Today in 1828, Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy, or Leo Tolstoy, as most have come to know the Russian writer, was born in Yasnaya Polyana, a few hundred miles south of Moscow.
“The Kingdom of God is Within You”
While Tolstoy is best know for works such as War and Peace and Anna Karenina, it is important to note that Tolstoy’s later works on Christian Anarchist thought and non-violence (specifically, what is refered to as “peaceful non-resistance”) had a profound impact on Martin Luther King, Jr. and had a direct impact on Mahatma Ghandi.
“L.N.Tolstoy Prokudin-Gorsky” by Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky – Журнал “Записки Русского технического общества”, №8, 1908. Стр. 369. URL: http://prokudin-gorsky.org/arcs.php?lang=ru&photos_id=818&type=1. Licensed under Public domain via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:L.N.Tolstoy_Prokudin-Gorsky.jpg#mediaviewer/File:L.N.Tolstoy_Prokudin-Gorsky.jpg
For anyone who is interested in truly achieving peace, his work The Kingdom of God is Within You is a must read.
Tolstoy’s influences included Victor Hugo, George Fox, William Penn.
In honor of Leo Tolstoy, we present links to our own works which have been inspired by Leo Tolstoy, whom Ghandi referred to as:
The greatest apostle of non-violence that the present age has produced
Join us in honoring Tolstoy and all of the peacemakers on this earth, for now, more than ever, our voices are needed! Go forth, and love your neighbor as you love yourself
Robert D. Kaplan, Stratfor’s Chief Geopolitical Analyst, published in interesting report yesterday recounting his clairvoyance in predicting the rise of anarchic rule in certain African states (predictions that came to pass) and the general erosion of state governance throughout the world.
Kaplan’s observations are of particular interest to us, as we hold the belief that Anarchy is an Ultimate Given, meaning that groups of people tend to search for a coordinated approach to their inherently anarchic surroundings, the most recent of which has been the democratic nation state.
While Kaplan’s analysis appears to paint a picture of chaos and lawlessness, which indeed are the hallmarks of regime change, we see democratic nation states and their attendant monetary regimes as things that the world is currently shedding for its ultimate betterment, as they now serve to restrict trade instead of facilitating it as once was their chief contribution to the livelihood of the governed.
The continued adoption of communication via the internet is moving toward a state of maturity from which the natural progression towards internet facilitated trade amongst parties is causing the world to eschew the label of their respective nation state and replace it with one of religion or other shared affinities which are readily accessible given the pace of mobile communication expansion.
Kaplan also makes a clear distinction between the need for strong governance of urban societies whereas rural/agrarian societies tend to govern themselves, a point that is lost on most observers, not the least of which are the political classes in the current nation state, which tend to focus on national borders as the only limitations to their sphere of influence.
While Kaplan’s analysis is interesting and serves to explain what is likely to continue to occur for the next 5 to 20 years in terms of the erosion of central governments, he appears unable to speculate as to what form the governing body of a large geographical area would take.
As such, we will speculate for him. The world is in the process of segregating itself into phyles, or groups of people aligned in terms of ideologies, be they religious or otherwise, independent of geographic location. These phyles will tend to unite, geographically where possible, but primarily through trade relationships. Once these trade relationships are established, the increased division of labor will resume within the phyles, giving rise to a true increase in the Monetary premium of items that up until now have not been identified as money.
Bitcoin is one example of what is essentially a pure monetary premium transmitter. As the nation states continue to crumble, the foundations for new societies united by ideology and/or trade relations are already being laid, and we hope and pray for a peaceful transition onto them for all, as the failed model of the democratic nation state based on mere borders must be laid to rest peacefully for humankind to truly prosper.
Without further ado, Robert D. Kaplan…
Why So Much Anarchy?
By Robert D. Kaplan
Twenty years ago, in February 1994, I published a lengthy cover story in The Atlantic Monthly, “The Coming Anarchy: How Scarcity, Crime, Overpopulation, Tribalism, and Disease are Rapidly Destroying the Social Fabric of Our Planet.” I argued that the combination of resource depletion (like water), demographic youth bulges and the proliferation of shanty towns throughout the developing world would enflame ethnic and sectarian divides, creating the conditions for domestic political breakdown and the transformation of war into increasingly irregular forms — making it often indistinguishable from terrorism. I wrote about the erosion of national borders and the rise of the environment as the principal security issues of the 21st century. I accurately predicted the collapse of certain African states in the late 1990s and the rise of political Islam in Turkey and other places. Islam, I wrote, was a religion ideally suited for the badly urbanized poor who were willing to fight. I also got things wrong, such as the probable intensification of racial divisions in the United States; in fact, such divisions have been impressively ameliorated.
However, what is not in dispute is that significant portions of the earth, rather than follow the dictates of Progress and Rationalism, are simply harder and harder to govern, even as there is insufficient evidence of an emerging and widespread civil society. Civil society in significant swaths of the earth is still the province of a relatively elite few in capital cities — the very people Western journalists feel most comfortable befriending and interviewing, so that the size and influence of such a class is exaggerated by the media.
The anarchy unleashed in the Arab world, in particular, has other roots, though — roots not adequately dealt with in my original article:
The End of Imperialism. That’s right. Imperialism provided much of Africa, Asia and Latin America with security and administrative order. The Europeans divided the planet into a gridwork of entities — both artificial and not — and governed. It may not have been fair, and it may not have been altogether civil, but it provided order. Imperialism, the mainstay of stability for human populations for thousands of years, is now gone.
The End of Post-Colonial Strongmen. Colonialism did not end completely with the departure of European colonialists. It continued for decades in the guise of strong dictators, who had inherited state systems from the colonialists. Because these strongmen often saw themselves as anti-Western freedom fighters, they believed that they now had the moral justification to govern as they pleased. The Europeans had not been democratic in the Middle East, and neither was this new class of rulers. Hafez al Assad, Saddam Hussein, Ali Abdullah Saleh, Moammar Gadhafi and the Nasserite pharaohs in Egypt right up through Hosni Mubarak all belonged to this category, which, like that of the imperialists, has been quickly retreating from the scene (despite a comeback in Egypt).
No Institutions. Here we come to the key element. The post-colonial Arab dictators ran moukhabarat states: states whose order depended on the secret police and the other, related security services. But beyond that, institutional and bureaucratic development was weak and unresponsive to the needs of the population — a population that, because it was increasingly urbanized, required social services and complex infrastructure. (Alas, urban societies are more demanding on central governments than agricultural ones, and the world is rapidly urbanizing.) It is institutions that fill the gap between the ruler at the top and the extended family or tribe at the bottom. Thus, with insufficient institutional development, the chances for either dictatorship or anarchy proliferate. Civil society occupies the middle ground between those extremes, but it cannot prosper without the requisite institutions and bureaucracies.
Feeble Identities. With feeble institutions, such post-colonial states have feeble identities. If the state only means oppression, then its population consists of subjects, not citizens. Subjects of despotisms know only fear, not loyalty. If the state has only fear to offer, then, if the pillars of the dictatorship crumble or are brought low, it is non-state identities that fill the subsequent void. And in a state configured by long-standing legal borders, however artificially drawn they may have been, the triumph of non-state identities can mean anarchy.
Doctrinal Battles. Religion occupies a place in daily life in the Islamic world that the West has not known since the days — a millennium ago — when the West was called “Christendom.” Thus, non-state identity in the 21st-century Middle East generally means religious identity. And because there are variations of belief even within a great world religion like Islam, the rise of religious identity and the consequent decline of state identity means the inflammation of doctrinal disputes, which can take on an irregular, military form. In the early medieval era, the Byzantine Empire — whose whole identity was infused with Christianity — had violent, doctrinal disputes between iconoclasts (those opposed to graven images like icons) and iconodules (those who venerated them). As the Roman Empire collapsed and Christianity rose as a replacement identity, the upshot was not tranquility but violent, doctrinal disputes between Donatists, Monotheletes and other Christian sects and heresies. So, too, in the Muslim world today, as state identities weaken and sectarian and other differences within Islam come to the fore, often violently.
