NationStates Jolt Archive

Just wondering, what is the most libertarian state in the USA?

Just wondering, what is the most libertarian state in the USA?
Perhaps Vermont? Maybe North Carolina? Durned if I know! :)

Difficult to say, since libertarian conservatives have largely been swamped out of the local election process by social conservatives. That being said, I'd be inclined to say Nevada, although I'll keep to myself whether I think this reflects well or poorly on libertarianism as a doctrine.

I would probably say Nevada, take that however you like.

Just wondering, what is the most libertarian state in the USA?
Libertarians exist? I thought they were a folk tale.

New Hampshire, maybe?

I'd say Nevada, probably. Tennessee gets brownie points for not having a state income tax, but I dont know if it's enough.

That said, I don't think Nevada being the most Libertarian state really means much, because when the government was doling out reservation land to the Indians, they almost forgot to give the mafia their own state. See so its probably not really because of the people living there or anything like that.

Used to be Texas until Bush and his cronies took over.

Used to be Texas until Bush and his cronies took over.

You're 100% correct about that. Texas changed from a good state to a shit state in a matter of years. Maybe even months.

Montana, Alaska, North Dakota, parts of Idaho, parts of Michigan and Wisconsin - areas where you can buy up land on the cheap and do damn near whatever you want, where zoning laws don't exist and speed limits are rarely enforced, no one will break down your still or sieze your land to make way for a mini-mall...

Hmm .... *ponders on this new information*
Nevada does sound like it would be pretty libertarian

I'm gonna say Theory-New Hampshire Effective-Nevada.

Can you imagine how a Libertarian state would function except a "homeostasis of corruption" keeping civil order? As intrigued as I am by finding out, I can't think of any other way eith even a chance to work except "90% of the population dies every few years" or "end of civilization as we know it."

Can you imagine how a Libertarian state would function except a "homeostasis of corruption" keeping civil order? As intrigued as I am by finding out, I can't think of any other way eith even a chance to work except "90% of the population dies every few years" or "end of civilization as we know it."
I swear why is it you always attack libertarians every chance you get? Stop acting like we're anarcho-capitalists; if you haven't realized already, we're not against all laws; we're against porkbarrel ones .... -_-

Geez all I asked for was a simple response on what you think, not if it could work.

it has traditionally been new hampshire.

they had the lowest taxes and the lowest level of state services.

in the 80s bunches of tax avoiders moved there from massachusetts so it may have changed. people from higher tax states tend to demand services for their lower taxes.

i'd say oregon, i do not know why though.

I'm not sure, but this guy I saw on Public Access Television said New Mexico is one of the most Liberal.

An argument could be made for Alaska, since we have no state income or sales tax. Then again, in 1998 we passed an amendment to the sate constitution that banned gay marriage, so that would disqualify it in the eyes of some.

We also have a political party who is dedicated to seccession.

im going to go with oklahoma. (just kidding)

Montana, Alaska, North Dakota, parts of Idaho, parts of Michigan and Wisconsin - areas where you can buy up land on the cheap and do damn near whatever you want, where zoning laws don't exist and speed limits are rarely enforced, no one will break down your still or sieze your land to make way for a mini-mall...
Do they permit gay marriage or decriminalize drugs or have any other socially libertarian "measures"?

Actually, a state banning gay marriage doesn't mean much in terms of libertarianism, because to a libertarian, the gov't should be out of marriage altogether, gay and straight. Arguably, now by not giving special tax breaks to coupled gays, the state is moving more towards a libertarian state. Not necessarily my view, but still arguable.
I'm libertarian myself.

Actually, a state banning gay marriage doesn't mean much in terms of libertarianism, because to a libertarian, the gov't should be out of marriage altogether, gay and straight.
Indeed, but as we know banning gay marriage is not so much about that so much as it is about preventing theoretical equality of gay and straight marriage.

Can you imagine how a Libertarian state would function except a "homeostasis of corruption" keeping civil order? As intrigued as I am by finding out, I can't think of any other way eith even a chance to work except "90% of the population dies every few years" or "end of civilization as we know it."

Laissez faire can work, as shown by the 1800s. The problem is that it isn't a very pleasant system.

I swear why is it you always attack libertarians every chance you get? Because every time they try to argue with me, I end up finding a new and fascinating way to say "thank you for proving my point."

