A report by a libertarian group I snatched from P'dox, have fun with it.
Warning: PDF, may take a while to load.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/Freedom%20in%20the%2050%20States.pdf (http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/Freedom%20in%20the%2050%20States.pdf)
In case you want a spoiler, New Hampshire is first, New York is last.
I want someone to find and post the state corruption index I saw a while back. It listed Mississippi as the most corrupt state in the nation (I forget what the least was... I think it was some boring state like Iowa), but the researchers checked out D.C. on a whim and found its corruption exceeded Mississippi's by a factor of ten. :lol:
I think it was based on a comparison of political corruption convictions per capita between the states.
QuoteOhio (#32 economic, #46 personal, #38 overall)
has much to improve. Adjusted government spending
is over a standard deviation higher than average.
Ohio is higher than average in every spending category
except transportation. Gun control laws are
relatively poor, though not in a class with Illinois,
New Jersey, and others. Marijuana laws are liberal
overall, but cultivation and sale sentencing could be
reformed. Most gambling is illegal. Private and home
school regulations are unreasonable, including
teacher licensure and mandatory state approval of home
school curricula. Asset forfeiture rules are appropriate.
Eminent domain reform has not gone nearly far
enough. Draconian smoking bans are in place.
Libertarians are, as a rule, totally fucking nuts.
This list leads me to demand regime change in New York.
QuoteMichigan shocked us when it came in first on
economic regulation. It ends up a very solid 14th on
overall freedom (#15 economic, #20 personal). On
fiscal freedom the state does not do very well; in particular,
it is a fairly centralized state, and local governments
depend heavily on state grants. However,
the state lacks a minimum wage, permits workers'
compensation self-insurance and exempts agricultural
workers from the system altogether, has very
little community rating for health insurance, is better
than average on health insurance mandates, has
deregulated natural gas and telecom, is third best in
the country for fewest licensed occupations, has a
good asset forfeiture regime, and has reformed eminent
domain extensively.
Cigarette taxes are high,
but smoking bans offer many exceptions. Sobriety
checkpoints are not authorized.
It shocked me, too. They must not have included Detroit.
I found a "libertarian" ranking of presidents once. Harding was top. Lincoln the bottom.
Hmmm. I don't think it's the same one I found but pretty similar.
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=13379
QuoteThe Libertarian Presidential Rankings: Rated on Peace and Civil and Economic Liberty
Ranking the Presidents Campaign for Liberty Style
The Best Presidents (Starting with the Best):
•1. Zachary Taylor (1849-50)
Free-Market, Noninterventionist Foreign Policy/Clayton-Bulwer Treaty that Ended "Manifest Destiny" as U.S. Policy, Opposed Henry Clay's American System, Peaceful Treatment of Indians, Did Absolutely Nothing
•2. John Tyler (1841-45)
Noninterventionist, Vetoed Henry Clay's Agenda, Expelled from His Own Party for Fighting Big Government, Free Market Economics, Did Not Intervene in the Dorr's Rebellion in Rhode Island, Ended the Second Seminole War in the Seminoles' Favor (let them stay on their reservation, which is all they wanted) and Promoted Peaceful Treatment of the Indians in General, Treaty with China that Opened Up Free-Trade
•3. Chester A. Arthur (1881-85)
Reformed Civil Service, Noninterventionist, Free Market Econ, Good Indian Treatment, Did Nothing
•4. James Monroe (1817-25)
Peaceful Treatment of Indians, Free-Market, Small Government, Noninterventionist, Vetoed Corporate Welfare, Refused to Back the Monroe Doctrine with Force via a Treaty with Britain
•5. Rutherford B. Hayes (1877-81)
Noninterventionist, Free-Market, Withdrew Troops from South, Low Taxes, Recommended Presidential Term Limits, Opposed Central Banking/Paper Money
•6. Grove Cleveland (1885-89, 93-97)
Defeated Benjamin Harrison, Noninterventionist, Lower Tariffs, Used Veto Extensively, Small Government, Gold Standard, Reduced Federal Employees, Vetoed Corporate/Personal Welfare, Refused to Enter a Treaty with Britain to Exploit the Congo, Refused to Annex Hawaii against the Will of the People There, Opposed Nicaraguan Canal Treaty, Fought for Freedom in a time when it was not all that popular
•7. Andrew Johnson (1865-69)
Opposed 14th Amendment (which basically gave the power to the federal government to dictate all the policies of the States), Vetoed Extensively, Fought Radical Reconstruction and South Occupation, Gave Amnesty for Confederates, Fought for the Constitution, even risking impeachment and removal
•8. Silent Calvin Coolidge (1923-29)
Noninterventionist, Opposed the League of Nations, Lower Taxes, Vetoed Farm Subsidies/Bailouts, Paid Debt, Gave Native Americans Citizenship, Free Market, BUT: Continued Prohibition/the Federal Reserve
•9. Millard Fillmore (1850-53)
Abolished D.C. Slave Trade, Neutrality in Europe Affairs, Refused to Intervene in Hungarian Revolution Didn't Do Much, Compromise of 1850 (California as a Free-State) BUT: Gunboat Diplomacy with Japan, the Fugitive Slave Act
•10. Martin Van Buren (1837-41)
Free-Market, Noninterventionist, Made States Use a Gold or Silver Standard, Did Not Intervene in the Panic of 1837, Lower Tariffs, Prevented War with Canada by Resolving the Border dispute between Maine and Canada BUT: Trail of Tears (although he did not order it, he did implement it)
•11. Thomas Jefferson (1801-09)
Ended Federalist Power, Repealed Alien + Sedition Acts (and Pardons for Violators), Non-Interventionism as Official U.S. Policy, Lower Taxes, Paid the Debt BUT: Undeclared Barbary Pirates War, Continued U.S. Bank, Started the Policy of Indian Relocation, Embargo Against Britain and France (led to essentially starvation of Americans), The LA Purchase/Taxation of the Inhabitants without Representation
•12. George Washington (1789-97)