Information Technology. Various forms of electronic communication, often transmitted by smartphones, can empower the crowd against a hated regime, as protesters who do not know each other personally can find each other through Facebook, Twitter, and other social media. But while such technology can help topple governments, it cannot provide a coherent and organized replacement pole of bureaucratic power to maintain political stability afterwards. This is how technology encourages anarchy. The Industrial Age was about bigness: big tanks, aircraft carriers, railway networks and so forth, which magnified the power of big centralized states. But the post-industrial age is about smallness, which can empower small and oppressed groups, allowing them to challenge the state — with anarchy sometimes the result.
Because we are talking here about long-term processes rather than specific events, anarchy in one form or another will be with us for some time, until new political formations arise that provide for the requisite order. And these new political formations need not be necessarily democratic.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, societies in Central and Eastern Europe that had sizable middle classes and reasonable bureaucratic traditions prior to World War II were able to transform themselves into relatively stable democracies. But the Middle East and much of Africa lack such bourgeoisie traditions, and so the fall of strongmen has left a void. West African countries that fell into anarchy in the late 1990s — a few years after my article was published — like Sierra Leone, Liberia and Ivory Coast, still have not really recovered, but are wards of the international community through foreign peacekeeping forces or advisers, even as they struggle to develop a middle class and a manufacturing base. For, the development of efficient and responsive bureaucracies requires literate functionaries, which, in turn, requires a middle class.
The real question marks are Russia and China. The possible weakening of authoritarian rule in those sprawling states may usher in less democracy than chronic instability and ethnic separatism that would dwarf in scale the current instability in the Middle East. Indeed, what follows Vladimir Putin could be worse, not better. The same holds true for a weakening of autocracy in China.
The future of world politics will be about which societies can develop responsive institutions to govern vast geographical space and which cannot. That is the question toward which the present season of anarchy leads.
“For the day of Yahweh is near all the nations! As you have done, it will be done to you. Your deeds will return upon your own head. For as you have drunk on my holy mountain, so will all the nations drink continually. Yes, they will drink, swallow down, and will be as though they had not been. But in Mount Zion, there will be those who escape, and it will be holy. The house of Jacob will possess their possessions.”
Anyone who has taken time to read the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, has no doubt encountered text similar to that found in the first sentence in the above excerpt taken from the prophetic vision of Obadiah.
It refers to the fall of nations. For years we were somewhat vexed as to what this would mean. It is clear that history itself appears to be a constant rising and falling of nations as weaker or “evil” nations fall and stronger, more “just” nations take their place. What would happen, then were all of the nations to fall at once?
What at first appeared vexing is now clear. The nations, all nations, are mere constructs of men. As we have described in this space, at best the nations may be seen as a response, albeit misguided, to humankind’s inherently anarchic surroundings. Yet as human constructs, it is inevitable that the nations, rather than improving over time, are bent on self-destruction from their inception.
Indeed, this is the case today. When nations appear to be getting stronger, this is a result of an increase in human cooperation fostered on a base of trust and free trade. Over time, the nations unwittingly work to erode the base of trust and free trade that humans have formed. Once the people realize this, they inevitably work to throw off the yoke of the nation, and begin to walk in the Kingdom of God.
Such is the rise and fall of nations, and if the vision of Obadiah and countless other biblical prophecies come to pass, the ultimate fall of all nations is a sure thing.
Dissent is information: Anarchy ensures system resilience
Here at The Mint, we have learned to embrace the anarchy in which we live as an ultimate given. Anarchy is the primary state of being for all humans, whether we recognize it or not. The sooner one realizes that they live in a state of Anarchy, the better able they will be to operate within it.
We also recognize that centralized control, when exercised without consent, is bad. Fortunately, anarchic systems have a way of dealing with centralized control by forcing the disbandment of any form of control that is not obtained by assent. Not by assent of the majority, as democratic thought would have us believe, but assent by each individual. As such, if one is involuntarily subject to a form of centralized control, there is an easy escape for those who are not physically detained. The escape hatch is in the mind, as all centralized control mechanisms can be escaped by changing one’s mind about the power it wields over them.
As both anarchy and its antithesis, centralized control, coexist to some extent all around us in various forms of ultimately voluntary capitalist and socialist systems which are constantly interacting with each other, it is often difficult, if not impossible, to understand why Anarchy is superior to centralized control.
We recently came across a post on Zerohedge.com, Why Centralization Leads to Collapse, which articulates what we believe to be the primary reason the for the superiority of Anarchy:
Dissent is information
The author of the post, in a concise, well written fashion, recognizes that centralized control, which is an natural outgrowth of the desire for efficiency, leads to the rejection and ultimate termination of viewpoints that do not agree with the ideology or methods of the central authority. Dissent is ignored, hindered, or terminated.
However, is terminating dissent, the centralized authority has removed perhaps the most important means by which a system can transmit information from the margins.
This information is important as well as the activities that dissenters carry out, for the diverse and seemingly contrary activities serve to make the entire system in which people live “anti-fragile.” This means, for practical purposes, that an anarchic system is better prepared to deal with changes in data and the natural environment because it is constantly dealing with it by default, while a centralized system labors under the delusion that’s contingency plans are adequate to stave off any event that would threaten the supposedly superior system.
The rejection of dissent, then, ensures the collapse of the centralized system, while the toleration of the Anarchic system ensures its resilience. It may be said that the chief virtue of Anarchy, then, is that it prevents centralized control by definition.
God recognized this and intervened famously on the Tower of Babel to ensure the earth which had rejected Him would remain resilient. Mankind is dangerously close to constructing any number of similar towers today.
We send you into the weekend here at The Mint with a brutal rendition of a sixties classic. Enjoy! To the tune of “What the World Needs Now is Love”
What the World Needs Now is Anarchy
(With apologies to the Dionne Warwick and the more than 100 other artists who have previously crooned this wonderful tune)
What the world needs now is an-ar-chy, It’s the only thing that there’s just too little of. What the world needs now is an-ar-chy, no not just for some but for everyone.
Lord we don’t need another government, There are governments and governors enough to rule, There are rules and regulations enough to obey Enough to make us all look like fools
What the world needs now is an-ar-chy , it’s the only thing that theres just too little of, what the world needs now is an-ar-chy , no not just for some but for everyone
Lord, we dont need another lawman, there is justice and kindness enough to give, there is honor and duty in every heart, If only we’d be left alone, to live and let live
What the world needs now is an-ar-chy , its the only thing that theres just too little of. what the world needs now is an-ar-chy, no not just for some, oh but just for every every everyone.
what the world (whoa whoa) needs now, is an-ar-chy what the world ( oh oh) needs now is an-ar-chy what the world (whoa whoa) needs now is an-ar-chy
We are taking a brief break from Old Jules and our “To Build up the Land” series to present the introduction to our soon to be released e-book, the latest volume in the Why what we use as Money Matters series. Enjoy!
b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2.a: absence or denial of any authority or established order
b: absence of order
Disarming the State is as simple as changing and then using one’s mind
Anarchy. The word strikes fear in the hearts general public, who have been trained to conjure images from fraternity house shenanigans to rioting and looting on the streets of important cities at its mention. For most civilized persons, with these mental images close at hand, anarchy is something to be avoided at all costs. How can civilized society carry on with the threat of bombs and looting effectively slamming the brakes on human progress?
In this volume, we seek to free the concept of anarchy from these negative connotations. For anarchy, far from being the greater evil in the choice amongst evils when it comes to man’s state in this world, is really not a choice at all. Rather, anarchy is something that every human being and animal on the planet is born into. It is the basic state of man in this world. It is an ultimate given.
As an ultimate given, it is futile, nay, self-destructive for men and women to live their lives fretting about falling from a state of order into one of anarchy. The line of thinking is debilitating and counterproductive to what must be mankind’s highest and most urgent calling in the physical realm: How best to respond to the state of anarchy in which they live.
For it is not anarchy itself that causes disorder and the other maladies which the mere mention of the word bring to mind, but mankind’s failed responses to this ultimate given under which they labor and cause others to labor on their behalf. The only thing more dangerous than confusing anarchy for the disorder which arises from the collapse of a failed response to it, is to spend ones life’s toils aiding another person’s failed response to his or her inherently anarchic surroundings.
