TheAgitator.com
AFF College Blogger Competition
Sunday, December 9th, 2007I’m a judge in the America’s Future Foundation College Blogger Contest.
I’d encourage college libertarian bloggers to submit their blogs to the contest, which carries a $10,000 prize. Here’s the skinny:
America’s Future Foundation is pleased to announce a nationwide contest for the best conservative or libertarian college blogger. The purpose of the contest is to encourage original liberty-minded blogger journalism on college campuses and to identify young conservative and libertarian talent who wish to pursue careers as journalists and writers.The contest is open to all graduate and undergraduate bloggers age 25 and younger. The winning blog will be awarded a cash prize of $10,000, and be invited to be a panelist at an AFF Roundtable on higher education in Washington, D.C. Awards will be announced on April 7, 2008.
Deadline for entry is December 31, 2007. And if you don’t have a blog, you can still enter, provided you put up your first post by the deadline. More info here.
I wonder if all people who though Mitt Romney’s speech was good are de-facto excluded, because you might think they hate athiests? Does any traditional Christian have a fair shot with you?
Romney has said in the past that he doesn’t think a non-believer should ever be president. He said last week that there is no freedom without religion.. He has made it pretty clear, then, what he thinks of people who don’t believe in God. All I’m saying is that it’s a little ironic that the same guy who has made a big deal about people discriminating him because of the God he believes in has no problem drawing broad conclusions about people who don’t believe in God.
That’s quite interesting, but you didn’t answer my question, Mr. Balko.
I know lots of libertarian Christians. So yes, I could vote for one.
My problem is with people–of any religion–who try to codify their religion into law in a way that limits personal freedom for the rest of us.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that. That kind of open-ended “don’t codify your religion to limit my freedom” view is a nice sound-byte, but doesn’t convey much meaning. Does that mean, for instance, pro-life conservative Christians are limiting freedom or not? I can’t tell.
Good luck with the judging.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by that. That kind of open-ended “don’t codify your religion to limit my freedom” view is a nice sound-byte, but doesn’t convey much meaning. Does that mean, for instance, pro-life conservative Christians are limiting freedom or not? I can’t tell.
Generally, yes, forcing people to have babies that they don’t want because Jesus told you that was the right thing to do is limiting freedom. Also, denying marriage rights (and the associated tax breaks and other rights) to gays is limiting freedom. Limiting people’s choice of cancer-treating drugs to those that are produced by big pharma, banning vibrating plastic in Alabama, and limiting gambling to state-sponsored lotteries is limiting freedom.
Contrast all this with another republican candidate who believes, presumably because of his devotion to the principles of christianity, that prostitution and drug use are bad. But based on his devotion to the principles of federalism, he believes that their regulation is best left to the states.
Romney doesn’t seem to be able to separate the two (or more probably, has no devotion to the principles of federalism). That’s the concern.
“Generally, yes, forcing people to have babies that they don’t want because Jesus told you that was the right thing to do is limiting freedom.”
Apparently, the fact that being pro-life can be legitimately defended on purely rational grounds escapes you. Sad.
“But based on his devotion to the principles of federalism, he believes that their regulation is best left to the states.”
Who said anything about states vs. the feds? Government is government, at one level or another. I doubt that a state-level pro-life effort would find your support either. So don’t pretend that it’s an issue for you. It isn’t.