Noninterventionist, Two Term Precedent, BUT: Created the First Fugitive Slave Act, Created the US Bank, Protectionist Tariff, Unconstitutional Crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion (which was in opposition to his new tax to support his unconstitutional bank), Assumption of State Debt, Alexander Hamilton Appointment, The Militia Act of 1792 (created a draft system)
•13. Warren G. Harding (1921-23)
No League of Nations, Created the Government Accounting Office (GAO), Lowered Income Tax, Pardon for Wilson's Political Prisoners/Conscientious Objectors But: Continued Prohibition and the Federal Reserve, Instituted the First Federal Drug Laws and a High Protectionist Tariff
•14. Ulysses S. Grant (1869-77)
Stayed out of War with Spain During a Cuban Revolt, More Amnesty for Confederates, 15th Amendment Voting Rights, Free-market Economics, Vetoed a Bill to Increase the Money Supply, Put the U.S. Back on the Gold Standard, Lowered the Overall Troops in the South, Opposed Radical Reconstruction, Reduced the debt, Reduced Taxes, Fired Thousands of Government Employees, BUT: Corruption, Used Troops to Prop Up Republican Governors in the South, Fought For More Corporate Welfare, U.S. Intervention in Liberia
•15. Andrew Jackson (1829-37)
Ended US Bank and Tariff of Abominations, Nonintervention, Free-Market, BUT: Ordered the Trail of Tears, Threatened Civil War during the Nullification Crisis, Started the Spoils System
•16. John Quincy Adams (1825-29)
Noninterventionist, Opposed the forced relocation of the Indians BUT: Stole the Election of 1824, Started the American System/Corporate Welfare, Tariff of Abominations (Nearly Caused Southern Secession/Civil War)
•17. Jimmy Carter (1977-81)
Reduced Spending as % of GDP, Removed Panamanian Dictator Manuel Noriega from the CIA payroll, Cut the Presidential Staff by a Third, Gave Unconditional Amnesty to All Vietnam War Draft Dodgers, Airline Deregulation Act, Deregulation of Trucking, Rail, and Finance Industries, Vetoed a Major Public Works Bills, Appointment of Volcker to the FED/Tight Money Policies, Cut the Defense Budget by 6 Billion, Attempted to Remove Troops From Korea, Removed Nuclear Weapons from Korea, SALT II Arms Limitation Treaty BUT: Created the Dept of Energy, Price Controls on Oil in Response to the 1979 Energy Crisis, Windfall Tax on Oil, Afghanistan Intervention (Operation Cyclone)/Funding Islamic Radicals, Iran Hostage Negotiations, Reinstituted Draft Registration
•18. Gerald Ford (1974-77)
Executive Order Banning the Assassination of Foreign Leaders, The Noninterventionist Helsinki Accords, Vetoed Extensively, Tried to Stop Oil Price Controls, Lowered Taxes, Refused to Give a Federal Bailout to NYC, CIA Under Congressional Oversight, Temporarily Stopped Foreign Aid to Israel, Ceded the Panama Canal, No Wars, No New Taxes, And No New Federal Depts BUT: Pardoned Nixon, Funded a Rebellion in Iraq, The Mayaguez Incident, Billions of Dollars to Prop Up the South Vietnam Dictator
•19. Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
Noninterventionist, No Wars BUT: Prolonged the Great Depression, Economic Intervention, and Welfare
•20. Franklin Pierce (1853-57)
Expansionist/Imperialistic Policies/Ostend Manifesto (Proposed Taking Cuba By Force), Gadsden Purchase (waste of taxpayers' money, served only corporate interests), Corporate Welfare via a Transcontinental Railroad, which necessitated the passing of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which caused bleeding Kansas
The Worst (Starting with the Worst)
•1. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)
Caused the Civil War, Burned the South, Started the First Draft Ever, Huge Protection Tariffs, Income Tax, Corporate Welfare, Cotton Trade Takeover, Huge Deficits, US Bank/Ended the Gold Standard with the Greenback, Censorship of the Press, Imprisonment/Deportation of Political Opponents, Deported African-Americas to Liberia
•2. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)
World War I, The Draft, The Federal Reserve, Alcohol Prohibition, Anti-Trust Suits, Censorship of Press/Imprisonment of Political Opponents, Nicaragua/Haiti Interventions, Nationalized the Economy, Attempted the League of Nations
•3. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-45)
War with Japan (easily avoided if we did not have troops all over the Pacific already), The Draft, Japanese Internment Camps, Marijuana Prohibition, Lengthened Great Depression by at least 10 years, Income Tax Increased to 94%, The New Deal, Created a Permanent Interventionist Foreign Policy Via the U.N. Banned the Private Ownership of Gold in Order to Destroy the Dollar/Gold Standard, Liberal Court Appointees, Served Four Terms Until His Death as if he was a king
•4. George W. Bush (2001-2009)
Undeclared Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Lying about the Reasons for War, Doubled Regulatory Spending/Sarbanes Oxley/14,000 New Pages in Regulations, Violated States' Rights through Medical Marijuana Raids, PATRIOT Act/Illegal Wiretapping, Huge Deficit Spending, Inflation, Torture, Medicaid D, Stimulus Packages/Bailouts, Tariffs on Steel and Lumber, Corruption/Halliburtan, Nationalized the Banks
•5. Harry S. Truman (1945-53)
Unnecessarily Nuked 2 Cities and the Lied to Americans Claiming They Were Military Targets, The Undeclared Korean War, 90% Income Tax, Created the CIA, Price Controls, Started the American Empire via the UN/NATO, The Draft, Created the State of Israel, Welfare/Fair Deal, Inflation
•6. Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-69)
The Undeclared Vietnam War/Lying about the Gulf of Tonkin, The Draft, The War on Poverty, Medicare and Medicaid/The Great Society, Civil Rights Acts/Violation of Private Property, Deficit Spending
•7. William McKinley (1897-1901)
Spanish-American War, The Blatantly Imperialistic Philippine War, Imprisoned Political Opponents, Huge Tariffs, Intervened in the Boxer Rebellion, Expansionist/Imperialistic Policies like Annexing Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Philippians, and Guam, America's Asian Empire, which ultimately led to Pearl Harbor and WWII
•8. Richard Nixon (1969-74)
The Undeclared Vietnam War, The Draft, Wage/Price Control, Created the DEA and Started the Drug War, Created the EPA, Instituted the National 55 Speed Limit, Supported the Pakistani Government during the Genocide against the Indians/Threatened India with Nuclear Weapons leading to Nuclear Armament on Both Sides, Officially Ended the Gold Standard!
