Regarding this from Daniel McAdam's column...
"Speaking of regime sympathizers, the president of the Students for Liberty is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, an organization that has been honored by the US government's chief regime change factory, the National Endowment for Democracy. Young Voices returns the favor, proudly announcing that, "The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), like Young Voices, looks for ways to empower and celebrate young people who are making an impact on their world." Joining McCobin at Young Voices is Fred Roeder, SFL's marketing and communications director. Roeder is actually the Director of Young Voices.
Imagine the disappointment when the rank and file of the Students for Liberty find out that their leadership attacks Ron Paul, embraces neocon warmongering rhetoric, and is in bed with NED!"
Not only do SFL and Young Voices have overlapping members, according to this SFL 2013 mid-year report, Young Voices is part of SFL.
"SFL launched a new program called Young Voices, the purpose of which is to inject the libertarian voice of this generation into the mainstream media. While only a few months old, Young Voices is successfully placing op-eds in major publications such as Forbes, the Chicago Tribune, the Huffington Post, Daily Caller, among others, and booking articulate students as guests on top TV news programs. Check out the selection of media clippings at the end of this report for a sampling of placements."
-RW
Interesting article! Found this very interesting: Can General Mills Sustain Its Momentum in a Tough Environment?, read the story here: http://goo.gl/yZJSey
ReplyDeleteI don't think that even George Orwell could write this with a straight face, an organization set up by the US government which gets all its money from the taxpayer claiming that its "private" Its just a thinly disguised arm of the US State Department.
ReplyDelete"""""The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the growth and strengthening of democratic institutions around the world. Each year, with funding from the US Congress, NED supports more than 1,000 projects of non-governmental groups abroad who are working for democratic goals in more than 90 countries""""
McCobin is a LIBERAL
ReplyDeleteMcCobin says Gay marriage equality law is biggest 21st century civil rights issue:
In Patriot News, Calvin Freiburger:
" In response to Medved, Students for Liberty founder and President Alexander McCobin claimed “religious institutions and practices that support same-sex marriage” are the real victims because “the government has prevented them from engaging in the religious practice that they want”—making same-sex marriage “the civil rights issue of the 21st century.”
Say what? How has the government restricted any pro-SSM religious practice? Did I miss it becoming illegal somewhere to welcome gay people into your church, hold wedding ceremonies, say from the pulpit you consider two men “married,” deliver pro-homosexuality sermons, or rent out a reception hall? Have any pro-SSM clergy found themselves arrested, fined, sued, or jobless for their beliefs?
Of course not, which is why Medved passionately responded, “there has never been a state in this country that has ever banned gay marriage. That’s a liberal lie.” Left-wing blogs pounced to characterize him as denying the dozens of marriage protection laws and amendments on the books. That would have indeed been absurd, but Medved’s real point (sadly derailed when the moderator shifted gears) was correct and important—talk of “banning” vs. “legalizing” gay marriage charges the issue with a completely false impression of the stakes involved.
Limiting civil marriage to man-woman unions doesn’t prohibit or punish any personal choices; it simply keeps the government from formally recognizing same-sex unions as marriage. To characterize the absence of government involvement as meaning something is illegal is just nonsensical, especially from a right-of-center perspective. (It’s true that without civil marriage gay couples have to jump through more hoops to replicate certain incidents of marriage pertaining to property, power of attorney, etc., but surely libertarians could devise any number of contract law reforms to address the matter without redefining marriage.) If anything, the status quo is actually more libertarian on gay relationships than on straight ones.
Curiously, McCobin’s position seems to be the opposite of the libertarian norm, which is that government should get out of marriage entirely, leaving marriage as a private institution that means different things to different communities while the state only concerns itself with enforcing whatever contracts people want to devise. I disagree with that position, but can recognize how it fits libertarianism’s broader understanding of government.
Pitting that against the conservative view of civil marriage as a societal building block would have been far more productive in clarifying the two philosophies and answering the panel’s titular question. However, McCobin’s depiction of a travesty that can only be set right by expanding the number of relationships warranting government attention doesn’t fit libertarianism any better than it does conservatism. He’s seemingly accepted the leftist premise that government relationship endorsement is a source of dignity so vital that it rises to the level of “civil rights.”
Serious libertarianism starts by eschewing sentimentalized notions of government as anything other than the collective exercise of force, sets strict parameters for what justifies exercising that force against the individual, and then declares anything outside those parameters off-limits to the state. But whenever self-described libertarians start declaring a “civil right” to government value-judgments on personal relationships, the rest ought to ask themselves how much of their movement has been co-opted by run-of-the-mill liberals who just happen to know more about economics than their big-government brethren."
"However, McCobin’s depiction of a travesty that can only be set right by expanding the number of relationships warranting government attention doesn’t fit libertarianism any better than it does conservatism. He’s seemingly accepted the leftist premise that government relationship endorsement is a source of dignity so vital that it rises to the level of “civil rights.”
ReplyDeleteAs long as the state sticks its big nose in people's private business, it has no right treating people differently on the basis of their sexual orientation, as they are ALL forced to pay taxes.
Yes, the libertarian position is to remove government from marriage altogether, but as long as this is not happening, the state should be forced to treat all innocent and peaceful people equally (provided this is in a manner people want to be treated). To claim that the current situation is better because it is at least "half way" libertarian is to accept the premise that the state should be allowed to discriminate on top of using force. Because lets face it, this thing is NOT about government doing homosexuals a libertarian "favor", but about discriminating against them.
So yes, in that case there is a matter of "dignity" and "civil rights" involved.
I find it ironic, by the way, that a self-serving statist conservative presumes to lecture the reader on whom is or isn't a real libertarian. It's pretty rich, actually.
He can leave that kind of judgment to ACTUAL libertarians, instead of pretending he is somehow defending our principles or values.
It is really no surprise that he skews the whole issue from the conservative viewpoint, since conservatives cannot seem to get it inside their heads that libertarians are NO MORE conservative than they are progressive.
So, if McCobin is wrong on the issue, does it really matter if he wrong from a conservative or from a liberal point of view? Not at all. They're both wrong.
Of course, the real blasphemy to this Mr. Freiburger of "Patriot News" is that McCobin is - oh dear lord - more liberal than conservative.