Most (and least) Libertarian States

[Buccaneer]

DENVER • Do you read stories about our state government and wonder, "Why don't they just stop messing around and leave me alone?"

According to a study, Colorado does a better job of leaving you alone than almost every other state.

Only New Hampshire, and only by a whisker, scores higher in "Freedom in the 50 States," a study released by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University that claims to be the first comprehensive ranking of "economic and personal freedom in the American states."

New Hampshire and Colorado were the top two in the study, finishing in almost a dead heat. Last, and well behind the rest, was New York.

William P. Ruger and Jason Sorens, co-authors of the George Mason report, adhere strictly to the idea that adults "should be allowed to dispose of their lives, liberties, and property as they see fit, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others."

"The fewer regulations the better, in our view," Sorens said.

Lower taxes, too, are better in their eyes.

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.

Colorado scored third highest in the economic-freedom ranking and 15th on personal freedom.

Not all freedoms will be highly regarded by all people. Legalized marijuana, prostitution and same-sex civil unions are, for this study, good for freedom. Some issues were excluded. Abortion policy was left out of the rankings because the authors could not decide whether a fetus has rights that would be trampled by a woman's exercise of her personal freedom.

Sorens, a political science professor at the University of Buffalo, acknowledged subjectivity in the weighting of the various measurements, but said the report tried to compare various factors according to impact - "the number of people affected and basically how deeply they're affected."

Thus tax rates were weighted more heavily than mandatory recycling rules.

This is not the only study to give Colorado high marks on some kind of freedom index. In the 2008 edition of "Economic Freedom of North America," published annually by the Fraser Institute in Vancouver, British Columbia, Colorado tied for third among the 50 states.

But Sorens said his study was more inclusive.

"All the previous studies have focused only on economic freedom, so looking at taxes, spending and economic regulations," Sorens said. "We broaden that substantially and look at all kinds of personal and social freedoms."

Sorens said he and Ruger ranked the states on about 140 indicators, from income taxation to fireworks laws, from home-schooling rules to drug policy.

Economic freedom was weighted to account for about three-quarters of Colorado's total score.

Jason Clemens, director of research at the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute, which also plays the freedom-measuring game, cautioned that it was difficult to measure personal freedoms. "The more research the better," he said, but added that scholars have spent years debating how to weight economic variables, which are relatively easy to express in statistics. "You take that problem and it just becomes amplified when you say, ‘OK, how do we measure free speech?'" Clemens said.

Sorens said the freedom index has practical implications: People are voting with their feet, contributing to the prosperity of Colorado and other relatively free states.

But the limits of such research began to emerge when he said his analysis shows that some people are moving to Kansas and some are leaving Hawaii because Kansas is No. 12 on the freedom index and Hawaii's at 45.

Since the 2000 census, Kansas has had a net loss of population because of migration, while Hawaii has had a net gain. But it might be a stretch to infer that climate, or perhaps pineapples, are more important to more people than freedom.

Live Free or Die.

[flere-imsaho]

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?

[Big Fo]

Shame there's not a list of all the states. I hope Hawaiians regain their freedom someday.

[lighthousekeeper]

source?

[JPhillips]

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.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I want the entire list!

[George]

You can get a PDF version here.

hxxp://www.mercatus.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?id=26154

[lighthousekeeper]

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...)

[lungs]

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.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

hmmm, after scanning the report, i'm surprised more attention wasn't paid to population density as a major contributing factor.

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.

[flere-imsaho]

That sound you hear? It's the sound of Bucc typing up a 3000-word response to lungs' post. WTG lungs!

[lungs]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

That sound you hear? It's the sound of Bucc typing up a 3000-word response to lungs' post. WTG lungs!

Yeah... I thought about starting a thread on this topic a few weeks back when I read Bucc's libertarian rants. Figured I'll throw it out there here...

[flounder]

Originally Posted by lungs

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).

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.

[Kodos]

"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.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by lungs

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.

Or to have the citizens engage in more personal responsibilities (by doing more locally).

13 words.

[Karlifornia]

Which Indian Reservation is the most Libertarian?

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Or to have the citizens engage in more personal responsibilities (by doing more locally).

13 words.

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.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

Only for a a smaller section of the population.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by lungs

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.

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?]

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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?]

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.

[Buccaneer]

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).

[lungs]

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.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Or to have the citizens engage in more personal responsibilities (by doing more locally).

13 words.

That part made me laugh

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

13 words.

Deeply Disappointed.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Live Free or Die.

Too bad about the stupid dog laws though...

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by lungs

The problem is that New Hampshire is intertwined into this whole federal system that prevents them from embracing true libertarianism.

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.