Returning to Australia for my son’s wedding, it did not take long to be reminded of many of the issues that dropped out of sight while living in America.

At the top of the list is the Australian concept of socialism. Socialism is the idea that the government takes control of all resources within the nation and allocates them in some fashion. Frederick Hayek drew the distinction between communism and socialism when he observed that in communism, the government owns everything and allocates according to government plan. Under socialism, ownership remains in the hands of individuals, but the government determines the allocation of the privately-held resources. The Australian government pretends it is neither socialistic nor communistic. But as Ludwig von Mises argued so clearly, the middle-of-the-road policy is the road to full socialism. You cannot control part of the economy without controlling all of it.

The key issue here is one of ownership and the meaning of the idea of ownership. “Thou shalt not steal” establishes the right of private ownership, ownership being the right of dispossession. This is the key. If you cannot dispose the things you own in the manner in which you would like, you don’t own the thing. Whoever controls the dispossession is the real owner, even though there may be official papers giving title to the individual.

In the modern world, it is taxation, perhaps more than anything else, that determines the biblical framework of ownership. The government not only takes for itself the right to tax, but it also allocates to itself the right to determine how much tax it might be entitled to. This is important because it raises the question of property ownership in money. It doesn’t exist any more. But it did exist at one time, when the Bible provided the prevailing philosophy.

If the command “Thou shalt not steal” is to have any significance, ownership of all property needs to be reestablished. So too is a related problem: being the recipient of stolen goods. In a narrow sense, both these activities are held to be wrong for certain goods. But not for money. That needs to change.

Herein is the key component of a society committed to private ownership. It is the idea that stealing is taking whatever God says you are not entitled to.

You are not entitled to your neighbor’s house.

You are not entitled to your neighbor’s automobile.

You are not entitled to your neighbor’s wife.

And if you are elected to public office, you are still not entitled to these things.

Neither, therefore, are you entitled to your neighbor’s money. It is his. If you have the power to tax, it is only as far as God says you may do it, and after that it is theft.

We are still waiting for Christians to determine, from the Bible, what taxes the county, state, or national governments might be entitled to. Once you go past that amount, it is stealing. And expecting a handout from that money makes you a receiver of stolen goods.

What caught my attention in Australia was not only that the nation is facing an election called to help the ruling Labor Power remain in office, but it is the pressure of the church to get access to other people’s money via the government taxing mechanism. A brochure encouraging Australians to vote for the party that will keep the taxpayers’ money flowing to Christian activities was put in my hands at church on a Sunday morning.

The Federal government in Australia has been funding Chaplaincy work in public schools. There’s little evidence that this chaplaincy work is expanding the number of Christians or making any change in the way people in Australia view property rights. But it is an activity “for Christ”. . . .

Until you ask the question: Is this Chaplaincy work funded by stolen money? If the answer is yes, then there is not a strong expectation that God will in any way bless the work for His kingdom. If He did, everyone would soon realize that breaking God’s law in some form is the way to expand His kingdom.

This is nuts!

Someone reminded me that they pay taxes, and getting “their” money back from the government was legitimate. I agree. But the problem is “their” money was spent a long time ago, and now they are asking the government to not give them “their” money, in the sense that the government is returning the money they took from this individual.

What this person is demanding is “equivalent value.” In other words, if the government has already spent “their” money, then the government can just take some money from someone else and give that money to this individual. The person did not get “his” money back; he got another person’s money.

Thus, in order to get “equivalent value” Christian schools in Australia take government funding. Even one Christian home school organization has given in to government funding. “It’s for a good cause.”

If the government, however, has taken money it is not entitled to – that is, it is stealing – just so you can get back the equivalent value of the money you had taken from you, doesn’t that make you the recipient of stolen money?

That’s a little complex. It requires the ability to think through a number of steps and determine in each case what the Scriptures would have you do.

But this kind of thinking in Australia has virtually disappeared among Christians in Australia. That’s why the country has a short term future under the rules of “socialism”, and no long term plan for living under the Torah of the Triune God of Scripture.

Almost everyone knows the story of Daniel and the lion’s den. What is not so well understood is the specific reason why Daniel came into conflict with king Darius.

Darius had appointed a number of officials to assist in ruling his kingdom. These officials became jealous of Daniel, who had distinguished himself in the service of the monarch. They sought his downfall, but could find nothing in his work habits that would give them cause to complain to the king.

