Most / Least Free States

[muck]

sorta interesting

[10g_DBA]

Not surprising. Every time the government gives you something, they take something away.

[Clubfoothead]

I can agree that freedom is defined differently by different people.

[Ursa Majoris]

This was posted before, or something very similar. It was subjective partisan crap then and it still is.

[Big John]

This was posted before, or something very similar. It was subjective partisan crap then and it still is.

Here, except the link there no longer works

[detlef]

This was posted before, or something very similar. It was subjective partisan crap then and it still is.

Oh, I don't know. It didn't seem to bad in that regard to me. If I see one major flaw in the analysis it's the fact that they seem to be ignoring a very major element that has essentially nothing to do with politics, and that is population density. Without seeing all 50, I can't confirm that this holds true throughout but it certainly seems to hold true for the edges as the 5 least free all rank in the top 11 of density (1,2,5,7,11). The freest 5 don't hold quite as true but do contain 2 of the 6 least dense and Colorado who's 12th (that is 12th least dense). New Hampshire is the densest populated at 20th, but does happen to have the motto "Live Free Or Die" so nobody should be surprised to find it leading the pack and Texas (28th most densely populated, so at least in the back half of the pack) has also historically prided itself on clinging to frontier values.

 

And honestly, it amazes me how rarely this gets brought up, especially when red staters try to rationalize that, since less government works in their states, it should be adopted for the country as a whole or brings up the fact that if a state like NY is struggling, it's an indictment of heavily governed areas. Personally, I would take the data at hand to reinforce the opinion that most people are stupid and thus, the more of them you have around, the more stupidity you have. That policy aimed to mitigate this rampant stupidity can't keep up with the demand may not be the thing to blame. That if big cities just said, 'to hell with it. Just don't do anything stupid." then it would be complete an total chaos.

 

Does it occur to anyone that the less people there are around you, the less it matters what you do? And that if you've got people living on top of each other, then you absolutely have to have more guidelines because your actions directly effect many? It's really not any massive revelation.

 

Now, again, this isn't the only factor in play and it is not without exception but I'm not the least bit surprised that South Dakota doesn't give a flying cuff what anyone does because of how few people freaking live there.

Edited May 30, 2009 by detlef

[Ursa Majoris]

And honestly, it amazes me how rarely this gets brought up, especially when red staters try to rationalize that, since less government works in their states, it should be adopted for the country as a whole or brings up the fact that if a state like NY is struggling, it's an indictment of heavily governed areas.

 

Does it occur to anyone that the less people there are around you, the less it matters what you do? And that if you've got people living on top of each other, then you absolutely have to have more guidelines because your actions directly effect many? It's really not any massive revelation.

 

Now, again, this isn't the only factor in play and it is not without exception but I'm not the least bit surprised that South Dakota doesn't give a flying cuff what anyone does because of how few people freaking live there.

This is why I said it was subjective partisan crap.

[detlef]

This is why I said it was subjective partisan crap.

I didn't get the takeaway that they were implying that one was better than the other. Rather that they were simply pointing out which states have the most restrictions. It should come as no surprise to anyone that states with less restrictions are historically red because, even in light of it's recent transgression into trying to police love and other moral issues, they're still, in general the party that allegedly stands for increased personal freedoms.

 

So, if there's any subjective partisan crap, it is simply that someone would take these findings to support their stance that right wing policies are better.

[wiegie]

interestingly enough, I am just starting a research project that uses state-level indices of economic freedom as a dependent variable

[Choppy]

interestingly enough, I am just starting a research project that uses state-level indices of economic freedom as a dependent variable

 

Damn, I had to read that three times and I'm still not sure what it means.

[wiegie]

Damn, I had to read that three times and I'm still not sure what it means.

basically we are going to try to see what sort of affect economic freedom has on state-level economic growth (there is more to it than that, but that is sort of the basic idea). I'll post a link to the paper when we get it written--but it will probably take about 6 months to a year before it is done.

[McBoog]

This was posted before, or something very similar. It was subjective partisan crap then and it still is.

 

I love the way you label inconvenient information as it is always a flag for me to take it a little more seriously than I normally do. It is so "transparent". I didn't think much of the link until your post. Now I think it is probably pretty "spot on".

 

It all comes down to how comfortable and willing you are to let the government and others rell you how to live your life. The difference between mob rule and a republic.

