Freedom by state rankings

[Chew Toy McCoy]

https://www.freedominthe50states.org

Some interesting results, not the least of which is Texas having the least amount of personal freedom.

 

[Alli]

Fascinating.

 

[GermanSuplex]

“Freedom” is a subjective word anyway. Freedom to many a conservative means the freedom to live life as they see fit, while also having the unencumbered right to tell you how to live your life.

You have to remember, conservatives are the OG cancel culture squad. They’ve been squashing freedoms for decades, legal and expressive alike.

Some also don’t believe in voting or democracy anymore and are saying as such. I can’t think of anything less freedom-loving than that.

 

[Nycturne]

“Freedom” is a subjective word anyway. Freedom to many a conservative means the freedom to live life as they see fit, while also having the unencumbered right to tell you how to live your life.

Yup. Keep in mind one reason it ranks Florida highly are things like being a “right to work” state, a low minimum wage, and deregulation. So if you think weak labor and health effects pollution have a negative impact of freedoms, you might not agree with many of asessments.

A lot of what I read seems to be from a strongly libertarian viewpoint.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

A lot of what I read seems to be from a strongly libertarian viewpoint.

It's done by the Cato Institute. So yea, libertarian.

I found drilling down to the individual sections was sometimes confusing as to if the top 5 or bottom 5 was a good thing or bad thing, especially on taxes vs government spending.

And as far as I am concerned school choice has very little to do with education and is more a funnel to fraud and indoctrination.

 

[Nycturne]

It's done by the Cato Institute. So yea, libertarian.

I found drilling down to the individual sections was sometimes confusing as to if the top 5 or bottom 5 was a good thing or bad thing, especially on taxes vs government spending.

And as far as I am concerned school choice has very little to do with education and is more a funnel to fraud and indoctrination.

Yeah, it’s based on a very particular idea of freedom, specifically their idea of government non-interference (although “right to work” laws are government interference in labor negotiations, so why is it more free?). The fact that they don’t seem to outline the rationale for why X is good and Y is bad and in many places don’t even outline why one state’s policy is good or bad loses credibility with me. But it’s also clear this is “freedom of capital” at least as much as “freedom of people”.

But then again, I believe depriving someone of their full life through “socializing costs” is impinging on their freedoms, but I guess that is secondary to the right to conduct business without interference?

I’m a bit salty as I’ve been listening to a podcast going over the Hawks Nest Tunnel disaster. As the guest on the podcast stated (and I’m paraphrasing): ”One thing I wish other libertarians would understand is that regulations are written in blood. If we didn’t codify the things you can’t do, corporations will do it, and have done it.”

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Yeah, it’s based on a very particular idea of freedom, specifically their idea of government non-interference (although “right to work” laws are government interference in labor negotiations, so why is it more free?). The fact that they don’t seem to outline the rationale for why X is good and Y is bad and in many places don’t even outline why one state’s policy is good or bad loses credibility with me. But it’s also clear this is “freedom of capital” at least as much as “freedom of people”.

But then again, I believe depriving someone of their full life through “socializing costs” is impinging on their freedoms, but I guess that is secondary to the right to conduct business without interference?

I’m a bit salty as I’ve been listening to a podcast going over the Hawks Nest Tunnel disaster. As the guest on the podcast stated (and I’m paraphrasing): ”One thing I wish other libertarians would understand is that regulations are written in blood. If we didn’t codify the things you can’t do, corporations will do it, and have done it.”

Possibly a different issue, but I really don’t get the state's rights (usually associated with freedom) people on economic issues. From one end of the spectrum to the other CA thrives under the same federal government as Alabama which seems hellbent on being the nation’s capital of poverty. The obvious difference there is the states’ governments and what they are doing about opportunity.

 

[Yoused]

Freedom means I get to drive around in my pickup that you can feel the piston rumble for 3 counties and if you do not like it, go somewhere else. 4 counties over.

 

[Hrafn]

Freedom means I get to drive around in my pickup that you can feel the piston rumble for 3 counties and if you do not like it, go somewhere else. 4 counties over.

"I hain't a man lessun' I kin roll me some koal"

 

[Nycturne]

Possibly a different issue, but I really don’t get the state's rights (usually associated with freedom) people on economic issues. From one end of the spectrum to the other CA thrives under the same federal government as Alabama which seems hellbent on being the nation’s capital of poverty. The obvious difference there is the states’ governments and what they are doing about opportunity.

It’s certainly in the same realm. But it comes from another libertarian vein of thought that the federal government should be weak so that it is less intrusive, because local government is considered to always be more effective (although don’t ask me what they think about state governments interfering with city governments).

I’ll point out though that geography plays a part in economic engines as well. California leveraged natural resources into being a large state, and the population pull to the bay area for the gold rush helped make it a key trade port on the west coast. Silicon Valley was a thing in part because of existing education and research facilities in the region snowballing into the strongest economic engine the US has today and keeping jobs in the region of investment. In a place like Alabama, where you are flanked by major Gulf Coast ports on either side in Texas and Louisiana, it finds itself being a bit of a manufacturing region. And it’s been manufacturing jobs taking the largest hit in the US over the last 40 years due to automation and exporting manufacturing overseas. What is Alabama supposed to pivot into? Big tech? Investors are wary about putting money into it unless you happen to be in an existing big tech region. Meanwhile say you are building some random thing in Silicon Valley and people perk up their ears before you’ve even pitched your terrible business plan. Although Alabama is trying to court local auto manufacturing.

But I’ll also point out that a strong economy today doesn’t make for a great place to live. California has an affordability crisis in the SF region thanks in part to only building 60,000 places to live in the face of 400,000 new jobs (citation probably needed for timeframe on that). Florida’s housing economy is facing an insurance crisis due in part to rising risks in the area from various sources including climate change, along with the government making it easier to sue insurance companies. I’d generally say that location and natural resources (including things like water access and farmable land) play a part in a state’s economic engine more than the specific policies it runs under. Precisely because so long as someone can get away with it, it doesn’t matter if the policies mean upwards of a couple thousand people die to dig a tunnel to enrich a company. Or if poverty and homelessness are worsened as a result of the influx of money into a subset of the population creating a scarcity of key things people need. Laborers aren’t required to thrive for “line go up” to work.