Author Topic: How free is YOUR state? (Read 8714 times)

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #25 on:** March 02, 2009, 05:00:22 PM »

a free stater put pot laws with a high weighting? say it ain't so! :rolleyes:

Balog · « **Reply #26 on:** March 02, 2009, 05:08:58 PM »

Pot law aren't a bad measure of freedom. But they aren't really relevant either.

Scout26 · « **Reply #27 on:** March 02, 2009, 05:18:29 PM »

Ahhhh, The Peoples's Democratidoitic Republic of Illinois.

I'll be starting to tunnel out of here soon.

Our elected morons have decided that the best way to resolve the budget mess is to raise income taxes on both individuals and businesses. (Cutting the budget obviously never occured to them...)

Where's that facepalm ASCII thing........

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #28 on:** March 02, 2009, 05:21:10 PM »

Quote from: Balog on March 02, 2009, 05:08:58 PM

Pot law aren't a bad measure of freedom. But they aren't really relevant either.

brace yourself! i agree.
i think that were the mindset of our leaders more realistic pot laws would take care of themselves. the fact that its given a high weighting speaks more to the focus of the rater than the laws importance

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #29 on:** March 02, 2009, 05:27:01 PM »

Their assessment of Alaska on economic freedom is completely uninformed or contextualized.

All of the state government costs are born by industry usage fees, there is no direct or even remotely applicable indirect cost to the state's citizens. We are a young state with a high debt ratio for basic public works projects still being constructed, we don't have the sunken cost infrastructure of other states. And again, the cost and debt associated does not devolve on the individual citizenry.

The high state and local spending per citizen must be controlled for the logistical differences between Alaska and the lower 48 to be at all meaningful. Most of the state is accessible only by small air transport or seasonal water access.

Given that much of the state is not economically viable for development due to logistics or Federal ownership, there aren't a great deal of opportunities for massive private employment, again, we've only had 50 years in any event.

Control for reality and we'd give old NH a run for their money.

Quote

Alaska’s big problem is fiscal policy. Over a quarter
of the state’s workforce is employed by state or
local government, and that figure does not include
federal employees. Alaska has the third highest debt
ratio in the country and the second highest state and
local government spending ratio. However, Alaska
does extremely well on personal freedom, scoring 1st
on our ranking. Reasons for its score include: fully
legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana
(accomplished through a court ruling), the best (least
restrictive) gun laws in the country, recognition of
same-sex domestic partnerships, and possibly the
best homeschooling laws in the country. On economic
regulation, Alaska could do better by reverting to the
federal minimum wage, adopting right-to-work, and
going much further with eminent domain reform.
Alaska has done relatively well on health insurance
regulation and occupational licensing.

SkunkApe · « **Reply #30 on:** March 02, 2009, 11:28:17 PM »

Quote from: Balog on March 02, 2009, 11:32:41 AM

I'm surprised how far down Wy and Mt are. Under Michigan?!?!

Having moved from Michigan to Wyoming in 2007, I'd say this is dead wrong.

just Warren · « **Reply #31 on:** March 03, 2009, 02:26:47 AM »

Alaska looks good, but it just seems so inhospitable.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #32 on:** March 03, 2009, 06:35:15 AM »

Quote from: Balog on March 02, 2009, 05:08:58 PM

Pot law aren't a bad measure of freedom. But they aren't really relevant either.

Why not?

Balog · « **Reply #33 on:** March 03, 2009, 09:50:32 AM »

Because I have no interest in using pot? I'm sure we'd all love to live in a little libertarian utopia fantasy (except Maned

) but I'm more concerned with the things that have a direct impact on me.

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #34 on:** March 03, 2009, 09:54:12 AM »

its amazing how important catching a buzz is. i was in a union that as part of our package we could drink beer at work and the company has to buy it for us. for obvious reasons that company would like to stop that. and it is a much more important issue than most would realize. the companies offered to compensate with more per hour fairly generously and the union/membership always go for beer over money.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #35 on:** March 03, 2009, 10:02:00 AM »

Quote from: Balog on March 03, 2009, 09:50:32 AM

Because I have no interest in using pot? I'm sure we'd all love to live in a little libertarian utopia fantasy (except Maned ) but I'm more concerned with the things that have a direct impact on me.

