Freedom: How Does Your State Fare?

[JD50]

Why is it so hard for some liberals to understand that you can be for small government, and work for the government, without being a hypocrite? As long as you're not working for the section of government that you think should be cut, there's no hypocrisy. It's also not "living off of others" when you're providing an essential service. Get some perspective.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

lolz at CA and NY.

 

[fskimospy]

Hahaha, nice Koch brothers funded study on what constitutes 'freedom'. This map did bring up a pretty great idea though. Let's see how all that 'freedom' is working out for those America Loving Patriots!

Here's our list of free places:

And here's a study of the change in life expectancies over the last decade or so:

Life expectancy is decently correlated with overall quality of living. Gee, there seems to be some sort of pattern emerging.

(note: I did not come up with this comparison, I just thought it was apt to show just how hilariously stupid this 'freedom index' was)

 

[werepossum]

Hahaha, nice Koch brothers funded study on what constitutes 'freedom'. This map did bring up a pretty great idea though. Let's see how all that 'freedom' is working out for those America Loving Patriots!

Here's our list of free places:

And here's a study of the change in life expectancies over the last decade or so:

Life expectancy is decently correlated with overall quality of living. Gee, there seems to be some sort of pattern emerging.

(note: I did not come up with this comparison, I just thought it was apt to show just how hilariously stupid this 'freedom index' was)

Freedom does not necessarily correlate with life expectancy, any more than wild animals enjoy a longer life expectancy than their domesticated brethren. As we lose freedom, our life expectancy will likely increase as our owner (government) restricts our ability to do things that harm its property (ourselves.)

Of course, our definition of freedom itself is splitting. The right still holds to the traditional definition of freedom - absence of coercion - while the left is adopting a new definition of freedom - absence of need. So those on the left are likely not capable of understanding the criteria of the study, whether or not one agrees with those criteria.

 

[matt0611]

Freedom does not necessarily correlate with life expectancy, any more than wild animals enjoy a longer life expectancy than their domesticated brethren. As we lose freedom, our life expectancy will likely increase as our owner (government) restricts our ability to do things that harm its property (ourselves.)

Of course, our definition of freedom itself is splitting. The right still holds to the traditional definition of freedom - absence of coercion - while the left is adopting a new definition of freedom - absence of need. So those on the left are likely not capable of understanding the criteria of the study, whether or not one agrees with those criteria.

The states also don't exist independently from the federal government.
The peoples of the states also have the effect of all the crippling social welfare programs and taxes that the federal government imposes.
Not to mention all the other regulations the federal government imposes.

And yes, you're spot on with your point about the differences between the left and right on their definition of "freedom".

 

[Perknose]

Of course, our definition of freedom itself is splitting. The right still holds to the traditional definition of freedom - absence of coercion - while the left is adopting a new definition of freedom - absence of need. So those on the left are likely not capable of understanding the criteria of the study, whether or not one agrees with those criteria.

Sloppy logic.

Because "those on the left" don't agree with the Koch's definition of FWEEDOM doesn't mean that "those on the left" can't understand the Koch's criteria, or even that they're "not likely" to. Your premise simply does not provide adequate support for your conclusion. Tsk tsk, sloppy, sloppy.

And the so-called "traditional" definition of freedom is simplistic and juvenile when used alone as a yardstick of actual freedom, as it was in this deeply flawed study.

By the study's rubric, no one would ever get married, as this results in a measurable loss of personal FWEEDOM. No one would ever work for another for the same reason. We'd be a nation of 300 million independent contractors. Joe's Nifty One Man Pediatric Trauma Center: Self taught and fiercely proud of it!

And, of course, no one would ever join the military! FWEEDOM!

Grow up, please.

The world is an increasingly interdependent place and we need to learn how to intelligently cooperate with each other instead of stupidly bleating about FWEEDOM like some angry 4 year old throwing a tantrum because he doesn't have the FWEEDOM to throw food around in a restaurant.

 

[fskimospy]

Freedom does not necessarily correlate with life expectancy, any more than wild animals enjoy a longer life expectancy than their domesticated brethren. As we lose freedom, our life expectancy will likely increase as our owner (government) restricts our ability to do things that harm its property (ourselves.)

Of course, our definition of freedom itself is splitting. The right still holds to the traditional definition of freedom - absence of coercion - while the left is adopting a new definition of freedom - absence of need. So those on the left are likely not capable of understanding the criteria of the study, whether or not one agrees with those criteria.

I didn't say that freedom was correlated with life expectancy. I said life expectancy was decently correlated with quality of life. All I was showing there was that in 'freedom loving states' that broad metric showed they were lacking. Take from that what you will.