•9. William Taft (1909-13)
The Income Tax and Direct Election of Senators Amendments, Anti-Trust Suits, Foreign Aid, Price Fixing, Nicaragua Interventions
•10. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09)
High Tariffs, Revived Lincoln's Greenback in Order to Expand the Money Supply, Essentially Created the FDA, Anti-Trust Suits, The Attempted Square Deal, An Imperialist, Enhance Executive Power, Continued America's Empire, Private Welfare, Occupation of Panama, Price Fixing of Railroad Rates, Military Response to Coal Strike, Inheritance Tax, Expanded the Navy/Sent them to Japan (led to Japanese belief in a strong military/imperialism: WWII)
•11. George H.W. Bush (1989-93)
Raised Taxes, Undeclared Gulf War, Invaded Panama, Troops in Saudi Arabia (9/11), Deficit Spending
•12. James Buchanan (1857-1861)
Ridiculous Position on Secession, Huge Tariff, Utah War, Endorsed the Fraud Kansas Constitution, Deficit Spending, Attempted to Reinforce Fort Sumter, Did not Withdraw Troops from the South (Led to Civil War)
•13. Ronald Reagan (1981-89)
Escalated the Drug War, Iran-Contra, Huge Deficit Spending, Undeclared Interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Angola, Nicaragua, Lebanon, Libya, Grenada, Columbia, But Made People Believe in Free-Markets Again, The Biggest Tax Cut Ever, Less Regulations
•14. John F. Kennedy (1961-63)
Bay of Pigs, First NonWar/Recession Deficit, Sent troops to Vietnam, Cuban Missile Crisis (almost caused Nuclear War), Iraq Coup (Helped the Rise of Saddam Hussein), Created the Peace Corps, Planned and Pushed for All of the Great Society Programs
•15. Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-61)
Income Tax at 90%, CIA Intervention in Cuba, CIA Iran Coup/Installation of the Shah, Guatemalan Coup of the Democratically Elected Leader, Created the Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, Lebanon and Congo Interventions, Deported 80,000 Mexican Workers, Formed SEATO, Assistance to Vietnam, Liberal Court Appointees
•16. Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Iraq Sanctions/Iraq 'Regime Change' Policy/Troops in Saudi Arabia (9/11), Kosovo/Somalia Undeclared Wars, Gun Control, Waco TX Raid, Janet Reno/Capital Punishment for Drug Dealers, But: Balanced Budget, Reduced Government Spending as Percentage of GDP
•17. James K. Polk (1845-49)
Mexican War, the First Imperialistic War in American History, Lied About the Causes of It to Congress, BUT: generally very free market
•18. Benjamin Harrison (1889-93)
Sherman Antitrust Act, Instituted a Huge Protectionist Tariff, First Billion Dollar Congress, Imperialist, Federal Funding of Colleges, Sugar Growers Subsidy
•19. James Madison (1809-17)
Started the War of 1812, Invaded Spanish Florida, Rechartered the U.S. Bank, Embargo Against France and Britain, Raised Tariffs, Created a Large Standing Army, More Debt
•20. John Adams (1797-1801)
Did Nothing Good: The Quasi War with France, Raised taxes, Naturalization, Alien, Alien and Enemies, and Sedition Acts, Appointment of John Marshall, Judiciary Act of 1801, U.S. Bank
It doesn't surprise me that people who are stuck in the 19th century would love 19th century presidents the most.
I find it surprising the Libertarians suggest we end one of Texas' most beloved practices: having every single significant legal position be elected from the Supreme Court to the Public Prosecutor and on down. Having political hacks as DAs and prosecutors and easily corruptible judges is one of our most beloved institutions.
Quote from: charliebear on June 24, 2009, 08:20:16 AM
QuoteMichigan shocked us when it came in first on
economic regulation. It ends up a very solid 14th on
overall freedom (#15 economic, #20 personal). On
fiscal freedom the state does not do very well; in particular,
it is a fairly centralized state, and local governments
depend heavily on state grants. However,
the state lacks a minimum wage, permits workers'
compensation self-insurance and exempts agricultural
workers from the system altogether, has very
little community rating for health insurance, is better
than average on health insurance mandates, has
deregulated natural gas and telecom, is third best in
the country for fewest licensed occupations, has a
good asset forfeiture regime, and has reformed eminent
domain extensively.
