Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Land of the Free? New York and California come out at the bottom of individual freedoms study
By Mark Duell
15th June 2011

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... study.html

It might be the ‘Land of the Free’, but some states certainly aren’t living up to the words of America’s national anthem.
New York, New Jersey and California are the least free in the U.S., based on an index of public policies affecting your individual freedoms.
The rankings are based economic, social and personal freedoms of Americans - and include measures such as taxes, government spending and regulations.


Map: New York, New Jersey and California are the least free states in the U.S., based on an index of public policies affecting your economic, social, and personal freedoms

But New Hampshire, South Dakota and Indiana are the most free states in the U.S., according to Virginia think tank the Mercatus Center.
New York is by far the least free state and has had ‘the most interstate emigration of any state over the last decade’, the 'Freedom in the 50 States' report said.

The state also has ‘by far the highest taxes in the country’ and ‘only Alaska has more government debt as a percentage of the economy’.
New York’s smoking and gun laws are ‘extremely’ strict, cigarette taxes are the ‘highest in the county’ and ‘motorists are highly regulated’.
The report recommends New York should legalise same-sex partnerships, cut spending, privatise transport systems and cut taxes.


Category weights: The rankings are based on factors such as taxes, government spending and regulations

California ‘aggressively interferes in the personal lives of its citizens’ and ‘needs to cut government spending’, the report said.
It added that labour laws are ‘extremely strict’ and the state’s ‘liability system almost reaches the abysmal quality of the Deep South’s’.
But New Hampshire’s gun laws are ‘among the most liberal in the country’, government debt has fallen and ‘effective retail-tax rates on wine and spirits are zero’.
It is also the only state in the U.S. with no seatbelt law for adults, but ‘home-school laws are slightly worse than average’, the report said

I took a gander at the report. Delaware finished a woeful 39 out of 50.

Back out the Bidens, and we could move up!

I certainly would have weighted it differently...

Skjellyfetti wrote:I certainly would have weighted it differently...

No skin in this for me, but how would you do it?

Up the weight of things like "civil liberties", "imminent domain", "arrests for victimless crimes", "marijuana laws", "gun laws", "alcohol regulations", etc. etc.

Those are all way more important to me... and they're given tiny little slivers.

The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink, former president of the Koch Family Foundations, which funds a network of market-oriented think tanks and advocacy groups. Originally called the Center for Market Processes, it moved from Rutgers University to George Mason in the early 1980s before assuming its current name in 1999. The Mercatus Center is entirely funded through donations, including from energy company Koch Industries[2], individual donors and foundations.

All you need to know about the slant of this right there.

Another Koch Brothers front putting out bullshit to scare Americans

dbackjon wrote:The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink, former president of the Koch Family Foundations, which funds a network of market-oriented think tanks and advocacy groups. Originally called the Center for Market Processes, it moved from Rutgers University to George Mason in the early 1980s before assuming its current name in 1999. The Mercatus Center is entirely funded through donations, including from energy company Koch Industries[2], individual donors and foundations.

All you need to know about the slant of this right there.

Another Koch Brothers front putting out bullshit to scare Americans

And, to think, Tman and other conks start frothing at the mouth if someone links a HuffPost article, even if it originated somewhere else.

dbackjon wrote:The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink, former president of the Koch Family Foundations, which funds a network of market-oriented think tanks and advocacy groups. Originally called the Center for Market Processes, it moved from Rutgers University to George Mason in the early 1980s before assuming its current name in 1999. The Mercatus Center is entirely funded through donations, including from energy company Koch Industries[2], individual donors and foundations.

All you need to know about the slant of this right there.

Another Koch Brothers front putting out bullshit to scare Americans

Koch Brothers -- source of all evil in America -- get over it! George Mason is a reputable school whose social science departments are free of the lefty funk that infects my alma mater. Nobody has challenged the statistical basis for the study -- even those lefty weathervanes GATW and Spindoktor!

dbackjon wrote:The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink, former president of the Koch Family Foundations, which funds a network of market-oriented think tanks and advocacy groups. Originally called the Center for Market Processes, it moved from Rutgers University to George Mason in the early 1980s before assuming its current name in 1999. The Mercatus Center is entirely funded through donations, including from energy company Koch Industries[2], individual donors and foundations.

All you need to know about the slant of this right there.

