Freedom in the 50 states

[jonesthecurl]

"A fish feels the need to crawl on land" is of course a fundamental part of the evolutionist soapbox.

[daddy1gringo]

Propaganda for what?

you could argue it was libertarian propaganda if one liked.

I agree that it's libertarian propaganda, and I for the most part agree with libertarians. It's all based on what you think constitutes "freedom". A liberal might make a similar map and use entirely different standards, like "reproductive rights" and "freedom" for gays to marry, or "policies that equalize income and free us from the evil alliance of government and big business". All the map really says is "These are the states where legislation tends to go the way we like."

[daddy1gringo]

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?

Players, come on. It's out of place for Martin to give his opinion on this, but OK for you to throw in your shot as if it's the last word on the subject? Really I'd come to expect better from you.

The scientific debate is not as one-sided as you make it out. This very statement shows that your point is the result of propaganda:

...our entire real scientific world,

This is a great piece of circular logic. All the "real" scientists are evolutionist because you reject all of the creationist scientists as "real" since they believe that unscientific theory. How do we know it's unscientific? Well, none of the "real" scientists believe in it! Kind of begs the question.

Evolutionists and creationists both examine the fossil evidence with the supposition that it fits into a particular model, and presuppose certain processes involved. The only difference is that the creationists admit it, and so are actually more objective. You just happen to agree with one of the sets of assumptions and not the other.

Neither side is scientifically proven, but the fossil evidence is actually at least as consistent with the creationist model. Evolutionists in recent years had to invent the "Cambrian Explosion": to explain why all types of creatures appear suddenly in the fossil record, rather than showing gradual development. Creationists could have told you about that a long time ago.

Have you ever seen those frequently spoofed drawings showing a parade starting w/ Ramapithecus, going through Austrailopithecus, Neanderthal, and Cro-magnon (with other interlopers that change from time to time) to modern man? Every one of the marchers has been shown to be either just a man, just an ape, or just a hoax. Not one remains.

On both sides, there are things that are not known and have to be filled in with guesses, but the evolutionists have to do at least as much tap-dancing to explain things. For example, take the physical and behavioral adaptations necessary for flight. It makes no sense for one of them to begin developing without the whole system being in place.

Oh, Players, this whole subject is off topic for the thread. If you want to answer it, you should do it in another thread. (\;-/)

[pimpdave]

[got tonkaed]

Propaganda for what?

you could argue it was libertarian propaganda if one liked.

I agree that it's libertarian propaganda, and I for the most part agree with libertarians. It's all based on what you think constitutes "freedom". A liberal might make a similar map and use entirely different standards, like "reproductive rights" and "freedom" for gays to marry, or "policies that equalize income and free us from the evil alliance of government and big business". All the map really says is "These are the states where legislation tends to go the way we like."

without agreeing with you, i agree with you entirely here.

[thegreekdog]

The problem with the study is probably the word "freedom." The word has good conotations in the United States. If something is "free," that's a good thing. If something is not "free," it's bad. So, if a state has more "freedom" than another state, the conotation is that the state with more "freedom" is better than the state with less "freedom."

[got tonkaed]

The problem with the study is probably the word "freedom." The word has good conotations in the United States. If something is "free," that's a good thing. If something is not "free," it's bad. So, if a state has more "freedom" than another state, the conotation is that the state with more "freedom" is better than the state with less "freedom."

it is an essential part of the issue. Freedom is almost always seen as a desirable thing, as America seems more preoccupied with the question why freedom as opposed to the more more pertinent question, Freedom of what? And as has been stated before theres certainly nothing wrong with them laying it out as such, its certainly one way that it can be done.

[thegreekdog]

The problem with the study is probably the word "freedom." The word has good conotations in the United States. If something is "free," that's a good thing. If something is not "free," it's bad. So, if a state has more "freedom" than another state, the conotation is that the state with more "freedom" is better than the state with less "freedom."

it is an essential part of the issue. Freedom is almost always seen as a desirable thing, as America seems more preoccupied with the question why freedom as opposed to the more more pertinent question, Freedom of what? And as has been stated before theres certainly nothing wrong with them laying it out as such, its certainly one way that it can be done.

Perhaps my use of the word "problem" was a problem.

[Juan_Bottom]

I lifted this from a Conservative Christian Republican leaning website....

[got tonkaed]

I lifted this from a Conservative Christian Republican leaning website....

which doesnt really tell us much of anything except Conservative Christians may be interested in libertarian ideology?

[Juan_Bottom]

Conservative Christian Republican. They also had a lot of crap about Fox News storys on there.

[thegreekdog]

Conservative Christian Republican. They also had a lot of crap about Fox News storys on there.

I believe you forgot fascist and war-mongering.

