csgators Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) The least free states in the United States: New YorkNew JerseyCalifornia Not surprising to me in the least. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/15/article-0-0C94641A00000578-124_634x380.jpg Source Edited June 16, 2011 by csgators 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ub3rman123 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Uh-huh. What's your judgement for 'least free'? It's a lot better here than it is in other countries. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 Uh-huh. What's your judgement for 'least free'? It's a lot better here than it is in other countries. Oh sorry, the link at the bottom wasn't working, fixed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboUK Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Do you have a link to the page that image comes from? Edit: Thanks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 The least free states in the United States: New YorkNew JerseyCalifornia Not surprising to me in the least. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/06/15/article-0-0C94641A00000578-124_634x380.jpg SourceAlso the most populous... makes sense that when you have the most people in one area that you have to start restricting some things... Like requiring people to wear seatbelts, refrain from cellphone use while driving in cities, having labor laws, having laws against same-sex marriage, and other "excessive restrictions on freedom". The devil is in the details, not the politics. Comparatively, some of the more Republican areas, like Alaska, Montana, Maine, Washington have the least freedoms compared to their relative population densities. Or are you suggesting that fewer laws and regulations about campaign funding, education, gambling laws, alcohol/tobbaco use, use of controlled substances, gun control are a bad thing? Even when there is no distinction over what these laws block or permit? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ub3rman123 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 There seems to be a lot of exceptions to the pattern there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZ1029 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 When you pack that many idiots into so little (sarcasm) square footage, guess it's bound to happen eventually. That being said, I'm moving to Colombia. If you've got enough money, you're as free as you can bribe someone else to be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csgators Posted June 16, 2011 Author Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) Also the most populous... makes sense that when you have the most people in one area that you have to start restricting some things... Like requiring people to wear seatbelts, refrain from cellphone use while driving in cities, having labor laws, having laws against same-sex marriage, and other "excessive restrictions on freedom". The devil is in the details, not the politics. Comparatively, some of the more Republican areas, like Alaska, Montana, Maine, Washington have the least freedoms compared to their relative population densities. Or are you suggesting that fewer laws and regulations about campaign funding, education, gambling laws, alcohol/tobbaco use, use of controlled substances, gun control are a bad thing? Even when there is no distinction over what these laws block or permit? I think almost all regulations are a bad thing, that's what freedom is, the ability to lead your life without interference. Maine is not a Republic state. Hasn't been for decades. The 2 senators from that state could run as Democrats and no one would know the difference. I would not call Washington a republican state either. Alaska seems to get a bad rating from the debt levels they have plus land usage regulation is high mostly due to Federal regulations like ANWR. I don't know much about Montana. Everyone likes freedom except..it is the except that gets us into trouble. The 2000 election map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/ElectoralCollege2000.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege2000.svg.png Edited June 16, 2011 by csgators 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagrant0 Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 The 2000 election map:Erm, you can't go off something like an election map... especially one which is 10 years out of date. I think almost all regulations are a bad thing, that's what freedom is, the ability to lead your life without interference.Freedom, yes... The problem is that almost nobody can use unlimited freedom, or even partial freedom responsibly. And more often than not, ones decisions about how they wish to lead their life infringe upon your decisions on how you wish to lead your life. Or do you suggest that it's a good idea to walk into a store, take what you want, walk out, and shoot anyone who you happen to feel like shooting just because that's how you wish to live your life? Or for that matter, building yourself some devout followers, and a commune somewhere where you can have as much sex as you want with your follower's children. Both are "freedom", but neither are things which are necessarily a good thing in any society. For society to even exist there must be some basic laws. but as society becomes more and more complex and people try to find ways around the laws to do harm to others or to benefit their own goals, new laws were needed. Interestingly enough, most of the laws which are essentially just there even when they don't necessarily cause harm to anyone or any sort of abuse are the ones which the grassroots Republicans oppose... Such as laws about marriage between same sex partners, open routes to legal immigration, use of controlled substances, medical research, teaching of evolution, ect. Under Bush there were also quite a number of laws passed which specifically stamped out freedoms, like the Patriot act. So to turn this into a partisan issue, instead of a systemic one, is a bit nearsighted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 (edited) The article is judging this based on gun laws, tobacco laws, car laws, and some school laws. And taxes. The chart you see says the source is "authors calculations" which made me literally laugh. Should we keep guns legal? Of course. Should we allow people to buy assault rifles with 100 rounds of ammo? Why? Should we not tax smoking more? Should we let people drive as fast as they want? Your not going to be very free if you die in a car crash, your going to be dead and have no freedom. Your not going to be very free if you get killed by someone with a assault rifle, you will be dead. Also using a voting map from 2000 isn't very good to prove your point. It is beyond me how anyone voted for bush EVER. Edited June 16, 2011 by marharth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now