[Ursa Majoris]

I love the way you label inconvenient information as it is always a flag for me to take it a little more seriously than I normally do. It is so "transparent". I didn't think much of the link until your post. Now I think it is probably pretty "spot on".

 

It all comes down to how comfortable and willing you are to let the government and others rell you how to live your life. The difference between mob rule and a republic.

 

Glad I have such influence over you.

[detlef]

I love the way you label inconvenient information as it is always a flag for me to take it a little more seriously than I normally do. It is so "transparent". I didn't think much of the link until your post. Now I think it is probably pretty "spot on".

 

It all comes down to how comfortable and willing you are to let the government and others rell you how to live your life. The difference between mob rule and a republic.

Calls someone out for being predictably partisan and then sort of illustrates his own version of the same thing.

[SheikYerbuti]

I would type a response, but living in the 2nd "least free" state, I can't reach the keyboard from inside this government instituted straight jacket.

 

Oh the HUGHMANITY!!!

 

[polksalet]

I can agree that freedom is defined differently by different people.

 

"However, liberties such as the right to smoke Josh Gordon and same sex partners are factored in as well, which would lend weight to states with a more liberal sociopolitical bent."

[McBoog]

 

Glad I have such influence over you.

 

I'm sure you are. Self-righteousness is fed in so many ways.

[McBoog]

Calls someone out for being predictably partisan and then sort of illustrates his own version of the same thing.

 

If believing in the intent of our Constitution and the concept of a Republic as opposed to a Demonocracy is partisan... YES I AM.

 

AND, if you believe that the current floundering Republican party can restore the freedoms and concepts of a Republic as is was intended (which I don't), then I am not sure where my "partisanship" lies.

[detlef]

If believing in the intent of our Constitution and the concept of a Republic as opposed to a Demonocracy is partisan... YES I AM.

 

AND, if you believe that the current floundering Republican party can restore the freedoms and concepts of a Republic as is was intended (which I don't), then I am not sure where my "partisanship" lies.

Perhaps the word partisan wasn't accurate. I should have focused on "transparent". It's easy to question whether densely populated states are governing their people in the spirit that the forefathers intended but the forefathers didn't right the constitution in 2000. The population of Philly was 28K (2nd largest city in the union, btw) when these guys were making sure the government couldn't tell you what to do. Now it's 1.5 million. You've got that many people living in one place, damn right you need to have more rules.

 

It's exactly why party lines are pretty clear between urban centers and rural areas. People who live in the middle of nowhere favor small government because they don't need government. People who live on top of one another realize the need for restrictions and guidelines because, well, they live in a situation where they can't afford to hope the guy next door keeps in line. Because the guy next door isn't 1/4 mile away. It's the best argument for why many things should be governed on a state by state level. South Dakota doesn't need someone from NY telling them how to run their state because they don't need most of the things NY needs. By the same token, NY would be totally screwed if they pretended they were South Dakota. If you want to be left alone, it appears, go somewhere either really cold or really sparsely populated. I guess I'm just not that surprised by this.

 

So, while the authors may or may not have had the agenda of saying that big government sucks, you and others will certainly take the bait and imply that it comes down to who's a real American and who wants to suck on the teet of an overbearing government. That's where you didn't let us down by regurgitating your usual pap.

[wiegie]

So, while the authors may or may not have had the agenda of saying that big government sucks,

it's very very likely that is exactly what their agenda was

[detlef]

it's very very likely that is exactly what their agenda was

Trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here.

[muck]

it's very very likely that is exactly what their agenda was

 

Why do you say that?

[Savage Beatings]

There are legitimate functions of government, and when a government is performing those legitimate functions, then freedom/individual liberty actually increases and is defended and secured. Anarchy, or a total lack of government, doesn't protect individuals from the scum of society that would infringe upon their liberty. But when a government over-reaches (and what that means can be debated) then it's only common sense that the over-reachiness begins to seriously infringe upon a person's freedom. IMHO (which obviously is only shared by about half of the people here) we've gotten to the point of major over-reachiness in most of our State and Federal governing bodies. Since I start from that perspective, I find the article to be pretty intersting.

