Conquer Club

Not sure if anyone else would find this interesting, but here is "the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres."

Check out where your state ranks!
http://www.statepolicyindex.com/?page_id=143

Sucks for me to be in Il...

Writing's too small on my screen to read the variables. Tell me, where does Louisiana rate? It's gotta be pretty bad.


Honibaz

Out of five possible rankings it is at the 4th (second worst) level.

I cannot read them either... maybe you could post here in enlarged fashion?

This is what I was talking about..

Hard to tell for me, as well as that map. What is it for Wyoming?

muy_thaiguy wrote:Hard to tell for me, as well as that map. What is it for Wyoming?

lol, you don't know wich state is Wyoming?

Juan_Bottom wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Hard to tell for me, as well as that map. What is it for Wyoming?

lol, you don't know wich state is Wyoming?

No, trying to figure out what the hell that means with Wyoming being "second quintile."

Second best status for rights.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Hard to tell for me, as well as that map. What is it for Wyoming?

lol, you don't know wich state is Wyoming?

No, trying to figure out what the hell that means with Wyoming being "second quintile."

GabonX wrote:Second best status for rights.

The best thing to do would be to download the updated data, or take the test yourself, to see where your state ranks in your own eyes. Most people rank them nearly exact.

Well this state sucks. You'll never see abuse by the police like St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, and I'd bet money that Louisiana politics are the most blatantly crooked. It's like 3rd world down here.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:Well this state sucks. You'll never see abuse by the police like St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, and I'd bet money that Louisiana politics are the most blatantly crooked. It's like 3rd world down here.


Honibaz

It's noteworthy to me that those of us on this site who are the most outspoken against our government all live in 4th and 5th quintle. Huh, makes sense too.

I'm not surprised that the most democratic states are the least free. That's what happens when you believe that the government is the answer.

Night Strike wrote:I'm not surprised that the most democratic states are the least free. That's what happens when you believe that the government is the answer.

Republican governor is democrat?

Theres a little bit of unintentional wordplay that goes on here as a result of this study. While minorly technical, the way freedom is used in this study in regards to public policy and regulatory aspects ends up getting a little bit of a hijack by most American readers. Since the word freedom is so tied into the American ethos, its an unique charged word, it ends up making an overly politicized statement in the eyes of many observers id believe.

Nor does it necessarily solve the second part of a freedom riddle, what to do about the "freedom to" aspect of freedom. It certainly does a good job of pointing out the aspects of "freedom from" which an important exercise.

b.k. barunt wrote:Well this state sucks. You'll never see abuse by the police like St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, and I'd bet money that Louisiana politics are the most blatantly crooked. It's like 3rd world down here.


Honibaz

Much of the south gave up a lot of individual democracy to keep "certain" individuals from having their say.

got tonkaed wrote: Nor does it necessarily solve the second part of a freedom riddle, what to do about the "freedom to" aspect of freedom. It certainly does a good job of pointing out the aspects of "freedom from" which an important exercise.

You make a good point here.

There is always a balance to be made between my individual freedoms and yours. Government's roll is to set those limits, to set the "fences" so that we CAN all be "good neighbors".

Ironically, one reason California has so many controls is because they have such a highly diverse population. Not just sociologically and economically, but environmentally and in just about every other way you can name. Allowing each of those needs to be me means a lot of rules. Understand, I am not saying all the rules are wonderful or necessary, but that they come as a result of huge diversity.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Understand, I am not saying all the rules are wonderful or necessary, but that they come as a result of huge diversity.

I think that is a bit of stretch. California is not the only state with a diverse population, and there are plenty of places were many different groups, from many different cultural backgrounds are able to co-exist. I would almost argue that some states with significantly less "rules" do a better job of having diverse cultural groups co-exist than California does.

I think the reason CA and NY do so poorly is because of a different political ideology. They believe that the state knows better than the people.

dewey316 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Understand, I am not saying all the rules are wonderful or necessary, but that they come as a result of huge diversity.

I think that is a bit of stretch. California is not the only state with a diverse population, and there are plenty of places were many different groups, from many different cultural backgrounds are able to co-exist. I would almost argue that some states with significantly less "rules" do a better job of having diverse cultural groups co-exist than California does.

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.

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.

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.

GabonX wrote:I think the reason CA and NY do so poorly is because of a different political ideology. They believe that the state knows better than the people.

Define "poorly".

He may not really be all that far off in terms of the notion of different political ideology or just ideology in general. Like i said earlier, i think this study does a fairly good job of showing the freedom from aspect of regulation and how in this light many states end up scoring well as opposed to states like NY or California. However if we are judging egalitarianism solely from a libertarian perspective that is one thing, but any observer can tell you theres more than one way to skin that cat so to speak. I would imagine there are other indicies which could flip that map around in many ways. Not being a libertarian egalitarian myself i dont necessarily find this study all that compelling, but i certainly dont think it should be ignored as i think it makes a fair comment and is something worth noting going forward in terms of regulatory public policy.

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.

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

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?

got tonkaed wrote:He may not really be all that far off in terms of the notion of different political ideology or just ideology in general. Like i said earlier, i think this study does a fairly good job of showing the freedom from aspect of regulation and how in this light many states end up scoring well as opposed to states like NY or California. However if we are judging egalitarianism solely from a libertarian perspective that is one thing, but any observer can tell you theres more than one way to skin that cat so to speak. I would imagine there are other indicies which could flip that map around in many ways. Not being a libertarian egalitarian myself i dont necessarily find this study all that compelling, but i certainly dont think it should be ignored as i think it makes a fair comment and is something worth noting going forward in terms of regulatory public policy.

I just think the site is a little unclear on what the purpose of their measurements are. They draw an arbitraty line through their graphs to indicate states with democratic voters are less "free", they include every single regulation as less free when they should know full well that "being able to dump toxic waste in the river" is a ridiculous measure to use for freedom, they completely fail to account for the fact that a larger state may need more regulations and then boldly claim that the "freer" a state is the more people move there. (Since you know, Alaska is overcrowded and California is a wasteland where barely anyone lives.)

It looks suspiciously like republican bullshit to me. I think it abuses the notion of Freedom Americans have to show democrats are evil and hate freedom. I mean, they even use the term "victimless crimes" for gods sake! I mean, not that I always agree with laws, but when you include it in your reseach it's obvious you're on a side. (And it's not even necesarily the same side always, but it's not objective.)

In other words, this is utter malarkey.

Well, I haven't looked at it that closely, but it does seem from the above that if it's easy for the public to propose legislation, that's defined as giving less freedom, which seems a little silly.