These officials, however, knew that Daniel was a religious man. And they knew enough about his religion to be able to devise a trap that would ensnare Daniel and bring about his political downfall. They were certain that they could only destroy him if they brought some issue to the fore concerning the law of God, forcing Daniel to choose between the law of his God and the law of the king.

Appealing to the political philosophy of the time which put the king’s law above everything else, they suggested that he should pass a law forbidding any person in the realm from making a petition to any other god or man for thirty days. On the surface this did not seem such a harsh law. Only thirty days. These advisers were not greedy men. All they wanted was enough rope for Daniel to hang himself. And it would be a good test of the king’s ultimate authority. So this suggestion had some ego appeal for the king.

It is important to grasp the nature of this edict. It legislated a prohibition against all prayer or petitions to any person or god for a limited period. What was the meaning of this decree that Darius signed into law?

In essence, this law was designed to confirm the total jurisdiction of king Darius over all areas of life and thought. So powerful and mighty was Darius supposed to be that he could forbid people from petitioning even a god. Putting this another way, by prohibiting people from praying to any other god, Darius was establishing his own divinity. He was confirming himself the supreme authority in the whole universe.

This brought Darius into conflict with the first commandment. “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me,” declared the Lord God from Mt Sinai (Exodus 20:3). Had Daniel granted Darius the legitimacy to legislate when men could talk to the one true God, Daniel would have broken the commandment. Breaking the commandments, as the Bible tells us, is the essence of sin (I John 3:4).

The biblical account goes on to tell us how Daniel, upon hearing that Darius had signed the decree, entered his house and knelt in prayer on three occasions daily. He did this in view of all, praying in front of an open window. But you can imagine the comments of his friends and neighbors when he violated the decree:

“Daniel! Why don’t you close your windows and pray unseen?”

“Hey, Daniel! You’ll give God’s people a bad reputation. Don’t you know we’re supposed to obey earthly rulers at all times?”

“Now look, Daniel. It’s only for thirty days. After that you can pray as many times as you like to whomever you like. Just don’t rock the boat on this. It’s not as if it’s forever!”

“Daniel, you’ll give YHWH’s followers a bad name. Just sit it out. Everything will be fine.”

Yet Daniel did not flinch from his duty. And though he was convicted in the courts of man for breaking the law of the land, he was vindicated in the court of God and given Divine protection at a most difficult time. He was not one to obey the law of Darius on this point, for Daniel knew that to do so would be to break the commandment of his God, thereby giving evidence that he was not a true disciple of the Living God.

Over two thousand years later, Christians everywhere find themselves in a situation not unlike that of Daniel. For the highest authority in the land has made decrees that force every Christian to make choices. Whom shall they obey when the government passes a law that gives it total jurisdiction — even over the religious practices of Christians?

The issue today, however, is far worse than that faced by Daniel in some respects. Darius only required a 30-day moratorium on praying to anyone but himself. Governments today demand life-time eminent domain.

While Christians are not asked to face the lion’s den for violation of the law, they could be restricted from the free exercise of their religion for far more than the thirty days that limited Daniel.

Something to think about. God bless you.

I keep thinking of my time with Buddy and Sandy in Alabama earlier this year. Both attorneys at law, helping people in bankruptcy.

But Alabama is also famous for another lawman, Judge Roy Moore. Now there are not too many people who like getting fired from their job. But Judge Roy Moore of Alabama seems to have accepted his firing with some enthusiasm. And a challenge.

Now the challenge, he says, goes something like this. In his attempts to honor both his Christian convictions and the laws of the state of Alabama, he had placed in the State courthouse the Ten Commandments. Some say he did it sneakily under the cover of darkness, but Judge Moore says the timing was determined by the installers — who were running late. Anyway, that is not a real issue.

One of the real issues is the ability of federal judges to intervene in state affairs. According to some, the whole purpose of a Constitution is to limit the federal government. One only needs to read the wording of the U.S. Constitution and look at the Constitutional debates to see there is strong evidence for this approach to the Constitution and the powers of the federal government.

That the federal government has gone — and is going — beyond its Constitutional powers is the challenge Judge Moore has thrown the American people. How long, he asks, are people willing to accept what is occurring? The difference between a Constitutional government and totalitarianism is exactly the ability of the federal government to contain itself to keep within the provisions of the Constitution.

