You know, it's always good to lead a speech with a quote probably from the best writer there ever was, H. L. Mencken.
H. L. Mencken described politicians as men who, at some time or another, have compromised with their honor,
either by swallowing their convictions or by whooping for what they believe to be untrue.
Vanity remains to him, Mencken wrote, but not pride.
The sage of Baltimore had it correct that to be elected and stay elected in American
politics to any full-time position requires the suspension of any ethics or good sense
a person may possess.
Even those who begin political careers with the best intentions and have measurable abilities
Studies that would make them successful in any field soon realize that the skills required
to succeed in politics are not those required outside politics.
Now Lew Rockwell explains that while competition in the marketplace improves quality, competition
in politics does just the opposite.
The only improvements take place in the process of doing bad things, lying, cheating, manipulating,
stealing and killing.
The price of political service is constantly increasing, whether in tax dollars paid or
in the bribes owed for protection, also known as campaign contributions.
There is no obsolescence, either planned or otherwise.
Now, F. A. Hayek famously argued in his book, The Road to Serfdom, that in politics the
worst get to the top, and outline three reasons that this is so.
First, Hayek makes the point that people of higher intelligence have different tastes
and views.
So as Hayek writes, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual
Second, those on top must gain the support of the docile and the gullible, who are ready
to accept whatever values and ideology is drummed into them.
Totalitarians depend on those who are guided by their passions and their emotions rather
Other Than Critical Thinking.
Finally, leaders don't promote a positive agenda, but a negative one of hating an enemy
and envy of the wealthy.
To appeal to the masses, leaders preach an us-against-them program.
Advancement within a totalitarian group or party depends largely on the willingness to
do immoral things, Hayek explains.
The principle that the end justifies the mean, which in individualist ethics is regarded
as the denial of all morals, in collectivist ethics becomes necessarily the supreme rule.
Now those wishing to get elected and stay elected, they must be prepared to break every
moral rule he or she ever knew if the ends justify it.
Most Frank Knight notes that those in authority, quote, would have to do these things whether
they wanted to or not.
And the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession
and exercise of power is on the level with the possibility that an extreme, tender-hearted
person would get the job of whipping master in a slave plantation.
But even as the pathological gain these high positions in government, they freely use the
word freedom to describe their program.
Collective freedom is promised, which does not mean freedom for individual members of
society, but instead is unlimited freedom of the government planner to do with society
what he pleases.
When there is no accountability, the higher one gets into office.
The higher one gets, the more criminal wrongdoing a person can get away with.
This is because, thus it becomes a psychic impossibility for a gentleman to hold office
under the Federal Union, wrote Mencken.
Democracy makes it possible for the demagogue to inflame the childish imagination of the
The King can do the same in a monarchy, but only by virtue of his birth.
Now in stark contrast, in the natural order, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains in his monumental
work, Democracy, the God that Failed, it is private property, production and voluntary
Exchange that are the ultimate sources of human civilization.
This natural order, Hoppe notes, must be maintained by a natural elite, which would come by these
positions of natural authority, not by election, as in the case of democracy, or birth, as
in the case of monarchy, but by their superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, bravery, or
and the combination thereof.
This is just the opposite of what Minken and Rockwell describe as the characteristic of
democracy.
Now Hoppe writes in a pamphlet that he wrote, Natural Elites, Intellectuals in the State,
that a few individuals in each society rise to elite status by their talent.
Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, writes Hoppe, these individuals
come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy widespread respect.
Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance,
positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families.
It is to the heads of these families, with long established records of superior achievement,
farsightedness and exemplary personal conduct, that men turn to their conflicts and complaints
against each other.
These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge
Now, on the other hand, democracy affords the opportunity for anyone to pursue politics
as a career.
There is no need for the masses to recognize a person as a wise or successful person as
Hoppe's natural order would require, nor does one have to be born into a ruling family,
as in the case of a monarchy.
