After his lecture on Montesquieu, a professor at Hillsdale College posed the belief of Montesuieu's that the aristocracy is a bastion of culture- and that with commercialism, the aristocracy disappears along with its "high culture." He pointed to modern entertainment, with television as an example, to show that a wealthy society always tends toward a culture of volgarity, profanity and general immorality. One brave soul pointed to the welfare state for aiding in the destruction of family, but the professor placed more blame on a lack of "aristocratic literature," and thus the progress of society.
So what is to blame for the vulgar culture we live in today- assuming it is vulgar? Is it wealth? Is it progress? Is it the welfare state? Or a combination of factors?
Whoever wants peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly. -Ludwig von Mises
I highly recommend the lecture series by Paul Cantor for insights into this subject: Commerce and Culture. IIRC he concludes that aristocratic patronage of the arts is preferable to state subsidies, but that free mass markets are best of all.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
Dondoolee:I think in regards to the options musicians and music consumers have had throughout the decades in correlation with more open markets and more accumulated wealth would be interesting to look at. I can say with almost certainty it is much easier in almost every way for your generic garage rock band today than it would have been 10 yrs ago. It is also easier for your average consumer to be exposed to a wider variety of music than 10 yrs ago. I would wager that the options to consumers has had a somewhat of a measurable impact.
Ah, OK, I see what you're saying. Perhaps you have a point, I think there's a good reason for the correlation between the rise of pop music and the accumulation of wealth. Indeed, there has been a huge increase in the standards of living (people at the LvMI often give the opposite impression) that has coincided with the growth government, whether the government is the cause or the result (or a retarding factor). As I've said, I listen to a lot of music but I know relatively little about it's history but I'd venture a guess that as music became more accessible both due to technological advances and the rise of the average person in terms of wealth it had to change its focus. I don't wish to sound too elitist here (and I don't listen to much classical music) but in the past when music was limited to the aristocracy, who have more "sophisticated" tastes it's perhaps clear why certain genres was more prevelant. This is of course, referring to the demand side but there are similar factors are work on the supply side. 200 years ago people just couldn't start a "garage rock band" as you say.
To be honest I'd completely neglected this side of the picture, but it might actually be quite an interesting research project. Of course, it'd be very speculative, but so is most historical work.
Dondoolee:Of course this is true. I think the artist or connoisseur should expect this, I don't know what else they could reasonably expect. It would be the same with food, wine, or anything in the market for that matter.
Indeed, but there seems to be a sort of impression here that in large part the state is responsible for the rise of pop music or whatever. As I said, to an extent this is true, but I don't think it's a line or argumentation that's worth pursuing. A good example would be rap music, a lot of rap is associated with guns, violence and drugs. Of course, without the prohibition of drugs there'd be a drop in gun violence and I don't think rappers would be so able to build the image that they do.
Dondoolee:I can't think how IP favors smaller independent labels off the top of my head, you would have to elaborate or link an article to me on this.
I'm sort of throwing things out there, but a lot of the big artists right now are "locked into" a way of producing their music that I just don't see as being very successful. For years the record labels would try to keep the music off of Limewire, Demonoid, Mininova, OiNK, Bareshare and whatever other form of illegal distribution you can think of. On the other hand, smaller artists would use this to their advantage to get their name out there.
Another factor is image. Look at how Metallica suffered when they sued Napster (and whilst I'm not a huge Metallica fan, St. Anger was crap)
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
ama gi: I find adulation of the Victorian-era "aristocracy" disgusting. It reeks of elitism and hatred of the poor. "Aristocracy" can only exist with colonialism and chattel slavery to feed the masters' gullets. To answer your question about what causes "vulgar culture", I would argue that rather than the lack of "aristocratic literature", it is the lack of the Christian religion, particularly the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Most of Europe's brightest minds were Christian. When Christian morality is thrown out the window, there is plenty of vices and sins that can fill the void. That is why the divorce rate is as high as it is, the illegitimacy rate is as high as it is, the crime rate is as high as it is....
