.
Sound like something the ADL would say: What was behind that consuming hatred? At first I thought that it was mere evangelical passion. Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate...-H.L. Mencken
Sounds like the something the SPLC would say: One of the things that makes a Negro unpleasant to white folk is the fact that he suffers from their injustice. He is thus a standing rebuke to them, and they try to put him out of their minds. The easiest way to do so is to insist that he keep his place. The Jew suffers from the same cause, but to a much less extent.H.L. Mencken
H.L. Mencken Sites: [url=http://www.bomis.com/rings/mencken/1]http://www.bomis.com/rings/mencken/1[/url]
The H.L. Mencken Homepage [url=http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1414/]http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1414/[/url]
The Mencken Society Home Page [url=http://www.mencken.org/]http://www.mencken.org/[/url]
2002-11-15 17:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by edward gibbon@Nov 14 2002, 23:14 Attention [color=yellow]Yellow [/color] Polichinello> The sage of Baltimore Henry Mencken described the Bible as unquestionably the most beautiful book in the world even allowing for the barbarities of the Old Testament and the silly theology of the New. ÃÂ Unlike Freud, but writing after World War II, Mr. Mencken thought Jews as commonly encountered as predominantly unpleasant, and noted that everywhere they seemed to be disliked. This dislike was not based on their religion, but on their uncouth manners and their curious lack of tact. ÃÂ He granted them their extraordinary capacity to offend goyim, and not infrequently these affronts would engender brutal wars. ÃÂ Yet he continued to describe Jews as the foremost dreamers of the Western world and its greatest poets. ÃÂ Earlier in his prewar edition Mencken had been caustic to the extent of describing them as plausibly being the most unpleasant race ever heard of. ÃÂ The type most commonly encountered lacked traits of the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease and confidence. ÃÂ They had vanity with no pride, ostentation with no taste and learning with no wisdom. ÃÂ Mr. Mencken accused them of wasting their fortitude on childish objects and of using charity as a form of display. ** **
OK. What's your point, Ed? I agreed with you that he said nasty things about Jews. Mencken said nasty things about everybody.
The real yellow streak came from you. You shied away from dealing with the other less comfortable things Mencken wrote. If you want to treat Mencken's writing like scripture, then you're in for some bad news. For one thing, he considered blacks genetically superior to most Southern whites as they had interbred with the "planter culture" you referred to. (You can find this in the first Chrestomathy.)
Here's a gem on the web: [url=ftp://ftp.cs.ubc.ca/pub/local/quotes/mencken.gz]ftp://ftp.cs.ubc.ca/pub/local/quotes/mencken.gz[/url]
That Negroes, in more than one way, are superior to most American whites is something that I have long believed. I pass over their gift for music (which is largely imaginary) and their greater dignity (which Dr. Eleanor R. Wembridge has described more eloquently than I could do it), and point to their better behavior as members of our common society. Are they, on the lower levels, somewhat turbulent and inclined to petty crime? Perhaps. But that crime is seldom anti-social. It gets a lot of advertising when it is, but that is not often. Professional criminals are rare among Negroes, and, what is more important, professional reformers are still rarer. The horrible appetite of the low-caste Anglo-Saxon to police and harass his fellow-men is practically non-existent among them. No one ever hears of Negro wowsers inventing new categories of crime, and proposing to jail thousands of their own people for committing them. Negro Prohibitionists are almost as rare as Catholic Prohibitionists. No Negro has ever got a name by pretending to be more virtuous than the rest of us. In brief, the race is marked by extraordinary decency.
You can find other quotes on that page which seem to say the opposite, I might add. Mencken could be all over the place on certain topics. Overall, he felt whites were superior, but that blacks surpassed certain groups of whites, particularly American whites and especially the "low-caste Anglo-Saxon."
He certainly would not have held with many of the opinions expressed here as to how society should deal with minorities--segregation, forcible expulsion, etc. I daresay he'd dismiss many here as nothing more than ignorant members of the "ku kluxery."
Best, P
2002-11-15 17:33 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Nov 14 2002, 23:24 **The Prejudices (First Series) online :
[url=http://docsouth.unc.edu/mencken/mencken.html#men59]http://docsouth.unc.edu/mencken/mencken.html#men59[/url]**
Cool.
Here's his book on Nietzsche:
[url=http://www.geocities.com/danielmacryan/oldbooks.html#nietzsche]http://www.geocities.com/danielmacryan/old....html#nietzsche[/url]
2002-11-15 17:37 | User Profile
Originally posted by Faust@Nov 15 2002, 05:09 **Yes, H.L. Mencken was one of the greatest American journalist of the 20th century. But he could not be called a conservative. I find odd to see so many conservatives praise H.L. Mencken. Did he not hate Puritans, Americans, Christians, Southerns, and Conservatives? Given that my Forefathers were Ozarkians, Puritans, Americans, Christians, Southerns, and Conservatives, I do like to see them attacked. His attacks at time come close to the cultural marxist of the left. **
This is Mencken's greatest inconsistency. As a "Tory anarchist" he wanted to do away with as much of the state as possible, but he refused to accept the conformism required to maintain such an anarchical environment.
