Conquer Club

im reading the study as of now. I can tell you from their normative definitions and who they are sourcing right off the bat that other inequality theorists such as Amartya Sen would label both of these guys as libertarian egalitarians for what its worth.

Edit 1: If your looking for reasons as per why california may be ranked low, debt burden is a fairly important part of their regulatory measurement. So if your a state like california who has an incredible debt at the moment, you are guaranteed to have a fairly low ranking. Furthermore, though far less important they place a heavy importance in general on small governments both local and state wide. So the larger your states gov. is in general the more likely you are going to have lower amounts of freedom, which probably explains why some of the states who are ranking higher are doing so in the regulatory aspect, as their states govs are smaller in general i believe.

Edit 2: Also if you have any real types of health insurance mandates you are likely to have a lower score, this may include things like trying to get health insurance for children, which is often going to be seen as a positive. These guys are also quite a bit anti labor which is actually listed as a freedom...freedom of association.

Edit 3: You also could find states who have tried to implement 3 strike policies for drug offenders as low on the freedom list, though some conservatives or proponents of the war on drugs would find these policies to potentially be a positive in terms of lower violent crime.

Edit 4: With education which they weight rather strongly compared to many other things in terms of personal freedom, they argue that things like teacher qualifications are a bad thing rather than a good thing. This reflects a heavily libertarian stance. Not to mention that by now they are using the word libertarian freely in their study which pretty much outs them for what they are.

got tonkaed wrote:im reading the study as of now. I can tell you from their normative definitions and who they are sourcing right off the bat that other inequality theorists such as Amartya Sen would label both of these guys as libertarian egalitarians for what its worth.

Yeah I can see that. I only call them republicans since libertarians are generally more from their side.

Makes sense when compared to red state blue state maps.

Martin Ronne wrote:Makes sense when compared to red state blue state maps.

NO IT DOESN'T!

Snorri1234 wrote:

Martin Ronne wrote:Makes sense when compared to red state blue state maps.

NO IT DOESN'T!

Yes, it does.

Martin Ronne wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Martin Ronne wrote:Makes sense when compared to red state blue state maps.

NO IT DOESN'T!

Yes, it does.

1.) Read the thread for explanations why this whole thing is ridiculous.
2.) There is no step two, don't be an idiot.

Well, if you think that the study really is that off, compare the colored map to a map of the last presidential election before it was down to two men. It actually matches fairly well.
The blue states do have pretty big debts too.

Juan_Bottom wrote:Well, if you think that the study really is that off, compare the colored map to a map of the last presidential election before it was down to two men. It actually matches fairly well.
The blue states do have pretty big debts too.

See snorri, normal people have eyes.

I think Louisiana should have its own color. Things are weird down here.


Honibaz

dewey316 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:First California is diverse in far more than just population, it is ecologically diverse, which leads to many more true differances than just aobut any other region in the world.

I was never saying california was not diverse, I was saying their are many other places in the USA, that are also very diverse. California does not have a monopoly on diversity.

It is a matter of extremes. There is no state, nor country for that matter that has as many ecological zones as California. CA has of the basic ecosystems except full tropics.

Nor is there a state that has the extreme diversity of CA. Diversity, yes, but CA is larger (and that alone says a lot) and just has more varied peoples and culture.

dewey316 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:But... examples? Because I don't know of any. New York, for example, has many cultures, but also has many rules and is not as diverse ecologically as CA.

Great, MY has rules too. I'll agree with you on that. Now how about some sort of reasoning are data that goes to prove that the cause of state of laws in NY, or CA, are a direct result of the diversity. Shoot, I can look at the map, and point out which states have a lot laws. That information alone doesn't give me any reason to assume that the reason for that, is the diversity.

Lets take this a step further, and look closer at the data, and plug it in with your conclusion. Based on the freedom index used in the study, and then assuming the the inverse of your idea is correct (stating that, if the cause for the number of "rules" is diversity, then the places with the most rules should therefor be the most diverse). Our conclusion would then be that:

NY is the most diverse state in the Union.