Cigarette taxes are high,
but smoking bans offer many exceptions. Sobriety
checkpoints are not authorized.
It shocked me, too. They must not have included Detroit.
With the recent massive cuts in the state law enforcement budget we'll soon the freest state of all. :)
QuoteOpposed Henry Clay's American System
Ok what sort of insane freak would actually find opposition to the American System a positive?
Quote from: charliebear on June 24, 2009, 08:20:16 AM
It shocked me, too. They must not have included Detroit.
freedom is free. so is unemployment and crumbling infrastructure. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2009, 08:27:23 AM
QuoteOpposed Henry Clay's American System
Ok what sort of insane freak would actually find opposition to the American System a positive?
The same sort who find direct election of senators a negative (and blame Taft for it.)
Quote from: Savonarola on June 24, 2009, 08:29:45 AM
The same sort who find direct election of senators a negative (and blame Taft for it.)
Oh and this just in: the founder of the State of Israel was Harry Truman.
Quote
The Worst (Starting with the Worst)
•1. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)
:bleeding:
Quote from: saskganesh on June 24, 2009, 08:29:41 AM
Quote from: charliebear on June 24, 2009, 08:20:16 AM
It shocked me, too. They must not have included Detroit.
freedom is free. so is unemployment and crumbling infrastructure. ;)
We're like Hobbes's vision of the state of nature:
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. :)
Lincoln ended slavery and they voted him the worst? :huh:
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 08:36:34 AM
Lincoln ended slavery and they voted him the worst? :huh:
He caused the Civil War. :mad:
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 08:36:34 AM
Lincoln ended slavery and they voted him the worst? :huh:
He stomped all over rights to property :angry:
Big government coming in and telling me who I can and cannot own.
Quote from: Savonarola on June 24, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
He caused the Civil War. :mad:
I believe his first inaugural address was: 'Fuck you South :nelson '
That's some quality entertainment, Raz, thanks for the article. :)
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 08:36:34 AM
Lincoln ended slavery and they voted him the worst? :huh:
Slavery was a form of trade. Besides lots of Libertarians are southern sympathizers.
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2009, 08:27:23 AM
QuoteOpposed Henry Clay's American System
Ok what sort of insane freak would actually find opposition to the American System a positive?
Free traders.
Well, let me say this: anybody who ranks Mississippi tops in corruption is an idiot.
We've got nothing on Louisiana.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2009, 08:47:39 AM
Free traders.
It was the only way to properly get infrastructure off the ground. Either that or find something else to tax.
At any rate, these people are the sort of fetishists who worship the original US constitution and Bill of Rights, and think that the US founding fathers were good and clever men, rather than wretched traitors.
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2009, 08:49:27 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2009, 08:47:39 AM
Free traders.
It was the only way to properly get infrastructure off the ground. Either that or find something else to tax.
Why would they care about that?
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2009, 08:53:16 AM
At any rate, these people are the sort of fetishists who worship the original US constitution and Bill of Rights, and think that the US founding fathers were good and clever men, rather than wretched traitors.
Unless said founding father was a federalist.
Quote from: Scipio on June 24, 2009, 08:49:20 AM
Well, let me say this: anybody who ranks Mississippi tops in corruption is an idiot.
We've got nothing on Louisiana.
I wish I had time to google for that article... it mentioned Louisiana being formerly the worst IIRC, but said it's been cleaning up its act drastically over the past decade.
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2009, 08:13:17 AM
This list leads me to demand regime change in New York.
They are way ahead of you. Now if they can only find out who is in charge of the State Senate. :lmfao:
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2009, 08:40:09 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 24, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
He caused the Civil War. :mad:
I believe his first inaugural address was: 'Fuck you South :nelson '
That must have been liberating.
LBJ got negative marks for the Civil Rights Act. :lol:
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 09:44:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2009, 08:40:09 AM
Quote from: Savonarola on June 24, 2009, 08:38:48 AM
He caused the Civil War. :mad:
I believe his first inaugural address was: 'Fuck you South :nelson '
That must have been liberating.
LBJ got negative marks for the Civil Rights Act. :lol:
Are you mocking Fahdiz's idol Goldwater!!!!?:mad:
Ah, Libertarians:
QuoteMarriage and civil union laws are coded equally with asset forfeiture and arrests for victimless crimes because of the high salience of the issue. However, we do not consider same-sex marriage to be a freedom concern either way. Instead, it seems to be a football in the so-called "culture wars." Nevertheless, we do think that state attempts to enhance the ability of
same-sex partners to make voluntary contracts that affect life or death decisions unequivocally enhance individual liberty.
QuoteLand and environmental regulations make up just one-fourteenth of the regulation score. We weight
this category low because we recognize that there are real public goods issues with respect to 1) wild fauna
and flora that do not respect property boundaries, 2)common water and air resources, and 3) nuisancecreating
land uses. We would argue that property owners can solve most problems of the second and third types with various contractual arrangements, such as homeowners' associations. Additionally, some land-use planning could be seen as a legitimate response to distorted incentives created by road subsidies. However, we still include these regulations as negatives in the index because we prefer Coase-style bargaining solutions to top-down, command-andcontrol regulations that may not meet the real needs of local people.22
Can somebody explain to me why libertarians consider less restrictions on pollution a sign of freedom? If all pollution remained only on your property, then sure, I can buy that. But since that's not the case, ISTM that states which have laxer regulations are actually less free, because my health, aesthetic enjoyment of the environment, and quality of life are now being infringed upon somebody else, no?
