• Gentle Nock at Our Door

    Email Print



    article is excerpted from chapter 14 of Out
    of Step
    (1962). An MP3 audio file of this article, narrated
    by Steven Ng, is available
    for download

    In New York,
    in the fall of 1936, I happened in one night at the Players Club.
    As I sat at a table with a couple of men, I noticed a dignified,
    elderly gentleman playing pool. He was very deliberate – painfully
    so to his opponent – in the selection of his shots, and quite
    accurate, too. At the end of the game he came over to our table,
    on request, and I was introduced to Albert Jay Nock. I had read
    much of his writings, in his books and in the old Freeman and was
    thoroughly in tune with many of his ideas, which he seemed to sense;
    we hit it off from the start, and until his death in 1945 we exchanged
    views and became as friendly as one could be with this reserved
    though companionable gentleman.

    “I have led
    a singularly uneventful life, largely solitary, have had little
    to do with the great … and no part whatever in their affairs, or
    for that matter, in any other affairs.” So wrote Albert Jay Nock
    in the preface to his last book, Memoirs
    of a Superfluous Man
    . He wasn’t being modest; he meant
    it. And he did not believe anybody would be interested in reading
    about a man who had assiduously avoided making money or acquiring
    fame or taking part in the current of events. All he had ever tried
    to do was to get the most out of life in the ways he had found most
    pleasurable. He was an intellectual hedonist, entirely superfluous
    in the utilitarian environment in which he had lived.

    he repeatedly refused to do the autobiography that William Harlowe
    Briggs, editor for Harper and Brothers, had been asking for. He
    had always shunned publicity — never gave a word to Who’s Who
    — and saw no reason at this late date to let a morbidly curious
    public in on his personal affairs. But Briggs won him over to the
    project by referring to an essay on autobiographical writing which
    Nock had published some time before. The only good purpose that
    an autobiography could serve, wrote Nock, was to record whatever
    philosophy the author had acquired on his way through life; if in
    so doing he found it necessary to relate experiences that had brought
    him to that line of thought, then it is permissible to throw them
    in; but to parade before the public what is none of their business
    is vulgar.

    Thus came his
    brilliant “autobiography of ideas.” Every time Nock brought him
    a chapter, Briggs told me, he would say, “I don’t know why you want
    to publish this, Bill, for I am sure you will lose your shirt on
    it.” The editor knew better. His obvious motive was to get another
    book — probably the last, for Nock had already reached the three-score-and-ten
    mark — by perhaps the finest stylist in twentieth century American
    literature. The book has had a better sale than any of his previous
    books, even though every line of it is critical of the prevailing
    “climate of thought.”

    Nock was an
    individualist, and he got that way not as the result of study but
    by force of temperament. As he would put it, the “furniture” of
    his mind was so arranged because no other arrangement would fit
    his mind. A man thinks what he is, Nock would say, and no amount
    of education can make him think otherwise; the only function that
    education can perform is to give him the tools with which to bring
    out of him what “he already knows!” He would have no truck with
    the doctrine of environmentalism, which he described as a false
    god set up by self-appointed and self-centered priests.

    He took to
    laissez faire economics, not because of its utilitarian support,
    but because of his abhorrence of political intervention. He was
    an anti-statist because he revolted at the vulgarism of politics
    and its devotees; in his classic, Our
    Enemy the State
    , he likens the state to a “professional
    criminal class.” He scorned reform movements because they all involve
    the use of political power which, on examination, will be found
    to be at the bottom of the condition the reformers would correct.
    He was for letting people alone because only under a condition of
    freedom could they improve themselves, if they have any capacity
    for improvement in them.

    From this foreshortened
    description of his philosophy, one might infer that Nock was a crotchety
    old fellow, hard to get along with. Far from it. In a crowd, to
    be sure, he was distinguishable only by his infinite capacity for
    listening. He was too considerate to refute any statement, even
    a palpably false one, and too self-respecting to get into a controversy;
    “never complain, never explain, never argue,” he often said, “and
    you will get more fun out of life.”

    It was only
    when you got him alone that you got a true taste of Nock, and I
    had the good fortune to meet him frequently during his last ten
    years on this earth. Over a meal — I was usually ready for coffee
    before he had finished his soup — he would regale you with bits
    of history that threw light on the events of the day, or quote from
    the classics a passage currently applicable, or take all the glory
    out of a “name” character with a pithy, statement of fact. He is
    gone ten years, and hardly a day passes but that some headline calls
    to mind an apropos remark he made as we lolled in the lobby
    of his hotel. He was a library of knowledge and a fount of wisdom,
    and if you were a kindred spirit you could have your pick of both.

