Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the myths surrounding Australia Day, questioning the validity of its celebrated pillars such as mateship, egalitarianism, freedom, and prosperity, and highlights the ongoing societal divisions and historical grievances associated with the date [1][30]. Group 1: Australia Day and Its Controversies - Australia Day is marked by debates over its significance, particularly the date of January 26, which is viewed as "invasion day" by many Indigenous Australians [5][6]. - The backlash against Woolworths for removing Australia-themed merchandise reflects a broader cultural conflict regarding national identity and patriotism [2][4]. - The right-wing response to calls for change often dismisses concerns as leftist grievances, indicating a divide in public opinion on the matter [6][7]. Group 2: Cultural Pillars and Their Critique - The four pillars of Australian culture—mateship, egalitarianism, freedom, and prosperity—are critiqued as being misrepresented or hollow in contemporary society [11][30]. - Former PM Tony Abbott's comments illustrate a selective pride in Australia's history, ignoring the darker aspects of its colonial past [10][19]. - The concept of mateship has evolved into cronyism among elites, undermining the idea of a classless society [18][19]. Group 3: Economic and Social Inequality - Wealth concentration is a significant issue, with the top 10% of households holding 46% of total wealth, while poverty affects 3.7 million Australians [25]. - The rise in discrimination against various groups, including Indigenous Australians and the LGBTQ community, suggests a decline in the egalitarian ideals once associated with Australia [26][27]. - Recent legislation regarding hate speech raises concerns about civil liberties, indicating a potential erosion of freedoms in the country [21][28].

Core Viewpoint - The articles discuss the philosophical perspectives of Murray Rothbard and Richard Weaver on individual liberty, property rights, and the importance of political coalitions in defending these concepts against the threats posed by government overreach and radical ideologies [1][2][4]. Group 1: Rothbard's Philosophy - Rothbard conceptualized all rights as property rights, emphasizing individual liberty as rooted in the defense of private property [1]. - He celebrated the formation of political coalitions, particularly with traditional conservatives, to combat the "power elite" that threatens individual liberty [2][3]. - Rothbard identified the "power elite" as bureaucrats, politicians, and special interest groups who exploit political power, contrasting them with ordinary citizens who are preoccupied with daily life [3]. Group 2: Common Ground with Conservatives - Despite differences, Rothbard acknowledged that traditional conservatives share a common goal of defending individuals from state tyranny and radical ideologies [4]. - Richard Weaver, a conservative intellectual, also emphasized the importance of defending property rights and individual liberty from various philosophical perspectives [5]. - Weaver argued that individual liberty is an essential attribute of human nature and that successful defenses of liberty must consider human reality [5][6]. Group 3: Individualism and Political Philosophy - Weaver distinguished between radical individualism, which denies social responsibilities, and a more circumspect individualism rooted in human nature [9]. - John Randolph of Roanoke exemplified a political philosophy that combined individualism with a commitment to states' rights, viewing it as essential for safeguarding liberty [10][11]. - Randolph's belief in localized power aimed to maximize individual liberty by ensuring that government representatives share common interests with the represented [11].

ETH is the most egalitarian thing we've ever seen. it's insanely ambitious, and if it works, can really reshape the fabric of society.🦇🔊💵 ...

The Indian street is an egalitarian place. It is also filthy, cacophonous and gridlocked https://t.co/VXJ5aJlGjP ...