Also, you once again have a bizarre and delusional idea of what the left thinks. They believe in positive liberty, while the right believes in negative liberty. Positive liberty is the freedom and ability of each person to realize their potential, while negative liberty is the freedom from external constraints. Where do you get these insane ideas?

 

[matt0611]

Sloppy logic.

Because "those on the left" don't agree with the Koch's definition of FWEEDOM doesn't mean that "those on the left" can't understand the Koch's criteria, or even that they're "not likely" to. Your premise simply does not provide adequate support for your conclusion. Tsk tsk, sloppy, sloppy.

And the so-called "traditional" definition of freedom is simplistic and juvenile when used alone as a yardstick of actual freedom, as it was in this deeply flawed study.

By the study's rubric, no one would ever get married, as this results in a measurable loss of personal FWEEDOM. No one would ever work for another for the same reason. We'd be a nation of 300 million independent contractors. Joe's Nifty One Man Pediatric Trauma Center: Self taught and fiercely proud of it!

And, of course, no one would ever join the military! FWEEDOM!

Grow up, please.

The world is an increasingly interdependent place and we need to learn how to intelligently cooperate with each other instead of stupidly bleating about FWEEDOM like some angry 4 year old throwing a tantrum because he doesn't have the FWEEDOM to throw food around in a restaurant.

Getting married and joining the military are individual choices.
Talk about sloppy logic.

 

[werepossum]

Sloppy logic.

Because "those on the left" don't agree with the Koch's definition of FWEEDOM doesn't mean that "those on the left" can't understand the Koch's criteria, or even that they're "not likely" to. Your premise simply does not provide adequate support for your conclusion. Tsk tsk, sloppy, sloppy.

And the so-called "traditional" definition of freedom is simplistic and juvenile when used alone as a yardstick of actual freedom, as it was in this deeply flawed study.

By the study's rubric, no one would ever get married, as this results in a measurable loss of personal FWEEDOM. No one would ever work for another for the same reason. We'd be a nation of 300 million independent contractors. Joe's Nifty One Man Pediatric Trauma Center: Self taught and fiercely proud of it!

And, of course, no one would ever join the military! FWEEDOM!

Grow up, please.

The world is an increasingly interdependent place and we need to learn how to intelligently cooperate with each other instead of stupidly bleating about FWEEDOM like some angry 4 year old throwing a tantrum because he doesn't have the FWEEDOM to throw food around in a restaurant.

I didn't say that freedom was correlated with life expectancy. I said life expectancy was decently correlated with quality of life. All I was showing there was that in 'freedom loving states' that broad metric showed they were lacking. Take from that what you will.

Also, you once again have a bizarre and delusional idea of what the left thinks. They believe in positive liberty, while the right believes in negative liberty. Positive liberty is the freedom and ability of each person to realize their potential, while negative liberty is the freedom from external constraints. Where do you get these insane ideas?

Thanks to Perknose and Eskimospy for providing the examples I was too lazy to provide. Eskimospy even correctly spelled "freedom" and rephrased what I said, albeit right after denying it was true.

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks to Perknose and Eskimospy for providing the examples I was too lazy to provide. Eskimospy even correctly spelled "freedom" and rephrased what I said, albeit right after denying it was true.

No.

I corrected you for drawing a wrong conclusion from what I wrote, and then I corrected you about your insane idea on what the left thinks about freedom. The ability to realize your potential is not the freedom from need, in case you are unfamiliar with the definition of those words.

 

[Perknose]

Getting married and joining the military are individual choices.
Talk about sloppy logic.

Which, by the Koch's brothers' simplistic definition of freedom, no "freedom loving" individual would ever undertake, which was my clearly stated point.

Talk about sloppy reading comprehension on your part!

But, matt0611, it has come to my attention that matt0611 is not your real name.

To quote your own words on the subject:

When I'm making a personal accusation against someone on a political forum like this, then yes, I like to use their real name.

So, I'm "accusing" you of being a hypocrite, Mr matt0611stein! To quote you again:

I just like to refer to people's actual real names when I'm talking about that person. I feel weird referring to him as "Stewart matt0611" when I know that's not his real name.

I don't have anything against Jews hypocrites personally.

Your words, your petard, sir. Now tell us your full real name or go hoist yourself.

 

[werepossum]

No.

I corrected you for drawing a wrong conclusion from what I wrote, and then I corrected you about your insane idea on what the left thinks about freedom. The ability to realize your potential is not the freedom from need, in case you are unfamiliar with the definition of those words.

So perhaps you can define this "positive liberty" for us. I think it means that progressives think it's the government's right and responsibility to ensure that everyone has enough to eat, a place to live, electricity, an education. (Hint: Most people define those as things one needs.) Many if not most progressives also think government should provide things like transportation, phone, even broadband access, at least judging from their posts.