How much of an interest do you think I have in using pot?

Balog · « **Reply #36 on:** March 03, 2009, 10:45:24 AM »

/sigh.....

Why are you picking a fight Micro? I want to see it legalized too, and I know you aren't a stoner. I'm not sure why you're fussing.

No place is perfect. Of the imperfect choices available to me, I focus on the liberties that are most important to me. What's wrong with that?

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #37 on:** March 03, 2009, 10:58:23 AM »

There is a difference between saying “I want to move into a place which is more free in the aspects of liberty that are directly relevant to me and mine” and saying “X is not important.”

As a matter of fact, even if we omit the moral issues involved with this given problem of drug prohibition, here's something to consider: No index is scientific and none may encompass all liberties (which is why I dislike indexes in the first place). There are dozens of issues on which legislators may have to decide tomorrow – say, regulations involving ATVs, or toys, or whatever. I would like to have a measure predicting at least vaguely how the locals would react to a completely new issue. A state with a higher freedom rating would , I suppose, be more liberal in deciding a new issue, even if the rating was achieved by ranking better in stuff that doesn't directly affect me. Does this make some form of sense?

[For the record: I view homeschooling as extremely important. Not only do I think it should be legal ,but I think that the world would be better if more people did it.]

Hugh Damright · « **Reply #38 on:** March 03, 2009, 11:23:02 AM »

People seems to be confusing libertarianism i.e. personal freedom with a free State i.e. collective freedom.

Balog · « **Reply #39 on:** March 03, 2009, 01:51:01 PM »

I reject your premise. Sadly, there are societal pressures at work outside your views of freedom. The mindset that opposes drugs and prostitution etc may be more restrictive in some areas, yet less restrictive in others. It's not a binary situation where "Oh, they oppose legalization so they will be more anti-freedom in all areas." And yes, over all the legality of drugs is a lower priority to me than a lot of other issues.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #40 on:** March 03, 2009, 02:37:47 PM »

The purpose of the index is not to cater to the individual things a given person cares for, but to create an overall index. Separate economic/homeschooling/drug freedom indexes exist already, published by various organizations.

As for me, I take it as a personal moral duty to work towards the end of prohibition. I consider it immoral to have people languishing in prison over victimless crime and for me to be free and not to try and help them.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #41 on:** March 03, 2009, 02:48:01 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2009, 02:37:47 PM

As for me, I take it as a personal moral duty to work towards the end of prohibition. I consider it immoral to have people languishing in prison over victimless crime and for me to be free and not to try and help them.

Because, of course, they won't still commit crimes to purchase their next hit of harder drugs, resulting in higher crime levels against innocent people...

Oh, yeah, and potheads driving vehicles. And being on welfare.

Again, try this condition. Sure, you can smoke pot. But you can't have a driver's license, and you're disqualified for welfare. And don't even bother with "bbbbbbbut alcohol!"

cassandra and sara's daddy · « **Reply #42 on:** March 03, 2009, 02:50:55 PM »

in my experience the number of potheads commiting crimes to "get their next hit" is minscule. you need to factor in stealing change from mommys puse to get a real number. on the other hand i know quite a few drunks who steal to support their life style

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #43 on:** March 03, 2009, 02:53:33 PM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on March 03, 2009, 02:48:01 PM

Because, of course, they won't still commit crimes to purchase their next hit of harder drugs, resulting in higher crime levels against innocent people...

Oh, yeah, and potheads driving vehicles. And being on welfare.

Again, try this condition. Sure, you can smoke pot. But you can't have a driver's license, and you're disqualified for welfare. And don't even bother with "bbbbbbbut alcohol!"

That's utter BS. You don't get to make blanket "but, but DUI on pot" and "potheads don't have jobs" utterly overstated blanket comments and then disregard alcohol as a comparison.

It is the most apt comparison as it is a legal drug with arguably worse effects on those intoxicated by it than pot has.