Further, this volume seeks to give the reader a sufficient level of awareness to step back, if even for a moment, to evaluate the response to anarchy under which they are currently laboring and make a sober evaluation as to whether they are truly laboring in alignment with their own best interests.
Too many lives have been wasted laboring under a mistaken fear and avoidance of anarchy, and we hope this volume will steer the reader away from this fate. It may not change the way you think or what you do at all, and that is good. For to personally validate ones own course in life with a firmer grasp of the facts has caused harm to no one. In fact, it should cause one to carry on with a renewed sense of pride and purpose. We only encourage you, then, to offer others the chance to give their own lives a sober evaluation, and respect their decision to change once they truly understand the wonderful anarchy into which we are all born.
The book is now available on Kindle and will be available on Smashwords in early May.
The 2012 US Presidential election is over, and the only thing that remains to be seen is whether or not the No vote will maintain its absolute majority. At last count it was 50.2% and will go down to the wire.
For our part, we finally got around to burning our mail-in ballot last night. For those who will lament that we did not perform our civic duty, we report that we did give it a cursory check to make sure there were not City or County measures which required our input.
If you are joining us late in the game, we presented our personal reasons for not voting a few weeks ago. To be fair, we have never been much for voting, mostly attributable to our inner laziness. However, this time was different. We made a conscious decision not to participate. We decided not to to meddle in the affairs of others. We took the position that the largest sphere of influence which we could, in good conscious, cast our vote over others was at the County level.
Our County generally fulfills its commitments and is solvent. As such, it meets our criteria for an operating Socialist system. The State and Federal level do not. We did not reach this conclusion through logical contemplation, rather, we had a minor breaking point with regards to the political systems at the higher levels as we read to our son about the Trail of Tears, which moved us to tears and, as a consequence, this form of peaceful resistance.
The rest, including what you, fellow taxpayer, are reading, is a slow digestion and reflection upon our weeping over the Trail of Tears.
For the record, we do not buy into conspiracy theories (although trading on them can be very profitable) nor are we cynical enough to say, along with Emma Goldman, “If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.” What we do know is that we can no longer endorse the killing and robbing of people with whom we have no quarrel and who pose us no existential threat.
In a sense, we are peacefully surrendering our “right” to participate. Were the government to suddenly stop taxing our wages, income, gasoline purchases, telecommunications, and capital gains, we may go as far as to relinquish the “right” to Social security, roads, and such. On this point, however, we will not hold our breath. Nor will we actively avoid taxes or reject monetary benefits which come to us. This is a broader question which we will not delve deeper into today.
Speaking of taxes, the election seems to have ignited what may be the blow off phase in the precious metals markets. Please read on…
The new Gold Rush, The triple Fiscal Cliff, and logical consequences
The market selloff continues today, as the logical consequence of the expectation of higher taxes manifests itself. While we believed that higher taxes were coming, no matter who was elected, it is nonetheless fascinating to watch what is unfolding in the equity markets.
For a bit of background, the Federal Reserve, ECB, Bank of Japan, England, and all entities in the Central Banking industry are putting the throttle down and printing money at a breathtaking pace. This has been enough to keep equity prices “afloat” with relatively minor nominal price drops.
However, the drop in value, commonly known as purchasing power, has truly been staggering over the past several years. If you track such things, look at your grocery or utility bills for proof. You are probably either paying more, getting less, or some combination of these double whammies.
The election results appear to have triggered a decoupling of the commodity and equity markets for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, while bonds are rallying as those who hold large unrecognized gains in equity positions choose to recognize them before December 31, when the clock strikes midnight and any gains left on the table will be taxed out of existence {Editor’s note: this is figurative language and speculation, of course}.
This is the logical consequence of the fiscal cliff. When the election was called for Obama and control of the Senate and House looked to remain the same, equity holders saw the writing on the wall. The stalemate at the Federal level will remain in place and the probability of the US plummeting off of the dreaded Fiscal Cliff (which, we remind you, is purely a government construction) greatly increased.
While some window dressing will no doubt be presented as the solution, those holding large equity positions will be seen as “new meat for the grinder” and likely will be the next lamb sacrificed on the alter of fiscal irresponsibility.
But it is not just the US looking over a fiscal cliff. The anticipation of the US Presidential outcome distracted attention from the dire situation in Greece, where in 8 short days, the government will be out of funds and the once vaunted “Troika” now stands by, unwilling to throw more money at them.
Then there are the Spaniards. Having lived three years in Barcelona, we have a special affinity for the Spanish in general and specifically for the Catalans. While the Greeks may be coerced into having more conditions shoved down their throat, the Spanish situation is a bit more complex.
The Spaniards are smart, and the Catalans are even smarter. Catalunya knows that they are indispensible to Spain. They have also spent the past 30+ years building systems to ensure that they can operate perfectly well without the Spanish Feds in Madrid.
Those in Madrid know this, and are holding the threat of Catalan secession as their Ace in the hole which, at this point, has allowed them to extract concessions from the ECB, all the while avoiding surrendering what is left of their Sovereignty to Brussels as the Greeks, Irish, Portuguese, and Italians have.
Will the can which has been kicked down the road in Europe finally get kicked off the Euro Cliff? Even if it doesn’t, the Spanish firecracker inside of the can will go off at some point and blow up the proverbial can, at which point all bets are off.
With the two largest, debt based financial currencies in the world facing unprecedented uncertainty and the prospect of higher taxes on the horizon, one has to question the wisdom of holding anything but physical gold and silver in place of financial assets.
This, along with the ongoing tension in the Middle East and that crazy Mayan prophecy, is why we believe that the final blow off in the gold and silver markets is at hand. There is still time to get in and these quasi currencies have plenty of room to run. While the physical production fundamentals are less compelling than they were 10 years ago (a 440% rise in price will tend to encourage production), the financial backdrop has never been more favourable, and its about to get even better.
Just remember, buy and hold the physical metals, as ETFs and futures will likely not catch all of the upside of this monumental move.
In the realm of economic thought, there are two extremes. On one end of the spectrum sits the economic equivalent of Karl Marx’s workers’ paradise, known as Socialism. On the other end sits the economic expression of Ayn Rand’s rugged individualism, known as Capitalism. As anyone who has studied these philosophical extremes can tell you, the operation of real world seems to constantly fall somewhere in the space between the two, making strict adherence to either an indefensible position.
While apologists for these extreme positions do a wonderful job of explaining why complete adherence to their ideals by all would lead to an utopia on earth, a careful examination of the arguments, along with a quick glance at how things operate in the real world, lead one to conclude thatevidence of both Socialist and Capitalist ideals can be found in nearly any system.
How can this be? If the extremes are both correct in their reasoning, they msut be mutually exclusive of each other. However, we look around at the world around us, as well as into the depths of our own souls, and we invariabley find an uncomfortable coexistence of ideals that is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile.
That is, until today.
Our aim today is to reconcile this age old dilemna. Fret no more, fellow taxpayer, for the answer is simple: Socialism works for local systems, while large scale systems are best served by embracing Capitalist ideals.
How can this be? The answer is simple.
Socialism, with its embrace of community property and centralized decision making, is a superior policy for systems until they reach a critical mass. Socialism unwittingly provides the framework in which society cares for its economically weaker members. It is a system which is entered into with the understanding that at least a portion of one’s actions will take the form of altruism, that is, they will work for the benefit of others without the expectation of material compensation. In fact, socialism is the basis for the family unit into which a great deal of humanity enters the world.
Karl Marx
Given the barbarities which are justified in the name of profit, it can be said that the basis for morality and human decency most frequently occurs in a Socialist setting. Given the inherent requirement of altruism, Socialism is the system which asks the individual to look beyond themselves. However, as we touch on later, Socialism on a large scale tends to bring out the worst in human beings, as the inevitable onset of poverty quickly diminishes any moral advantage that small scale Socialism may enjoy.
We digress on the question of morality for a moment and instead submit to you an insightwith regards to the corporate structure. It is the revelation that Corporations, entities which are held out as the champions of Capitalism, are, in fact, Socialist institutions (the stunned silence is deafening, please do read on, fellow taxpayer, it will make sense, trust us.)