As to the last question - I get these insane ideas from you, mostly.

 

[matt0611]

Which, by the Koch's brothers' simplistic definition of freedom, no "freedom loving" individual would ever undertake, which was my clearly stated point.

Talk about sloppy reading comprehension on your part!

You still don't understand the concept of freedom and individual voluntary choices.

Sloppy logic fail again.

Your post just proves you still doesn't understand what the concept of individual freedom is.

Your "stated point" if bereft of substance. Get back to me when you have some. (I won't hold my breath though)

Hypocrisy not found, you lying old sack of shit.

 

[Perknose]

Hypocrisy not found, you lying old sack of shit.

Do I have to quote you AGAIN to your dishonest weasel face, troll?

Here is YOUR hypocrisy, in YOUR OWN WORDS and outed for all to see. You then not telling us your own name is the very definition of hypocrisy!

But, matt0611, it has come to my attention that matt0611 is not your real name.

To quote your own words on the subject:

When I'm making a personal accusation against someone on a political forum like this, then yes, I like to use their real name.

So, I'm "accusing" you of being a hypocrite, Mr matt0611stein! To quote you again:

I just like to refer to people's actual real names when I'm talking about that person. I feel weird referring to him as "Stewart matt0611" when I know that's not his real name.

I don't have anything against Jews hypocrites personally.

Your words, your petard, sir. Now tell us your full real name or go hoist yourself.

Now, as for your unfounded personal attack on me, calling me a lying sack of shit, SHOW all of us quotes from me that prove I'm lying, just as I have used your own words to out YOU.

You can't, you little turd troll. You're just a shallow and dishonest little attack weasel, butthurt because he's been hoisted on his own petard.

Sucks for you, troll.

 

[matt0611]

Do I have to quote you AGAIN to your dishonest weasel face, troll?

Here is YOUR hypocrisy, in YOUR OWN WORDS and outed for all to see. You then not telling us your own name is the very definition of hypocrisy!



Now, as for your unfounded personal attack on me, calling me a lying sack of shit, SHOW all of us quotes from me that prove I'm lying, just as I have used your own words to out YOU.

You can't, you little turd troll. You're just a shallow and dishonest little attack weasel, butthurt because he's been hoisted on his own petard.

Sucks for you, troll.

Lol now you deflect to go back to a topic from another thread instead of the current one because you have lost this one.
Poor sack of shit perknose

You must not know how little I think of you and your opinions if you think I can be "butthurt" by a sack of shit like yourself on the internets lol

You still point out no hypocrisy by the way. That's why you are a lying sack of shit.

 

[shortylickens]

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

At least they both support the freedom of gays, oh wait........
:hmm:

 

[Munky]

At least they both support the freedom of gays, oh wait........
:hmm:

What about it? Seem to me like the most liberal-democratic-tree-hugging states are also ones with the most nanny government. Which is what a "liberal" ideology is really all about.

 

[Lithium381]

We are 48/50
I can't wait to retire and move.

Freedom in the 50 States

i'm with in in the 48

Not suprising at all though....buncha liberals

 

[zinfamous]

Freedom does not necessarily correlate with life expectancy, any more than wild animals enjoy a longer life expectancy than their domesticated brethren. As we lose freedom, our life expectancy will likely increase as our owner (government) restricts our ability to do things that harm its property (ourselves.)

Of course, our definition of freedom itself is splitting. The right still holds to the traditional definition of freedom - absence of coercion - while the left is adopting a new definition of freedom - absence of need. So those on the left are likely not capable of understanding the criteria of the study, whether or not one agrees with those criteria.

except for the whole--we dictate what a woman do with her own body sort of thing. Oh, and no one can put in their bodies what we say they can't.

no, no coercion right there. no sirree.

(but I do acknowledge the differing perspectives as you describe them.)

 

[werepossum]

except for the whole--we dictate what a woman do with her own body sort of thing. Oh, and no one can put in their bodies what we say they can't.

no, no coercion right there. no sirree.

(but I do acknowledge the differing perspectives as you describe them.)

Oh, there's tons of things on which the right is perfectly willing to circumscribe someone else's freedom for their own comfort and sense of propriety. The left certainly has no monopoly on hypocrisy, nor unfortunately on the love of using the armed might of government to force others' behavior into their own preferences. The only difference is that the left insists that a small minority knows best how everyone should behave, whereas the right insists that the majority knows best how everyone should behave. Whichever side one likes the most (or dislikes the least) depends largely on which side is currently goring your ox, or perhaps giving you someone else' ox.