That such a government does not seem to exist anywhere in the world today is only evidence of a deep-seated problem exposed by Judge Moore. He saw the issue and battled it through to the first climax. He was unceremoniously dumped by his state colleagues from his position as senior state judge because he would not give away states’ rights to the federals.

This leaves only one court of appeal: the people. But the people, it seems are divided on the issue. They are not sure if the Ten Commandments should be the foundation of laws. They are not sure if the federal government should be limited by a Constitution. And until the people answer these questions in the affirmative, there is unlikely to be any change in what is occurring.

What is occurring is not a pretty sight to those of us who believe in Christianity as the founding moral system for all laws and the Constitution as a limit on the powers of the federal government.

In true democratic style the people have spoken, hence the lack of popular support for Judge Moore. But if these occurrences with his Honor indicate the state of the people of America, the people appear to prefer any laws other than God’s laws, and they don’t care too much about limiting the federal government.

Now this is a real pity, because it means the American people seem to prefer any religion so long as it is not Christianity and totalitarianism over limited, constitutional government.

In short, the American people have abandoned freedom under Almighty God for the iron-clad rule of the almighty state. Which is why we should all pray, “God help America.” It seems incapable of helping itself.

God bless you this week.

But there is a scene at the end of the movie that is provocative. King John declares he is appointed by Divine Right, and he’s not about to let a bunch of barons tell him what to do.

Historically, the Divine Right argument was fought out between monarch and papacy, until the Reformation came along and attempted to restore things to an earlier period. That period is the one that followed the collapse of Rome, and it turned the Roman Empire, with its divinization of the Caesar, on its head. Divine right was held to be a prerogative of God alone, and He did not need any representative on earth.

The rise of humanism, the return to the Greek philosophers as a synthesis with biblical teaching, soon brought Divine Right down to earth again, and the monarchs and papacy became embroiled in the debate. Both claimed to be God’s appointed representative in the earthly realm.

The Reformation was an attempt to turn back the clock on this issue, and John Calvin probably best articulated the absolute sovereignty of God, although Luther’s Bondage of the Will is a great denial that mankind is capable of free will in the same sense God has free will. Time and circumstance are not ruled from below; they are ruled from above.

Bringing this issue up to date, you see in the world the re-divinization of the political order, and in the United States at the moment, this is highlighted in the immigration debate. The State of Arizona is leading the call to stop “illegal” immigration.

This word “illegal” should be like a red flag to Christians. When you hear that word, your mind should wander through the Scriptures and ask this: where and when did God make it illegal to cross borders unless the political authorities said you may?

The existence of patrolled borders, now with gates between Canada and the USA to stop “illegal” flow of people and goods, is a non-biblical attempt by nation-states who see themselves as the ones to control the world and bring about heaven on earth. Of course, their version of heaven on earth is a political one, not a moral one, and therein lies the problem.

Modern man is attempting to solve human problems by political action rather than see them as moral problems. Sin, is the word used in the Bible.

Thus, immigration is a sign of the times: it continues to highlight man’s attempt at divinity which ultimately means absolute and total control, and attribute of God.

For this reason, the Christian should oppose the new attempts to control immigration. Rather, they should argue for the freedom and liberty of men and women to live where they please, with the freedom to move whenever they choose.

Anything less reinforces the idea that power and control are from below, not from above.

When I think of these issues of power and control — and they are a problem in business just as much as in politics — I am reminded of a comment made to me about power by Otto Scott: “If you think you have power and control, try ordering someone else’s dog around.”

It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

God bless you this week.

From time to time there are news items explaining why some people find it necessary to leave home. Taxes — property taxes to be precise.

In a period of rising house prices, it is easy to forget that with rises in prices come increasing property taxes. And property taxes can mean financial ruin for many whose income cannot rise to meet the increased tax burden.

One resident in Massachusetts some time ago was suffering when her tax bill increased from $2,200 to $3,500, while income remained fixed at $12,000 a year. The result? Sell the family home, with all its sweat and tears (it was built by the current owner and her late husband) and memories.

While the stock market may be on the move up again and there is little evidence that the real estate market is out of the doldrums, the banking fiasco in the US, together with fevered home buying, indicated personal debt was on the increase. So, too, were home prices, since a good portion of the debt went into home buying. Property prices were bound to increase — and property taxes along with them.