I find adulation of the Victorian-era "aristocracy" disgusting. It reeks of elitism and hatred of the poor. "Aristocracy" can only exist with colonialism and chattel slavery to feed the masters' gullets.
To answer your question about what causes "vulgar culture", I would argue that rather than the lack of "aristocratic literature", it is the lack of the Christian religion, particularly the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. Most of Europe's brightest minds were Christian. When Christian morality is thrown out the window, there is plenty of vices and sins that can fill the void. That is why the divorce rate is as high as it is, the illegitimacy rate is as high as it is, the crime rate is as high as it is....
...and religious wars aren't what they used to be either.
Ah for the good old days when babies were baptized then drowned by the invading armies, to ensure the little tykes went straight to Heaven.
The little village I live in is choking with churches. Pushers of Jesus knock on your door and accost you on the street. And yet the people are the same ole rednecks, the vulgar ones that dominate the Southern Bible belt. NASCAR people.
Many European thinkers were Christian because many Europeans were Christian. It's like saying the smartest goldfish were all goldfish.
The ancient Greeks were pretty bright, so I've heard. Some of the early Romans too. None of those guys were Christian. The builders of the pyramids must have been pretty clever, wouldn't you say? They were not Christian. Atheist Godless Soviet Russia had some top notch mathmeticians and scientists. Guess who launched the first sattelite and sent the Christian USA into a panic that their kids are stupid? Those same Godless atheists.
Now if you would say most of the mass murderers in history were Christians, Hitler, Stalin, Christopher Columbus, Cortez, to name a few, you would have a strong case.
If you would say the wars that killed the most people had Christians on one or both sides running the show, I couldn't argue with that either.
If you would insist that the imperialist conquerors who were cruelest and bled their conquests dryest were Christians, yes I'd concede that, too.
Of course people of other religions have a pretty good record of inhumanity as well. It's a question of opportunity more than anything.
[Sounds like I'm Russian or a communist, don't it? I'm neither].
BTW, "There IS plenty of vices"? Are you one of those bright Christians?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Truth and Liberty: I highly recommend the lecture series by Paul Cantor for insights into this subject: Commerce and Culture. IIRC he concludes that aristocratic patronage of the arts is preferable to state subsidies, but that free mass markets are best of all.
Thanks for pointing to those. Will give them a listen when the football games are over.
OMG will the NFL one day be revered like classical music is by some today? The cheerleaders were prettier than the Greek chorus girls, the players superior to participants in the ancient Olympics, the spectators more enthusiastic because they were not compelled to attend, the archtecture of the stadiums pul the Parthenon [if that's the place, don't know much about that stuff] to shame, the coaches pep talks marvels of oratory.
Commerce is culture.
Smiling Dave:Now if you would say most of the mass murderers in history were Christians, Hitler, Stalin,
It seems you have an agenda to push. Now, I don't take Wikipedia to be the source of truth, but going on this entry I got the impression that Hitler was very fond of Christianity in public but not so much in private. Now, you're free to draw your own conclusions, but would giving undue importance to his public statements be particularly congruent with your views on libertarianism?
The more important point is that the record is by no means unambiguous when it comes to Hitler, so perhaps invoking him as an example of a Christian mass murderer isn't the most honest thing to do.
In the case of Stalin, I'm under the impression that the record is less ambiguous in the sense that Stalin was quite keen on repressing religion. But if you have any sources that give the opposite view, by all means present them.
