Mencken on Punishing Politicians

fastpat · 10-17-2006, 09:07 AM

A politician would rather have this punishment and keep his office, which of course means the best punishment is to vote them out and never let them back in.

Quote:

Mencken on Punishing Politicians
Posted by Stephan Kinsella at October 17, 2006 12:42 AM

Lew, the great Mencken quote reminded me of one of my favorite Mencken quotes: from Rothbard's great article, H. L. Mencken: The Joyous Libertarian:

In discussing how to punish guilty public officials ("jobholders"), Mencken said, "What is needed is a system (a) that does not depend for its execution upon the good-will of fellow jobholders, and (b) that provides swift, certain and unpedantic punishments, each fitted neatly to its crime."

Mencken's proposed remedy

Quote:

provides that any [citizen]...having looked into the acts of a jobholder and found him delinquent, may punish him instantly and on the spot, and in any manner that seems appropriate and convenient – and that, in case this punishment involves physical damage to the jobholder, the ensuing inquiry by the grand jury or coroner shall confine itself strictly to the question whether the jobholder deserved what he got. In other words, I propose that it shall no longer be malum in se for a citizen to pummel, cowhide, kick, gouge, cut, wound, bruise, maim, burn, club, bastinado, flay, or even lynch a jobholder, and that it shall be malum prohibitum only to the extent that the punishment exceeds the jobholder's desserts. The amount of this excess, if any, may be determined very conveniently by a petit jury, as other questions of guilt are now determined.... If it decides that the jobholder deserves the punishment inflicted upon him, the citizen who inflicted it is acquitted with honor. If, on the contrary, it decides that the punishment was excessive, then the citizen is adjudged guilty of assault, mayhem, murder, or whatever it is, in a degree apportioned to the difference between what the jobholder deserved and what he got, and punishment for that excess follows in the usual course....

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/011541.html#more

Jim Richards · 10-17-2006, 09:29 AM

I like it!

onlycafe · 10-17-2006, 08:44 PM

sounds fairly reasonable to me.