Most free states run by Republicans. Least free states run by Democrats.

[exchemist]

A person is free to do things in China that
are verboten in USA

If you're a CCP member, I'm sure that's true.

 

[Kooky]

If people willingly agree to marry under the condition
that divorce is subject to greater restrictions, I'd allow it.

I hear the Yakuza "allow" contracts subject to the restriction that termination costs a finger.
Sounds like a thing that should definitely be made legal across entire countries!

 

[Kooky]

Freedom, while important, is not the only measure of general quality of human life.

The freedom of one party to abuse another is no freedom at all, only sanctioned oppression.
That is, I would argue, the essence of left (i.e. original) libertarianism, which the overwhelming majority of propertarians simply don't get, for entirely understandable and wholly selfish reasons.

 

[Audie]

If you're a CCP member, I'm sure that's true.

Sssh

 

[Revoltingest]

I hear the Yakuza "allow" contracts subject to the restriction that termination costs a finger.

I've yet to hear of a case in Ameristan
where divorce required amputation.

 

[epronovost]

They have been doing this for years.

It's factual.

That's illogical. It's not because a political think tank does something for years that their are trustworthy. That's a fallacious appeal to tradition.


The Cato Institute has been known t support conspiracy theories and pseudoscience as well as, on occasion very fringe beliefs like child labor and mental illness denialism. More famously and consistently, the Cato institute was one of the foremost think tank engaged in global warming denialism, switching only in recent years, to a simple anti-environmental "things are going to be okay" types of support. They have opposed trade unions which in terms of economic freedom favors heavily the liberties of business owners over that of workers. This is the bias I am most worried about. They also oppose public schools as well as the welfare state in general thus placing more importance on the liberties of the wealthy over that of the poor. Both these positions could bias their analysis strongly in my opinion. The Cato Institute view of liberty is that of the capacity of a person to exercise power in society and make choices and decisions. I personally view liberty as the capacity to have your fundamental rights (health, liberty, equality, political representation, property and education) respected and protected. I believe this would put some doubt into this analysis.

From an individualist, almost Nietzchean view of liberty, it's probably correct to say that Republican dominated States are the most free, but from a humanist view of liberty, that's probably not the case a whole lot.

 

[oldbadger]

All it takes is to look at the lists.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

All it takes is to review the authors of that list. William Ruger was appointed by Trumpy as a US ambassador to Afghanistan.

Loaded much?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Freedom can be used very selfishly, by individuals and governments alike.

Yes, I'm free to not wear a mask during these times, for example. I am also, by the way, free to wear one. One of those choices will be a good one for everybody else around me, and the other will not. I choose the good one, even though I, like most people, don't really like wearing it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

All it takes is to look at the lists.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

Before taking these results too seriously, I suggest looking at how they're calculated. Some of the factors are wild.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/how-its-calculated

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

From an individualist, almost Nietzchean view of liberty, it's probably correct to say that Republican dominated States are the most free, but from a humanist view of liberty, that's probably not the case a whole lot.

Yes. The left and right have different understandings of what freedom is. At the highest level, the left is mostly thinking about social and economic opportunity. Hence things like paid child leave, tuition support, child care, LGBTQ rights, gender equality, and other means that open doors for people to pursue happiness through human development, economic opportunity, and social equality.

On the street, the issues are about voting rights, abortion rights, the right to not be shot by a cop for being black or shot by a lunatic for being in a church or school, and now, the freedom to be segregated from the willfully unvaccinated.

To the right, at the top, freedom means freedom to plunder the treasury, despoil the land, exploit workers, and concentrate wealth without limit, which manifests as freedom from oversight and taxation. This is the purpose of the Cato institute promoting Republican rule. Of course, when you look at how people live under Republican rule, in states where people who vote for them cluster, you see what their vision is for the common man. There's not much freedom in poverty and ignorance, nor much happiness.

On the street, it's about the freedom to go maskless and unvaccinated wherever they like, to carry guns, and to work unvaccinated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What would you change in Cato's criteria?
https://www.freedominthe50states.org/how-its-calculated

One glaring omission, IMO: "at-will" employment laws are a significant threat to personal freedom, since they allow coercion of workers by employers that would otherwise not occur. AFAICT, this isn't even a factor in their list.

In fact, there's quite a bit missing from the list if we look at freedom through the lens of "as I live my life, am I free to do what I want and live as I see fit?" - i.e. actual freedom - rather than their lens of "what laws are imposed on individuals and corporations in our society?"

 

[JustGeorge]

A person is free to do things in China that
are verboten in USA

Like what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes. The left and right have different understandings of what freedom is. At the highest level, the left is mostly thinking about social and economic opportunity. Hence things like paid child leave, tuition support, child care, LGBTQ rights, gender equality, and other means that open doors for people to pursue happiness through human development, economic opportunity, and social equality.

On the street, the issues are about voting rights, abortion rights, the right to not be shot by a cop for being black or shot by a lunatic for being in a church or school, and now, the freedom to be segregated from the willfully unvaccinated.