Best, P
2002-11-15 18:16 | User Profile
Were I, let's say for instance, a Southerner; and encountered a writer who unconditionally worshipped all things Dixie, ascribing all her woes to the evil of outsiders and finding, after much meditation, the South and her people blameless in every regard and absent of any sin save being too goodhearted, I'd chuck the thing in the trash or the fire after a few chapters. And that's cuz I don't read a writer (particularly a writer predating WW2 and/or television) seeking a momma to burp me, or demanding (or expecting) to see my own ideology & prejudices replicated, detail by detail: that would be idiocy. Nor do I expect to never encounter fatheadedness, 'meanness', sophistry, or passages that enrage me. I don't expect total & perfect consistency either, nor am I greatly put off by the occasional lapse into what can only be dubbed A$$holism. Because I'm composed of all those clashing parts and faults and inconsistencies, too, as is everyone on Earth.
What I hope to find is an authentic voice telling what he or she sees as the truth in as scrupulous a manner possible, and in the most lively and entertaining prose the author is capable of.
I believe that's demanding a lot from a writer, an awful lot. But if I'm gonna bust out crying every time I get what I asked for and some phrase or passage or idea in it offends me, I've got no business sticking my nose in a book to begin with. Better to stick to Sony PlayStation and action-movie DVDs and let others do my thinking for me.
2002-11-16 04:01 | User Profile
Polichinello,
Great Post!
I agreed with you that he said nasty things about Jews. Mencken said nasty things about everybody...
Mencken could be all over the place on certain topics. Overall, he felt whites were superior, but that blacks surpassed certain groups of whites, particularly American whites and especially the "low-caste Anglo-Saxon."
He certainly would not have held with many of the opinions expressed here as to how society should deal with minorities--segregation, forcible expulsion, etc. I daresay he'd dismiss many here as nothing more than ignorant members of the "ku kluxery."-Polichinello
2002-11-17 03:39 | User Profile
Who reads Mencken? Well some of the posters here, and any literate person with an interest in fine expression from the virtuoso of American letters. I attended the last meeting of the HLM society in Baltimore this summer, and the turnout was few and elderly for the most, and a few students trying to do an assignment. Even the talks were good, but the event has lost some spark from years past. The area and library are partly to blame, being blackamoor ridden and remote from the attractions of the inner harbor, and the Camden yards. Nevertheless, HLM will prevail as the greatest of american letter writers, whether he is taught in the schools or not, or whether the mob seeks to know him.
2002-11-19 05:32 | User Profile
Originally posted by wintermute@Nov 16 2002, 06:42 **M could never resist the most vicious attacks possible against our "Hebraic-Puritan" heritage, one half of which that fellow at the Texas Mercury is already on to. Who can say what will happen when they chance onto the other half of that equation? The two top writers on that masthead do struggle so colorfully with the issue!
**
But...why? I thought they were kahnservatives...?
2002-11-19 07:15 | User Profile
I'm frankly surprised that nobody on this thread has mentioned the outcry which greeted the (relatively) recent publication of HLM's letters, which were replete with "anti-semitism".
Nor his scathing chapter on Jewry in Treatise on the Gods. ;)
2002-11-19 17:16 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 15 2002, 17:37 **This is Mencken's greatest inconsistency. As a "Tory anarchist" he wanted to do away with as much of the state as possible, but he refused to accept the conformism required to maintain such an anarchical environment.
Best, P**
What "conformism" is required in a stateless environment?
2002-11-19 19:00 | User Profile
Originally posted by texoma@Nov 19 2002, 17:16 > Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 15 2002, 17:37 This is Mencken's greatest inconsistency. As a "Tory anarchist" he wanted to do away with as much of the state as possible, but he refused to accept the conformism required to maintain such an anarchical environment.
Best, P**
What "conformism" is required in a stateless environment?**
If you are going to have a group of people living together, then some form of social arrangement will be needed to settle disputes, protect property and punish trangressors. Without the state, that leaves a moral code which is agreed to by everyone and enforced by everyone--conformism. If you look at any relatively stateless society in history--the Puritans, the Swiss, monastics, many medieval arrangements--the one hallmark they share in common is a high degree of conformity among their members.
Best, P
2002-11-19 19:37 | User Profile
What "conformism" is required in a stateless environment?
Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 19 2002, 19:00 ** If you are going to have a group of people living together, then some form of social arrangement will be needed to settle disputes, protect property and punish trangressors. Without the state, that leaves a moral code which is agreed to by everyone and enforced by everyone--conformism. If you look at any relatively stateless society in history--the Puritans, the Swiss, monastics, many medieval arrangements--the one hallmark they share in common is a high degree of conformity among their members.
Best, P**
I have a better word than "conformism." Try consent.
Conformism has a negative connotation and leads me to believe you favor statism over consensual community agreement on values and mores coded into law.
2002-11-19 21:31 | User Profile
What "conformism" is required in a stateless environment?
From what I posted above: "...a moral code which is agreed to by everyone and enforced by everyone..."
I have a better word than "conformism." Try consent.
