Thursday, March 28, 2013

Economic Freedom

Political conservatism sure looks good:
The "Freedom in the 50 States" study measured economic and personal freedom using a wide range of criteria, including tax rates, government spending and debt, regulatory burdens, and state laws covering land use, union organizing, gun control, education choice and more.
It found that the freest states tended to be conservative "red" states, while the least free were liberal "blue" states.

The freest state overall, the researchers concluded, was North Dakota, followed by South Dakota, Tennessee, New Hampshire and Oklahoma. The least free state by far was New York, followed by California, New Jersey, Hawaii and Rhode Island.
Socialism, not so much.

8 comments:

maxutils said...

The state with the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation is the freest? Bullshit.

mmazenko said...

Yup, women have a great deal of freedom with their own bodies in the Dakotas. And I guess you're free to be homosexual there, but I doubt you'd want to be.

Darren said...

This post is called "Economic Freedom", not "Freedom to kill your unborn child".

allen (in Michigan) said...

Yes, but what's economic freedom without the option to kill inconvenient human beings?

To digress briefly, max does highlight one of the unremarked successes of the left.

Max, I believe you fancy yourself a libertarian so feel free to set me right on that, but libertarians seem to have lined up with pro-abortion forces buying into the left's implicit promise of freedom without responsibility. That, to the extent possible, there should be no consequences for decisions and that any such consequences are an unacceptable restriction on personal sovereignty, at least in the case of abortion.

The danger is that the rising level of anger among younger voters over the uniform failure of left wing policy may, rather then being channeled into an undoing of the left's anti-freedom agenda, be diverted by the left's "bread and circuses" promises. You get to undo that inconvenient, little mistake, and continue to enjoy untrammeled, and unworried promiscuity but at the cost of pretty much all your other freedoms.

maxutils said...

Darren, YOUR post is entitled 'Economic Freedom.' The study you cited measured both economic and personal freedom.

Allen ...you don't need to add the qualifier ... I am a Libertarian. I would like to note that Ron Paul, sort of our leader,is an obstetrician and is vehemently anti abortion-- he just doesn't vote to impose his beliefs on others. The idea that being pro having the right to have an abortion and being pro-abortion is utter crap. I would prefer that abortions never be performed, because of lack of need --and there are ways to get it close: availability and knowledge of birth control being chief in that. But, if a woman who was not taking the pell gets raped and becomes pregnant? Especially if she's 13, and perhaps the rapist was her father? She gets a pass. So does the woman who might die if she carries the pregnancy to term. And I'm also going to go out and say that the woman who would like to have a baby, but knows she is not in a place where she could take care of it ... also gets a pass. I am absolutely sickened by women who have multiple abortions as a form of birth control ... but it is currently legal to do that, and if North Dakota is passing the most strict laws in the nation in order to essentially make it illegal, save for a very narrow window ... that makes half their citizens less free.

allen (in Michigan) said...

he just doesn't vote to impose his beliefs on others

Of course he does since imposing his beliefs on others is one of the only two things a politician can do the other being to reduce the impositions of his predecessors.

And what's utter crap is the belief that favoring legalized abortion but abhorring it's practice somehow absolves you of the moral consequences of trivializing the taking of human life. That is what abortion is no matter how deftly you avoid any mention what it is that's being aborted.

As for North Dakota, the decision to outlaw a certain form of murder impacts the freedom of North Dakota's citizens only insofar as it interferes with the taking of another's life. I'm unimpressed by the loss of freedom that entails since no civilized state ought to so lightly view the taking of a human life.

mmazenko said...

Interesting thoughts on the "socialist" nature of North Dakota:

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/29/north_dakota_is_bringing_socialism_back_partner/

maxutils said...

allen ... that may be true about politicians, but the Libertarian philosophy is to do it as little as possible. I'd rather have a Ron Paul than a one of the two established parties. As for abortion, I don't feel any moral consequences, because I, and the judicial system don't consider it murder. And I don't abhor them - I just think that there are plenty of better ways to not have a baby, and that if an abortion is to be performed it should be because of exceptional circumstances and/or as a last resort. I don't think that's a hypocritical position to take, but that's because I don't accept your premise that it's any form of murder. I do, however respect your right to have that opinion.