Manedwolf · « **Reply #44 on:** March 03, 2009, 02:58:53 PM »

Quote from: carebear on March 03, 2009, 02:53:33 PM

That's utter BS. You don't get to make blanket "but, but DUI on pot" and "potheads don't have jobs" utterly overstated blanket comments and then disregard alcohol as a comparison.

It is the most apt comparison as it is a legal drug with arguably worse effects on those intoxicated by it than pot has.

Longterm memory loss, cognitive difficulty, the sort of things that make someone completely unemployable and apt to be on welfare? Hmm....that'd be pot, yes.

Which also lingers in the system WAY longer than even binge drinking. Drinking can ruin the liver, but pot's chemicals stick in the brain in a much more profound way.

Sorry. I have no respect for potheads. They can go tune out and sit around giggling at each other in a cloud till they die if they want, but not with a cent of taxpayer money to support them.

I also can't understand the obsession. Drinking is a habit. Marijuana is a religion.

Matthew Carberry · « **Reply #45 on:** March 03, 2009, 03:06:45 PM »

There are as many if not more functioning potheads in the country as there are functioning alcoholics. Just like booze, everyone who would abuse it already is.

To think that decriminalization would change that is laughable.

But we are seriously drifting this thread and I'm unlikely to get you to admit your absolute wrongness (nor are you mine).

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #46 on:** March 03, 2009, 03:41:08 PM »

Quote

Again, try this condition. Sure, you can smoke pot. But you can't have a driver's license, and you're disqualified for welfare. And don't even bother with "bbbbbbbut alcohol!"

In my view, healthy, adult people should not be getting welfare.

A small sum of unemployment insurance to help you find a job is one thing. Putting a healthy person on welfare for years on end is just insane.

mtnbkr · « **Reply #47 on:** March 03, 2009, 03:45:42 PM »

Quote from: Manedwolf on March 03, 2009, 02:58:53 PM

Longterm memory loss, cognitive difficulty, the sort of things that make someone completely unemployable and apt to be on welfare? Hmm....that'd be pot, yes.

Which also lingers in the system WAY longer than even binge drinking. Drinking can ruin the liver, but pot's chemicals stick in the brain in a much more profound way.

Sorry. I have no respect for potheads. They can go tune out and sit around giggling at each other in a cloud till they die if they want, but not with a cent of taxpayer money to support them.

I also can't understand the obsession. Drinking is a habit. Marijuana is a religion.

It's obvious you've never known any hardcore drunks, ones that have been drunks longer than you've been alive.

"Longterm memory loss, cognitive difficulty, the sort of things that make someone completely unemployable and apt to be on welfare..." describes them to a "T".

Chris

Balog · « **Reply #48 on:** March 03, 2009, 03:58:45 PM »

Quote from: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2009, 02:37:47 PM

The purpose of the index is not to cater to the individual things a given person cares for, but to create an overall index. Separate economic/homeschooling/drug freedom indexes exist already, published by various organizations.

As for me, I take it as a personal moral duty to work towards the end of prohibition. I consider it immoral to have people languishing in prison over victimless crime and for me to be free and not to try and help them.

Sure, and that's all well and good. But we aren't operating in a vacuum here. Some things are more realistic to work towards than others. While I agree with legalizing victimless crimes, I still find it hard to be outraged over people who got caught breaking the law. Sure it's a bad law, and we should try to change it. But they took a risk and have to pay for it. Weighting that the same as or near to taxes, home-schooling, or the RKBA in terms of overall attitude towards freedom in a region is asinine.

MicroBalrog · « **Reply #49 on:** March 03, 2009, 04:08:18 PM »

Quote

Weighting that the same as or near to taxes, home-schooling, or the RKBA in terms of overall attitude towards freedom in a region is asinine.

...why? I'm sort of failing to even grasp what you're talking about.

You seem to say:

That you agree drug prohibition is bad but you have problems feeling compassion towards those breaking it, and that it is somehow 'unrealistic' to work towards it ending. I fail to see how this means that the freedom to injest isn't a part of general freedom.

People in European countries have problems feeling compassion towards those caught with illegal .22 rifles in the same way, or towards the family of Melissa Busekros. This lack of compassion is not part of the solution.

News:

Author Topic: How free is YOUR state? (Read 8714 times)