There are efforts in some communities to limit tax rises. The unpaid taxes are allowed to accumulate until the current owner sells, or the home becomes part of the estate left to others. The key here, however, is that the taxes will be paid, sometime.

No matter how the taxes are managed at present, what is clear is that future generations are being decapitalized by property taxes. This should not surprise us, since the purpose of all taxation is to confiscate property in the name of the political order.

But taxes are more than that. They are also a mark of sovereignty. This is why foreign embassies do not pay taxes in the host nation. To do so would be to put the foreign nation under the jurisdiction of the host nation, and no sovereign state will admit there exists a higher authority to which it must pay tax. Nations thus see themselves as equals, and equals do not tax one another. Superiors tax inferiors. That’s the way the taxing game is played.

More than that, taxation indicates the god of a society. Taxation is, in essence, religious practice, imposed by those in authority. But authority is either self-claimed or else it is delegated. In the Christian view, authority is delegated, and with that delegated authority goes very limited taxing power.

How a nation constructs its taxing system indicates its source of authority. And taxes that are all embracing, allowing little or no concept of the idea of relief for those who cannot afford them, indicate a sovereign state that will extract its pound of flesh, whatever the cost to the individual.

Everyone is warned about such a political order and accompanying taxes (I Sam. 8ff), and it comes about when God is rejected as King and the true source of all law and authority. Since few people today are willing to accept the idea of God as sole law-maker, and therefore the determiner of what taxes are just and unjust, it seems we get the government — and the taxes — that we deserve.

God bless you as you serve him this week.

This only serves to illustrate that when you desire to rule, you can expect it is necessary to find some way to enforce that rule upon an unwilling group of people.

At least since 1688, it is evident that Parliament, not the king rules. Since Americans have broken the link between the English Parliament and themselves, Congress rules. Any talk about liberty and freedom needs to be seen in that context: freedom circumscribed by whatever Congress happens to dictate.

Enforcing its will upon the people is a problem for governments everywhere. But China has discovered the use of technology and issues its citizen with an identity card that carries a microchip containing undisclosed information about the cardholder. More importantly, the information will be available to government officials, just as the cardholder’s whereabouts will be traceable at all times.

The latest Australian passports have a cardboard centerpiece with the instruction “do not bend”, “do not stamp”, “do not staple”. It holds personal information. You are not informed what it contains, but there is no reason to have weather or travel information about Australia in there. So it’s personal stuff. But you can be certain whatever it is, it is designed to help BIG government keep you in control.

In the name of “protecting the citizen” this idea of control becomes evident. We are yet to see how controlling a person protects them. The Australian government had a similar silly idea a little over 10 years ago: protect the people by disarming them.

The events since 9/11 have given governments everywhere the impetus to increase control as a mechanism for protection, but this is the method of criminals, not of governments of the free world.

In vain we may protest the introduction of government identity cards, because for some governments, repression of citizens is the way to maintain taxing powers over the population. The governments of the so-called free world, however, are tarred with the same brush. They believe that those who disagree with their ideas should be silenced in some form. So, for example, some time ago attorney Ed Rivera in California had his web site closed and his legal business placed in jeopardy by a government that objected to him giving tax advice to his clients that disagreed with the government’s position. Similarly, Irwin Schiff’s books on the tax code were banned from sale.

For those lovers of freedom there is a major confrontation under way. So far, the outcome is all in favor of the totalitarians. But if you want to change things then perhaps these words by Ludwig von Mises, in his book Omnipotent Government, can provide some insight:

“It is vain to fight totalitarianism by adopting totalitarian methods. Freedom can only be won by men unconditionally committed to the principles of freedom. The first requisite for a better social order is the return to unrestricted freedom of thought and speech.”

Given the new propensity by governments to “protect” their citizens by controlling rather than liberating them, we are a long, long way from the goal of a free society.

And if you would like to understand “Why Government Doesn’t Listen to the People,” read attorney Dr. Ed Rivera’s brief history of the US Constitution. Click Here

God bless you.

Just when you think the economy is bad enough, forcing people out of work, a new danger emerges forcing people not only from their jobs but in some cases from their houses as well.

It has become an accepted belief around the world that the government–local, state and federal–can do whatever it likes. Unfortunately, it is not just a belief, but it happens in practice as well.

