Which are the freest states in the US?

[Pure]

Researchers ruger and sorens investigated the 50 states in two aspects, personal freedom and economic freedom (the latter being construed in libertarian terms). States were ranked. See where yours is.

Most free [highest first]: New Hampshire, South Dakota, Indiana, Idaho, Missouri

Least free [lowest, first]: New York, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts.

ADDED: Most free, 10: NH, SD, IN, ID, MO, NV, CO, OR, VA, ND.
Least free 10: NY, NJ, CA, HI, MA, RI, AK, MD, OH, IL.

http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Tight Concealed Carry laws and zoning restrictions count against?

 

[3113]

Tight Concealed Carry laws and zoning restrictions count against?

And how much does the near legality of marijuana count for? I think that should count for more, don't you?

 

[TE999]

The five least free states are bulging with people of the Liberal political persuasion. Go figure.

 

[3113]

The five least free states are bulging with people of the Liberal political persuasion. Go figure.

It does figure if they're not of the Libertarian persuasion

 

[TE999]

It does figure if they're not of the Libertarian persuasion

Somehow I equate Libertarians with the Mid-West for some reason...although the old shellbacks in the New England states are pretty cantankerous.

 

[LettersFromTatyana]

Whoo whoo! My home state of New Hampshire represents!

To answer your question, I have a hard time with studies that operationalize subjective measures like freedom and put them into an index. It's telling that they had to exclude policies they couldn't categorize, like abortion and the death penalty.

Perhaps this is why I think the world would be a better place with fewer political scientists.

ETA: Oh, and there's no way in hell I'm ever moving back. That place is getting crazier by the day now that the Free Staters are moving in.
http://www.slate.com/id/2296999/

 

[sr71plt]

If "freest" translates to loose restrictions on gun sales and private gun carrying--and/or smoking in public places, I don't want to be from one of the freest states.

 

[3113]

If "freest" translates to loose restrictions on gun sales and private gun carrying--and/or smoking in public places, I don't want to be from one of the freest states.

Ooo. Had forgotten about the smoking laws. California is certainly way restrictive in that regard.

I still think that near legal marijuana should count for more.

 

[sr71plt]

Ooo. Had forgotten about the smoking laws. California is certainly way restrictive in that regard.

I still think that near legal marijuana should count for more.

liberalized marijuana use laws wouldn't bother me much.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/composition/18325341/view/1/producttypecolor/228/type/png/width/280/height/280/gun-control_design.png

 

[lovecraft68]

I can;t help but notice that Rhode Islands evil neighbor Massachusetts once gain falls on the wrong side of things.

But after what happened to me when I tried to rescue the AH'ers from the marriage dilemma out there I'm staying put. The Massholes are on their own.

 

[Pure]

The freest states.

Ruger and Sorens obviously had a particular axe to grind. For example, the more gun control, the less 'free', and regulation of trans-fats in NY restaurants struck them as statist. I'm not sure about smoking laws, but it seems likely that those laws would count as lessening 'freedom.'

A particular interest of mine is general quality of life, one common international measure of which, is infant mortality. I wondered about the freest and the least free. There is a ranking of states at

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank17.html

the states with the lowest infant mortality, low ranked (i.e. best), about 5 per thousand, were

Iowa, California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Washington, and Utah.

the states alleged to be LEAST free were

New York, New Jersey, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts.


there is a good deal of overlap. In three cases [the blue], the infants (of the alleged least free states) are MOST free (likely) to live.

New Hampshire is an interesting anomaly, being very "free" according to the measure, AND having low infant mortality. It's an intriguing and unique state.

The states with the highest infant mortality are generally southern states with rates of about 9 per thousand. Looking at it differently, SOME of the 'freest' states, but not all, did poorly in infant mortality, though NOT so poorly as states such as Mississippi.