It is for this reason that wages do not fit well into free market pricing mechanism and instead lend themselves to the “Labour theory of value” which is a base concept of Socialist philosophy.
The logical proof is the following: The employer, employee relationship is based on a set rate per time period of work. Once it has been agreed upon, the wage rate ceases to adhere to free market theory and bcomes a component of the Labour theory of value. The top level managers in corporations that employ persons in an employee capacity become the centralized authorities in what is a socialist realm.
Another proof of this can be found in that property, which is held in the name of the Corporation, is cared for and used by employees. As such, corporate property, as its name would imply, is held in common by subjects who themselves have no property rights in said property. They may be offered shares in the corporation themselves, but this does not directly effect their day to day use of the Corporation’s (their employer’s) real and personal property.
A majority of human beings today find themselves as part of a Socialist entity of some sort, be it a family, household, corporation, or governmental employer (which, for purposes of analysis, behaves in a similar fashion to a corporation). It is within these systems that we have most of our day to day interactions. It is understandable, then, that most people would see a form of Socialism as the basis for a utopian ideal.
However, the members of these same Socialist organizations, the heads of household, CEOs, heads of government, members of Boards of Directors, salespeople, security personnel, customer service agents, and a host of others, well know that the “esprit de corps” which may exist in their organization is thrown aside in their dealings with the outside world. The outside world, where individual corporations collide, is marked by brutal self interest and the protection of private property rights which are the hallmarks of Capitalism.
What gives?
Capitalism, the system which honors private property rights and glorifies the pursuit of self interest, must be embraced and allowed to operate in an unhindered state as the basis for the interactions between the small scale Socialist systems (families, corporations with employees, and those brave individuals who choose to face the Anarchic system of the world alone.)
Ayn Rand
The reason that Capitalism must be embraced by the smaller systems is that its principles, namely the laws of supply and demand and the Golden Rule, must be allowed dictate their day to day activities so that the smaller systems can better adapt and survive in a harsh, unforgiving environment. To put it another way, Capitalism is a superior response to the Anarchy in which we all find ourselves, whether we are willing to admit it or not.
However, apart from its invaluable contributions to understanding the material world, even hard core Capitalists would agree that blind adherence to the Capitalist creed would not only lead to a trampling of those less fortunate in society, but the potential isolation of the individual from human warmth, feeling, and dare we say, loss of the ability to love.
For all of the virtues of Capitalism, its potential frigidness at the individual level and lack of a clear moral compass make it unpalatable to the majority as an absolute ideal.
So the answer is simple. Socialism operates on a small scale, Capitalism on a large scale. Marx asks Rand to dance, she accepts, and the world makes sense. As the theory of biologos attempts to bring harmony to the polarization of two views of the world’s origins, our theory of economic system fluidity allows the economist and politician to embrace both the virtues of the Socialist ideal as well as the Capitalist economic imperative.
The final question which begs to be asked is the following: In terms of size, at what point is it appropriate for a system to stop being guided by Socialist principles and to break up into units better able to cope with the Anarchic surroundings, meaning a leap to the Capitalist model, which naturally defines the size limitation of what may be called a functional Socialist system?
While there is no firm answer, it is clear that a Socialist system has reached its limit when it is corporately bankrupt and unable to fulfill its commitments, either morally or financially, to its members.
In the case of the corporation, it must adjust its productive activities and/or release either property or employees into the capitalist system until it finds equilibrium. The released Employees then find themselves, albeit for a moment, in what may be called the free market for labor. In it, they will either learn to compete perpetually in the capitalist environment and form their own small scale socialist entity, or link up quickly with another socialist entity, be it another corporation, state welfare, or the generosity of a family unit.
The fact that both families and corporations can accumulate wealth are proof that socialist entities can and do compete and thrive in a world where capitalist thinking and political structures are an imperative. It is the ability of each unit to adapt to changes and to seize opportunities which makes the difference.
There is much more to say about this but it will have to wait for another day. We leave you with what should now be obvious. When Socialism is employed on large scales, it looses both its ability to compete as well as any moral superiority which it may have enjoyed. When persons are thrust headlong into poverty, which is the logical economic end of large scale Socialism, what were once moral imperatives are tossed aside in pursuit of purely Capitalistic aims in a desperate attempt to eat.
Anyone who has lived such an event will attest that it is in these unfortunate circumstances that the rotten core of humanity is laid bare for all to see. While unbridled Capitalism has its own faults, which are daily brought to light in the media as a reminder of when it has been allowed to run too far. It is this consciousness, and the human desire for mercy, which work to keep the evils of Capitalism in check.
The beauty of the theory is that the normal operation of each system keeps the proliferation other in check, any attempts by government or sovereigns to impose or preserve one system over the other will end in disaster.
Rushing to extremes is for fools, for the Kingdom of God is one of perfect balance.
Adin Ballou dedicated 50 years of his life to spreading the doctrine of non-resistance.
Leo Tolstoy, in his great Christian-Anarchist work “The Kingdom of God is Within You,” pays homage to Adin Ballou, an American preacher who was a colleague of William Lloyd Garrison, the great American Abolitionist. Ballou devoted 50 years of his life advocating for the doctrine of non-resistance.
The following is a version of the Catechism of Non-Resistance that Ballou created for his followers. The last paragraph is especially moving, so much so that we consider it required reading for all human beings:
Q. Whence is the word “non-resistance” derived?
A. From the command, “Resist not evil.” (M. v. 39.)
Q. What does this word express?
A. It expresses a lofty Christian virtue enjoined on us by Christ.
Q. Ought the word “non-resistance” to be taken in its widest sense–that is to say, as intending that we should not offer any resistance of any kind to evil?
A. No; it ought to be taken in the exact sense of our Saviour’s teaching–that is, not repaying evil for evil. We ought to oppose evil by every righteous means in our power, but not by evil.
Q. What is there to show that Christ enjoined non-resistance in that sense?
A. It is shown by the words he uttered at the same time. He said: “Ye have heard, it was said of old, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But I say unto you Resist not evil. But if one smites thee on the right cheek, turn him the other also; and if one will go to law with thee to take thy coat from thee, give him thy cloak also.”
Q. Of whom was he speaking in the words, “Ye have heard it was said of old”?
A. Of the patriarchs and the prophets, contained in the Old Testament, which the Hebrews ordinarily call the Law and the Prophets.
Q. What utterances did Christ refer to in the words, “It was said of old”?
A. The utterances of Noah, Moses, and the other prophets, in which they admit the right of doing bodily harm to those who inflict harm, so as to punish and prevent evil deeds.
Q. Quote such utterances.
A. “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”–GEN. ix. 6.
“He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death…And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” –Ex. xxi. 12 and 23-25.
“He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him: breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth.”–LEV. xxiv. 17, 19, 20.
“Then the judges shall make diligent inquisition; and behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother, then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother…And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”–DEUT. xix. 18, 21.
Noah, Moses, and the Prophets taught that he who kills, maims, or injures his neighbors does evil. To resist such evil, and to prevent it, the evil doer must be punished with death, or maiming, or some physical injury. Wrong must be opposed by wrong, murder by murder, injury by injury, evil by evil. Thus taught Noah, Moses, and the Prophets. But Christ rejects all this. “I say unto you,” is written in the Gospel, “resist not evil,” do not oppose injury with injury, but rather bear repeated injury from the evil doer. What was permitted is forbidden. When we understand what kind of resistance they taught, we know exactly what resistance Christ forbade.
Q. Then the ancients allowed the resistance of injury by injury?
A. Yes. But Jesus forbids it. The Christian has in no case the right to put to death his neighbor who has done him evil, or to do him injury in return.
Q. May he kill or maim him in self-defense?
A. No.
Q. May he go with a complaint to the judge that he who has wronged him may be punished?
A. No. What he does through others, he is in reality doing himself.
Q. Can he fight in conflict with foreign enemies or disturbers of the peace?
A. Certainly not. He cannot take any part in war or in preparations for war. He cannot make use of a deadly weapon. He cannot oppose injury to injury, whether he is alone or with others, either in person or through other people.
Q. Can he voluntarily vote or furnish soldiers for the government?
A. He can do nothing of that kind if he wishes to be faithful to Christ’s law.
Q. Can he voluntarily give money to aid a government resting on military force, capital punishment, and violence in general?