Another Koch Brothers front putting out bullshit to scare Americans

So the Koch brothers made up those facts and New York and California don't have the highest tax rates in the country, New York doesn't have the smoking and food police, or the highest cigarette taxes in the country, or highly regulated gun ownership and motor vehicle laws?

According to the report, the Koch brothers also want you to be able to get married in New York, dback, so yeah fuck 'em.

I'm disappointed in Montana.

I don't know about "freedom" but I can tell you that my blue county (one of three out of 15ish in Maryland) has the most restrictions on just about everything from cell phone laws, smoking bans, liquor control, etc...

Interesting that regulating campaign finances makes people somehow "less free" and weights 3.22%... not really sure how that works out...

I'd be interested to see what they mean by "marriage and civil union laws" too - wouldn't a state that allowed gay marriage or civil unions be MORE free and a state that had a ban be less? (without really digging in, I'm just not sure how they weighted it)

also amusing to me that education spending is labeled as "paternalism" - it's an interesting insight in to a mindset that's for sure.

I do love of notion of "less free" - a vast amount of sheer and utter bullshit. from the same people who tell you Miller Lite somehow has "more taste" than other beers...

by the by - anyone ever been to South Dakota? our "most free" state? place is a shithole. quality of life there is so good that most of their young people move to Denver or Minneapolis as soon as they can.

dbackjon wrote:The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink, former president of the Koch Family Foundations, which funds a network of market-oriented think tanks and advocacy groups. Originally called the Center for Market Processes, it moved from Rutgers University to George Mason in the early 1980s before assuming its current name in 1999. The Mercatus Center is entirely funded through donations, including from energy company Koch Industries[2], individual donors and foundations.

All you need to know about the slant of this right there.

Another Koch Brothers front putting out bullshit to scare Americans

Knee jerked without even reading the report...

As I recall, you attempted to discredit another George Mason study in the same manner a year or so back.

Get over it. You know this report is true.

Our leftislature is soooo fucked up out here, even Guv. Moonbeam vetoed the Dem partyline budget yesterday.

Tax/Spend/Regulatetogeneraterevenue just doesn't accomplish anything except buy votes for the Donks.

Look where that has gotten us.

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:The Mercatus Center was founded by Rich Fink, former president of the Koch Family Foundations, which funds a network of market-oriented think tanks and advocacy groups. Originally called the Center for Market Processes, it moved from Rutgers University to George Mason in the early 1980s before assuming its current name in 1999. The Mercatus Center is entirely funded through donations, including from energy company Koch Industries[2], individual donors and foundations.

All you need to know about the slant of this right there.

Another Koch Brothers front putting out bullshit to scare Americans

So the Koch brothers made up those facts and New York and California don't have the highest tax rates in the country, New York doesn't have the smoking and food police, or the highest cigarette taxes in the country, or highly regulated gun ownership and motor vehicle laws?

According to the report, the Koch brothers also want you to be able to get married in New York, dback, so yeah fuck 'em.

What I question is there bias in weighting, and perceptions as to what makes you free or not.

And they have a good stance on one thing - but I am not a single issue voter

I would consider smoking bans a sign of freedom - freedom to NOT inhale other people's pollution.

dbackjon wrote:I would consider smoking bans a sign of freedom - freedom to NOT inhale other people's pollution.

dbackjon wrote:

Baldy wrote:
So the Koch brothers made up those facts and New York and California don't have the highest tax rates in the country, New York doesn't have the smoking and food police, or the highest cigarette taxes in the country, or highly regulated gun ownership and motor vehicle laws?

According to the report, the Koch brothers also want you to be able to get married in New York, dback, so yeah fuck 'em.

What I question is there bias in weighting, and perceptions as to what makes you free or not.

And they have a good stance on one thing - but I am not a single issue voter

I would consider smoking bans a sign of freedom - freedom to NOT inhale other people's pollution.

This isn't about freedom from pollution, it's social engineering. Government oversteps it's boundary when it begins rationalizing reasons to restrict our freedoms:

Smoking taxes/bans = pollution
Food bans = health
Transportation restrictions = pollution
Helmet/Seat Belt laws = safety
Water use = conservation
Light Bulb bans = conservation
Firearm bans/restrictions = safety
Land use restrictions = conservation
Obesity discrimination = health
Structure energy efficiency required retrofitting = conservation
Restrictions on what types of pet and how many you can "own" (Remember, you don't "own" these animals, they have rights too...and God forbid, you should abuse the rights of a Goldfish!). Again, in the name of "animal rights".