There's a reason people say a conservative is a liberal who's been robbed and a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. We all order the world according to our own preferences, and even the best of us find it difficult to object to government infringing on others' freedom when the end result is to our liking.

 

[fskimospy]

So perhaps you can define this "positive liberty" for us. I think it means that progressives think it's the government's right and responsibility to ensure that everyone has enough to eat, a place to live, electricity, an education. (Hint: Most people define those as things one needs.) Many if not most progressives also think government should provide things like transportation, phone, even broadband access, at least judging from their posts.

As to the last question - I get these insane ideas from you, mostly.

I already defined positive liberty. Being free from very certain and specific needs that enable a person to fulfill their potential is most certainly not being free from need in its entirety as you attempted to allege. Then again, if it weren't for massive, continuing, and willful distortions of what liberals think, your posts would be shockingly short.

If you think you're getting these ideas from me, you need work on your reading comprehension skills. As best I can tell, you take the ideas of liberalism, distort them to some ludicrous extreme, and then return and try to fit everyone into your insane mold. I still can't find myself believing that if we actually sat down and talked that you would genuinely try the lines of argument you try here, because there's no way a sane person can actually believe some of the things you write.

 

[uli2000]

Legalized gambling and prostitution, no last call, and guns are practically issued to new residents upon entering the state, and we're still only #6 here in Nevada? New Hampshire must be fucking awesome.

 

[werepossum]

I already defined positive liberty. Being free from very certain and specific needs that enable a person to fulfill their potential is most certainly not being free from need in its entirety as you attempted to allege. Then again, if it weren't for massive, continuing, and willful distortions of what liberals think, your posts would be shockingly short.

If you think you're getting these ideas from me, you need work on your reading comprehension skills. As best I can tell, you take the ideas of liberalism, distort them to some ludicrous extreme, and then return and try to fit everyone into your insane mold. I still can't find myself believing that if we actually sat down and talked that you would genuinely try the lines of argument you try here, because there's no way a sane person can actually believe some of the things you write.

Oh, so "positive liberty" doesn't mean "freedom from need" because, well, it does mean "freedom from need", but not "freedom from all need". So as long as ONE need remains for the individual to fulfill, we're golden. Wow, talking about your tortured logic. Note that I never said "freedom from need in its entirety"; I merely said "freedom from need", which you are admitting is your (poster boy progressive) definition of freedom.

I'm not laughing with you, dude, I'm laughing AT you. You twist yourself into logical pretzels trying to make your beliefs sound sensible.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, so "positive liberty" doesn't mean "freedom from need" because, well, it does mean "freedom from need", but not "freedom from all need". So as long as ONE need remains for the individual to fulfill, we're golden. Wow, talking about your tortured logic. Note that I never said "freedom from need in its entirety"; I merely said "freedom from need", which you are admitting is your (poster boy progressive) definition of freedom.

I'm not laughing with you, dude, I'm laughing AT you. You twist yourself into logical pretzels trying to make your beliefs sound sensible.

Do you know how to communicate in English? Saying 'freedom from need' means 'freedom from need'. If you have a need that you are not free from, then you do not possess 'freedom from need', and so your sentence clearly states 'freedom from need in its entirety'. If you're just trying to say that you communicated your idea poorly that's fine, but don't try to reinvent English to avoid being wrong.

As usual, you're trying to grossly distort the position of progressives in order to argue against them because you can't argue based on what they really think. You're just a walking strawman. Oh, and why would you think that I would care what you're laughing at? You're like one of those crazy guys on the subway screaming about the communists, same as with them what you're yelling about isn't even there.

My repeated reminders to you of how insane you are seem to finally be getting under your skin. Glad to see it, as anger is one of the steps to recovery. I will be your guide!

 

[werepossum]

Do you know how to communicate in English? Saying 'freedom from need' means 'freedom from need'. If you have a need that you are not free from, then you do not possess 'freedom from need', and so your sentence clearly states 'freedom from need in its entirety'. If you're just trying to say that you communicated your idea poorly that's fine, but don't try to reinvent English to avoid being wrong.

As usual, you're trying to grossly distort the position of progressives in order to argue against them because you can't argue based on what they really think. You're just a walking strawman. Oh, and why would you think that I would care what you're laughing at? You're like one of those crazy guys on the subway screaming about the communists, same as with them what you're yelling about isn't even there.

My repeated reminders to you of how insane you are seem to finally be getting under your skin. Glad to see it, as anger is one of the steps to recovery. I will be your guide!

Getting under my skin? I'm laughing my ass off! When I say "freedom from need" it must necessarily mean "freedom from ALL need" but when you say "freedom from CERTAIN needs" it does not mean "freedom from need" at all? Even when disputing my point that progressives have redefined the meaning of freedom, you continually make it for me.