To the right, at the top, freedom means freedom to plunder the treasury, despoil the land, exploit workers, and concentrate wealth without limit, which manifests as freedom from oversight and taxation. This is the purpose of the Cato institute promoting Republican rule. Of course, when you look at how people live under Republican rule, in states where people who vote for them cluster, you see what their vision is for the common man. There's not much freedom in poverty and ignorance, nor much happiness.

On the street, it's about the freedom to go maskless and unvaccinated wherever they like, to carry guns, and to work unvaccinated.

I agree.

I see things like the availability of transportation choices as directly relating to freedom. For instance:

- person A has 2 employers where he could get a job without owning a car, and 10 where he could get a job with a car.

- person B has 10 employers where he could get a job with or without owning a car.

... all else being equal, person B is more free than person A.

I don't see where this sort of real freedom is captured in the way the Cato Institute has decided to measure "freedom."

 

[Audie]

Like what?

It would take some explaining, its not so much about specific things, as it is circumstances.

I expect in USA its under individual discretion of
police whether they see a need to stop someone for a
broken tail light, say.

In China, all manner of things that on
paper are illegal are simply ignored.
Some things illegal in USA are legal in China

But lets take someone who, say, counterfeits
YSL bags run afoul of authority, he will be made
an example.

To the international community, it is about
cracking down on counterfeiting.
Closer to home its an example of,
watch your step.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

They have been doing this for years.

It's factual.

Yeah, and they tend to rank Indiana high even the People do not get a vote on many issues like DST, right to work, discrimination bills, criminal justice reform, nothing. The state politicians decide what they want and make it happen. That isn't a good recipe for freedom.

 

[Kooky]

One glaring omission, IMO: "at-will" employment laws are a significant threat to personal freedom, since they allow coercion of workers by employers that would otherwise not occur. AFAICT, this isn't even a factor in their list.

It is - they treat states where employees can be fired at will* as considerably freer than those with actual labor regulations, which already tells us where their priorities lie here.

*) No offense, but I find the term "at will employment" a Newspeak-like abomination originating from ideological propaganda

 

[Kooky]

Yeah, and they tend to rank Indiana high even the People do not get a vote on many issues like DST, right to work, discrimination bills, criminal justice reform, nothing. The state politicians decide what they want and make it happen. That isn't a good recipe for freedom.

You'll see many propertarians value the democratic process only when it produces the effects they want.
Otherwise, you always hear charges of "vote buying" as if that was how these proposals worked.

 

[Kooky]

From an individualist, almost Nietzchean view of liberty, it's probably correct to say that Republican dominated States are the most free, but from a humanist view of liberty, that's probably not the case a whole lot.

Nietzsche would tear these guys a new one; among the people he decidedly wasn't fond of, I'd wager that businessmen ranked just below Christian traditionalists in his hierarchy of ire.

(And I'd argue that his notion of freedom had really very little to do with what the Cato Institute and its money men would like to see in the first place, anyway; he seemed to be a lot more interested in issues like freedom of artistic expression, and had very little patience for the kind of resentful whining right-wing media tends to engage in so frequently.)

 

[epronovost]

Nietzsche would tear these guys a new one; among the people he decidedly wasn't fond of, I'd wager that businessmen ranked just below Christian traditionalists in his hierarchy of ire.

(And I'd argue that his notion of freedom had really very little to do with what the Cato Institute and its money men would like to see in the first place, anyway; he seemed to be a lot more interested in issues like freedom of artistic expression, and had very little patience for the kind of resentful whining right-wing media tends to engage in so frequently.)

Nietzsche considered "mastered morality", while imperfect and deserving of critique, to be superior to the "slave morality" of both Christians and humanists in general. Nietzsche didn't believe in equality nor that all were deserving of dignity and access to power and and prosperity, that those who are exceptional should be "allowed" to be exceptional and run over and rule over the mundane.

 

[Kooky]

Nietzsche considered "mastered morality", while imperfect and deserving of critique, to be superior to the "slave morality" of both Christians and humanists in general. Nietzsche didn't believe in equality nor that all were deserving of dignity and access to power and and prosperity, that those who are exceptional should be "allowed" to be exceptional and run over and rule over the mundane.

No, he did not believe in equality; but part of his skewering of "Christian" morals consists of an attack against the fundamental resentment motivating these moral precepts. And, crucially, when he talked about "Christian" morals, he very much meant contemporary Christian morals; the Martyrs and other more expressive elements of early Christianity weren't at all who he was going after, it was the stuffy Spießbürger and their hypocritical conservativism, their ruthless censorship of art and sexuality; not to mention their virulent antisemitism (which was likely one of the things that broke his relationship with Wagner).

I don't think a Nietzschean morality is something to live by (or even livable in any society to begin with) but I think exclusively treating him as the "will to power" / "slave morality" guy is selling his ideas short.

Certainly, there is nothing in his ideas to support the kind of politics Koch, Prager et al advocate and propagate.