Most / Least Free States

[detlef]

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.

Oops, I I failed to mention the Patriot act. Massive, massive omission.

 

Not sure how I'm bothered by eminent domain though. One case that made national headlines actually involved a close friend and former business partner in Santa Cruz. It was his dad's land and was where my first restaurant was. Thing is, dude owned one of the last spots of land destroyed by the 1989 Earthquake that had yet to be rebuilt and is certifiably crazy. He was never, ever going to develop that land because he kept changing his mind and one of the most prominent spots in the highest rent area of the city was a gaping pit. So the city stepped in and forced him to sell his land to someone ready and capitalized to do something with it. Dude who owned it was practically broke anyway. I've got to think the neighboring land owners were happy to see that happen, not to mention basically everyone else in the city. His poor family? They just had to make do with the $4.5 mil they got for the spot.

[bushwacked]

Why do you say that?

 

My guess would be for the same reason you would think the same thing about a doo doo piece from Huffington Post that started using selective raw data to leap to equations like liberty and freedom.

Edited May 31, 2009 by bushwacked

[bushwacked]

Not sure how I'm bothered by eminent domain though.

 

I think there is a lot of whine and cheese being passed around and a lot of anger being manufactured on a partisan level; eminent domain is something that surely makes me angry.

[Jimmy Neutron]

eminent domain is something that surely makes me angry.

 

Me too - it certainly has a purpose, but it is abused badly in too many instances.

[muck]

My guess would be for the same reason you would think the same thing about a doo doo piece from Huffington Post that started using selective raw data to leap to equations like liberty and freedom.

 

If the site I linked to is/was "political" (in the same way Huffington Post can be), I didn't realize it.

 

I genuinely am not in tune with what sites are voices for what organizations.

[Ursa Majoris]

Me too - it certainly has a purpose, but it is abused badly in too many instances.

+1. I would completely reform eminent domain on day one if I was in office.

[bushwacked]

If the site I linked to is/was "political" (in the same way Huffington Post can be), I didn't realize it.

 

I genuinely am not in tune with what sites are voices for what organizations.

 

Well, the study reported is worthy of discussion; but it is of no secret that the masters of RealClearpolitics have an agenda. And, although the study apparently claims all factors (freedom of choice and drug laws), exactly how much did they weigh them?

 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/loca...juanacheck.html

 

Kitsap County has written a $2,000 check to a medical Josh Gordon user whose lamps for growing pot were destroyed by county officials.

 

In March, Bruce Olson was acquitted by a jury of illegally growing and selling pot.

 

The Kitsap County Sheriff's Office says the 55-year-old Olson went to the sheriff's office this month two years after his home was raided by county investigators.

 

Sheriff's office spokesman Scott Wilson told the Kitsap Sun the 55-year-old Olson was attempting to get some of his property back. Wilson says got his paraphernalia and video surveillance equipment back, as ordered by Kitsap County Superior Court.

 

But Wilson says Olson's ballasts, lights and bulbs for growing the Josh Gordon had been destroyed because of lack of space in the county's evidence room. So the county agreed to compensate Olson for the loss.

 

Does this really happen in the other top 5 libertarian ranked states?

[Azazello1313]

The study, conducted by William P. Ruger and Jason ReSorens and released earlier this year, explores what the authors claim is the "first-ever comprehensive ranking of American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres." To create this ranking, Ruger and ReSorens outline three categories into which freedoms fit: fiscal policy (which covers spending and taxation), regulatory policy (which refers to such issues as labor regulations and health insurance), and Paternalism (which includes such categories as gambling and alcohol regulations).

 

This set of metrics was used to determine each state's ranking, which the authors of the study describe as the "ability to dispose of one's own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on another individual's ability to do the same." Such indicators, which could prove controversial based on their potentially partisan associations, include citizens' right to educate one's child as well as the right to possess and carry guns "and be free from unreasonable search and seizure." Based on state gun laws, this metric would be more likely to favor conservative states, and the authors of the study concede as much when they note 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.

 

it sounds like reasonable criteria and an interesting study to me. it factors in gun rights and economic freedom, but also drug and sex stuff, search and seizure/civil liberties stuff, punishment for "victimless crimes", and so on. and their findings aren't exactly condusive to partisan pidgeon-holing, either.

 

Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Louisiana, for example, all fall in the bottom eleven among states with the most Personal Freedom. Arkansas, Texas, and Missouri, meanwhile finish fourth, fifth, and sixth, respectively in that category. According to the authors of the study, while conservative states do perform better than liberal ones, it is moderately conservative states which are in fact the freest.

 

many of the reddest states are some of the least free. new hampshire and colorado aren't exactly republican strongholds, especially these days.

 

but no, anyone who asks these questions must have an AGENDA! I suppose they do, but perhaps their agenda is personal freedom.

[Perchoutofwater]

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.

 

[Caveman_Nick]

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.

 

Well said Savage.

[Kid Cid]

Yes, Savage clearly articulated my disdain for more government far better than I ever could. As he stated, I don't want to do away with government entirely, just remove or curtail the pieces that have stepped beyond the boundaries set up for them originally.