Examples are
Indiana, 3 on the freedom ranking and 12 on the infant mortality ranking (12th worst. about 8 per 1000). South Dakota ranked 2 for freedom and 21 for infant mortality; and Missouri ranked 5 for freedom, and 15 for infant mortality.

So the 'freest' states are a mixed bag: some not well off for infant mortality, but NH looking very good on this index of quality of life.

One could look at other measures as to "freest" vs. "least free", e.g.
life expectancy, or literacy, educational attainment (% finishing high school or college). Perhaps too, culture, is relevant.

Ruger and Sorens, as "libertarians" are amongst a chorus of those on the right, e.g. the followers of Rand, or Von Mises, or Friedman, who make freedom to buy and sell, and freedom of business from restrictions (e.g. safety), as THE freedom, and alleged source of all others.

They ignore such obvious points as illustrated above: In Indiana, alleged to be 3rd most 'free,' the infants die at a rate 12th most high, about 8 per thousand. IF they had survived, --as about HALF of them would have, in less free Massachusetts--- they would have been more free to carry guns, but they didn't make it.

 

[sr71plt]

Ruger and Sorens obviously had a particular axe to grind. For example, the more gun control, the less 'free', and regulation of trans-fats in NY restaurants struck them as statist. I'm not sure about smoking laws, but it seems likely that those laws would count as lessening 'freedom.'

This being the case, they are doing the selfish thing in defining "free" (which, as you posted, would be Libertarian). I consider the absence of half-brained, gun-toting militant smokers muscling in on my own space as being freedom--my freedom being just as important as theirs.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Ruger and Sorens obviously had a particular axe to grind. For example, the more gun control, the less 'free', and regulation of trans-fats in NY restaurants struck them as statist. I'm not sure about smoking laws, but it seems likely that those laws would count as lessening 'freedom.'

A particular interest of mine is general quality of life; one common international measure is infant mortality. I wondered about the freest and the least free. There is a ranking of states at

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank17.html

the states with the lowest infant mortality, low ranked (i.e. best) were

Iowa, California, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Washington, and Utah.

infant death rates were about 5 per thousand. there is some correlation with states called 'least free'. Yet in three cases, the infants (of the alleged least free states) are MOST free to live.

New Hampshire is an interesting anomaly, being very "free" according to the measure, AND having low infant mortality. It's an intriguing and unique state.

The states with the highest infant mortality are generally southern states with rates of about 9 per thousand. Looking at it differently, SOME of the 'freest' states, but not all, did poorly in infant mortality, though NOT so poorly as states such as Mississippi.

Examples are
Indiana, 3 on the freedom ranking and 12 on the infant mortality ranking (12th worst. about 8 per 1000). South Dakota ranked 2 for freedom and 21 for infant mortality; and Missouri ranked 5 for freedom, and 15 for infant mortality.

So the 'freest' states are a mixed bag: some not well off for infant mortality, but NH looking very good on this index of quality of life.

One could look at other measures as to "freest" vs. "least free", e.g.
life expectancy, or literacy, educational attainment (% finishing high school or college). Perhaps too, culture, is relevant.

Ruger and Sorens, as "libertarians" are amongst a chorus of those on the right, e.g. the followers of Rand, or Von Mises, or Friedman, who make freedom to buy and sell, and freedom of business from restrictions (e.g. safety), as THE freedom, and alleged source of all others.

They ignore such obvious points as illustrated above: In Indiana, alleged to be 3rd most 'free,' the infants die at a rate 12th most high, about 8 per thousand. IF they had survived, --as about HALF of them would have, in less free Massachusetts--- they would have been more free to carry guns, but they didn't make it.

The only problem I have with your comparison is that the Ruger and Sorens analysis is based on 2010 data, whereas the infant mortality data is from 2005. A lot can happen in five years. While it is likely that the rural South would still lead this category, the effects of population migration, the economic dislocations of the past four years, and a variety of other factors could have caused states to move up or down the chart in the five year interim.

