Freedom: How Does Your State Fare?

[kage69]

33, ouch. I'm sure Maine's horrible taxes account for most of that.

Oh well, I'm a short hop away from #1, guess I'll head over if I'm ever feeling "not so free."

I recall hearing not too long ago that the safest states to live in are ME, NH, and VT. Didn't deter me from a CCW though, never know when you might have to scare off a bear, put a hit deer out of its misery, or stop a rabid fox from biting your friends.

 

[JockoJohnson]

I looked up how PA is doing. Not too bad for a NorthEast state. But it sure seems to be slanted to the right. Recommendations for PA are to NOT require a background check for private gun sales. Gimme a break. I would hope that all states would require background checks on all potential buyers of guns - whether private or at a gun show/store. It's just common sense except to the NRA.

 

[werepossum]

Irony of the week award, and it's only Monday.

Shouldn't you be off making up reasons why Democrats failing to report a bill out of committee equals a Republican filibuster?

 

[BurnItDwn]

Illinois ranked 41.

Personal freedom to pay very high taxes
Personal freedom to elect corrupt politicans
Personal freedom to not carry handguns
Personal freedom to not smoke in most places

Lots of freedoms

 

[Texashiker]

Texas = freedom ranking of 14????

Whats up with that, it seems pretty low for Texas.

I have to disagree with the website on gambling. As far as I am concerned, gambling can stay illegal in Texas.

 

[Macamus Prime]

50 here - and the rich aren't going anywhere. Their companies and wealth are titled under different states and countries, but they live and play here. People can stop worrying about the Empire State's rich getting abused, they are doing just fine.

 

[Throckmorton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center

The recommendations from Mercatus critiqued regulations such as a proposed Interior Department rule prohibiting snowmobiles in Rocky Mountain National Park, a Transportation Department rule limiting truckers' hours behind the wheel, and a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule limiting the amount of arsenic in drinking water.[2]

I don't need an organization that opposes limiting arsenic in drinking water telling me I'm not free.

BTW, Charles Koch is on their board.

 

[werepossum]

50 here - and the rich aren't going anywhere. Their companies and wealth are titled under different states and countries, but they live and play here. People can stop worrying about the Empire State's rich getting abused, they are doing just fine.

I'd venture to guess that the rich are much less affected by loss of freedom compared to the not-rich. Having disproportionate impact on new laws, chances are that the freedoms lost are not typically those the rich care about or can't afford to lose. For instance, the right to bear arms is hardly important if you have an armed bodyguard and live in an inaccessible, gated and patrolled community.

 

[kage69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center



I don't need an organization who opposes limiting arsenic in drinking water telling me I'm not free.

BTW, Charles Koch is on their board.

Ouch.

 

[shiner]

#12 Not bad, not bad.

 

[werepossum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercatus_Center

I don't need an organization that opposes limiting arsenic in drinking water telling me I'm not free.

BTW, Charles Koch is on their board.

Either you or Al Kamen (and certainly whoever wrote that wiki) are unclear on the meaning of the word "critique", as it means merely to systematically analyze and point out the pros and cons of a proposal. Even if one takes "critique" to mean "criticize", that does not necessarily equal an opposition to limiting arsenic in drinking water, unless you take the position that every EPA proposal is by definition perfect. A proposal to limit arsenic in drinking water by sacrificing every first-born son to the Inca monkey god would certainly be worth criticism, wouldn't you agree? Less ridiculously, even the staunchest opponent of drinking water arsenic might criticize a well-meaning plan setting levels that would effectively require all potable water in an area to be derived from reverse osmosis. On the other hand, even the most libertarian would have a problem opposing the dumping of untreated arsenic trioxide or cacodylic acid into a mountain stream merely because it's inexpensive. Without reading the critique and its original bill, none of us can say whether Mercatus made valid critiques, let alone whether they are opposed to any limitation to arsenic levels in the water supply.

In other words, Charles Koch is not the boogie man and government is not G-d.