    His gift for
    parable was extraordinary. Those who are acquainted with his writings
    know how he could short-circuit a lot of logic-chopping by the use
    of an apt story; he spoke as he wrote.

    One night,
    during the war, a group of superpatriots were expounding the theory
    of innate German bestiality and stressing the need of digging our
    national heel into the lot. Nock, as usual, said nothing. Finally,
    somebody called for his opinion. He allowed that he knew nothing
    of the subject under discussion, but begged leave to tell of an
    experience he had had in a small German town some years before the

    While waiting
    for the stationmaster to serve him, he picked up a historical booklet
    about the town. It was written in alt hoch Deutsch, which
    is to modern German about what Chaucer is to modern English. In
    due time the stationmaster turned to Nock and asked whether he was
    an American. Assured that this was so, the man expressed astonishment;
    for he had never met an American scholar, let alone one who could
    negotiate ancient German.

    As a result
    of this chance incident, Nock was lionized during the few days he
    remained in the town. “In France and England,” Nock concluded, ”
    I never knew of scholarship being so highly regarded.” The point
    was clear. There was no more talk of exterminating the German people.

    What Wasn’t
    Tabu and What Was

    His stock of
    illustrative matter was garnered not only from a lifetime of travel
    and interesting associations, but also from the literature of the
    three “dead” languages, which to him were quite alive, to say nothing
    of the French, German and English. One evening he broke off in the
    middle of a sentence to cast an appreciative eye on a passing female.
    I observed that it was about time he had stopped looking. His reply
    was a passage from the Psalms of David, in Hebrew, referring to
    the lure of feminine pulchritude.

    What did he
    talk about? Everything, from good eating to literature, from politics
    to manners in the tenth century. One subject was, by tacit consent,
    tabu; that was anything biographical. He would not hesitate to bring
    in, whenever it was necessary to the point he was making, some detail
    of his life, even an intimacy; but it never occurred to either of
    us to follow that thread. He was a man about whom you never asked

    It was only
    after I was appointed administrator of his estate that I learned
    of the existence of two full-grown and well-educated sons. By the
    way, his “estate” consisted of some clothes, books, and uncollected
    royalties in the amount of $1300. Yet, he had travelled extensively
    and lived reasonably well.

    Aim for the

    Nock’s brand
    of individualism came out in full panoply when he discussed education,
    a subject in which he was keenly interested. He insisted that no
    fault with public education can be found if the underlying principle
    of modern democracy is accepted as an axiom. That principle holds
    that not only are we born equal in law, but that we are also endowed
    with equal capacities; it follows that we are equally and perhaps
    indefinitely perfectible; all we need to prove this are equal educational
    advantages. Public education for all, then, is the way to the perfect

    But, in point
    of fact, we find considerable differences in the mental capacities
    of individuals, and these differences make the application of the
    democratic principle difficult. Yet we are dedicated to the principle
    and cannot abandon or even modify it. The best we can do under the
    circumstances is to fit the standard of education to the lowest
    common denominator, and to keep on lowering it as more and more
    are invited or forced into the school system. It would be undemocratic
    to set the standard above the reach of the most unfortunate moron.

    Everybody can
    be trained to do something, and so education under the democratic
    principle had to become utilitarian. And that fits in with the laudable
    idea that every child is born to enjoy a larger share of the material
    things of this life than did his father. Therefore, the goal of
    democratic education must be to fit the future citizenry for some
    trade or profession, and courses in carpentry or domestic science
    have become infinitely more important in the curriculum than courses
    in Latin or logic.

    But where does
    that leave the mind that is capable of learning? In the Grand Tradition,
    said Nock, education was geared to that mind only; the standard
    was set for it; and if one could not reach the heights, one was
    not educable, and that was the end of it. Though he did not belong
    in the select circle, he could be a very useful citizen, and lead
    a very happy life. In a material way, indeed, the non-educable were
    likely to have the advantage over the others; Spinoza, a highly
    educated man, was a poor lens grinder.

    The object
    of education in the Grand Tradition was not to train technicians
    but to pick out of the ruck those who were endowed with questing
    minds. It was quite undemocratic, to be sure, in that it took cognizance
    of an educable elite. For that minority breed the democratic system
    has no place, and anyone suffering from intellectual curiosity is
    compelled to get his education in any way that he can find outside
    that system.