Actually, no. Consent will not do. How do you correct and punish miscreants with consent? They most likely won't consent to their behavior having negative ramifications.
I admit my using the word "everyone" was a poor choice. I should have qualified it somewhat. "Practically everyone" is what I meant.
Conformism has a negative connotation and leads me to believe you favor statism over consensual community agreement on values and mores coded into law.
But consensus ends when one man disagrees. At that point either the value goes or the man is made to conform. Whether you consider "conformism" to be negative or not is up to you, but it is the word that fits.
As to my preference, I prefer having a state in our society because our society is too libertine to live without it. That does NOT mean I want it to grow out of control, and it could use a serious pruning at the moment.
Best, P
2002-11-19 23:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 19 2002, 21:31 ** What "conformism" is required in a stateless environment?**
From what I posted above: "...a moral code which is agreed to by everyone and enforced by everyone..."
Who is "everyone?" Reduce your scope a little. Let's imagine that only those who agree to a particular set of laws are bound by those laws. Imagine that you wish to live in a community governed by a strict Christian set of laws. Why shouldn't you be able to do this, along with whatever other like-minded people who wish to join you? Why should you have to tolerate unjust laws that you believe are immoral?
As to my preference, I prefer having a state in our society because our society is too libertine to live without it. That does NOT mean I want it to grow out of control, and it could use a serious pruning at the moment.
I find this odd. It seems to me that a significant segment of American society is actually less libertine than those who control the machinery of government. Why have, for example, diversity and discrimination laws flourished? Why are we robbed to pay for liberal agenda items?
It seems to me that the State promotes libertinism and forces it on those who would rather live according to their own moral code.
2002-11-19 23:38 | User Profile
Imagine that you wish to live in a community governed by a strict Christian set of laws. Why shouldn't you be able to do this, along with whatever other like-minded people who wish to join you? Why should you have to tolerate unjust laws that you believe are immoral?
Whoa, whoa. I'm not making moral judgements here. All I'm saying is that if you have a society, then you have to both have an agreed standard of behavior and a means of enforcing it. Now either these functions are done by the state or by societal conformism. What you're describing above is a conformist society. I take it that if a member or a member's progeny were to reject these laws you've posited, then you'd ban him from the community--impose a cost for dissent. Whether or not you consider this good or bad, it is a conformist society.
**I find this odd. It seems to me that a significant segment of American society is actually less libertine than those who control the machinery of government. Why have, for example, diversity and discrimination laws flourished? Why are we robbed to pay for liberal agenda items?
It seems to me that the State promotes libertinism and forces it on those who would rather live according to their own moral code.**
All I can say to this is that you have a more sanguine view of our fellow Americans than I do. Boobus Americanus, to steal a Menckenism, has no need for the government to tell him how to behave badly.
Best, P
2002-11-20 01:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Nov 19 2002, 23:38 ** Whoa, whoa. I'm not making moral judgements here. All I'm saying is that if you have a society, then you have to both have an agreed standard of behavior and a means of enforcing it. Now either these functions are done by the state or by societal conformism. What you're describing above is a conformist society. I take it that if a member or a member's progeny were to reject these laws you've posited, then you'd ban him from the community--impose a cost for dissent. Whether or not you consider this good or bad, it is a conformist society.
All I can say to this is that you have a more sanguine view of our fellow Americans than I do. Boobus Americanus, to steal a Menckenism, has no need for the government to tell him how to behave badly.
Best, P**
As to your first point, I reject the idea of "conformist" for the more positive terms such as "like-minded" or "shared values and moral codes." Maybe you need to tell me what's good about being non-conformist in a society of humans, and how would be a just way to be non-conformist. Let's say "just" means that you as a non-conformist don't impose costs on anyone else.
As for Boobus Americanus, let him make his own community with a lax set of laws and stay in it.
How about that?
2002-11-20 15:01 | User Profile
**As to your first point, I reject the idea of "conformist" for the more positive terms such as "like-minded" or "shared values and moral codes." Maybe you need to tell me what's good about being non-conformist in a society of humans, and how would be a just way to be non-conformist. **
I'm not arguing for non-conformism or conformism. I'm merely stating that without the state you cannot have a non-conformist society. You seem to agree with this point, though you prefer more euphemistic terms. De gustibus non disputandam est
** Let's say "just" means that you as a non-conformist don't impose costs on anyone else.**
Then I would be conforming to what your society defines as "just."
As for Boobus Americanus, let him make his own community with a lax set of laws and stay in it.
If you want to seceded that's another matter. If you want to govern Americans, though, you will need some form of state for the foreseeable future.
Best, P
2002-11-21 03:35 | User Profile
I'm merely stating that without the state you cannot have a non-conformist society. ** And I'm saying without out the state you can have lots of societies, thereby avoiding coercing the dissenters. If you want to govern Americans, though, you will need some form of state for the foreseeable future.** Yes, well, I don't want to govern anyone, as I believe in liberty. That is why the idea of "governing" a land-mass as big as America is repulsive to me and we are seeing the folly of trying to contain so many people under one set of laws.
2002-11-21 07:02 | User Profile
Subdivisions In the high school halls In the shopping malls CONFORM or be cast out
B)