As the great American comedian Bob Hope once said, he who was actually born in England,
he once quipped, I left England at the age of four when I found out I couldn't be king.
Maybe because he knows he can never have Prince Charles' job, Sir Richard Branson knighted
for Services to Entrepreneurship sticks to business and reportedly operates 360 companies.
But as Hoppe explains, democracies have expanded and since World War I have been viewed as
the only legitimate form of government.
In turn, more people who have been successful in other pursuits are running for political
office or becoming politically active.
For instance, more and more wealthy billionaires are entering the political arena.
And while wealthy tycoons of previous generations coveted their privacy and intended to live
in seclusion, today's captains of industry such as Ross Perot or Michael Bloomberg, Carly
Fiorina, Meg Whitman or John Corzine, they either have run for office or are running
for office.
And while Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and George Soros haven't sought public office themselves,
they spend millions of dollars on political contributions and are visible in trying to
sway the public debate on political issues, when their time would obviously be spent more
productively creating more wealth.
Also it should be noted that a quarter of all House members and a third of all members
of the Senate are millionaires.
Now there may be politicians that pursue elective office for the money, but many elective officials
are already wealthy by most people's standards.
What makes the wealthy and otherwise successful want to hold office?
Is it what Charles Durber describes in his book, The Pursuit of Attention, Power and
Well, the work of psychologist Abraham Maslow may provide an understanding as to why even
successful entrepreneurs would seek office.
Maslow is famous for his hierarchy of needs, a theory that is taught in most management
classes in American universities.
Now the theory is generally presented visually as a pyramid with the lowest, most basic need,
the physiological need, shown as a layer along the base of the pyramid.
Ludwig von Mises' view was that the basic human needs, thirst, hunger, breathing, must be satisfied before humans could accomplish or worry about anything else.
The next tranche within that pyramid shown on top of the physiological need is the safety need.
After satisfying thirst and hunger, humans are concerned about their continued survival.
A person who's constantly worrying about being eaten by a tiger doesn't concern himself with much else.
The next layer presented in Maslow's pyramid is the belonging need, which lies just above the safety need.
After the satisfaction of the two lower needs, physiological and safety, a person seeks love and friendships, companionship and community.
And once this need is satisfied, according to Maslow, humans seek esteem.
Now these four needs are considered deficit needs. If a person is lacking, there is a motivation to fill that need.
Once that particular need is filled, the motivation abates.
This makes these needs different from the need at the top of Maslow's pyramid, the need for self-actualization.
The need for self-actualization is never satisfied and Maslow referred to it as being a being
need or a be all you can be.
Thus humans continually strive to satisfy their needs and as the more basic needs are
satisfied humans move up the pyramid, if you will, to satisfy higher level needs.
Of course different humans achieve different levels and it was Maslow's view that only
2% of humans ever reach self-actualization.
And he studied the traits of a number of famous people, along with a few not so famous folks.
And Maslow developed some personality traits that were consistent with people who he judged to be self-actualizing.
Besides being creative and inventive, self-actualizers have strong ethics, a self-deprecating sense
of humor, humility and respect for others, resistance to enculturation, enjoyment of
autonomy and solitude instead of shallow relationships with many people.
They believe the ends don't justify the means, and that the means can be ends in themselves.
So one readily sees that Maslow's self-actualizers have nothing in common with politicians in
a democracy, but closely fit the profile that Hoppe describes of the natural elites that
would lead a natural order.
Let's step down from the top of the hierarchy of needs pyramid, and that need is esteem.
Now Maslow described two types of esteem needs, according to Maslow expert C. George Borre,
a lower need, esteem need, and a higher one.
And while the higher form of esteem calls for healthy attributes such as freedom, independence,
Confidence and Achievement, the lower form is the need for respect of others, the need
for status, fame, glory, recognition, attention, reputation, appreciation, dignity, even dominance.
The negative version of these needs is low self-esteem and inferiority complexes.