    It will be
    seen that an evening with Nock on education was stimulating, especially
    since the conversation was embellished with anecdotes from the education
    of Rabelais (whose life inspired two books by Nock) or illustrations
    from his own college career. But if you thought that Nock had any
    idea of “doing something about it” you were soon set straight. “Things
    are as they are and will be as they will be,” and nothing could
    be done to change the course of events, nor even tried. After all,
    the educable will get their education, despite democracy, because
    they cannot help it. Any attempt to reform the democratic educational
    system is both presumptuous and hopeless.

    “Why, then,”
    I asked him once as he was setting out on a lecture tour, “do you
    lecture? Why do you write?” His answer: “A fellow does what he has
    to do.”

    If he had a
    favorite topic, it was his theory of political organization. He
    held that there is a basic difference between government and state,
    and it is a mistake to use the words interchangeably. The one is
    an institution arising from the needs of society; its function is
    to protect the individual from encroachment on the rights that inhere
    in him by virtue of existence; its only business is the administration
    of justice.

    On the other
    hand, the state is an antisocial organization, originating in conquest
    and concerned only with confiscating production. The state began
    with the practice of nomadic tribes of swooping down on some peaceful,
    productive community, confiscating the movable wealth around, and,
    after slaying the less productive inhabitants, carrying off those
    who could be put to use, including women; later on, the raiding
    tribes, sometimes by invitation, would settle down among the producers
    as “protectors” and administrators, collecting tribute for their

    Sometimes a
    merger between the invaders and their subjects would take place,
    even by marriage, and a nation was born; but the instruments of
    confiscation were continued, and those who inherited them became
    the state.

    Wouldn’t Punch
    a Clock

    This is, in
    a way, an economic theory of political institutions. There are two
    ways of making a living, Nock explained. One is the economic
    means, the other the political means. The first consists
    of the application of human effort to raw materials so as to bring
    into being things that people want; the second is the confiscation
    of the rightful property of others.

    The state is
    that group of people, who having got hold of the machinery of compulsion,
    legally or otherwise, use it to better their circumstances; that
    is the political means. Nock would hasten to explain that
    the state consists not only of politicians, but also those who make
    use of the politicians for their own ends; that would include those
    we call pressure groups, lobbyists and all who wrangle special privileges
    out of the politicians. All the injustices that plague “advanced”
    societies, he maintained, are traceable to the workings of the state
    organizations that attach themselves to these societies.

    This differentiation
    between state and government was set down formally in his Our
    Enemy the State, which originated as a series of lectures to
    a class in advanced history at Columbia University. (Incidentally,
    he refused the offer of a professorship at this institution because
    he did not think he could “punch a clock.”) In private conversation
    he would enrich the theory with historical anecdotes and with references
    to living personalities which could hardly be put in print. The
    book handles the subject of the development of the American State
    rather gingerly; in conversation he could be more blunt.

    Nock Bettered

    He delighted
    in explaining the organization of many American Indian tribes, in
    which the prevailing justice and order indicated that a government,
    not a state, was on the job; or he would go to the Bible to show
    how the nomadic Israelites set themselves up in the state business
    by raiding villages on the way to the Promised Land. The Bible always
    stood him in good stead; he had been a minister in the Episcopalian

    To sum it up,
    Nock was the most civilized man I ever knew. He was knowledgeable
    but never pedantic, reserved but companionable, cosmopolitan in his
    tastes and, above all, a gentleman to whom it never occurred to inflict
    hurt on any man. He avoided the mass-mind, not only because he found
    it very uninteresting, but because he thought nothing could be done
    to improve it. If there was to be any improvement in society it would
    have to come by way of improvement in the individuals who compose
    it; for, in the final analysis, society is only an agglomeration of
    individuals, not an entity in itself. So Nock put in a lifetime bettering
    Nock, and since he had chosen writing as a profession he made a point
    of polishing his style to the point where it became the envy of his

    Henry L. Mencken
    once said to him, “Nobody cares what you write; it’s how you write
    that interests everybody.” This is about the highest compliment
    one craftsman can pay to another. But this was not exactly true.

    What Nock said
    was as interesting as the way he said it.

    from Mises.org.

    Chodorov (1887–1966), one of the great libertarians of the
    Old Right, was the founder of the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists
    and author of such books as The
    Income Tax: Root of All Evil
    . Here he is on “Taxation
    Is Robbery
    .” And here
    is Rothbard’s obituary of Chodorov

    Best of Frank Chodorov

    Email Print
  • Political Theatre

  • LRC Blog

    LRC Podcasts