No longer true. Definitely not true ecologically ... you are looking at only one aspect, probably racial diversity. I am talking something well beyond that. I mean there is silicone valley to Logging north to central farming to southern CA hollywood & defense industry, beaches and mountains and deserts... PLUS as many cultures as NY. In CA the population is newer, but is diverse.

dewey316 wrote:NJ, and Rhode Island (I especialy find the second one, hard to believe), are more diverse than CA.

No, per capita, perhaps, but CA just has more people and definitely is far more diverse by any real measure than either of those states.

dewey316 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Another reason CA has so many rules is that it is the population that puts things on the ballot. You get a petition signed by x# people and voila .. it goes up for vote. Many other states more strictly control what does and does not get onto the ballot.

I don't have the tech on what it takes to get a measure on the ballot in each state, and I honestly dont' care enough to look into it, so I'll let you have that one. Maybe the ease of getting issues on the ballot has more to do with things, than the diversity?

I don't know about other states, except that I CA is the only place I have lived (and I have lived in many states) that allows ballot measures by referendum.



The way I see it is this. When you have 2 people with differant values living side by side, they are more likely to have a conflict, which is more likely to be taken to court or to appear on a ballot and it is therefore more likely to result in more rules.

Mississippi even PA where I live now are the exact opposite. People live in the same area for generations. Sure, new people come, marry in, etc. But the majority of people have been there all their lives. Want change? Its "we ain't never done it THAT way!". Sometimes things happen to "shake" people up. New people come in and demand change and sometimes make it happen, but ... it is not like most of CA. I go back to where I was born and almost nothing is the same. The same everywhere I went to school, where all my friends and relatives live ..and those are all differant places!

Martin Ronne wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Well, if you think that the study really is that off, compare the colored map to a map of the last presidential election before it was down to two men. It actually matches fairly well.
The blue states do have pretty big debts too.

See snorri, normal people have eyes.

While the maps do show some semblance, they can not be compared. The red states are usually also very small (peoplewise), which this "freedom-index" is actually mapping. There is no connection to the blue/red state, it's just a matter of libertarian and small (because of populace) government.

The whole thing is a ridiculous attempt at propoganda and any of you who take it seriously will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes. (Revolution against morons.)

Propaganda for what?

Juan_Bottom wrote:Propaganda for what?

you could argue it was libertarian propaganda if one liked.

got tonkaed wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Propaganda for what?

you could argue it was libertarian propaganda if one liked.

But they are not selling anything to anyone.....

Juan_Bottom wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:Propaganda for what?

you could argue it was libertarian propaganda if one liked.

But they are not selling anything to anyone.....

not so fast says lee corso. The two that are publishing are in fact from if i remember correctly George Mason university, which has a public policy think tank of sorts coming out of it. Not only does the end of the study have state by state profiles with recommendations of how to be more free under their pretext, but it expressly mentions the aim of being able to have legislators alter their regulatory policy not only in their conclusion but on the postscript on page 62 or 63 i believe.

Its not an overt sell, and in my mind its not even a problematic sell, but its still a sell of sorts.

Propaganda is not the same as advertising. Promoting an idea to further your cause is not the same as "selling" something.


If I create a site dedicated to promoting creationism and calling everyone else gaynoobfags, I am not selling anything but spreading an idea to invade minds.

PLAYER57832 wrote:you are looking at only one aspect, probably racial diversity. I am talking something well beyond that.

I'm not looking at any aspects. I did not state a premise or argument. I pointed out that you jumped to a conclusion without any evidence. How many times did I have to agree with you, that CA is diverse. We all know it is. That doesn't mean that it is causation of the status of laws in that state.

Re-read all of my posts about it. I'm just trying to get you to look at the absolutly crazy conclusion you drew, and realise that it was unfounded. Your smart enough to what a valid conclusion, and what isn't. I'm trying my hardest to be nice about showing you, that the conclusion your came to, was unsupported.

I was born in California in 51 and left home at 16 in 1968. The high school i went to last had maybe 20 or 30 Asians out of a population of 2,000. Now it, and the surrounding neighborhood is 80% Asian. Diversity yes, but that's not the problem.