Quote from: Faeelin on June 24, 2009, 09:58:32 AM
Ah, Libertarians:
QuoteMarriage and civil union laws are coded equally with asset forfeiture and arrests for victimless crimes because of the high salience of the issue. However, we do not consider same-sex marriage to be a freedom concern either way. Instead, it seems to be a football in the so-called "culture wars." Nevertheless, we do think that state attempts to enhance the ability of
same-sex partners to make voluntary contracts that affect life or death decisions unequivocally enhance individual liberty.
QuoteOn the other hand, many states perform quite poorly in providing a liberty-friendly environment for their
citizens. New York is the least free by a considerable margin.
Can somebody explain to me why libertarians consider less restrictions on pollution a sign of freedom? If all pollution remained only on your property, then sure, I can buy that. But since that's not the case, ISTM hthat states which have laxer regulations are actually less free, because my health, aesthetic enjoyment of the environment, and quality of life are now being infringed upon somebody else, no?
ISTM?
Is that what libertarians think?
At any rate, environmental regulation doesn't really have much of a freedom component.
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2009, 10:07:55 AM
Is that what libertarians think?
At any rate, environmental regulation doesn't really have much of a freedom component.
It does if the government is taking away your right to dump toxic waste in a river.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 24, 2009, 09:58:32 AM
Can somebody explain to me why libertarians consider less restrictions on pollution a sign of freedom? If all pollution remained only on your property, then sure, I can buy that. But since that's not the case, ISTM hthat states which have laxer regulations are actually less free, because my health, aesthetic enjoyment of the environment, and quality of life are now being infringed upon somebody else, no?
hthat?
Quote from: Faeelin on June 24, 2009, 09:58:32 AM
Ah, Libertarians:
Personally, I founf this part quite puzzling:
QuoteLibertarians generally support rules of the road that facilitate optimal flow
of traffic and prohibit reckless and intoxicated drivers from imposing risks of harm on others, but oppose laws that punish private behavior that does not violate
the rights of others. For that reason, seat belt laws and sobriety checkpoints count as notable infringements on individual liberty.
So, passing a breathalizer test is a notable infringement on your individual liberty? :huh: I also don't get the obsession with homeschooling.
Quote•1. Abraham Lincoln (1861-65)
Caused the Civil War, Burned the South, Started the First Draft Ever, Huge Protection Tariffs, Income Tax, Corporate Welfare, Cotton Trade Takeover, Huge Deficits, US Bank/Ended the Gold Standard with the Greenback, Censorship of the Press, Imprisonment/Deportation of Political Opponents, Deported African-Americas to Liberia
I do declare! I got myself the vapors as the dream of a new south rising flashed before my eyes. squee!
Jeff Davis started the first American draft. :contract:
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 10:16:08 AM
So, passing a breathalizer test is a notable infringement on your individual liberty?
It is a notable infringement on my right to be killed by a drunk driver you fascist monster :angry:
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 10:16:08 AM
So, passing a breathalizer test is a notable infringement on your individual liberty? :huh: I also don't get the obsession with homeschooling.
I agree with them that it is annoying to be in a hurry and have to wait 10 minutes at a random checkpoint to pass a sobriety test. Also, as I recently got a seatbelt violation ticket on a trip that was a couple of blocks, I sympathize with them there.
The homeschooling? When you are worried about government schools indoctrinating your children with lessons passed down from the UN's black helicopters (possibly involving heresies such as evolution), they are an important defense of liberty. I'm less sympathetic on that front.
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 10:16:08 AM
I also don't get the obsession with homeschooling.
I reserve the right to warp my kids.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 10:24:00 AM
I reserve the right to warp my kids.
Yeah but you are too lazy to homeschool.
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2009, 10:24:33 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 10:24:00 AM
I reserve the right to warp my kids.
Yeah but you are too lazy to homeschool.
That is woman's work.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 10:12:12 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 24, 2009, 10:07:55 AM
Is that what libertarians think?
At any rate, environmental regulation doesn't really have much of a freedom component.
It does if the government is taking away your right to dump toxic waste in a river.
To do so is not a right, it is a privilege.
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 10:16:08 AM
I also don't get the obsession with homeschooling.
Libertarians and Christian fundamentalists are often the same.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 10:24:00 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 10:16:08 AM
I also don't get the obsession with homeschooling.
I reserve the right to warp my kids.
Just spray them with the hose and leave'em out in the sun all day.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 24, 2009, 10:35:20 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 24, 2009, 10:24:00 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 10:16:08 AM
I also don't get the obsession with homeschooling.
I reserve the right to warp my kids.
Just spray them with the hose and leave'em out in the sun all day.
they aren't shrinky dinks.
Libertarians are the classic example of the principle that any idea, no matter how noble, becomes fucking nuts when taken to an extreme.
It seems from the report that banning homeschooling is as bad as Holocaust. :D
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 10:23:20 AM
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 10:16:08 AM
So, passing a breathalizer test is a notable infringement on your individual liberty? :huh: I also don't get the obsession with homeschooling.
I agree with them that it is annoying to be in a hurry and have to wait 10 minutes at a random checkpoint to pass a sobriety test. Also, as I recently got a seatbelt violation ticket on a trip that was a couple of blocks, I sympathize with them there.
The homeschooling? When you are worried about government schools indoctrinating your children with lessons passed down from the UN's black helicopters (possibly involving heresies such as evolution), they are an important defense of liberty. I'm less sympathetic on that front.
I'm vehemently opposed to homeschooling. A situation with idiot parents teaching their children bullshit notwithstanding, even if parents have PhDs in all known sciences, an important part of education is socialization of minors. Otherwise you end up with Raz-s.
