She is from California.....luns101 wrote:...and universal housing, groceries, and vehicles!Juan_Bottom wrote:And Universal Healthcare?
Moderator: Community Team
She is from California.....luns101 wrote:...and universal housing, groceries, and vehicles!Juan_Bottom wrote:And Universal Healthcare?
Healtcare, absolutely ... it is cheaper for everyone and better!luns101 wrote:...and universal housing, groceries, and vehicles!Juan_Bottom wrote:And Universal Healthcare?
Schwarzenegger is actually going to increase the very registration fees that he criticized Gray Davis for in that newest budget deal. I'd move to Arizona, but we'd probably get kidnapped by Mexican cartel leaders.Juan_Bottom wrote:She is from California.....luns101 wrote:...and universal housing, groceries, and vehicles!Juan_Bottom wrote:And Universal Healthcare?
I could probably make an argument that the way they measure freedom isn't really very libertarian in a way. Because if a state would adopt new legislature to allow gay-marriage or making pot legal their freedom-index would drop. I'd say that their economic-freedom calculation is libertarian enough, but their social-freedom calculation is a bit off. Which is why I compared it to republican bias since they tend to think the same thing. (i.e. less social freedom but more economic freedom)Juan_Bottom wrote: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.got tonkaed wrote: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).
Depends on the type of libertarian.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.
That's because noone is actually a hardcore believer in privatisation.Healtcare, absolutely ... it is cheaper for everyone and better!
Oh I don't doubt it. It's sophisticated and very well researched. I don't criticise the research so much as the choice of words and the measuresgot tonkaed wrote:You can make arguments seemingly against the bias in terms of libertarians in terms of your freedom hijacking as well. If the constituion is a living document, we certainly can make arguments about how to claim it and interpret it.
Its really a bit of a moot point on most of your other stuff. The type of freedom index they are talking about is PhD work of a few years at the very minimum, that type of work comes out of few groups i know of, certainly none of which casually post on a gaming forum.
Well as I said, the freedom-index makes more sense if there wasn't a federal government. If the constitution was interpreted to be at it's most liberal (i.e. allowing same-sex marriage and drugs) then it would be an accurate representation of more and less freedom. It's just that they seem to ignore that and therefore making a crucial mistake in saying "freedom".I don't think the fact that these figures/charts are biased is the big issue, it is that they pretend not to be.
If they were clearly put forward as the Pro-Liberaterian states versus not... instead of referring to "freedom", I doubt anyone would object.
I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I'm curious why you find libertarian philosophy a bit silly. Are your thoughts somewhere in line with Winston Churchill's famous quote about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the rest? (I believe it was Churchill). Or do you find the idea of libertarianism silly compared to other political thought?Snorri1234 wrote:Then again, it's also a bit silly since libertarian philosophy is a bit silly.
More of the former. I'll try to think of a way to explain what I mean though.thegreekdog wrote:I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I'm curious why you find libertarian philosophy a bit silly. Are your thoughts somewhere in line with Winston Churchill's famous quote about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the rest? (I believe it was Churchill). Or do you find the idea of libertarianism silly compared to other political thought?Snorri1234 wrote:Then again, it's also a bit silly since libertarian philosophy is a bit silly.
On that we can agree. Well put.PLAYER57832 wrote:I don't think the fact that these figures/charts are biased is the big issue, it is that they pretend not to be.
If they were clearly put forward as the Pro-Liberaterian states versus not... instead of referring to "freedom", I doubt anyone would object.
Well, you still have to weigh all the variables they've used. Or add in extra stuff but the views are still measured in "how much regulation". Or at least I think so, you can slide to not counting something but then I wonder whether it means no laws or many laws.Juan_Bottom wrote:But they let you plug your own information in. The conclusion is fluid, from one person to the next. Wouldn't biased be finding a conclusion that supports your views, and then calling it good? Even if these guys are biased, they are still giving you the tools to plug your own views in. You can make this into whatever your view is.
give it a rest, it isn't a gateway to socialism... plenty of countries have universal healthcare, and they are still healthy democracies... but nice try...-0luns101 wrote:...and universal housing, groceries, and vehicles!Juan_Bottom wrote:And Universal Healthcare?
