Libertarian narratives from the Australian Taxpayers Alliance

A cornucopia of videos from the Australian Taxpayers Alliance.

Video of presentations from Friedman Conferences and links to other suites of videos on every other thing you can think of.

This entry was posted in Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Libertarian narratives from the Australian Taxpayers Alliance

  1. Dr Fred Lenin

    Rafe it seems none of the libertarians on this libertarian blog are interested in libertarianism ,now theres a thing , innit?

  2. max

    Church or State

    Why are we seeing the expansion of State power?

    Because christians abandoned Jesus Christ and his bride Church

    When the self-excommunicated enemies of Gods church stop complaining publicly against “Churchianity,” and join the local church as humble men under the visible authority of others, they can begin to saw the shackles of the State from off their ankles. Not before.

    The family is not strong enough by itself to resist the encroachments on its authority by the State.

    Autonomy always plays into the hands of statism, for isolated individuals who are outside the church are no match for totalitarian power.

    Enlightenment project of individual emancipation ended in individual slavery to omnipotent state.

  3. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Enlightenment project of individual emancipation ended in individual slavery to omnipotent state.

    What’s the alternative to individual liberty?

    It certainly will be immoral, in the least from the Christian perspective as it minimises free will. I’d argue anything other than individual liberty as an overriding political guide or goal is blasphemous; it is men trying to subvert god’s will.

  4. max

    The Changed Meaning of Liberty
    By R. J. Rushdoony
    December 29, 2011

    Words change their meanings, and people who assume that older meanings still prevail invite deception thereby. It is part of current Marxist ideology to give a new content and an alien meaning to such familiar words as peace, freedom, republic, law, and so on.
    New meanings precede revolutions, because the content of human hopes is altered dramatically, and the existing order finds that it cannot satisfy the new meanings. Before the French Revolution, the idea of liberty had taken on a new meaning, a very different one than had previously prevailed. As Frank E. Manuel, in The Prophets of Paris (1962), pointed out, “The very term liberty lost its medieval connotation of a privilege and became the right to bring into being what had not existed before” (p. 24). Liberty as a privilege had reference to a religious fact of immunity from civil controls and regulations. Thus, the ancient privilege of the church is its freedom from the state because it is Christ’s personal domain and body and hence subject to no controls but those of His law word. Similarly, the privileges of the family exempted it from various controls. Each area of life had its privileges. We still use the word privilege in this older sense when we speak of “privileged communication.” A privileged communication, as for example between a priest or pastor and a parishioner making a confession or seeking counsel, or between a doctor and a patient, or a lawyer and a client, is free from the controls or knowledge of the state or of other men and agencies. This freedom and immunity is, moreover, a religious fact. Thus, the older definition of liberty as a privilege and as a religious immunity rested firmly and clearly on a Christian culture. As long as the education and culture of the Western World was clearly Christian, liberty or freedom remained a Christian privilege.
    This older meaning survived in the United States as recently as 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declared, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Unhappily, the Federal Government did not bar itself from any such infringement of the people’s “privileges or immunities.” The annotated edition of the Constitution published by the federal government says of this, “Unique among constitutional provisions, the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enjoys the distinction of having been rendered a nullity by a single decision of the Supreme Court issued within five years after its ratification” in the Slaughter-House Cases. The Court at that time began also to redefine the term “privileges and immunities” by declaring them to be, not religiously grounded, but owing their existence to the grace of the Federal Government. The state had begun to usurp the place of God!
    It was the Enlightenment thinkers and the French “philosophes” who began the redefinition of liberty and its separation from the religious foundation which liberty as privilege had enjoyed. The French Revolution greatly advanced the new meaning. Its slogan was “Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality,” and it soon became apparent that all three had new, ugly, and murderous meaning. Not without reason, as Madame Roland in 1793 went to the guillotine, that new symbol of freedom, she cried out, “O Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name.”

  5. max

    I believe in maximum individual liberty under God’s law.

    Sinful man believes liberty is the self-defined freedom to do whatever he desires; however, this is a humanistic idea, the outworking of man’s fallen nature and desire to be his own god, determining for himself good and evil.

Comments are closed.