This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Freedom is living in a Red State :)

edited May 2009 in Politics
We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism. New York is the least free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland. On personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear winner, while Maryland brings up the rear.
Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom

Comments

  • Because freedom depends entirely on your local government, and not say, the points mentioned in the list of basic human rights (and the list of child rights of course). Luxury freedoms does not equal real freedom.
  • edited May 2009
    I'd be interested to see how those states rank if you order them by "not getting beat the fuck up for having a rainbow bumper sticker or a Darwin fish on your car. Or not being white.". There's something to be said for that kind of freedom, too.
    Post edited by Funfetus on
  • edited May 2009
    This study improves on prior attempts to score economic freedom for American states in three primary ways: (1) it includes measures of social and personal freedoms such as peaceable citizensÂ’ rights to educate their own children, own and carry firearms, and be free from unreasonable search and seizure;
    Translation:
    1. To make your children not only socially retarded, but stupid to boot. And to shoot them accidentally with your M-16 in your home arsenal. And to tell police to fuck off as often as possible because, you know, they're the enemy and are only after your arsenal.

    I guess people are free to be stupid.
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • Freedom is living in a place where you can effectively VOTE for the level of involvement the government has in your lives. Personally, I like paying a level of taxes that provides decent schools, roads, social welfare programs, infrastructure, etc. Thus, I live in New York State. If I didn't enjoy these I would move elsewhere. Isn't it great that we all have that choice and can exercise our freedom and prerogative to choose where we want to live and work to change how our State and Government runs if we do not like it. I do not see how my State is any more or less free as I have the freedom to move away or work to change it.
  • edited May 2009
    1. To make your children not only socially retarded, but stupid to boot. And to shoot them accidentally with your M-16 in your home arsenal. And to tell police to fuck off as often as possible because, you know, they're the enemy and are only after your arsenal.
    Err...living in NC, I'm going to have to disagree there.

    Those freedoms don't MAKE people stupid...they allow stupidity to be more damaging. They ALSO allow smart people to make more progress. Unfortunately, stupid people damage tends to be more prominent and widely reported than smart people progress. No one writes news articles about the kid who learns how to treat firearms responsibly and with respect. They DO write articles about the kids who blow someone's brains out because they weren't educated properly. There may be a 1:1 ratio of well-educated people to ignorant dumbasses, but you don't hear nearly as much about the people who don't fuck up. Of the people that own firearms, how many are actually irresponsible with them? Dangerous cleaning chemicals are not illegal, even though parents may "accidentally" poison their children. Same concept.

    I would be pissed off if they told me I couldn't buy a cordless drill anymore because I might accidentally drill a hole though my child and kill him/her. I am intelligent enough to use tools responsibly and store them properly when not in use. I would not be too upset if they required an educational course on its safe use before allowing a person to purchase one, as long as there was still a way for me to get one. A gun is a tool as well. Yes, it can be more deadly than a drill because of the projectile, but it is the same basic principle. Let's compare extreme gun control to abstinence-only education. Not talking about safety doesn't work...the uneducated person may at some point have sex/access to weapons and will not know how to act safely. The most effective way to prevent these accidents is proper education and community support of responsibility, not theoretically removing the items that could lead to the accidents. (I say theoretically because there is a difference between not letting someone legally buy a gun and ensuring that they cannot get their hands on one. Likewise with teaching kids that abstinence is the only option and expecting them to stick to it.)

    The school system here in NC is pretty lacking. One of my little brothers is currently homeschooled after attending public school up until 5th grade. The reason is that our public school system is absolute shit. He's getting a much better education now because he's encouraged to excel and pursue interesting research in addition to being required to get by without failing. Both of his parents have advance degrees (Medicine), and two of his older siblings hold Bachelors degrees: one in science and one in engineering. There are also plenty of social groups for homeschool children/parents formed specifically to address the socialization issue. If we didn't have a choice, then he would be going to a shit school where they don't meet his needs and he'd probably be failing (like he was in danger of doing before the switch) because he was bored out of his skull. (Sound familiar, anyone?)

    Freedom in any form allows both better and worse conditions to exist than restriction. Some things are worth giving up the better to prevent the worse. Some things are not. I don't want to live in a system where smart kids can't meet their educational needs because we are worried about stupid kids failing life. To give a chance to excel, there must be a risk of failure.

    EDIT: Also, exactly what Mrs. MacRoss said. However, sometimes moving is not a practical solution to a problem when you have another viable choice that costs far less.
    Post edited by Nuri on
  • edited May 2009
    We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending and middling levels of regulation and paternalism. New York is the least free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode Island, California, and Maryland. On personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear winner, while Maryland brings up the rear.
    Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom
    Freedom is such a loaded word, every political group uses it there own ends. Communists, Libertarians, Conservatives or Democrats. The freedom that some groups propose is, the freedom to starve and be ignorant. The other freedom is to be free from starvation and then be controlled. "Freedom" is just a buzzword. Either way you still are not truly free. It is just a way to get you to vote for said party.
    Post edited by ElJoe0 on
  • The other freedom is to be free from starvation...
    Not a freedom. Many of those groups use "freedom" incorrectly. There is no "freedom to be free from starvation." There is a freedom to have the choice to pursue a path that can put food on the table. Freedom means no one is stopping you from getting food with regulations, laws, force, whatever...it doesn't guarantee that food will magically appear on the table if you don't do anything to get it. That would be a right, if anything. You could say you have a basic human right to be free of starvation.