[got tonkaed]

Conservative Christian Republican. They also had a lot of crap about Fox News storys on there.

are you implying that you dont think republicans and libertarians (who often find themselves at home in their party) couldnt find similar things to like about such a study?

[luns101]

I lifted this from a Conservative Christian Republican leaning website....

I told you to stay off of my facebook page

[Juan_Bottom]

are you implying that you dont think republicans and libertarians (who often find themselves at home in their party) couldnt find similar things to like about such a study?

No, I just don't see what they missed. And I don't see this study as being purposefully biased in any way. I haven't even heard from anyone anything that they think the study is missing.

And as I said, the map matches up with the '08 elections, and the posts of the people who live in the states. I hate government; I'm in Illinios. B.K. feels the same, and he's in Louisiana... and Jay is in New York. And the politics in all three of our states are dominated by "the big city."

And even if it is slanted, Libertarians are still the most Constitutional party I would say. Although, that can have a counter-productive effect on some freedoms I'm sure.

I told you to stay off of my facebook page

luns has a facebook?????? AWESOME!!!!

[got tonkaed]

are you implying that you dont think republicans and libertarians (who often find themselves at home in their party) couldnt find similar things to like about such a study?

No, I just don't see what they missed. And I don't see this study as being purposefully biased in any way. I haven't even heard from anyone anything that they think the study is missing.

And as I said, the map matches up with the '08 elections, and the posts of the people who live in the states. I hate government; I'm in Illinios. B.K. feels the same, and he's in Louisiana... and Jay is in New York. And the politics in all three of our states are dominated by "the big city."

And even if it is slanted, Libertarians are still the most Constitutional party I would say. Although, that can have a counter-productive effect on some freedoms I'm sure.



oh well thats another matter entirely then. The crux of the issue is how you are defining this good "freedom". There are probably two criticisms you could make one which is more methodological and one which is more conceptual. Firstly, though they do a very good job in my view in justifying why they choose what they choose and how they weighted it, they are certainly giving some credence to a very specific worldview in their analysis. They do not hide it to their credit, they openly invite anyone to reform the variables how they would like to come up with different results from their data set. Given how they weighted their data, you could certainly argue that there are some areas in which they might end up getting the results they set out to get. Issues like the pay of individuals in government or the number of legislators which may only indirectly related to freedom as many think of it, get a fair amount of importance on their regulatory side. Furthermore, many people many not really consider weighing the two sides equally for a variety of different reasons, and you certainly could debate how they choose to handle some of the hot topic issues like abortion, gay marriage, amongst others. They also are pretty strongly against freedom of association, which while ideologically sensible for their position, shows how they are sort of choosing what they feel is best (not that theres anything wrong with that).

The conceputal issue here is whether or not equality of oppertunities is even really the only way one has to go here. They accept it axiomatically, its certainly not the only approach. Many of the people who have pointed it out in the thread may be rather easily categorized as being more concerned with equality of utility or something akin to the Justice of fairness. Even these approaches are by no means a full catalog. While you accept many of their stances as reasonable given the historical constitutional background you prefer, it doesnt mean it therefore has more paradigmatic viability than some other approaches. Nor does freedom of oppertunities really even meet what many people would justify as the most important goals or aims of governance, especially given how many large welfare states we can find in the current global political community.

While they do a good job in my opinion, and it adds something to the current political discourse, it by no means has to be taken as the answer to equality of what?

[dewey316]

I believe my conclusion was more well founded than yours. You are free to disagree.

What was my conclusion? I'm not even disagreeing. I'm asking you to back up your statement with some sort of data that proves the point you made.

And, your post makes it obvious you don't know that much about CA. Yet, I do.

, of course, that clears it all up. That explains your point. What did I ever say I knew about California?

[PLAYER57832]

[Oh, Players, this whole subject is off topic for the thread. If you want to answer it, you should do it in another thread. (\;-/)

Already done, I posted on the Creationist/ Evolution thread begun by Widowmakers eons ago, though most of the debate has moved over to the Real U.

[PLAYER57832]

And, your post makes it obvious you don't know that much about CA. Yet, I do.

, of course, that clears it all up. That explains your point. What did I ever say I knew about California?

You seemed to think it impossible that I might know of what I spoke... but again, think what you will. I merely posted an idea, a possibility.

The part I dispute is your assertion that all these other places are as diverse as California. That part is just not true.

The rest ... may or may not be true, I just think it might be possible, but Tonk presented a pretty good possibility, too.

[PLAYER57832]

Propaganda for what?

you could argue it was libertarian propaganda if one liked.