Where does it end?

Why not restrictions on frequency of sex? Too much/too little = health issues.

How much time we spend in the sun each day? Too much leads to skin cancer = health issues.

Restrictions on personal hygeine? Transmission of disease and overall healh. Shouldn't the government require all homes to have bacterial scanners at all exit doors, only unlocking the door if the person's hands are free of bacteria and found to have been recently washed? (There are scanners that detect reagents which react with bacteria).

Regulation on what we sleep on and how long we sleep? Clearly there are health problems associated with both?

How often we vacuum our homes? Again, health issues.

The Framers NEVER intended or foresaw that our democratic government officials would distort the truth, to rationalize interference and restrictions, to the degree we have seen in the past 40 years.

And, to be fair Jon, since studies show that people who are non-married or are in non-heterosexual marriages have higher incidence of HIV, then why not a "sin" tax to "engineer" these people to engage in heterosexual monogamous marriage? They can still choose to remain single or join in non-hetero marriage, but make them PAY for it...

...after all, it makes sense and benefits the social body. Right?

dbackjon wrote:

Baldy wrote:
So the Koch brothers made up those facts and New York and California don't have the highest tax rates in the country, New York doesn't have the smoking and food police, or the highest cigarette taxes in the country, or highly regulated gun ownership and motor vehicle laws?

According to the report, the Koch brothers also want you to be able to get married in New York, dback, so yeah fuck 'em.

What I question is there bias in weighting, and perceptions as to what makes you free or not.

And they have a good stance on one thing - but I am not a single issue voter

I would consider smoking bans a sign of freedom - freedom to NOT inhale other people's pollution.

Typical NIMBY bullshit. Legalize pot, but ban smoking.

Yes dback, you are free...free to move your ass somewhere else if you don't like someone smoking around you.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Interesting that regulating campaign finances makes people somehow "less free" and weights 3.22%... not really sure how that works out...

I'd be interested to see what they mean by "marriage and civil union laws" too - wouldn't a state that allowed gay marriage or civil unions be MORE free and a state that had a ban be less? (without really digging in, I'm just not sure how they weighted it)

also amusing to me that education spending is labeled as "paternalism" - it's an interesting insight in to a mindset that's for sure.

I do love of notion of "less free" - a vast amount of sheer and utter bullshit. from the same people who tell you Miller Lite somehow has "more taste" than other beers...

by the by - anyone ever been to South Dakota? our "most free" state? place is a shithole. quality of life there is so good that most of their young people move to Denver or Minneapolis as soon as they can.

Very bitter of you, TTBF. South Dakota is a wonderful, beautiful state, and its economic freedom in the land of George McGovern stole some good credit card business from DE. And those NoDaks, although not quite as "free," still lead the nation in many employment stats these days. I don't see any counter-argument: atypical of a "factoid" like you. Fess up, pal: you were either totally pwned, or you didn't get laid last weekend.

Why do you think I'm making so much noise?

Pretty soon you guys are going to be the "conspiracy theorists" with me.. after you look into what's actually going on.

Blue and Red are just the same agenda ultimately- left and right are the same.

Democrypts and Rebloodlicans as Jessie Ventura calls them- two criminal gangs in charge of slavery Inc.

This assessment of freedom across the states is shorter than my dissertation. Of course, I don't remember saying any of the following....

in my view

it is our opinion

Read the actual document. Folks around here are skeptical of global warming but won't take a cursory glance at the actual document. The authors explicitly follow Norman Barry in describing liberty:

A belief in the efficiency and morality of unhampered markets, the system of private property, and individual rights and a deep distrust of taxation, egalitarianism, compulsory welfare, and the power of the state.

Of course, many would agree with the above; however, those legitimate scientists would lend some discussion to alternative ideas of freedom. I love this part, in describing freedom: smoking outside buildings = less freedom. Of course, those with asthma would disagree. Ultimately, we''re just seeing the political agenda of two CATO "scholars".

http://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/jason-sorens/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.cato.org/people/william-ruger" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Interesting that regulating campaign finances makes people somehow "less free" and weights 3.22%... not really sure how that works out...

If there is a law(s) that restricts how much $ you or a group of people that got together are able to donate to a political campaign, and restricts how close to an election you or that group of people are able to do it, then that would make you less free.

Ivytalk wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Interesting that regulating campaign finances makes people somehow "less free" and weights 3.22%... not really sure how that works out...