Kidding. I'm against the ones that actually listen to The Cato Institute, and the Libertarian Party. I'm fairly Lib myself, in the Heinlien sense, so I support the sane ones. It's just, the stupid nutsos who are doing it just to be different are the ones who actually speak out. Thus, I trust the mature ones can grin and bear it, while the creeps will feel persecuted and flee like the wannabes and cowards they are.

I'm fairly Lib myself, in the Heinlien sense, so I support the sane ones
Yeah, the anarchocapitalist type kinda scare me...

I swear why is it you always attack libertarians every chance you get? Stop acting like we're anarcho-capitalists; if you haven't realized already, we're not against all laws; we're against porkbarrel ones .... -_-

Geez all I asked for was a simple response on what you think, not if it could work.
I agree, people think we're anarchists.
By the way I say West Dakota.

Because every time they try to argue with me, I end up finding a new and fascinating way to say "thank you for proving my point."

Kidding. I'm against the ones that actually listen to The Cato Institute, and the Libertarian Party. I'm fairly Lib myself, in the Heinlien sense, so I support the sane ones. It's just, the stupid nutsos who are doing it just to be different are the ones who actually speak out. Thus, I trust the mature ones can grin and bear it, while the creeps will feel persecuted and flee like the wannabes and cowards they are.
Do you like Hayek or Friedman, I believe they were sane. As to Badnarik, he is an idiot.

Laissez faire can work, as shown by the 1800s. The problem is that it isn't a very pleasant system.

Except that what mostly occured during the 1800's wasn't really "laissez-faire" so much as it was "pro-business." The corporations and robber barons who directed their wealth and power to winning special favors, protection, and subsidy from the government certainly did not adhere to the original "laissez farie" concepts. "Laissez-faire" meant doing away with the landed aristocracy, allowing the free trade and goods and services on the market. It does NOT mean giving a blank check to business.

Go back and read the classical liberal, laissez farie advocates. They favored free markets, but they also tended to be extremely wary of the large monied powers, exactly because the large monied powers made a nasty habit of using their money and power to influence government in order to destroy laissez-faire (nothing is more frightening to a power-mad robber baron than a free market), and warp the economic process in their favor. If they called their behavior "laissez-faire," it was only to decieve people into allowing their behavior to continue unchallenged (similar to how the American Democrats call themselves "liberals" in order to make the masses feel good as they help pass the PATRIOT Act, create and continue the drug war, engage in warfare across the planet, and generally engage in other kinds of decidedly unliberal behavior). Such was not the behavior of an advocate of laissez-faire. Such was simply the behavior of a more wealthy statist socialist.

As I recall, however, the lassiez-faire writers also believed that a true free market would never create such polarization of wealth in the first place. That they failed to predict the natural consequences of their system, namely that people with something to lose and a motive to make more would try to decrease their risk by socializing out the problem, makes lassiez-faire capitalism just as much a practical failure as unrestricted socialism, no?

As I recall, however, the lassiez-faire writers also believed that a true free market would never create such polarization of wealth in the first place. That they failed to predict the natural consequences of their system, namely that people with something to lose and a motive to make more would try to decrease their risk by socializing out the problem, makes lassiez-faire capitalism just as much a practical failure as unrestricted socialism, no?

Given that loosely restricted capitalism made America the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force on the planet, I'd have to say it's not such a terrible indictment.

Alaska or Arizona.

-snip-

....Such was not the behavior of an advocate of laissez-faire. Such was simply the behavior of a more wealthy statist socialist.

I was with you to the end DC but statist socialist implies delivery of social programs. I know it's nit-picking, but I think statist corporatist is a more accurate term.

Just wondering, what is the most libertarian state in the USA?

Denial.

Idaho is. It's libertarian in the sense that it's more seperatist. People will buy up thousands of acres of land, just so no one can tell them what to do on it. It's sort of rediculous, actually.

I was with you to the end DC but statist socialist implies delivery of social programs. I know it's nit-picking, but I think statist corporatist is a more accurate term.

Neoconservatives (statist corportists) actually tend to display a great tollerance for social welfare. Take, for instance, President Bush's plan for saving social security by moving people's accounts into the stock market. Moving social security into the stock market not only forces people to invest in Bush's corporate friends (the statist corporatist element), but it is also supposed to serve as a means of rescuing social security, and thus also serves as a means of delivering a social program.

Do you like Hayek or Friedman, I believe they were sane.Hayek, I'm at least sad that he ain't writing new stuff anymore. I kinda-sorta liked him, and he would be a positive influence on politics today, but since he died before I got into politics...