Dr. Boerre writes, Maslow felt that Alfred Adler was really into something when he proposed
that these were at the roots of many, if not most, of our psychological problems.
Now we see the qualities displayed by virtually all politicians in democracy, the constant
Need for Status and Recognition. The ends compensating for a inferiority complex justify
whatever Machiavellian means. Because democracy is open to any and all who can get themselves
elected either through connections, personality, or personal wealth, it is a social system
Some more leadership positions have become a hotbed for sociopaths.
Maslow's self-actualizing man wouldn't have any interest in politics, but those stuck
on the need for esteem are drawn to it like flies to cow patties.
Even religious philosophers recognize the shortcomings of those in power.
St. Augustine wrote about the story of the Just War and held a different worldview from
Augustine was pessimistic of human nature, believing men weren't inclined toward righteousness,
but instead had a tendency toward doing evil as the result of Adam's fall, pride, vanity,
and libido domini, the lust for domination, which entice men towards waging wars and committing
all manner of violence.
Judge Andrew Napolitano made a point during a speech at Mises University this summer that
libido domini is the thing in human nature that attracts people into government in order
Remember that they may dominate their fellow man.
That the same brilliant men who founded the United States government wrote a law as repugnant
as the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Now Hoppe recognized that natural elites have responsibilities that extend far beyond themselves
and their families.
The more successful they are as businessmen and professionals, and the more others recognize
them as successful, the more important it is that they set an example, that they strive
to live up to the highest standards of ethical conduct.
This means accepting as their duty, indeed their noble duty, to support openly, proudly
and as generously as they possibly can the values that they have recognized as right
and true. They receive in return intellectual inspiration, nourishment and strength as well
as the knowledge that their name will live forever as outstanding individuals who rose
above the masses and made a lasting contribution to mankind. On the other hand, in democracy,
is demand attention now, seeking a claim for anything they do, continually taking credit
for policies they say have made our lives better, when in fact, these interventions
have made our lives worse.
There is no need to list the names of politicians who have committed crimes or ethics violations,
yet that would take all day.
With leadership in such dysfunctional hands, it's no wonder in comparison to the nineteenth
In the 21st century, the cognitive prowess of the political and intellectual elites and the quality of public education have declined, Hoppe writes, in democracy, and the rates of crime, structural unemployment, welfare, dependency, negligence, recklessness, incivility, and hedonism have increased.
While the electorate recognizes that they are electing at best incompetence and at worst
crooks, the constant naive pro-democracy mantra is that we just need to elect the right people.
But the right people aren't and won't be running for office.
Instead, we will continue to have the average American legislator, who is not only an ass,
as Mencken wrote, but also an oblique, sinister, depraved, and naivish fellow.
Well so do we just throw up our hands?
Is it hopeless?
No.
Hoppe wrote, it can safely be predicted that the democratic welfare state will collapse.
And what is necessary besides a crisis is ideas, correct ideas, and men capable of understanding
and implementing those ideas once the opportunity arises.
So the natural elites have an obligation to make sure the truth is spread.
Mises and Rothbard were only able to make themselves heard through the support of others.
Lawrence Furtig and others supported Mises.
The Mises Institute donors supported Rothbard's work.
As Hoppe writes, once upon a time in a pre-democratic age, when the spirit of egalitarianism had
not yet destroyed most men of independent wealth and independent minds and judgments,
Hoppe explains that this is nearly impossible in this day and age.
He points out that a person's first obligation is to make as much money as he can because
the more money he makes, the more beneficial he has been to his fellow man.
But the natural elites extend beyond that.
It is for them to support the truth.
The outstanding individuals of the Pikes Peak Economics Club are the natural elites that
made today's program possible.
They have accepted their duty to fight evil, even though they may never see the benefit.
I want to thank you, Pikes Peak Economics Club, for keeping alive the truths of private
property, free markets, and personal responsibility.
Not only are we in your debt, but future generations will be in your debt as well.
Applause