I'd be interested to see what they mean by "marriage and civil union laws" too - wouldn't a state that allowed gay marriage or civil unions be MORE free and a state that had a ban be less? (without really digging in, I'm just not sure how they weighted it)

also amusing to me that education spending is labeled as "paternalism" - it's an interesting insight in to a mindset that's for sure.

I do love of notion of "less free" - a vast amount of sheer and utter bullshit. from the same people who tell you Miller Lite somehow has "more taste" than other beers...

by the by - anyone ever been to South Dakota? our "most free" state? place is a shithole. quality of life there is so good that most of their young people move to Denver or Minneapolis as soon as they can.

Very bitter of you, TTBF. South Dakota is a wonderful, beautiful state, and its economic freedom in the land of George McGovern stole some good credit card business from DE. And those NoDaks, although not quite as "free," still lead the nation in many employment stats these days. I don't see any counter-argument: atypical of a "factoid" like you. Fess up, pal: you were either totally pwned, or you didn't get laid last weekend.

bitter? howso? I've been to South Dakota plenty - a decent number of my friends are from SD (all live in the Twin Cities or elsewhere) I was at a wedding in Spearfish last summer with a mix of young people who left and those who stayed - the ones who stayed were working shitty service industry jobs making <$10/hr. Not a lot of options or opportunities for them there. They may be "freer" however the fuck it's defined by these guys - but there isn't much freedom in their lack of opportunities, even with a college education.

My point however, is not to shit on South Dakota (entirely) - I'm pointing out this "study" is arbitrary and nonsensical - that's all. It's not difficult to create a study that says what you want when you start with the answer to the question and go from there. (and to be clear - plenty of left groups do it too - especially in regards to education funding - the per pupil myth is the best example)

BDKJMU wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:Interesting that regulating campaign finances makes people somehow "less free" and weights 3.22%... not really sure how that works out...

If there is a law(s) that restricts how much $ you or a group of people that got together are able to donate to a political campaign, and restricts how close to an election you or that group of people are able to do it, then that would make you less free.

as an individual or group is one thing - but they don't differentiate between those laws and restrictions on corporate money - in their estimation capping donations at $50/year is no different than banning corporations from using their money to influence an election... given the orders of magnitude... it's like counting a high school baseball field as the same as yankee stadium - since they are both places you can play baseball.

(for the record - I don't think there should be dollar amount limits at all on INDIVIDUAL donations to campaigns or to PAC's - but direct corporate funds ought to be banned)

TwinTownBisonFan wrote: by the by - anyone ever been to South Dakota? our "most free" state? place is a shithole. quality of life there is so good that most of their young people move to Denver or Minneapolis as soon as they can.

I've got nothing for or against South Dakota, but

If SD is shut a shithole, how come it currently has the 3rd lowest unemployment in the country at 4.8%?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... yment_rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course SD will always be near the bottom in total GDP because only has 800 some thousand people. If SD is such a shithole, how come it currently is 16th in GDP PER CAPITA? Wouldn't a shithole state be down in the 40s per capita?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If SD is such a shithole, how come it is in the 3rd of 5 quintiles in real GDP growth by state in 2010? If it is such a shithole as you claim, wouldn't it be in the bottom quintile?
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regiona ... elease.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh, did I mention SD is 3rd lowest state for most recent year available, 2009, in local and state tax burden as a % of income:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr189.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, SD is such a shithole I guess for you all rural states are shitholes?

BDKJMU wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote: by the by - anyone ever been to South Dakota? our "most free" state? place is a shithole. quality of life there is so good that most of their young people move to Denver or Minneapolis as soon as they can.

I've got nothing for or against South Dakota, but

If SD is shut a shithole, how come it currently has the 3rd lowest unemployment in the country at 4.8%?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... yment_rate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course SD will always be near the bottom in total GDP because only has 800 some thousand people. If SD is such a shithole, how come it currently is 16th in GDP PER CAPITA? Wouldn't a shithole state be down in the 40s per capita?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If SD is such a shithole, how come it is in the 3rd of 5 quintiles in real GDP growth by state in 2010? If it is such a shithole as you claim, wouldn't it be in the bottom quintile?
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regiona ... elease.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh, did I mention SD is 3rd lowest state for most recent year available, 2009, in local and state tax burden as a % of income:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr189.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, SD is such a shithole I guess for you all rural states are shitholes?

and yet they move to MN and Colorado for jobs and opportunities...