    A fundamental difference, but one that many don't get. The lack of inhibition to a goal does not guarantee meeting the goal.
  • I was talking about welfare and such, but point taken

    Thanks Nuri ^^
  • edited May 2009
    The lack of inhibition to a goal does not guarantee meeting the goal.
    Yep. America is the land of opportunity, but with same chances of success or failure that come with any opportunity.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • The other freedom is to be free from starvation...
    Not a freedom. Many of those groups use "freedom" incorrectly. There is no "freedom to be free from starvation." There is a freedom to have the choice to pursue a path that can put food on the table. Freedom means no one is stopping you from getting food with regulations, laws, force, whatever...it doesn't guarantee that food will magically appear on the table if you don't do anything to get it. That would be a right, if anything. You could say you have a basic human right to be free of starvation.

    A fundamental difference, but one that many don't get. The lack of inhibition to a goal does not guarantee meeting the goal.
    This is a perfect example of negative versus positive rights. The Bill of Rights has only negative rights. When someone talks about the right to health care, they're referring to positive rights.
  • I'm going to attack this with the idea that their idea of a "better" state is a "free'r" state, and on their graph subsequently a "redder" state. A "better" state does not:
    • require auto liability insurance
    • enforce compulsory schooling
    • require accreditation of teachers and schools
    • maintain a Smart Growth Plan (More commonly referred to as urban planning?)
    • protect endangered plants and animals
    • require your referrals to health care specialists to stand when changing insurance providers (pre-existing condition anyone?)
    • restrict marriages to men and women alone (strikingly progressive, considering)
    It's pretty safe to say that while a lot of this is subjective (schooling?), some of it is pretty obvious. For example: auto liability insurance only works if everyone has it, otherwise there's no incentive at all to get it. Following that: urban planning? Really? I don't think there's much wiggle room in there. A lack of planning obliterates populated areas, turning them into, well, the west coast. Or Huston.

    They then try to break it down with LSR's on scatter plots (that look like buckshot) to show that the more Democrats there are in your state, the more you "hate freedom" or some such nonsense. Yawn. Oh, and Tick? According to their map there are only like 6 blue states anyways. Guess we freedom haters have a lot of people in our 6 states (around 70 million!).
  • edited May 2009
    Well, it's like the point I tried to make with the Somalia video I posted earlier. If you're really that concerned about government impinging on your freedom, move to Somalia. There's no government there at all. Of course, that means that there's no police or army to protect you from warlords and no CDC to protect you from contracting a dread disease, but you're a tough guy, aren't you Steve?

    It's interesting that the states that the "study" complains about not being as free as the others have a much higher personal income and GDP than the "free" states. Maybe if you want to be free, you have to be poor as well.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • The other freedom is to be free from starvation...
    Not a freedom. Many of those groups use "freedom" incorrectly. There is no "freedom to be free from starvation." There is a freedom to have the choice to pursue a path that can put food on the table. Freedom means no one is stopping you from getting food with regulations, laws, force, whatever...it doesn't guarantee that food will magically appear on the table if you don't do anything to get it. That would be a right, if anything. You could say you have a basic human right to be free of starvation.

    A fundamental difference, but one that many don't get. The lack of inhibition to a goal does not guarantee meeting the goal.
    This is a perfect example ofnegative versus positive rights.The Bill of Rights has only negative rights. When someone talks about the right to health care, they're referring to positive rights.
    While you are correct about negative and positive rights, the United States Bill of Rights does also feature a positive right in the 6th and 7th amendment.
    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
    In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
    • require auto liability insurance
    • enforce compulsory schooling
    • require accreditation of teachers and schools
    • maintain a Smart Growth Plan (More commonly referred to as urban planning?)
    • protect endangered plants and animals
    • require your referrals to health care specialists to stand when changing insurance providers (pre-existing condition anyone?)
    • restrict marriages to men and women alone (strikingly progressive, considering)
    Thank you, thank you. SO important...if the State is going to pay to provide education, shouldn't it be worth something? The pre-existing condition thing is a PITA. I have intentionally left something undiagnosed because many insurance companies consider it a medical treatment? I am so on-board with partial socialism that my republican friends shake their heads in disgust. I like the potential ability to make several hundred thousand dollars a year too, but I'm willing to give up a good bit of that if it means improving general living conditions. I think the Daily Show report on Sweden sums it up nicely.
    While you are correct about negative and positive rights, the United States Bill of Rights does also feature a positive right in the 6th and 7th amendment.
    Yeah, I'm not sure I buy the "negative" vs "positive" rights thing. Functionally, they work the same. As logic teaches us, there are multiple ways to say the same thing. For instance, we have a right not to be censored by government in most circumstances. That sounds like a negative right. How many times is that right also referred to as the right to free speech, which is phrased as a positive right? Where do you draw the distinction?
  • ow many times is that right also referred to as the right to free speech, which is phrased as a positive right? Where do you draw the distinction?
    The distinction is which side of the equation requires the expenditure of resources to enforce. It takes resources to stop people from speaking, but none to let them speak. It takes resources to feed people, but none to let them starve.
  • ow many times is that right also referred to as the right to free speech, which is phrased as a positive right? Where do you draw the distinction?
    The distinction is which side of the equation requires the expenditure of resources to enforce. It takes resources to stop people from speaking, but none to let them speak. It takes resources to feed people, but none to let them starve.
    Good point. Although regarding the free speech angle, I suspect that the riot police that protect certain kinds of speakers would disagree. :)
  • Although regarding the free speech angle, I suspect that the riot police that protect certain kinds of speakers would disagree.
    It takes resources to provide the freedom from being beaten to death by bigots, and none to let them beat you. ^_~
Sign In or Register to comment.