(As an aside, why didn't you mention Mao who killed more than Stalin and Hitler combined. You didn't mean Pol Pot either)
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
GilesStratton: Smiling Dave:Now if you would say most of the mass murderers in history were Christians, Hitler, Stalin, It seems you have an agenda to push. Not at all. I was responding to an unsupported statement that Chritianity is the solution to all our moral problems. I was pointing out that Hitler and Stalin were raised as Christians and yet the world was better off without them, to put it mildly. One could put up a good argument that the more strictly Christian a country is, the more horribly dangerous to the whole world. I'm thinking of Spain with its Inquisition, The Papal states when they had power, the use of missionaries as an excuse to conquer nations, [They killed two of our missionaries! Take over their country.]. Indeed the very atitude of the poster shows how dangerous they are. "If only you were all like me the world would have no problems." Uh huh. You are saying that Chritianity takes the silver medal in mass murder, with gold to the Communists. I concede the point for the sake of argument, mostly because I lack the resources and desire to research the topic. But on the whole, Christians would do well do maintain a shamed silence when the topic of net benefit to humanity is raised. Not to mention their harmful influence on their own disciples. Psychiatrists say they love the Catholic Church, they provide a steady stream of customers. Now, I don't take Wikipedia to be the source of truth, but going on this entry I got the impression that Hitler was very fond of Christianity in public but not so much in private. Now, you're free to draw your own conclusions, but would giving undue importance to his public statements be particularly congruent with your views on libertarianism? Isn't it odd that Hitler thought the best way to convince people they should kill kill kill is by reminding them of their Christianity? The more important point is that the record is by no means unambiguous when it comes to Hitler, so perhaps invoking him as an example of a Christian mass murderer isn't the most honest thing to do. What's unambiguous? He was born and raised a Christian. He used Christianity as part of his propaganda. The Pope supported him. If in private life he was a hypocrite, well is that untypical? In the case of Stalin, I'm under the impression that the record is less ambiguous in the sense that Stalin was quite keen on repressing religion. He too was born and raised a Christian. He went to a Church school as a child. At 16 he got a scholarship to a Christian seminary, but decided it sucked. He knew about the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. That he was quite keen on supressing the faith that he imbibed with his mother's milk, in fact every faith, well the monster they raised turned around and bit them. But if you have any sources that give the opposite view, by all means present them. http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html Just a quick quote from a smart man who has a record of impartiality in other topics: "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. " You can read his reasons in the above link. (As an aside, why didn't you mention Mao who killed more than Stalin and Hitler combined. You didn't mean Pol Pot either) I didn't mention them because they are not Christians. But you gotta hand it to Cortez, who eliminated an entire civilization single handed.
It seems you have an agenda to push.
Not at all. I was responding to an unsupported statement that Chritianity is the solution to all our moral problems. I was pointing out that Hitler and Stalin were raised as Christians and yet the world was better off without them, to put it mildly. One could put up a good argument that the more strictly Christian a country is, the more horribly dangerous to the whole world. I'm thinking of Spain with its Inquisition, The Papal states when they had power, the use of missionaries as an excuse to conquer nations, [They killed two of our missionaries! Take over their country.]. Indeed the very atitude of the poster shows how dangerous they are. "If only you were all like me the world would have no problems." Uh huh.
You are saying that Chritianity takes the silver medal in mass murder, with gold to the Communists. I concede the point for the sake of argument, mostly because I lack the resources and desire to research the topic. But on the whole, Christians would do well do maintain a shamed silence when the topic of net benefit to humanity is raised.
Not to mention their harmful influence on their own disciples. Psychiatrists say they love the Catholic Church, they provide a steady stream of customers.
Now, I don't take Wikipedia to be the source of truth, but going on this entry I got the impression that Hitler was very fond of Christianity in public but not so much in private. Now, you're free to draw your own conclusions, but would giving undue importance to his public statements be particularly congruent with your views on libertarianism?
Isn't it odd that Hitler thought the best way to convince people they should kill kill kill is by reminding them of their Christianity?
What's unambiguous? He was born and raised a Christian. He used Christianity as part of his propaganda. The Pope supported him. If in private life he was a hypocrite, well is that untypical?
In the case of Stalin, I'm under the impression that the record is less ambiguous in the sense that Stalin was quite keen on repressing religion.