Quote from: Faeelin on June 24, 2009, 09:58:32 AM
Can somebody explain to me why libertarians consider less restrictions on pollution a sign of freedom? If all pollution remained only on your property, then sure, I can buy that. But since that's not the case, ISTM that states which have laxer regulations are actually less free, because my health, aesthetic enjoyment of the environment, and quality of life are now being infringed upon somebody else, no?
Libertarians are concerned with nominal freedom from the government. They are not at all concerned about freedom from other sources of coercion. This is the biggest reason why their ideology is utterly absurd, and why they're so often missing the forest for the trees.
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 10:16:08 AM
So, passing a breathalizer test is a notable infringement on your individual liberty? :huh: I also don't get the obsession with homeschooling.
Sobriety checkpoint is the random testing for drunk driving, without any prior reason for suspicion. It's a legitimately questionable practice.
As for homeschooling, they're obsessed with it because sending children to public schools is sending them for government indoctrination. Again they have somewhat of a point there.
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 12:10:27 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 10:16:08 AM
So, passing a breathalizer test is a notable infringement on your individual liberty? :huh: I also don't get the obsession with homeschooling.
Sobriety checkpoint is the random testing for drunk driving, without any prior reason for suspicion. It's a legitimately questionable practice.
I don't really know how that works in the USA, but over here they're performed mostly late at night in nightlife hotspots and during peak times of the year, so IMO they're warranted. It's not just about fining, but about road security, by taking away drunk drivers.
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 12:06:56 PM
Libertarians are concerned with nominal freedom from the government. They are not at all concerned about freedom from other sources of coercion. This is the biggest reason why their ideology is utterly absurd, and why they're so often missing the forest for the trees.
That is correct. At the core of Libertarian Party values, the party is really not a pro-freedom party. Rather, it's an anti-government party.... not an anarchist party per se, but rather one that just despises government as is.
This is why so many libertarians make a distinction between Libertarians and libertarians. I think it's possible to be a libertarian and dislike big government, but yet still recognize the necessity of government overall. That message is often missed or drowned out, though.
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 10:39:40 AM
Libertarians are the classic example of the principle that any idea, no matter how noble, becomes fucking nuts when taken to an extreme.
It seems from the report that banning homeschooling is as bad as Holocaust. :D
Some message boards I go to have some libertarian posters that think Lincoln was just as bad as Hitler. :ph34r:
Yep, those people are probably libertarians in the same sense that the Montana Freemen were.
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 12:35:26 PM
I don't really know how that works in the USA, but over here they're performed mostly late at night in nightlife hotspots and during peak times of the year, so IMO they're warranted. It's not just about fining, but about road security, by taking away drunk drivers.
You're not disproving what I'm saying. Doing random drunk driving testing during times of high likelihood of drunk driving is still random testing. You're still testing someone who has not personally exhibited signs of any wrongdoing. Effectiveness and respect for personal freedom are not the same thing.
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2009, 12:58:29 PM
Yep, those people are probably libertarians in the same sense that the Montana Freemen were.
Arakis, a place in Montana?
Quote from: Vince on June 24, 2009, 12:53:54 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 10:39:40 AM
Libertarians are the classic example of the principle that any idea, no matter how noble, becomes fucking nuts when taken to an extreme.
It seems from the report that banning homeschooling is as bad as Holocaust. :D
Some message boards I go to have some libertarian posters that think Lincoln was just as bad as Hitler. :ph34r:
Nobody like that here, right Lettow?
Okay so NY is fucked up but we have something no other state has. Two State Senates!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/nyregion/25albany.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/nyregion/25albany.html?hp)
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 12:06:56 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 24, 2009, 09:58:32 AM
Can somebody explain to me why libertarians consider less restrictions on pollution a sign of freedom? If all pollution remained only on your property, then sure, I can buy that. But since that's not the case, ISTM that states which have laxer regulations are actually less free, because my health, aesthetic enjoyment of the environment, and quality of life are now being infringed upon somebody else, no?
Libertarians are concerned with nominal freedom from the government. They are not at all concerned about freedom from other sources of coercion. This is the biggest reason why their ideology is utterly absurd, and why they're so often missing the forest for the trees.
What I thought was interesting was while they bashed Washington and Lincoln for putting down uprisings with military force and Teddy Roosevelt for sending the military in during the coal strike they made no mention of Hayes and use of military force during the great railroad strike.
Quote from: Vince on June 24, 2009, 01:56:53 PM
Okay so NY is fucked up but we have something no other state has. Two State Senates!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/nyregion/25albany.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/nyregion/25albany.html?hp)
I guess New Yorkers believe that you can't have too much of a good thing.
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 12:06:56 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on June 24, 2009, 09:58:32 AM
Can somebody explain to me why libertarians consider less restrictions on pollution a sign of freedom? If all pollution remained only on your property, then sure, I can buy that. But since that's not the case, ISTM that states which have laxer regulations are actually less free, because my health, aesthetic enjoyment of the environment, and quality of life are now being infringed upon somebody else, no?
Libertarians are concerned with nominal freedom from the government. They are not at all concerned about freedom from other sources of coercion. This is the biggest reason why their ideology is utterly absurd, and why they're so often missing the forest for the trees.
Indeed. For example they completely seem to disregard the problem created by unequal resources in a completely "free" society.
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 12:10:27 PMAs for homeschooling, they're obsessed with it because sending children to public schools is sending them for government indoctrination. Again they have somewhat of a point there.
I disagree. If anything, parental authority seems to be entirely anti-libertarian - after all, it seems to postulate that one human being should have a power over another by the simple virtue of genetic makeup. In fact, a consistently libertarian position would involve depriving parents of any authority over their children.