[detlef]

There are legitimate functions of government, and when a government is performing those legitimate functions, then freedom/individual liberty actually increases and is defended and secured. Anarchy, or a total lack of government, doesn't protect individuals from the scum of society that would infringe upon their liberty. But when a government over-reaches (and what that means can be debated) then it's only common sense that the over-reachiness begins to seriously infringe upon a person's freedom. IMHO (which obviously is only shared by about half of the people here) we've gotten to the point of major over-reachiness in most of our State and Federal governing bodies. Since I start from that perspective, I find the article to be pretty intersting.

I'm curious. Aside from taxation, in what specific ways do those here who feel the government infringes on their personal liberties too much? And if it's only taxation, is that enough to truly say your liberties are being severely infringed upon?

 

One that certainly comes to mind is gun control. Because I don't own a gun, I don't have any experience with what controls are on them. However, is there anywhere in the US where a law abiding citizen can't legally purchase a reasonable fire arm? Is the issue actually a matter of principle or have you actually been denied a gun that you felt it was truly important to own. I understand the automatic rifle deal is actually an impractical standard in real life, so I can see why gun advocates would scoff at liberals making a big deal of them.

 

In my personal experience, the degree to which my liberties are infringed basically amounts to red tape and inspections relating to my work. The vast majority of them, mind you, are well intended even when poorly implemented. None the less, when I travel to other countries and see the crap they let people pass off as buildings, I'm not surprised to learn that an earthquake of rather moderate level completely leveled an entire city in Turkey or something. So it's a times like these that I don't mind the fact that maybe I have to pay to overbuild.

 

Other than that, I think pot should be legal and that the gov't should stay out of defining marriage. Oddly, only the pot one even effects me at all and even that, barely since I almost never smoke.

[Savage Beatings]

I'm curious. Aside from taxation, in what specific ways do those here who feel the government infringes on their personal liberties too much? And if it's only taxation, is that enough to truly say your liberties are being severely infringed upon?

 

It's not only taxation. But taxation is a huge part of it... and if it were only taxation, then yes, I would still say it is enough to infringe upon my liberties. The ability to control the fruits of my labor are elemental in the definition of my liberty. I don't even get first crack at the fruits of my labor. The government takes it's share first. If everyone had to write a check to pay their taxes each year (or each month or quarter) there would be far more outcry over the percentage of taxation upon us.

 

Government spending is another way in which my liberties are infringed upon. Although I'll admit that I certainly DO have representation, I can tell you that it still burns me up that against my will, the money that the government takes from me can be used to fund things that I find morally repugnant. I am forced to pay for someone else's abortion. You know my background, so you understand how this could never be ok for me. And now, government spending has gone head over heels apepoopy crazy. We're looking at something like a $10 Trillion deficit over the next (what is it 10 years?). That's not only going to crowd out private capital spending but it MUST be a burden upon me and my family either in the form of even more taxes or insane inflation. That takes more money out of my hands, leaving me with less choice, less liberty in the way in which I spend my money.

 

But it's much more than just taxing and spending too. We have been sacrificing our liberties in the name of security for a number of years now (I place just as much blame on both the Repulicans and the Democrats for this). I thought that one thing that Obama might do right away would be to resind or scale back the Patriot Act. I missed the mark on that prediction.

 

I'm not going to be able to give you a comprehensive list, but there are a bunch of little infringements upon my liberties that add up each day. The weight of the tiny daily shackles becomes quite heavy when they pile on each other.

 

How about the ruling in the not too distant past to uphold the State's ability to seize private property, and give it to another private party, because the overall seizure might be in the best interest of the State?

 

How about the Army Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over even the smallest ponds and swamps in our local communities?

 

And it's not just the Federal government, it's State and local governments too. Minnesota just passed a new law making a seatbelt violation a primary offense (so now the cops can pull you over simply if they spot a seat belt violation - they don't need any other reason).

 

Like I said, I am not anti-government. I want government. I just want it to abide by our various constitutions and not keep creeping into my every day life. Obama himself has said that he regrets that the Warran court didn't go further than it did... because they were constrained by the constitution. He has said that he wishes they would have listed what the government must do for us, as opposed to our constitutiion which he thinks only espouses negative rights which ONLY say what the government can't do to us. Makes me more than a little nervous.

 

It's in the nature of government to continue to grow. Politicians make there names by passing legislation. It's a monster that MUST grow whether it needs to or not. Senators are sponsoring bills that they haven't even bothered to read themselves. That's when you know we've got more than a minor problem.