As a result people have been served condemnation notices on their properties in order that the properties might become available to other businesses in the community. Under the guise of better planning, people have had to give up the right to their land and home, and often their livelihood, as the law has been used to evict them off their property in order to make way for someone else.

Under the mistaken notion of eminent domain, authorities around the world treat property as if it were their own, thus making the idea of property ownership an impossible goal for many.

What is not often realized, however, is that the concept of eminent domain is an exercise of divine right by the political order. This ancient religious belief has returned after centuries of being held in check. It was held in check by another view of divinity, Christianity, which asserted that divine right was an attribute of God not the political order.

Wherever you turn in the world today you are faced with the claims of eminent domain by the political order. You are not free to use your property any way you choose; you need permits and approvals before you can open the doors, often at high cost.

Increasingly people are not free to enter certain professions without state approval, often controlled by university and and college intake criteria. While the ostensibly good reasons of protecting everyone sound plausible, they are a continuation of the claim of divine right by the political order. In this case, it is attempting to save people from some harm they might do to themselves if left to act without the guidance of the political order. Apparently people need to be saved from themselves.

No people can be free when eminent domain is claimed by the political order. To speak of freedom in such an environment is an oxymoron. But because we turn our backs on the Christian concept of divinity we have no way of redressing the pain and agony faced by many as the state exercises its version of eminent domain.

If you want to find out what’s wrong with the economy you have to look beyond the mismanagement of the economy by those in authority. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Below the surface, something else is going on. You need to find out what is driving this manifestation of eminent domain that is causing pain to many.

“The earth us the Lord’s,” said the Psalmist. This is the belief that denied the divine right of Caesars, czars, kings, dictators, presidents, parliaments and congresses. It is also the belief that gave real protection to property ownership, and thus denied the political order the power of eminent domain. A man’s home is his castle, but this is only true if he is protected by the law, rather than be seen as a tenant of the state who can remove him at will.

The power of eminent domain is a sign of real danger to individual freedom, property rights (without which freedom disappears), and the ability of the economy to build a sound and lasting future. The challenge is this: What can be done about it?

God bless you.

Can you believe someone actually said that?

Sometimes you wonder what depths highly paid academics will go to in offering the public the latest in academic research.

In 2003, a Reader in Politics at a British University claimed to have discovered something the ordinary citizen has known all along.

Politicians lie.

Imagine that. This extraordinary finding came upon examining mainly US politicians and events such as Watergate, Irangate, and The Lewinsky affair. Apparently those incidences prove the politicians in a democracy lie to the people.

Now some of us have been trying to say this for years without much success. But now we have the backing of a fully funded research project to establish the case.

However, there is a strange twist in the conclusions of this report. It seems our researcher makes lying a virtue, rather than a vice. “Lying is to democracy,” he said, “what manure is to rhubarb.”

Such an incredible conclusion is beyond comprehension. For those of us reared in an age where manners and character were important, lying was an unforgivable activity.

Now, however, we are expected to roll over and bless the fact that our politicians lie to us as a means of preserving democracy.

If this is the case, may heaven preserve us against both democracy and lying politicians. Not to mention the protection we need against academics that find it hard to encourage eternal virtues.

On the other hand, our academic researcher has equated lying with manure — which is not a bad illustration of what lying does to a culture. Rather than fertilize, its aroma rises to high heaven very quickly, and when people see it on the road, they step around it with the realization that manure in the wrong place — like lying in politics — is hardly a favored commodity.

It can truly be said that manure, when treated properly, makes people flushed with pride — at its disposal, not its continuation. And while public manure can be a sign of chronic illness, so too lying can be a symptom of chronic verbal diarrhoea.

If lying is a sign of a healthy democracy, so too is the dishonesty that is evident in the business community. And if our politicians can lie to us, why not our business managers, our financial controllers, our pastors, and those whom we trust in positions of leadership?

If you wonder why there is a problem with integrity in your culture today, look no further. Here’s the answer, supported by academic research.

If there’s need to defend lying by saying it is a necessary sign of a healthy democracy we have reached a very low bottom in our thinking of everything that is good and noble. And, when all is said and done, virtues are what make community possible.
No wonder that our culture is in disarray when our politicians and businessmen lie, our academics defend it, and our clergy sit silently on the sidelines.