Of course, libertarians are too dumb to see how stupid they are. :P
Quote from: Caliga on June 24, 2009, 12:41:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 12:06:56 PM
Libertarians are concerned with nominal freedom from the government. They are not at all concerned about freedom from other sources of coercion. This is the biggest reason why their ideology is utterly absurd, and why they're so often missing the forest for the trees.
That is correct. At the core of Libertarian Party values, the party is really not a pro-freedom party. Rather, it's an anti-government party.... not an anarchist party per se, but rather one that just despises government as is.
This is why so many libertarians make a distinction between Libertarians and libertarians. I think it's possible to be a libertarian and dislike big government, but yet still recognize the necessity of government overall. That message is often missed or drowned out, though.
Which is what makes libertarianism so retarded.
After all, the government is at least supposed to be trained in addressing social and political problems of individuals.
Libertarians are the political equivalent of people who prefer to "listen to their bodies" and use "home medicine" (chicken broth and garlic) instead of going to a professional physician when there is something wrong with their health. ;)
Children are property.
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 03:37:46 PM
Which is what makes libertarianism so retarded.
After all, the government is at least supposed to be trained in addressing social and political problems of individuals.
Libertarians are the political equivalent of people who prefer to "listen to their bodies" and use "home medicine" (chicken broth and garlic) instead of going to a professional physician when there is something wrong with their health. ;)
We haven't seen an insane Marti analogy for awhile. I was starting to miss them. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2009, 03:57:32 PM
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 03:37:46 PM
Which is what makes libertarianism so retarded.
After all, the government is at least supposed to be trained in addressing social and political problems of individuals.
Libertarians are the political equivalent of people who prefer to "listen to their bodies" and use "home medicine" (chicken broth and garlic) instead of going to a professional physician when there is something wrong with their health. ;)
We haven't seen an insane Marti analogy for awhile. I was starting to miss them. :hug:
They are not insane. They are visionary. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 03:37:46 PM
After all, the government is at least supposed to be trained in addressing social and political problems of individuals.
:lmfao: x infinity
You know who else is so trained, or at least claims to be?
The clergy.
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2009, 08:27:23 AM
QuoteOpposed Henry Clay's American System
Ok what sort of insane freak would actually find opposition to the American System a positive?
The one who understands that mercantilism was a stupid and self-destructive policy?
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 01:37:47 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 12:35:26 PM
I don't really know how that works in the USA, but over here they're performed mostly late at night in nightlife hotspots and during peak times of the year, so IMO they're warranted. It's not just about fining, but about road security, by taking away drunk drivers.
You're not disproving what I'm saying. Doing random drunk driving testing during times of high likelihood of drunk driving is still random testing. You're still testing someone who has not personally exhibited signs of any wrongdoing. Effectiveness and respect for personal freedom are not the same thing.
Personally, it doesn't bother me. Random testing also has a preventive and disuasory function with something that is not to joke about.
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 04:09:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 01:37:47 PM
Quote from: The Larch on June 24, 2009, 12:35:26 PM
I don't really know how that works in the USA, but over here they're performed mostly late at night in nightlife hotspots and during peak times of the year, so IMO they're warranted. It's not just about fining, but about road security, by taking away drunk drivers.
You're not disproving what I'm saying. Doing random drunk driving testing during times of high likelihood of drunk driving is still random testing. You're still testing someone who has not personally exhibited signs of any wrongdoing. Effectiveness and respect for personal freedom are not the same thing.
Personally, it doesn't bother me. Random testing also has a preventive and disuasory function with something that is not to joke about.
This is true, and I think random roadside testing is a great law enforcement tool.
But it is a tradeoff of "freedom". You are "punishing" people who have done nothing wrong, and of whom the police have no reason to suspect.
The thing is that most libertarians don't like the idea of a tradeoff. Liberty trumps everything else.
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2009, 04:14:05 PM
The thing is that most libertarians don't like the idea of a tradeoff. Liberty trumps everything else.
Really?
"Most" of them?
I cannot even think of
one of them who would agree with that statement.
QuoteAlaska'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.
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
Indeed. For example they completely seem to disregard the problem created by unequal resources in a completely "free" society.
That's not true. The Public Choice school of economics is very much rooted in libertarianism and directly addresses the issue of distortions created by the "haves" buying favorable regulation.
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2009, 04:18:08 PM
Really?
"Most" of them?
I cannot even think of one of them who would agree with that statement.
This entire thread is an argument against a strawman. I can't fault Beeb too much for joining the fun.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2009, 04:24:09 PM
That's not true. The Public Choice school of economics is very much rooted in libertarianism and directly addresses the issue of distortions created by the "haves" buying favorable regulation.
Buying regulation is only a small part of the problem. In general, these days we live in a highly interdependent society. That means that most individuals can have their rights effectively curtailed by economic pressure alone. Libertarians, even small-l libertarians, don't realize the possible implications of that, and instead stick to the unrealistic assumption that free market would remove all the undue influences by the haves over the have-nots.
Quote from: Habbaku on June 24, 2009, 04:25:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2009, 04:18:08 PM
Really?
"Most" of them?
I cannot even think of one of them who would agree with that statement.
This entire thread is an argument against a strawman. I can't fault Beeb too much for joining the fun.
All arguments against Libertarians are strawman type attacks because there aren't any actual libertarians.
Quote from: Martinus on June 24, 2009, 03:34:33 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 12:10:27 PMAs for homeschooling, they're obsessed with it because sending children to public schools is sending them for government indoctrination. Again they have somewhat of a point there.
I disagree. If anything, parental authority seems to be entirely anti-libertarian - after all, it seems to postulate that one human being should have a power over another by the simple virtue of genetic makeup. In fact, a consistently libertarian position would involve depriving parents of any authority over their children.