A. No, unless the money is destined for some special object, right in itself, and good both in aim and means.
Q. Can he pay taxes to such a government?
A. No; he ought not voluntarily to pay taxes, but he ought not to resist the collecting of taxes. A tax is levied by the government, and is exacted independently of the will of the subject. It is impossible to resist it without having recourse to violence of some kind. Since the Christian cannot employ violence, he is obliged to offer his property at once to the loss by violence inflicted on it by the authorities.
Q. Can a Christian give a vote at elections, or take part in government or law business?
A. No; participation in election, government, or law business is participation in government by force.
Q. Wherein lies the chief significance of the doctrine of non-resistance?
A. In the fact that it alone allows of the possibility of eradicating evil from one’s own heart, and also from one’s neighbor’s. This doctrine forbids doing that whereby evil has endured for ages and multiplied in the world. He who attacks another and injures him, kindles in the other a feeling of hatred, the root of every evil. To injure another because he has injured us, even with the aim of overcoming evil, is doubling the harm for him and for oneself; it is begetting, or at least setting free and inciting, that evil spirit which we should wish to drive out. Satan can never be driven out by Satan. Error can never be corrected by error, and evil cannot be vanquished by evil.
True non-resistance is the only real resistance to evil. It is crushing the serpent’s head. It destroys and in the end extirpates the evil feeling.
Q. But if that is the true meaning of the rule of non- resistance, can it always put into practice?
A. It can be put into practice like every virtue enjoined by the law of God. A virtue cannot be practiced in all circumstances without self-sacrifice, privation, suffering, and in extreme cases loss of life itself. But he who esteems life more than fulfilling the will of God is already dead to the only true life. Trying to save his life he loses it. Besides, generally speaking, where non-resistance costs the sacrifice of a single life or of some material welfare, resistance costs a thousand such sacrifices.
Non-resistance is Salvation; Resistance is Ruin.
It is incomparably less dangerous to act justly than unjustly, to submit to injuries than to resist them with violence, less dangerous even in one’s relations to the present life. If all men refused to resist evil by evil our world would be happy.
Q. But so long as only a few act thus, what will happen to them?
A. If only one man acted thus, and all the rest agreed to crucify him, would it not be nobler for him to die in the glory of non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than to live to wear the crown of Caesar stained with the blood of the slain? However, one man, or a thousand men, firmly resolved not to oppose evil by evil are far more free from danger by violence than those who resort to violence, whether among civilized or savage neighbors. The robber, the murderer, and the cheat will leave them in peace, sooner than those who oppose them with arms, and those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword, but those who seek after peace, and behave kindly and harmlessly, forgiving and forgetting injuries, for the most part enjoy peace, or, if they die, they die blessed. In this way, if all kept the ordinance of non-resistance, there would obviously be no evil nor crime. If the majority acted thus they would establish the rule of love and good will even over evil doers, never opposing evil with evil, and never resorting to force. If there were a moderately large minority of such men, they would exercise such a salutary moral influence on society that every cruel punishment would be abolished, and violence and feud would be replaced by peace and love. Even if there were only a small minority of them, they would rarely experience anything worse than the world’s contempt, and meantime the world, though unconscious of it, and not grateful for it, would be continually becoming wiser and better for their unseen action on it. And if in the worst case some members of the minority were persecuted to death, in dying for the truth they would have left behind them their doctrine, sanctified by the blood of their martyrdom. Peace, then, to all who seek peace, and may overruling love be the imperishable heritage of every soul who obeys willingly Christ’s word, “Resist not evil.”
In our last correspondence, we began to explore the nature of Empire and found that it is necessarily founded and maintained by a prevailing “Might makes right,” mentality. This mentality has, as its logical end, the effect of destroying the capital stock of a society. This is accomplished by the wasteful consumption of resources by employing them in both warfare, whose destructive nature need not be further explored, and welfare, which by nature rewards sloth and penalizes productivity.
{Editor’s Note: Here we must make the clear distinction between charity, which is a voluntary action taken by a willing individuals to help their fellow human beings and welfare, which is a system of Imperially mandated aid which ends in enslavement both for the recipient and provider.}
When confronted with the fatal defect of Empire, the destruction of the capital stock of a society, the Imperial apologist offers support of the Empire as either the lesser of two evils, implying that the ideological alternative, namely: Anarchy, would lead to chaos and an even greater destruction of life and capital or may find support in any number of religious texts for Imperial rule and conclude that submission to government is God’s will.
We offered this refrain a mere three months ago as we explored inconsistencies between a belief in God and a belief in the world’s government. Today, we will take this idea a step further as we present the better way that civil persons over the centuries have searched for and, in their better moments, embraced.
We’ve been inspired to do so by a recent post by Joel Bowman over at the Daily Reckoning entitled: We’re all Anarchists Now.
One of Mr. Bowman’s points is that Anarchy is a concept that has been hijacked. In the same way that the term Liberalism has come to be associated with social progressives, anarchy has come to be associated with rebellious hoodlums. However, when properly understood, Anarchy, devoid of the “Might makes right” mentality, is the perfect antidote for the problem of Empire. As Mr. Bowman explains it:
“Properly understood, the term anarchy, which derives from the Greek anarchia, literally translates an, “without” + arkhos, “ruler.” Freedom from being owned…enslaved…forced against one’s will. Freedom to act voluntarily. Freedom to associate with whomever one so desires and under whatever conditions he or she sees fit…provided they do not diminish the ability of another to enjoy the same freedom.”
In other words, Anarchy declares that, all at once, there are no sovereigns and that every individual is sovereign. You can understand why this may upset those who cannot begin to imagine this worldview.
As for those who would support the “necessary evils” of perpetuating the Empire on religious grounds, we offer the following: Were the Empire to truly be God’s agent on earth, it would cease to exist.
“The Kingdom of God is Within You”
From the beginning, God has desired communion with mankind. It is from a state of perfect communion with God that mankind has fallen, and it is to this state of perfect communion that mankind will return. How can this perfect communion exist if God requires an earthly, Imperial authority to act on His behalf?
Yet the ultimate solution of Anarchy, where there is no sovereign save God himself or where every individual is a sovereign subject to God, depending upon one’s preferred theology, would be the embodiment of a perfect communion with God. In fact, it would be the only way in which it is possible.
The problem, then, is not the existence of Empire, the Empire is simply the manifestation of man’s failed belief system that “Might makes right.” It is this failed belief system that must be vanquished.
The better way
Sadly, to study most of human history is to study the violent and destructive embodiment of the “Might makes right” mentality as Empires rise and fall, either to external Empires on the rise or from revolutions from within. With every violent upheaval, most recently observed in what is now referred to as the Arab Spring, it becomes clear that the populace has simply exchanged one oppressive regime for another.
In fact, as one examines history, it becomes clear that the only true, permanent changes have come about when they are brought about through the use of peaceful resistance. Who amongst us are not familiar with the name Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr.? These men found the key to permanent change lies deep within themselves.
It is the way revealed to us by Jesus, who chose to suffer and die in order to break the disease of ‘Might makes right” in the hearts of everyone. To open the way for a perfect communion with the Father.
This is the better way. His action trumped every argument that could ever be made in favor of Empire, and opened the doors to God’s Kingdom, the reign of a Holy God over a perfect Anarchy where the only rule is emblazoned on every heart:
We recently subscribed to Gary North’s latest project, a site called “The Tea Party Economist.” To be clear, we have no political interest nor affiliation. It is our feeling that government, in its current state, is best ignored and avoided rather than confronted. It will go away on its own.
To draw on a well known analogy, the Tea Party, like the Republican and Democratic parties, are all fighting for control of the steering wheel of the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. Rather than fight it out on the control deck, we at The Mint realize that the only ones who survived the Titanic were those who found a lifeboat or other means to stay afloat.
Despite our distaste for all things political, we respect Mr. North and have greatly enjoyed and benefited from what he shares. We suspect that the use of “Tea Party” is more of an attempt to attract his target audience than any endorsement of the Tea Party.