My father bought the house i lived in last in 1968 for 30 thousand - sold it in 81 for 400 thousand. My oldest brother still lives in the neighborhood in a slightly smaller house and it just appraised for over a million. When i go to visit him i don't walk the street after 10PM without getting stopped.

These modern day coweyed yuppie property owners bring the laws. They want a sterile environment that guarantees absolute safety, and they don't mind their police force fudging on what's left of the civil rights of those who pull in less than 60 thou a year. Gotta keep those proles in line.


Honibaz

Snorri1234 wrote:Propaganda is not the same as advertising. Promoting an idea to further your cause is not the same as "selling" something.


If I create a site dedicated to promoting creationism and calling everyone else gaynoobfags, I am not selling anything but spreading an idea to invade minds.

However, creating a website dedicated to the promotion of darwinism and calling everyone else uneducated is for the greater good, right?

dewey316 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:you are looking at only one aspect, probably racial diversity. I am talking something well beyond that.

I'm not looking at any aspects. I did not state a premise or argument. I pointed out that you jumped to a conclusion without any evidence. How many times did I have to agree with you, that CA is diverse. We all know it is. That doesn't mean that it is causation of the status of laws in that state.

Re-read all of my posts about it. I'm just trying to get you to look at the absolutly crazy conclusion you drew, and realise that it was unfounded. Your smart enough to what a valid conclusion, and what isn't. I'm trying my hardest to be nice about showing you, that the conclusion your came to, was unsupported.

I believe my conclusion was more well founded than yours. You are free to disagree.
And, your post makes it obvious you don't know that much about CA. Yet, I do.

Martin Ronne wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Propaganda is not the same as advertising. Promoting an idea to further your cause is not the same as "selling" something.


If I create a site dedicated to promoting creationism and calling everyone else gaynoobfags, I am not selling anything but spreading an idea to invade minds.

However, creating a website dedicated to the promotion of darwinism and calling everyone else uneducated is for the greater good, right?

This is completely off topic, so answer in another thread if you wish to continue, but how is putting forward a website on a man who created an idea that permeates our entire real scientific world, that is only controversial in a few religious groups, comparable to a political ideology that is based on loose data?

Whoo! Georgia is semi-free!

This study is a bit ridiculous, I think.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Martin Ronne wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Propaganda is not the same as advertising. Promoting an idea to further your cause is not the same as "selling" something.


If I create a site dedicated to promoting creationism and calling everyone else gaynoobfags, I am not selling anything but spreading an idea to invade minds.

However, creating a website dedicated to the promotion of darwinism and calling everyone else uneducated is for the greater good, right?

This is completely off topic, so answer in another thread if you wish to continue, but how is putting forward a website on a man who created an idea that permeates our entire real scientific world, that is only controversial in a few religious groups, comparable to a political ideology that is based on loose data?

Did you even read snorris post.


Also, any good conversation will eventually change subject.

Martin Ronne wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Martin Ronne wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:Propaganda is not the same as advertising. Promoting an idea to further your cause is not the same as "selling" something.


If I create a site dedicated to promoting creationism and calling everyone else gaynoobfags, I am not selling anything but spreading an idea to invade minds.

However, creating a website dedicated to the promotion of darwinism and calling everyone else uneducated is for the greater good, right?

This is completely off topic, so answer in another thread if you wish to continue, but how is putting forward a website on a man who created an idea that permeates our entire real scientific world, that is only controversial in a few religious groups, comparable to a political ideology that is based on loose data?

Did you even read snorris post.


Also, any good conversation will eventually change subject.

Yes, and you are right about moving topics, though CC admins tend to frown on too heavy a diversion.

That said, my point stands. The differance is that Creationism is a religious stance based on a religious view. It can be said to be propaganda, yes, in that any religious view can be said to be propaganda.