Of course, libertarians are too dumb to see how stupid they are. :P
Libertarian != anarchist.
But then again, Martinus is too dumb (and not a real lawyer) to see how stupid his posts are.
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 04:33:52 PM
Buying regulation is only a small part of the problem. In general, these days we live in a highly interdependent society. That means that most individuals can have their rights effectively curtailed by economic pressure alone. Libertarians, even small-l libertarians, don't realize the possible implications of that, and instead stick to the unrealistic assumption that free market would remove all the undue influences by the haves over the have-nots.
If you're not talking regulation then you're talking about private exchange. So when you talk about curtailed rights and undue influence you're talking about public limitations on what behavior private parties can contract for. Who are we to decide?
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2009, 04:18:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2009, 04:14:05 PM
The thing is that most libertarians don't like the idea of a tradeoff. Liberty trumps everything else.
Really?
"Most" of them?
I cannot even think of one of them who would agree with that statement.
Hey - at least I threw in a "most". :P
It's very difficult to define what members of any ideology might believe in. That was my 30 second attempt at it.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 10:23:20 AM
I agree with them that it is annoying to be in a hurry and have to wait 10 minutes at a random checkpoint to pass a sobriety test. Also, as I recently got a seatbelt violation ticket on a trip that was a couple of blocks, I sympathize with them there.
Eh. That doesn't make sense. Most accidents take place during short trips. That's precisely when you want to have your seatbelt on.
Also, how would have the cop known you were only traveling a couple blocks?
Quote from: Iormlund on June 24, 2009, 05:41:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 10:23:20 AM
I agree with them that it is annoying to be in a hurry and have to wait 10 minutes at a random checkpoint to pass a sobriety test. Also, as I recently got a seatbelt violation ticket on a trip that was a couple of blocks, I sympathize with them there.
Eh. That doesn't make sense. Most accidents take place during short trips. That's precisely when you want to have your seatbelt on.
Also, how would have the cop known you were only traveling a couple blocks?
That is true. About a quarter of accidents happen within 1 mile of one's home.
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 05:46:31 PM
That is true. About a quarter of accidents happen within 1 mile of one's home.
Well, no shit, considering almost all trips will involve you being within 1 mile of one's home on the outset and the return...
Quote from: ulmont on June 24, 2009, 06:05:54 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2009, 05:46:31 PM
That is true. About a quarter of accidents happen within 1 mile of one's home.
Well, no shit, considering almost all trips will involve you being within 1 mile of one's home on the outset and the return...
You are right that this stat is meaningless without also knowing the percentage of time spent within 1 mile of your home. I was merely trying to sound smart and wasn't expecting anyone to catch me.
Quote from: Iormlund on June 24, 2009, 05:41:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 10:23:20 AM
I agree with them that it is annoying to be in a hurry and have to wait 10 minutes at a random checkpoint to pass a sobriety test. Also, as I recently got a seatbelt violation ticket on a trip that was a couple of blocks, I sympathize with them there.
Eh. That doesn't make sense. Most accidents take place during short trips. That's precisely when you want to have your seatbelt on.
Also, how would have the cop known you were only traveling a couple blocks?
I was picking up take out on my way home from work. I had the food in the passenger seat, and my address was on my driver's license--he knew my origin and destination. I don't really care; I know I broke the law and it is highly dangerous to drive 35 mph for a couple blocks without a seatbelt etc., but it is still seems lame (at least to me).
Buckle Up.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 06:51:51 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 24, 2009, 05:41:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 10:23:20 AM
I agree with them that it is annoying to be in a hurry and have to wait 10 minutes at a random checkpoint to pass a sobriety test. Also, as I recently got a seatbelt violation ticket on a trip that was a couple of blocks, I sympathize with them there.
Eh. That doesn't make sense. Most accidents take place during short trips. That's precisely when you want to have your seatbelt on.
Also, how would have the cop known you were only traveling a couple blocks?
I was picking up take out on my way home from work. I had the food in the passenger seat, and my address was on my driver's license--he knew my origin and destination. I don't really care; I know I broke the law and it is highly dangerous to drive 35 mph for a couple blocks without a seatbelt etc., but it is still seems lame (at least to me).
Then the question is, why did you take your car to pick up take out food from a couple of blocks away? :P You can, you know...walk.
Quote from: The Larch on June 25, 2009, 02:09:31 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 06:51:51 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on June 24, 2009, 05:41:10 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 24, 2009, 10:23:20 AM
I agree with them that it is annoying to be in a hurry and have to wait 10 minutes at a random checkpoint to pass a sobriety test. Also, as I recently got a seatbelt violation ticket on a trip that was a couple of blocks, I sympathize with them there.
Eh. That doesn't make sense. Most accidents take place during short trips. That's precisely when you want to have your seatbelt on.
Also, how would have the cop known you were only traveling a couple blocks?
I was picking up take out on my way home from work. I had the food in the passenger seat, and my address was on my driver's license--he knew my origin and destination. I don't really care; I know I broke the law and it is highly dangerous to drive 35 mph for a couple blocks without a seatbelt etc., but it is still seems lame (at least to me).
Then the question is, why did you take your car to pick up take out food from a couple of blocks away? :p You can, you know...walk.
Or take public transport.
You guys need to learn how to read.
Quote
I was picking up take out on my way home from work
Quote from: The Larch on June 25, 2009, 02:09:31 AM
Then the question is, why did you take your car to pick up take out food from a couple of blocks away? :P You can, you know...walk.
What is this ....walking?
Wow--mention you got a seatbelt ticket on this board and prepare for the inquisition. :D