Today, Mr. North shared an article at Forbes which made us gasp. It was written by Jerry Bowyer and as we read through it, one thought passed through our mind: Has our manner of thinking really gone mainstream?
Mr. Bowyer points out a number of examples of a general decline in voluntary compliance with things the government increasingly uses its superior force to mandate, such as taxes and environmental laws. The irony is that as a government’s power grab via rules and regulations accelerates, voluntary compliance, from which all forms of government derive their power, declines.
If Mr. Bowyer is correct, then it would appear that Americans are taking the idea of Atheism with regards to government to heart.
It is clear, yet seldom acknowledged, that the absence of voluntary compliance is the most effective type of revolution which can be waged.
Mr. Bowyer also makes an important distinction. The lack of voluntary compliance is not a form of civil disobedience or act of aggression towards a government. Rather, it is the conscious choice to stop believing in the government and live one’s life as if it does not exist as anything more than a lethal nuisance to be avoided. Mr. Bowyer eloquently describes this phenomenon via an amoeba metaphor:
Amoeba Ordinatio
“It’s not civil disobedience that I’m talking about. It’s the opposite: Civil disobedience is meant to be noticed. It is a price paid in the hope of creating social change. What I’m talking about is not based on hope; in fact, it has given up much hope on social change. It thinks the government is a colossal amoeba twitching mindlessly in response to tiny pinpricks of pain from an endless army of micro-brained interest groups. The point is not to teach the amoeba nor to guide it, but simply to stay away from the lethal stupidity of its pseudopods.”
“The amoeba does not get smarter but it does get hungrier and bigger. On the other hand, we get smarter. More and more of our life takes place outside of the amoeba’s reach: in the privacy of our own homes, or in capital accounts in other nations, or in the fastest growing amoeba avoidance zone ever created, cyberspace. We revolt decision by decision, transaction by transaction, because we believe deep down that most of what government tells us to do is at bottom illegitimate.”
You can read the entire article here at Forbes.com:
Everyday, more and more people are recognizing the insanity of attempting to comply with the onslaught of rules and regulations which allegedly protect them against others. They are realizing that the Rules are building a prison in which they themselves are incarcerated.
We conclude today’s Mint with a quote from Ayn Rand which seems appropriate when considering an amoeba like government:
“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed.”
While we may have no confidence in government, we make up for it in an abundance of faith in God and our fellow men and women. Are you ready to come out of Babylon?
When we attended graduate school in Spain, we were the first North American student in our course. It was late 2003 and the Eurozone was full of optimism. This optimism lead some of the professors to use a portion of their class time taunt the US model as failed and the European model as the obvious way forward.
As proof of European supremacy, our Finance professor often made a point of mentioning to us that the yields on the Spanish 10yr bond were almost the equivalent to the yields on the US 10yr bond.
What a difference nine years and 500 basis points make.
Circa 2012, Spain dominates the financial headlines as the latest casualty of the European debt crisis. Apparently Spain now is in need of a bailout. The bailout strategy which will be employed by Spain, Inc. is a hybrid of the prior bailouts accepted by their counterparts, Greece, Inc. and Ireland, Inc.
Greece, Inc. required a bailout because its government was broke. Ireland, Inc. was slightly more ingenious in that it made a good faith effort to backstop its banks, only to find that it was now the entity which required a backstop. Spain, Inc, theoretically learning from both experiences, forced its banks to accept the backstop directly so that the Spanish government could save face and be spared the humiliation of the Irish scenario.
Unfortunately, the markets have seen through the charade and are now putting pressure on all bonds, bank or sovereign, which hail from the Iberian Peninsula.
What a difference nine years and 500 basis points make!
Spain’s strategy has failed before it was even implemented for lack of collateral and credibility, both of which are in desperately short supply amongst the EU leadership.
How did once proud Europe end up in this situation? They decided to force a debt based currency integration by integrating only the currency part of the equation and leaving the debt and fiscal matters to chance.
As if choosing to use a debt based currency weren’t bad enough, choosing only to implement the currency is like handing the nations foolish enough to engage in such a gamble the revolver in a game of Russian roulette where the revolver is fully loaded.
Now, the revolver is being passed and it is Spain’s turn. Once Spain slumps to the floor, it is Italy’s turn, the Belgium, France, etc. until the European Currency Union, doomed from its outset, breathes its last.
At some point in the process, possibly as Spain pulls the trigger, USA, Inc. will be forced to step in with the “ultimate” backstop, the final hope of the failed, insane “debt is money” currency regime. As the US throws its sovereign credit rating in front of the runaway freight train of Europe’s soveriegns, it will quickly find itself in the very situation that it is trying to save the European Sovereigns from.
For in this debt crisis, the unwritten rule of quality holds. When one adds wine to sewage, one gets sewage. When one adds sewage to wine, one gets sewage. The sovereign vats have long since been polluted. It might make sense to check one’s portfolio and remove as much sewage as possible.
Beyond that, we will present two unsolicited yet practical bits of advice. First, US Bonds will ultimately slide as USA, Inc. wades across the pond to aid Europe. The Euro currency will rally as the run on European banks by the citizens and the wholesale dumping of any bond denominated in the currency begins. Quite simply, demand for the Euro will exceed supply in the short term.
Plan accordingly.
We submit to you that the Spain, Inc. debacle is further evidence of one of The Mint’s central themes, that Anarchy is man’s reality, it is an ultimate given, it simply is, and all understanding of the current political and social structures is greatly facilitated by one’s acceptance of this fact.
In fact, one’s ability to act and react to the unfolding changes in the current political and social structures depends upon accepting and embracing Anarchy as the basis for reality and learning to operate in the Truly Capitalistic system which organically emerges as men learn anew that mutual trust and cooperation are in their rightly understood self interests, and that he who is to lead must truly become the servant of all.
To truly embrace this fact, we must understand the nature of mankind. Man, left to his own devices, is completely devoid of the ability to do the right thing. He doesn’t have it in him. He is lazy, self-serving, and completely evil. He needs God and his fellow man to be able to do anything productive, altruistic, or what may be considered remotely good. A full defense of this statement is a subject for another day (although the evidence is all around us), we mention it here only to underscore the necessity of a framework which presupposes this fact within which mankind can use this weakness to avoid both self and mutual destruction.
The only reliable framework which has emerged out of natural Anarchy which not only addresses the problem of human nature, but also turn man’s weaknesses into strengths is what we call True Capitalism. Ironically, by allowing market forces to work with as little hindrance as possible, mankind can insulate itself from descending into chaos and catastrophe.
In fact, to fight the workings of True Capitalism is, by default, to submit oneself to chaos and misery. Yet every nation on the planet is devoted to some degree in the fight against True capitalism. Why? Because the nation state sells itself as the most perfect expression of man’s good intentions, which we presuppose do not exist. In other words, the dream of the nation state is built on a false pretense that is usually attributed to socialism: That man is inherently good and wants to do good to others.
Given their presuppositions, is it clear that the nation state and a truly capitalistic society are, in fact, the antithesis of one another. Where a nation state regulates by edict, truly capitalistic society regulates by example. Where a nation state is rigid, where truly capitalistic society is pliable. Hence, where truly capitalistic society will bend but not break, the nation state is repeatedly smashed to pieces when faced with change.
For the more a nation state tries to force men to do good, the more mankind’s character flaws will overtake these good intentions until the nation state becomes an expression of mankind’s evil nature.
The truly capitalistic society allows each mans evil nature to be corrected by allowing him to experience the consequences of his inherently poor behavior, paradoxically and naturally improving the behavior and norms of all.
Moving to a less philosophical level, how can we be sure that Anarchy is the basis of man’s current existence? The evidence can be found in that the institutions which supposedly offer the best option to Anarchy, the nation states if the world, are beginning to succumb to the punishments they have built up in their losing fight against natural law.
Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, and now Spain, Inc. are now succumbing to the inevitable. The member of club med which turns from the failure of the Euro currency to go it alone and embrace the much feared “Anarchy,” as it were, paradoxically stands to be richly rewarded by the flocks of tourists who can suddenly afford a European vacation without the Euro.
We conclude with a brief manifesto for your perusal and enjoyment. What does the future hold?
