03-03-2009, 08:48 AM | #1 | |||
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
Most (and least) Libertarian States
Quote:
Live Free or Die. |
|||
03-03-2009, 09:00 AM | #2 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
I guessed New Hampshire when I saw the subject line. Glad I was right! Of course, living in the next state over, growing up, probably gave me an unfair advantage.
Where's Illinois on the list? |
03-03-2009, 09:07 AM | #3 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: Jan 2005
|
Shame there's not a list of all the states. I hope Hawaiians regain their freedom someday.
|
03-03-2009, 09:13 AM | #4 |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
source?
__________________
... |
03-03-2009, 09:47 AM | #5 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Newburgh, NY
|
The weightings are so subjective. If you're gay and can't marry, adopt, or visit your dying partner that's a lot more freedom limiting than a high property tax.
__________________
To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers |
03-03-2009, 09:54 AM | #6 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Yeah, I want the entire list!
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
03-03-2009, 10:10 AM | #7 |
H.S. Freshman Team
Join Date: Aug 2005
|
You can get a PDF version here.
hxxp://www.mercatus.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=26154 |
03-03-2009, 10:51 AM | #8 |
College Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
hmmm, after scanning the report, i'm surprised more attention wasn't paid to population density as a major contributing factor.
the closer people are jammed together, the more need there is to limit their freedoms simply to prevent them from trampling on other people's freedoms. (see:NJ) 3 of the top 5 "least free" states are also 3 of the top 5 most densely populated states. (then you factor in CA & NY which overall state isn't the most densely populated but have major regions which are...)
__________________
... |
03-03-2009, 10:51 AM | #9 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Prairie du Sac, WI
|
There is one big issue that has driven me away from libertarianism. I was once a staunch libertarian as recently as 2002 I worked on the Ed Thompson for Governor campaign in Wisconsin (10% of the vote, not bad for a Libertarian Party candidate).
My biggest issue is that libertarianism seems to be incompatible with large, powerful nations such as the United States. It simply cannot feasibly be implemented in a country of this magnitude unless we were broken up into many smaller nations (which philosophically speaking I don't think is such a bad idea). Being fiscally responsible is one thing (also unrealistic it seems), but full fledged libertarianism in this country is a pipe dream until we blow the whole thing up and start over as many different smaller nations. Ie, New Hampshire becoming its own nation run on libertarian principles. Whereas other places could be run on their own socialist principles without really bothering each other. The federal government will never cede authority. The only solution is to do away with the federal government altogether. |
03-03-2009, 11:16 AM | #10 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
I agree. North Dakota is "in theory" one of the most socialistic states. But in practice the population is so sparse it ends up libertarian.
__________________
“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
03-03-2009, 11:18 AM | #11 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
That sound you hear? It's the sound of Bucc typing up a 3000-word response to lungs' post. WTG lungs!
|
03-03-2009, 11:26 AM | #12 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Prairie du Sac, WI
|
|
03-03-2009, 01:39 PM | #13 | |
High School Varsity
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lynchburg, VA
|
Quote:
This is only true if you think of libertarianism as federalism. I agree that the ship has long sailed on the delegation of powers to the states. However, personal freedom can still increase even as the federal government's power increases. It wasn't too long ago that abortion and interracial marriage were illegal and the top income tax bracket was 70%. I think we're clearly more free now than in the past in a lot of ways. |
|
03-03-2009, 02:35 PM | #14 |
Resident Alien
Join Date: Jun 2001
|
"The authors take a dim view of seat belt laws, campaign finance limits, smoking bans, gun-control laws, restrictions on gambling and alcohol, and especially any attempt to regulate education."
Apparently, I favor limiting all sorts of freedoms. I believe in my freedom to eat in public without choking to death on some idiot's smoke, for instance. Seat belt laws are working against evolution, but I still support them. Last edited by Kodos : 03-03-2009 at 02:36 PM. |
03-03-2009, 06:09 PM | #15 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
Quote:
Or to have the citizens engage in more personal responsibilities (by doing more locally). 13 words. |
|
03-03-2009, 06:20 PM | #16 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: San Jose, CA
|
Which Indian Reservation is the most Libertarian?
__________________
Look into the mind of a crazy man (NSFW) http://www.whitepowerupdate.wordpress.com |
03-03-2009, 07:10 PM | #17 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Prairie du Sac, WI
|
Quote:
In theory, I completely agree with you. But in practice, I'd argue that it's all but impossible when there is a massive federal government overseeing a massive amount of people and a massive amount of land. Maybe I have a more cynical view of human nature, but I see humans as no different than animals. They are selfish, and focused on self preservation. I don't see how libertarianism and federalism can coexist. Maybe we are looking at things two different ways. I'm looking at things in on a large scale and perhaps you're looking at things on a more personal level? Correct me if I'm wrong. |
|
03-03-2009, 07:13 PM | #18 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Catonsville, MD
|
Quote:
Only for a a smaller section of the population.
__________________
Check out my two current weekly Magic columns! https://www.coolstuffinc.com/a/?action=search&page=1&author[]=Abe%20Sargent |
|
03-03-2009, 07:50 PM | #19 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
Quote:
You deserve a good answer to your great question, but I'm tired, sorry. In a nutshell, we cannot affect things on a large scale but we can try to affect things on a much smaller scale, and hopefully they will add up to mean something on a bigger scale. [I tried a half dozen times to add thoughts to that but nothing is coming out right. Maybe a search, like my election day 2006 thread?] |
|
03-03-2009, 08:21 PM | #20 | |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Prairie du Sac, WI
|
Quote:
I'm tired and a bit under the weather myself so feel free to expand at a later time when you feel up to it. I'm definitely interested in what you have to say. My counter to your nutshell point would be that it is all but impossible for small scale things adding up to anything meaningful on a larger scale when the scale of large is the United States. On the scale of a New Hampshire? Now we are talking. The problem is that New Hampshire is intertwined into this whole federal system that prevents them from embracing true libertarianism. It's interesting to think what could have been if federalism hadn't prevailed in the younger years of our nation. Maybe not as strong, but more localism. |
|
03-03-2009, 08:32 PM | #21 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
|
I don't think I have ever advocated "true libertarianism". Practically, I want people to start thinking along those lines (as in the soundbites in my sig) and perhaps we can affect some things (i.e., move more in that direction, as some states have certainly done).
|
03-03-2009, 09:35 PM | #22 |
Pro Rookie
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Prairie du Sac, WI
|
I'm thinking maybe we have different views of libertarianism. My view is more along the lines that different communities (large or small) have different values and should be able to govern themselves accordingly. This of course varies from region to region and community to community in the USofA.
As long as we have this mishmash of values combining to form a strong federal government, it will be one big mess. Big government interests and big business interests collide and keep a status quo where the common man continues to get screwed. Big government is bad. So is big business. |
03-03-2009, 10:56 PM | #23 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
|
|
03-04-2009, 01:26 PM | #24 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
|
03-04-2009, 11:20 PM | #26 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Concord, MA/UMass
|
The other problem is that 25% of (and increasing) New Hampshire residents are born in Massachusetts, who move there to escape the high taxes but bring their voting patterns and desire for more governmental social services with them.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|