 

[Tristicus]

18/50

 

[p0nd]

Either you or Al Kamen (and certainly whoever wrote that wiki) are unclear on the meaning of the word "critique", as it means merely to systematically analyze and point out the pros and cons of a proposal. Even if one takes "critique" to mean "criticize", that does not necessarily equal an opposition to limiting arsenic in drinking water, unless you take the position that every EPA proposal is by definition perfect. A proposal to limit arsenic in drinking water by sacrificing every first-born son to the Inca monkey god would certainly be worth criticism, wouldn't you agree? Less ridiculously, even the staunchest opponent of drinking water arsenic might criticize a well-meaning plan setting levels that would effectively require all potable water in an area to be derived from reverse osmosis. On the other hand, even the most libertarian would have a problem opposing the dumping of untreated arsenic trioxide or cacodylic acid into a mountain stream merely because it's inexpensive. Without reading the critique and its original bill, none of us can say whether Mercatus made valid critiques, let alone whether they are opposed to any limitation to arsenic levels in the water supply.

In other words, Charles Koch is not the boogie man and government is not G-d.

here is their paper for the curious:
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/The_EPAs_Request.pdf

 

[theeedude]

Koch funded "think" tank thinks we are #48.
WOOHOO, we are #3

 

[Kanalua]

47!

Hawaii has much room to improve. On the spending side, the state is highly fiscally centralized due to its unique statewide school system, but despite being freed from the burden of paying for schools, local governments have to raise over 80 percent of their funds through own-source taxes, the highest figure in the country. Sales, individual income, and motorvehicle-license taxes are high. Gun laws are among the worst in the country, and the marijuana regime is fairly restrictive. Hawaii has the second strictest gambling laws in the country, after Utah: The only type of gaming permitted is social. Educational regulation is excessive, with private schools having to obtain state approval to operate, significant homeschool regulations, and school attendance mandated through age 18. Smoking bans are universal in restaurants, bars, workplaces, and public places without any exceptions.

 

[werepossum]

47!

Probably very difficult for Hawaii to become significantly more free because of the fragile ecosystem and the high density of people. When you start with many people's idea of paradise, it's hard to give people a lot of freedom which might damage that paradise.

 

[soulcougher73]

17/50. but 15 mins away is 5/50. I should move to MO

 

[matt0611]

I don't get it.

How can New Hampshire be on top when it's under Democratic control?

Does not compute

The NH legislature is 3/4+ republicans.

 

[amish]

indiana here. i can understand why we are so high in the rankings. not too many regulations to worry about. the only laws that i'd like to see gone are the Blue Laws.

hopefully we never have vehicle emissions tests.

also, i think the writters were pretty stupid at complaining about internet gambling laws here...

 

[Nebor]

I'm not from Alaska, but their justification for giving it such a poor ranking seems shaky. They say they have the most personal freedoms of anywhere, but their economic freedom is low due to a high amount of government workers and government debt... That just seems to be an inescapable trait of being a huge, unexplored frontier with a sparse population.

 

[Texashiker]

indiana here. i can understand why we are so high in the rankings. not too many regulations to worry about. the only laws that i'd like to see gone are the Blue Laws.

Indiana has blue laws? Wow, I would not expect to see a blue law state outside of the bible belt southern states.

Texas had a blue law on the books for a long time, but I think it was removed in the mid-late 1980s.

When I was working at a grocery store in 1984 - 1985, we could not sell anything but food on sunday. If someone came in to buy a wrench, we could not sell it to them, but they could buy beer and wine after 12 noon.

 

[amish]

Indiana has blue laws? Wow, I would not expect to see a blue law state outside of the bible belt southern states.

Texas had a blue law on the books for a long time, but I think it was removed in the mid-late 1980s.

When I was working at a grocery store in 1984 - 1985, we could not sell anything but food on sunday. If someone came in to buy a wrench, we could not sell it to them, but they could buy beer and wine after 12 noon.

it is really just on cars and alcohol. cannot buy either on a Sunday. sucks during football season or when you get back into town from a trip only to find out that your fridge is alcohol free. but it gives you another reason to go to BW3 or any other bar.

i don't mind it on cars since that is a good time to look at vehicles without a salesman.

 

[irishScott]

WOW! What a piece of right wing garbage disquised as a study

Funny, for being right wing they're sure bitching hard about Marijuana and have a blue state as #1.

 

[zinfamous]

I think they gave NH #1 ranking by default.

You know, the license plate. So it must be true.

 

[Munky]

Heh. Unsurprisingly, Massholechusetts and Cuntlickfornia are near last. Surprised about Alaska, though.