Out of Anarchy, a Truly Capitalistic System will ORGANICALLY emerge, and with it a new dawn for humanity, built on mutual interest and almost endless capital formation which will engender a spontaneous and dynamic social order, a society without borders that would enjoy freedom and prosperity that we cannot even imagine under current conditions.
A colleague from our grad school days in Barcelona recently contacted us from Madrid with an exciting project he and a partner are developing. As such, we are unwittingly trying our hand at the emergent Natural Cosmetics Market.
While Spain and Europe in general appear to be falling apart at the seams, his company is experiencing a boom. As with most smaller enterprises, all it lacks is some well guided investment to transform this mini-boom into a supersonic boom. “El Empujon”, we call it. The big push to get them over the hump, to open new markets, scale production, and create countless jobs in the value chain.
It is just this sort of thing that Governments in the West espouse in word but make nearly impossible in deed.
While the products are all natural, they may be subject to FDA approvals. Then, once the governmental hurdles are cleared, we face a fiercely competitive market where access to the final consumer is tightly controlled by what amounts to a monopoly or at best, an oligarchy, in the cosmetics world. Then there are patents, customs, and any number of mines in the field which must be avoided or diffused to successfully bring the products to market.
How shall The Mint attack this Goliath? We are working on a strategy, which we call, the “Heart of the Beast.” The details of which, for obvious reasons, we shall keep a well guarded secret for the moment.
More on this to come.
In our last correspondence, we presented a hypothesis for dealing with government. Now, we must move the hypothesis down a level. How, then would one test the hypothesis by embracing anarchy, or atheism with regards to government, in a place like Oregon?
Oregon is a State which places a relatively large amount of faith in its political system and, by extension, the power of the government to solve social problems.
The approach seems to work for most. The territory is home to an abundance of natural resources and a great number of people who are willing to go along with the government’s program. In these conditions, the idea and mechanisms of government are tolerated and to an extent championed, for it is possible to live in Oregon and enjoy a relatively high standard of living despite the waste inherent in governmental activities.
Disarming the State is as simple as changing and then using one's mind
However, one can only wonder as to what may be possible here in the great Northwest were the government not to hyper regulate every industry or confiscate 9% of the wages earned by those who labor in its borders (on top of the roughly 21% that the Federal government lays claim to).
Is the average citizen better off living on 70% of his wages? Or, put another way, does the average citizen derive enough benefit from being “governed” that he or she would value it at roughly one third of his or her income?
There are burning questions, fellow taxpayer, that every citizen would do well to ask themselves from time to time. If the mechanism of government were to go away, or be reduced to the spheres where it paradoxically does add value to the economy (note that, were this the case, it would technically cease to be government and become yet another capitalistic enterprise operating in the anarchic surroundings), would it not hold that everyone, including those who work in the unproductive areas of government, would be better off on a relative basis?
The answer, of course, is yes, unless one finds themselves in a position which relies upon the government being able to confiscate a certain amount of resources or the privileges which the mechanism of government may grant them.
However, even this minority would be better off once they adjusted to the reality of life without the idea of government.
What about the Disaster aid, Police and Fire Departments? Aren’t they at least necessary?
Of course they are! And for that very reason, private organizations would quickly spring up to fill these vital roles. In fact, they already exist. They are commonly known as Security and Insurance companies. In Anarcho-Capitalist theory, the array of companies which would arise are called “Private Defense Agencies.” Anyone skeptical about what would arise in a purely anarchic system to replace functions currently delegated to the Nation State is encouraged to study this theory.
For in some ways, the Nation State is simply an over diversified and poorly run Private Defense Agency.
As with any failing capitalistic entity, when a Nation State has gone from being a servant of the people to active enslavement, its lack of popularity invariably shows up in its deteriorating financial condition. This fact alone is proof that Anarchy is the context in which the Nation States of the world today act and operate. On this basis alone it is proper to constantly question the relevancy of the State with regards to its utility against viable alternatives.
Yet despite the failure and bankruptcy of nearly all of the Nation States that have existed and the presence of well developed theories which offer alternatives to these failures, the mechanism of the Nation State remains in place and retains for itself a monopolistic power over defense, welfare, as well as the right to generally meddle in all of the affairs of its subjects at whim.
When living within geographical boundaries of a failing Nation State, it is wise to be prepared to live as if it did not exist, which means that functions vital for one’s existence must be secured by the individual or a cooperative independant of the failing Nation State, for it has been observed throughout history that the authorities of a failing Nation State have a tendency to pillag…we mean, relieve their subjec…we mean, citizens, of their means of sustenance by the most expedient means available.
What is the most expedient means possible? If the Nation State controls the money supply, they simply print money and acquire resources, which is more the rule than the exception circa 2012.
Once a Nation State has begun to relieve their citizens of their wealth in this way, it is possible that those who understand what is going on will convince all to resist by way of armed conflict. However, this is rarely effective, for it tends to replace one form of tyranny with another. These methods rely upon might to make right, which most thinking persons are keenly aware is a losing proposition.
Persons and Nation States, especially those that are desperate and have resorted to robbery, rarely give up their arms willingly or peacefully, so it is up to the individual to peacefully disarm it. This is best done by using a tactic that is not coincidentally very effective against the school yard bully.
Avoidance.
How can one do this? For practical purposes, we have compiled a brief list of steps which one could take to avoid and thereby peacefully resist a Nation State which has failed:
1.Money, trade what you want to: Conduct trade in a currency other than the one used to pay the tax. For it is proper to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. While it may be inconvenient at first to trade using alternative currencies, one may find that it is often not obligatory to use Caesar’s money.
2.Rely on Common sense: Ignore laws and excessive regulations and respect the free will of those you work with. If someone is willing to work for you for less than minimum wage, allow them to work, do not deprive them of a job to comply with an arbitrary wage set by a bureaucrat. Make no conscious distinction between contract workers and employees, for both are freely performing work.
3.An important caveat to this is to not brag about flouting unreasonable laws and regulations. Assume that if you are breaking a legitimate labor law, for example, both you and the employee will know of it and have dealt with it long before the government will deal with it. It is the false hope that government is regulating untenable working conditions that gives rise to untenable working conditions in the first place.
4.Come out of Babylon: If you live in a place where the microscope of government regulation is unavoidable, move until you can freely live a safe distance from it.
5.Cross borders: If language is not a barrier and your trade or profession is not location specific, there should be no resistance from either government to crossing national borders in search of better opportunities, for all stand to benefit from this.
6.Sell what consumers want, not what the government allows you to sell. The greatest test of a product (food included) is public opinion. Government approval of products, like labor laws tend to give the population a false sense of security.
As we have stated above, if the Nation State’s intentions are pure and in harmony with Natural Law, there should be no resistance from them to an individual who chooses to take these steps.
If, on the other hand, the bankrupt Nation State begins to pass and enforce laws against these actions, restricting freedom and by default, trade, in a vain effort to pillage its subjects to pay the politicians’ debts, it then shows itself to be predatory.
Anyone who has attempted to take any the steps above has likely encountered some sort of resistance to taking these actions. What may come as a surprise is that the resistance may not have come directly from the government itself, for the government of a failing Nation State, or any Nation State for that matter, does not have the resources to enforce all of the rules that they put on the books.
Rather, resistance, more often than not, comes from well meaning but misguided fellow citizens who are unwittingly trained by the government’s education system to deter these brave souls on the questionable moral basis of simply obeying the rules, no matter how unreasonable they may be.
“I am an atheist with regards to the world’s government, for I have chosen to live in the Kingdom of God”
Yesterday at The Mint, we took quite a ride through Portland’s plastic bag ban, bisacksuality, the virtues of non-violent protest, anarchy, atheism, and the imaginary construct of government.
If you missed it, we encourage you to give it a read as it will aid greatly in understanding today’s installment. Of course, if your prefer to jump cold turkey into today’s Mint, by all means, carry on.
And onward we must toil, for this is exceedingly important.
Yesterday we offered that the best way to test the legitimacy of government, that is, its right to govern, would be to simply live as if the government did not exist and see where resistance came from.
If resistance were to come from a solid majority, then that would lend credence to the necessity of government. If resistance were to appear in the form of a minority relying on an imaginary framework to create and enforce a series of rules, imposed by one group on other groups in order to gain or maintain an unearned privilege, the legitimacy of the government should be questioned.
