Tag Archives: Athiesm

Anarchy: Atheism with regards to government – Part II – On the Legitimacy of and belief in Government

5/23/2012 Portland, Oregon – Pop in your mints…

“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? 

Here at The Mint, we understand that the idea of government and its companion, central banking, have risen as mans’ collective response to help him deal with his anarchic surroundings.

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? 

More to come.

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Email: davidminteconomics@gmail.com

 Key Indicators for May 23, 2012

Copper Price per Lb: $3.45

Oil Price per Barrel:  $90.37

Corn Price per Bushel:  $6.03

10 Yr US Treasury Bond:  1.72%


Gold Price Per Ounce:  $1,561

MINT Perceived Target Rate*:  0.25% AWAY WE GO!

Unemployment Rate:  8.1%

Inflation Rate (CPI):  0.0%

Dow Jones Industrial Average: 12,496

M1 Monetary Base:  $2,233,100,000,000

M2 Monetary Base:  $9,836,900,000,000

Anarchy – Atheism with regards to government – Part I

5/22/2012 Portland, Oregon – Pop in your mints…

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.

More tomorrow…

Stay tuned and Trust Jesus.

Stay Fresh!

David Mint

Email: davidminteconomics@gmail.com

Key Indicators for May 22, 2012

Copper Price per Lb: $3.53

Oil Price per Barrel:  $91.67

Corn Price per Bushel:  $5.97

10 Yr US Treasury Bond:  1.79%


Gold Price Per Ounce:  $1,568

MINT Perceived Target Rate*:  0.25% AWAY WE GO!

Unemployment Rate:  8.1%

Inflation Rate (CPI):  0.0%

Dow Jones Industrial Average: 12,503

M1 Monetary Base:  $2,233,100,000,000

M2 Monetary Base:  $9,836,900,000,000