I agree that it's libertarian propaganda, and I for the most part agree with libertarians. It's all based on what you think constitutes "freedom". A liberal might make a similar map and use entirely different standards, like "reproductive rights" and "freedom" for gays to marry, or "policies that equalize income and free us from the evil alliance of government and big business". All the map really says is "These are the states where legislation tends to go the way we like."

Since when was the idea that someone should be able to choose their own marriage partner become anti Liberaterian?

And as for "policies that equalize income" ... yeah.. Rockafeller had a big problem with that one, too. Its why we now have rules against monopolies, why unions came about ... etc. You can only push people so far before they do rebell. Henry Ford, on the other hand, came up with the extraordiinary idea that he might be able to sell cars to his employees if they actually made some reasonable money (and he'd get a better workforce to boot!). Most business folk know that... only there is now a new generation that forgot, and apparently has to be taught it again. And no, don't bother telling me all about Henry Ford's failings. He was not a saint. He was a businessman, got pretty rich at it. That's the point.

[jonesthecurl]

Henry Ford said that "History is bunk".
I learned that in History class.
Which means it's bunk.
And therefore he didn't say it.

[daddy1gringo]

Propaganda for what?

you could argue it was libertarian propaganda if one liked.

I agree that it's libertarian propaganda, and I for the most part agree with libertarians. It's all based on what you think constitutes "freedom". A liberal might make a similar map and use entirely different standards, like "reproductive rights" and "freedom" for gays to marry, or "policies that equalize income and free us from the evil alliance of government and big business". All the map really says is "These are the states where legislation tends to go the way we like."

Since when was the idea that someone should be able to choose their own marriage partner become anti Liberaterian?

I didn't say it was, just that it's something a liberal group might put in their own "freedom" index. Although my own opinion on this is no secret, I was not making a value judgment here. I realize that libertarians, though in general they tend to be in accord with what is known as the "religious right", tend not to emphasize this and other similar issues.

And as for "policies that equalize income" ... yeah.. Rockafeller had a big problem with that one, too. Its why we now have rules against monopolies, why unions came about ... etc. You can only push people so far before they do rebell. Henry Ford, on the other hand, came up with the extraordiinary idea that he might be able to sell cars to his employees if they actually made some reasonable money (and he'd get a better workforce to boot!). Most business folk know that... only there is now a new generation that forgot, and apparently has to be taught it again. And no, don't bother telling me all about Henry Ford's failings. He was not a saint. He was a businessman, got pretty rich at it. That's the point.

Woah. First of all, once again I was not making a value judgment, just giving an example of something that might be in a liberal version of this map, and IS not on the libertarian one. I think you would agree that libertarians are noted for their opposition to government regulation of business. My point was that the map was indeed libertarian propaganda, because it declares certain states the most “free”, but it is freedom as defined by them and not necessarily by everybody.

Second, though, as I said, I TEND to concur with libertarian policies, I don’t always come to the same conclusions, because we begin with different premises. Third, I -- and I believe, libertarians as well -- not only have no problem with policies such as you describe with Ford, but applaud it. It is an example of a businessman choosing a more generous policy, for whatever his own reasons were, rather than it being imposed on him by government.

[PLAYER57832]

You deleted the bit I was going to quote, but I was not agreeing or disagreeing with Liberaterianism, just pointing out discrepancies.

I used to be a Liberaterian, but I believe too strongly in the need for universal education.

[Juan_Bottom]

I used to be a Liberaterian, but I believe too strongly in the need for universal education.

And Universal Healthcare?

They do not hide it to their credit, they openly invite anyone to reform the variables how they would like to come up with different results from their data set.

That was my favorite part. I was wondering what anyone else would come up with, although really this isn't the group.

They also are pretty strongly against freedom of association, which while ideologically sensible for their position, shows how they are sort of choosing what they feel is best (not that theres anything wrong with that).

I don't think that there is any established method of measuring freedom. I can argue with them, but I'm not sure how I would go about disagreeing about what freedom means in this country. If you know what I mean? Plus, you are invited to re-do the study for yourself, and see what states you would define as '"free." So it's not really like they are telling you what's what.

While you accept many of their stances as reasonable given the historical constitutional background you prefer, it doesnt mean it therefore has more paradigmatic viability than some other approaches.

I'm just saying, and this is my opinion, that even if the study is biased the best bias would be a Libertarian one. Since Libertarians filter everything through what is supposed to be our Constitutional freedoms.

And again, I'm not saying tha the study is purposefully biased at all. They let you change the data yourself, what more could people want?

While they do a good job in my opinion, and it adds something to the current political discourse, it by no means has to be taken as the answer to equality of what?

Well shoot, I agree with that. And I didn't mean for this to be anyone's final answer or anything. I hope that no one moves over this....

[luns101]

And Universal Healthcare?

...and universal housing, groceries, and vehicles!