Not the legitimacy of those who are governing at the time, mind you, rather, the legitimacy of the apparatus which allows such rule by the minority at the expense of the majority.
For if a majority would be materially better off by simply shedding the illusion of government, why does the idea of government persist?
Let’s face it, it is nice to sleep at night with the idea that someone is watching over us and our assets. Even more comfort may be found in the idea that, were something to happen to ourselves or our assets, we would probably still be taken care of.
Yet these same promises are also the promises of the Almighty God! Why, then, if one were to believe in the God of the Bible, would it make sense to attribute the power of God to a government which is by definition an assembly of fallible men?
The answer, most would say, is that God is unseen, while men, while they may be fallible, can be observed to be acting. This logic is clear. Some may even take it a step further and claim that the government is God’s agent to provide protection and provision to His people. There is certainly support for this idea in scripture. However, it is important to watch how the men act before blindly ascribing supernatural powers to them.
In the case of government, the confiscation of n
The irony is this: To be an Atheist is to be an Anarchist, and to be an Anarchist is to live in the Kingdom of God
early 30% of a person’s income, which is what the average American may expect to pay in the form of Federal, State, and Local taxes, does not exactly fit with most peoples idea of the preservation of assets, nor does the idea of restricting the ability of one to own a weapon fit with the preservation of one’s life.
Yet it is clearly stated in the Bible that he who trusts in God shall be both protected and provided for.
How can this paradox be reconciled? For it is one thing to deny the existence of the unseen God.It is quite another to deny the existence of God on one hand, and on the other assign the attributes of the non existent God to an entity which consistently operates in a manner contrary to the self interest and freedom of the individual, which presumably would be the reason that an individual would deny the existence of God in the first place.
For the sake of consistency, then, the professing atheist must be a professing anarchist as well. If not, one would be at a minimum inconsistent and possbily insane to assent to most if not all of the actions of the government, for the sacrifices required by most governments on the earth far exceed those requested of humanity by the Living God.
Those who know God, on the other hand, would be inconsistent were they to declare that God is their provider and protector and then eschew what God asks of them in favor of fulfilling a requirement imposed upon them by the government when the two come into conflict with each other.
So what gives? Is it possible to be an atheist with regards to the world’s governments without living in defiance of nor toiling against them? Is it possible to simply deal with the inconveniences which appear as a result of a large part of the world’s population acting upon the belief that the government really exists?
In other words, is it possible to live in the world but not be of the world, as the apostle Paul alluded to? For to do so is to choose to live in the Kingdom of God.
The only way to know for sure is for both the atheist and the believer to peacefully and actively test the hypothesis of a government’s legitimacy by living their lives as if the government did not exist, and then patiently wait and see where any resistence to their chosen way of life came from.
Aslong as they are not stealing from of hurting anyone, they should be just fine, right?
There are certain questions which one encounters in everyday life which demand a shocking answer.
For example, the everyday grocery bagging inquiry “Would you like paper or plastic?” can be responded to with the customary preference. This is the routine response and requires no creativity whatsoever.
A prepared, slightly creative individual may think outside of the box and have their response prepared. “I don’t need a bag, I’ve brought my own,” which is interpreted to mean “I am saving the earth and thereby reject your greedy corporate attempt to deliberately pollute it by rudely offering me an already manufactured bag for my own convenience.”
Then there is the creative genius, the one who rises above the imaginary philosophical bickering and takes what is given to them while at the same time disarming the mythical compulsion which the slightly creative person above felt threatened by. What is their shocking response to this common question?
“I’ll take either one, I’m bisacksual.”
In the same way, when approached with the somewhat common question posed by an eager petitioner “are you registered to vote?” One can give the standard yes or no answer which the question requires.
The slightly creative person may turn the question into an opportunity to share their point of view. “That depends, what is the issue?” Depending upon the issue, they may either wholeheartedly lend their support and sign the petition or engage in a lengthy debate about the error in supporting the proposed legislation.
Enter the creative genius, as in the grocery check-out line, they rise above the imaginary philosophical bickering about what the government should or shouldn’t require everyone to do and at the same time disarm the mythical compulsion which caused the slightly creative person to enter into a lengthy and meaningless debate. What, then, is their shocking response to this common question?
“I’m an atheist with regards to government.”
This is dedicated to the creative geniuses.
At the moment, we are residing in Oregon, where plastic bags are frowned upon to the point that the City of Portland passed an ordinance intended to reduce the use of them. The result is that large retailers in Portland are now one sack outlets, which not only clashes with Portland’s tendency towards plurality in any number of spheres, it has noticeably diminished the quality of the paper sacks available.
The great irony in the ban on bisacksuality is that the same people seen at City Hall protesting the “forced” use of plastic bags are likely to be the same ones who will chain themselves to a tree when the increased demand for paper sacks resulting from this action (the butterfly effect, if you will) leads to the acceleration in the destruction of rainforests in the Amazon.
On the bright side, the plastic bag ban and resulting plea to save the rainforests should combine to help Oregon’s ailing lumber industry in the short term.
Yet all of this nonsense about plastic bags, the rejection of bisacksual Portlanders, and backdoor stimulation of the Oregon lumber industry serves to illustrate the effects that government actions have on the population and industry.
As Henry Hazlitt astutely observed in his classic “Economics in one lesson,” actions taken by governments have the exact opposite long term effect on reality as that which was intended. For this reason alone, all government mandates must be met with suspicion.
Yet none of these government actions and the resulting imbalances would be possible without an unwavering faith in the government on the part of the people, which is why the only hope for the world to escape the crazy cycles inherent in placing faith in the government is for the populace to become not militant, but agnostic towards the actions of their government as they would a well intentioned but clumsy sidekick.
Take the example of Portland’s plastic bag ban. Were the disenfranchised bisacksual population of Portland to violently oppose the plastic bag police (which, most certainly, do not exist), they would be wasting their time and resources only to perpetuate a system which promises nothing more but endless power struggles and the short lived thrill of victory or agony of defeat.
Even if bisackuality were to be legalized, no sooner would the ink be dry on the new ordinance than would a band of sacktivist warriors covered in plastic armor be organizing to take back their right to a paper only Portland. The bisacksuals would then organize and revolt, etc.
To be clear, we have no strong feelings one way or the other on the sack issue, we have merely chosen to shamelessly embellish upon the theme in order to make a larger point.
The point is that militancy breeds militancy, and violence breeds violence. Ghandi, and more recently Martin Luther King, understood that long term, permanent change could never come about by force of arms. Rather, they understood that the only way to test whether or not an idea was true or simply temporary public opinion was to live in peaceful defiance of the idea and tolerate whatever opposition they met with.
In the case of King, the good reverend was thrust into the civil rights battle in the Southern US. For those who may be unfamiliar with this piece of history, we will oversimplify it by saying that there were rules in the South which demanded that African Americans sit in the back of the bus.
Rosa Parks and thousands of other African Americans began to put this rule to the test, not by petitioning the powers that be for permission to sit in front of the bus, but rather, by sitting in front of the bus as if the rule did not exist.
Would some supernatural force come and move her to the back? Or would those who used the rule to gain privilege for themselves be the ones who would force her to the back of the bus or even deny her entry onto the bus in the first place?
The creative geniuses amongst us already know the answer.
The deeper question which must be addressed, then, is not whether or not each individual rule is necessary, but rather, is a government which imposes rules and forces those effected to put them the test, a necessity? Or is it merely an imaginary framework to erect a series of rules which are imposed by one group on other groups in order to gain or maintain an unearned privilege?
The only valid way to test this theory would be for one was to live their life as if the government did not really exist. What if one were to test this theory not by withdrawing from the government or fighting to change it, for both courses of action would be to acknowledge its existence, but by simply deciding not to believe in it?
In other words, what if one decided to stop attributing power to the government by simply changing their own mind about its existence and acting accordingly? What if the simplest path to freedom were to become a peaceful Anarchist? An atheist with regards to government, as it were?
These questions must burn until another day. Please share your thoughts below, as we are intrigued.
You must be logged in to post a comment.