Freedom: How Does Your State Fare?

[fskimospy]

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.

So you really don't know how to read and write in English then? 'Freedom from certain needs' explicitly means freedom from some needs and not others. 'Freedom from need' means all needs because if you have a need you are not free from, you don't have a freedom from need. This is how the English language works. Do you understand this now? Would you like to amend and clarify what you meant?

Your point wasn't that progressives have redefined the meaning of freedom. (what would be wrong with that anyway?) Your point was that you made up a wrong definition for what progressives think, and then flailed against it.

The guy on the subway car laughs a lot too but that doesn't make him any less pathetic, or any less nuts.

 

[werepossum]

So you really don't know how to read and write in English then? 'Freedom from certain needs' explicitly means freedom from some needs and not others. 'Freedom from need' means all needs because if you have a need you are not free from, you don't have a freedom from need. This is how the English language works. Do you understand this now? Would you like to amend and clarify what you meant?

Your point wasn't that progressives have redefined the meaning of freedom. (what would be wrong with that anyway?) Your point was that you made up a wrong definition for what progressives think, and then flailed against it.

The guy on the subway car laughs a lot too but that doesn't make him any less pathetic, or any less nuts.

You are so funny. Even Craig isn't quite so hysterically protective of progressive "logic".

By your "logic", freedom of religion must be absolute freedom of religion, anywhere, anytime, because it's a statement and must therefore be absolute. The right to bear arms must include the right for convicted felons to own nuclear missiles, because it's a statement and must therefore be absolute. Freedom of speech must mean the right to say anything about anyone, because it's a statement and must therefore be absolute. On the other hand, freedom from "certain" needs does not mean freedom from need at all, not as long as we can posit at least one identifiable need that progressives do not (yet) think government should fulfill. Now I understand; your statements are nuanced, but everyone else' statements are absolutes, right?

EDIT: I'll let everyone here decide for themselves whether "freedom from CERTAIN needs" means "freedom from need". And of course, whether it means progressives are attempting to redefine freedom. I'll leave you with the words of a great patriot.

"Give me liberty, or give me death. And by liberty, I mean of course that you should subsidize my rent, pay for my education, give me free food. Because those things I absolutely have to have to be free to actualize my potential."

 

[fskimospy]

You are so funny. Even Craig isn't quite so hysterically protective of progressive "logic".

By your "logic", freedom of religion must be absolute freedom of religion, anywhere, anytime, because it's a statement and must therefore be absolute. The right to bear arms must include the right for convicted felons to own nuclear missiles, because it's a statement and must therefore be absolute. Freedom of speech must mean the right to say anything about anyone, because it's a statement and must therefore be absolute. On the other hand, freedom from "certain" needs does not mean freedom from need at all, not as long as we can posit at least one identifiable need that progressives do not (yet) think government should fulfill. Now I understand; your statements are nuanced, but everyone else' statements are absolutes, right?

Of course everyone's statements can be nuanced.

The Constitution was made to be deliberately vague to account for future circumstances, specifically so it could be flexible. In communication on here there's no reason for your statement to be flexible as the entire purpose is to clearly articulate your point. This was just laziness on your part.

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

They opposed limiting arsenic to 5 ug/L because the cost was $1.5 billion/yr more than the benefit (who knows how they came up with that?). The EPA's regulations are based on acceptable risk grounded in science.

http://mercatus.org/publication/arsenic-drinking-water-standards
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/regulations_factsheet.cfm

This article is pretty funny. Mercatus center says the new standard jeopardized public safety "because the money could be spent on other things".

http://www.waterworld.com/index/dis...dize-public-safety-mercatus-center-urges.html

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

That page is weird... In the OP's link Alaska is #44... then when you click on it, it magically rises to #17.

???


Edit: Oh. Duh.

 

[werepossum]

They opposed limiting arsenic to 5 ug/L because the cost was $1.5 billion/yr more than the benefit (who knows how they came up with that?). The EPA's regulations are based on acceptable risk grounded in science.

http://mercatus.org/publication/arsenic-drinking-water-standards
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/regulations_factsheet.cfm

This article is pretty funny. Mercatus center says the new standard jeopardized public safety "because the money could be spent on other things".

http://www.waterworld.com/index/dis...dize-public-safety-mercatus-center-urges.html

Certainly the money could have been spent on other things, some of which could be public health and some of which could have been private health. If the existing arsenic standards are causing you no problem, and the cost of complying with the new standard (in more expensive water and/or higher taxes) and that increased cost means that you must forgo another activity that would increase your health, then the tighter standard damages your health. Opportunity cost - any money spent loses other opportunities. There's a reason why these things have to be balanced, otherwise we could spend our entire budget getting 100% of our potable water down to zero percent arsenic.

The gist of the Mercatus Center report was that the EPA did NOT use acceptable risk based on sound science. Did you even read it? They made some good points, although not so good that I could decide whether or not the new standard would be a net good thing or a net bad thing.

That page is weird... In the OP's link Alaska is #44... then when you click on it, it magically rises to #17.

???

Umm, freedom of clicking?

EDIT: Looking at (and clicking on) it, Alaska is 44th overall and 17th in personal freedom and economic freedom. As near as I can tell, Alaska got severely downgraded because so many people work for the federal, state and local governments, which seems bizarre to me. Alaska does have high per capita spending, but isn't particularly high in per capita taxes because of the oil revenue; it seems pointless to me to mark down a state for having a lot of government employees and high spending if those employees and that spending aren't crimping economic and personal freedom.

Conversely, my state of Tennessee is rated 16th freest overall, but only 28th in personal freedom and in economic freedom. Seems like low taxes and low government spending are valued extremely highly by Mercatus, higher even than I'd rate them.