Darwin, however is a scientific figure. Many of his original claims have been disputed, yes (same with any great eary scientific figure. What makes them great is not that everything they thought was correct, but that they had the courage and intelligence to put forward radically new thinking for their time) HOWEVER, the basic concept and ideas still stand, have gotten more evidence, not less. It is a matter of proof and evidence, not belief. It is based on fact (some parts of the theories in dispute, but based upon facts) and not belief. The theory is equally true regardless of your faith, political ideology, etc.

Creationism, however (the form to which Snorri is referring) requires not only that you accept Genesis, but that you have a very narrow interpretation of Genesis that is accepted only by a few Christian groups and is not in any way universally accepted.

His argument was that this was liberatarien propoganda... that is, that anyone else would look at that same data and gain a differant idea. OR, more correctly, that they would include much more data that would give a much broader, better picture that likely would be very differant from that put forward. This is quite similar to what Creationist websites do .. they pick out small pieces of information that might be correct (not always even that, though!) and then either ignore other information or simly say it is not true ... but provide no real, verifiable proof that meets scientific standards (testing, proof, evidence independent of a particular belief).

I cannot say if this site is propaganda or not. I tend to believe Snorri in this, given what I know of how he tends to discuss things. (tends to not say things without verification). However, I was not able to read the information well enough. My discussion was based on what Gabonx, etc., said and the one map he copied here.

EDIT -- after reviewing Tonk's post above, I have to say it sounds as if Snorri had it correct. The site is highly biased, slanted to support one belief system... i.e. baloney to all but those who already think like that.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Yes, and you are right about moving topics, though CC admins tend to frown on too heavy a diversion.

That said, my point stands. The differance is that Creationism is a religious stance based on a religious view. It can be said to be propaganda, yes, in that any religious view can be said to be propaganda.

Darwin, however is a scientific figure. Many of his original claims have been disputed, yes (same with any great eary scientific figure. What makes them great is not that everything they thought was correct, but that they had the courage and intelligence to put forward radically new thinking for their time) HOWEVER, the basic concept and ideas still stand, have gotten more evidence, not less. It is a matter of proof and evidence, not belief. It is based on fact (some parts of the theories in dispute, but based upon facts) and not belief. The theory is equally true regardless of your faith, political ideology, etc.

Creationism, however (the form to which Snorri is referring) requires not only that you accept Genesis, but that you have a very narrow interpretation of Genesis that is accepted only by a few Christian groups and is not in any way universally accepted.

His argument was that this was liberatarien propoganda... that is, that anyone else would look at that same data and gain a differant idea. OR, more correctly, that they would include much more data that would give a much broader, better picture that likely would be very differant from that put forward. This is quite similar to what Creationist websites do .. they pick out small pieces of information that might be correct (not always even that, though!) and then either ignore other information or simly say it is not true ... but provide no real, verifiable proof that meets scientific standards (testing, proof, evidence independent of a particular belief).

I cannot say if this site is propaganda or not. I tend to believe Snorri in this, given what I know of how he tends to discuss things. (tends to not say things without verification). However, I was not able to read the information well enough. My discussion was based on what Gabonx, etc., said and the one map he copied here.

EDIT -- after reviewing Tonk's post above, I have to say it sounds as if Snorri had it correct. The site is highly biased, slanted to support one belief system... i.e. baloney to all but those who already think like that.

Darwin is not a scientific figure. The definition of science, is that which can be proven through repetition. If an apples stem becomes loose, it will fall to the ground, that is scientific fact. A caterpillar makes itself a cacoon and becomes a butterfly, that is scientific fact. "God created the heavens and the earth", that is not scientific fact, but rather belief or faith if you will. However, neither is, "a fish feels the need to crawl on land, so it's decendants gradualy grow legs. That is also belief. Now one could take the fact of a caterpillar transforming into a butterfly as evidence that it is possible. Likewise, one could take the location of the garden of eden reported in the bible as being between the tigris and euphrates rivers, (modern day Iraq) and see that there are now oil fields there. Oil is made from decade plants. That is evidence, not proof, but still evidence.

Neither side has proof, merely evidence, and both side will search for more evidence to enforce what they believe. Some will come across a piece of evidence and switch sides, some will come across that same piece and find a way to refute it, but neither can present proof.