Surprisingly, no one has mentioned the "economic freedom" aspect of their analysis. Lower taxes and smaller government are considered components of "more freedom." In other words, the less your state and local government does for you, the higher your freedom index. It must be truly gratifying to die along the side of the road because you have the freedom to not wear a motorcycle helmet, and your local community does not have the resources to provide emergency medical services on a timely basis.

 

[sr71plt]

In other words, the less your state and local government does for you, the higher your freedom index.

Yes. Isn't it a little hard not to see the idiocy of this concept?

 

[SydneyBlake]

It must be truly gratifying to die along the side of the road because you have the freedom to not wear a motorcycle helmet, and your local community does not have the resources to provide emergency medical services on a timely basis.

Organ donors must come from somewhere.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Originally Posted by soflabbwlvr
It must be truly gratifying to die along the side of the road because you have the freedom to not wear a motorcycle helmet, and your local community does not have the resources to provide emergency medical services on a timely basis.

To be stupid is an individuals choice/freedom. If you're stupid enough not to wear the helmet that could/might save your life, that's your choice, not the states. When the time comes that you are lying at the side of the road and dying from not wearing that helmet, it doesn't matter how fast the paramedics show up...you're still dead.

As for community provided medical services...Hospitals are privately owned, except for the county hospital...ambulance services are privately owned, except for fire department squads.

Also, rural vs. urban services are different on a scale. In urban settings you will have more services available to you in a more timely basis. In a rural setting those services are further from you, depending on how far you live from the population center of the county.

And where you live is your choice/freedom, at least until the state tells you where you can live.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Perhaps, but it could also be stated that the less your state and local governments do to you the greater your freedom index. Maybe if people chose to wear helmets, refuse to smoke, picked up after their pets, etc., other people would be less inclined to legislate that they do so . . . or maybe not. There seems a need among the governing classes to push people around because they can!

 

[sr71plt]

There seems a need among the governing classes to push people around because they can!

What are these "governing classes" in the United States?

Once defined, take a look at them. I think you'll find they themselves are governed more by initeria than anything else--which permits those with their heads stuck in the eighteenth century to hold sway.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

American governing classes: Just about anyone who gets elected to office and a large number of those who wish to be elected to office.

If you aren't looking to push someone around, why do you want to be in a position to do so?

 

[bronzeage]

The five least free states are bulging with people of the Liberal political persuasion. Go figure.

Alaska ranks between Rhode Island and Maryland, in the bottom 10.

Government payments to citizens are rated as a form of slavery, although they define it as:

This study comprehensively ranks the American states on their public policies that affect individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres.

 

[Pure]

i think the point of being in America's ruling elite is that you DON'T
have to be elected to office. hell, let Sarah Palin have the governorship, do the major stakeholders in the oil companies really care? a Rockefeller can become governor if he wishes, but he needn't.

also, like the original author, some posters think that the 'state telling people what to do' is the major issue; whereas it is a minor part of all forms of control and restriction. if you have no money for healthcare, you die early-- and if you're a woman, your newborn dies twice as often in the 'free' state of Indiana, as in the 'least free' state of Massachusetts. and no one told anyone to die.

 

[sr71plt]

American governing classes: Just about anyone who gets elected to office and a large number of those who wish to be elected to office.

If you aren't looking to push someone around, why do you want to be in a position to do so?

I think you misdefine the "American governing classes." Our legislatures aren't pushing much of anyone around--most of them, as well as most running for office, are protecting the status quo and baliwicks. That's inertia. Pushing around is action and change. I think Pure gave a closer answer on a governing class. I don't think there's any cohesive governing class in the United States, though.

Think you're scapegoating on that.

 

[TE999]

This being the case, they are doing the selfish thing in defining "free" (which, as you posted, would be Libertarian). I consider the absence of half-brained, gun-toting militant smokers muscling in on my own space as being freedom--my freedom being just as important as theirs.

Generalize much, flyboy?