He too was born and raised a Christian. He went to a Church school as a child. At 16 he got a scholarship to a Christian seminary, but decided it sucked. He knew about the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. That he was quite keen on supressing the faith that he imbibed with his mother's milk, in fact every faith, well the monster they raised turned around and bit them.
But if you have any sources that give the opposite view, by all means present them.
http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
Just a quick quote from a smart man who has a record of impartiality in other topics: "I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. " You can read his reasons in the above link.
I didn't mention them because they are not Christians.
But you gotta hand it to Cortez, who eliminated an entire civilization single handed.
I don't wish to sound too elitist here (and I don't listen to much classical music) but in the past when music was limited to the aristocracy, who have more "sophisticated" tastes it's perhaps clear why certain genres was more prevelant. This is of course, referring to the demand side but there are similar factors are work on the supply side. 200 years ago people just couldn't start a "garage rock band" as you say.
But music wasn't limited to the aristocracy; the commoners still had their folk music. It could not have the same impact as pop music today (for a plethora of obvious reasons). Here is what I find interesting though, more of the non classical music today is much more sophisticated in composition and musicianship than the folk music of say the 1400's. Perhaps not your typical top 40 schlock on the radio but listen to a Beatles album and it is much more sophisticated than the folk music of England from previous centuries. I just don't think the best of the "common" (I really don't wish to sound too elitist either) musicians from 1860's England could compare to the "common" 1960's England by a long shot. Of course, this is an aesthetic argument to a degree, but hopefully you see my point.
Also, per capita more people today are probably more into more serious music than before. In other words the "aristocracy" has grown, and I would say it is a direct result of private enterprise much more so than state subsidy. I do have to be particularly careful when talking about classical music though, as it tends to be a very subsidies form of music now (which would once again invite another interesting study).
You are right though, it is speculative history and just another thing to throw into my ever growing “research list".
Oh, Ok I see now. I thought you were approaching it from the angle that the laws themselves were directly intended to (and somehow succefully) subsidize and favor smaller labels, which baffled me. This line of reasoning, you presented is probably correct. They are also competing with much more media now than they were 10 years ago. And while I am not much of a Metallica fan either, I think it is scientifically proven that they have not been too great for a very long time.
Oh dear, is it time for another one of these religious arguments. In all fairness though it seems as if the Christian side invited this one with an unnecessary and provoking comment.
Something to note: Christianity is an extraordinarily ambiguous, cumbersome, and general term. To me it seems a bit silly to even be using it in a generalized form to present an argument of such magnitude. It is even kind of hard to use it as a general term: for example when I say Christian in the broadest sense I mean a "person who holds to the beliefs of the Nicene Creed and/or has recognized Apostolic Succession from the Eastern and Western Churches; this definition would throw out such religions as Mormonism and Jehovah Witness' and include such faiths as the Coptic and Assyrian Orthodox Church. To make it even more confusing, there are major disagreements on the Nicene Creed itself (the infamous filoque argument, for example).
If you wish to attack Christianity specifically and not the general belief of a personal god, you really have to know the theology of the various branch you wish to attack. When you point out specific people doing bad deeds (and many of the examples you gave were lay people) all you are doing is making a vague correlation.
Substitute "Christianity" with the term "Indo-European" and that may provide some scope as to the absurdity as to which the word is used. Or substitute the people acting as “those influenced by Greco-Roman culture” or "Those influenced by liberalism" instead of "Christian" and the examples show its absurdities..
The shame is there could actually be some interesting and useful discussions involving religion on this site (due to this site having a decent mix of reasonable and intellectual atheists and Christians); unfortunately some people seem too insensitive and irresponsible to allow it to happen. Hell, this conversation went from essentially saying: “People do not worship the [God of my Religion] so culture has descended to the Neo-Dark Ages” to “Hitler worshiped the [God of your Religion] and murdered millions of people because of it!” All this in only in two posts! That has to be a record on Godwin’s Law.