Friedman, the question is "which one?" Thomas (NYTimes), Kinky (Texas Democrat-like-thing), or Milton (Economist)?

The last, AKA the most likely... I agree withwhat few views of his I've actually read, but I'm pretty nearly opposite as to my analysis of "what the fuck went wrong there?'

Hayek, I'm at least sad that he ain't writing new stuff anymore. I kinda-sorta liked him, and he would be a positive influence on politics today, but since he died before I got into politics...

Friedman, the question is "which one?" Thomas (NYTimes), Kinky (Texas Democrat-like-thing), or Milton (Economist)?

The last, AKA the most likely... I agree withwhat few views of his I've actually read, but I'm pretty nearly opposite as to my analysis of "what the fuck went wrong there?'
I meant Friedman, thanks for your input. They were sane and not as self-righteous.

Do they permit gay marriage or decriminalize drugs or have any other socially libertarian "measures"?

"Libertine" and Libertarian are two different words.. :p

Neoconservatives (statist corportists) actually tend to display a great tollerance for social welfare. Take, for instance, President Bush's plan for saving social security by moving people's accounts into the stock market. Moving social security into the stock market not only forces people to invest in Bush's corporate friends (the statist corporatist element), but it is also supposed to serve as a means of rescuing social security, and thus also serves as a means of delivering a social program.

I think we have to keep in mind that Bush's plan, although in a primitive form right now, would create private accounts as an option, not a requirement. I don't see the harm in allowing someone an option which, if trends do as they always have, would be superior to the existing system. If someone else thought it was too risky, they could abstain. Seems reasonable.. more options are never a bad thing, or at least rarely, in terms of government.

Vegas!

What? Vegas isn't its own state? Well it damn well should be.

Neoconservatives (statist corportists) actually tend to display a great tollerance for social welfare. Take, for instance, President Bush's plan for saving social security by moving people's accounts into the stock market. Moving social security into the stock market not only forces people to invest in Bush's corporate friends (the statist corporatist element), but it is also supposed to serve as a means of rescuing social security, and thus also serves as a means of delivering a social program.

I agree that the changes in Social Security that Bush wants to introduce will produce a massive windfall for stockbrokers charging commisions without any guaruntees of security for society. As far as 'saving' social security, no case has been made, besides ideological faith in free markets. Furthermore, there are many counter proposals that would clearly solve the problem without such a radical departures, one example is eliminate the cap on contributions from people making more than $90k per year.

Alaska or Arizona.
Arizona? Not a chance. Our state legisture passed a resolution to support the federal gay marriage amendment by a large margin. That is not libertarian on so many levels. It was a total waste of time, to begin with. The result of the vote is basically a letter to US congress saying, "we think you should pass that amendment." Something they're working on right now is banning junk food in public schools, a decision that can be left to the districts. The govenor is working on all day kindergarden, and we have socialized campaign financing. The most libertarian thing Arizona has going is liberal gun laws.

...it is also supposed to serve as a means of rescuing social security, and thus also serves as a means of delivering a social program.

No. I've even heard Bush say this will NOT rescue social security.

They are just hoping that people believe it will.

All it will rescue is some stock brokers, as well as wealthy people that don't need SS to begin with.

I don't see the harm in allowing someone an option which, if trends do as they always have, would be superior to the existing system.

NO ONE DOES!

It's called: "investment".

We ALL have the option RIGHT NOW.

All this proposal does is take a mandatory investment, and move it to an optional private account, which your decendants can take from capital-gains tax free. No kidding here - it's another death tax avaoidance scheme.

If you like the investment idea, go ahead and do it right now - just don't use the few percent that must be set aside to promote social welfare.

NO ONE DOES!

It's called: "investment".

We ALL have the option RIGHT NOW.

All this proposal does is take a mandatory investment, and move it to an optional private account, which your decendants can take from capital-gains tax free. No kidding here - it's another death tax avaoidance scheme.

If you like the investment idea, go ahead and do it right now - just don't use the few percent that must be set aside to promote social welfare.

We don't all have the option to invest. Many of us don't have much left over after we pay our taxes.. getting that 1/3 of our SS tax back to invest, or whatever percentage is settled on, would be a boon. Yes, the rich will invest anyway, but I don't have the spare income lying around to do it with.

I meant FriedmanThe corporation, the foundation, the research group, or some other Friedman?

Idaho and New Hampshire would be my nominees; although the crowd in Idaho tends to run to neo-nazis, secessionists, and mormons -- I don't know if one could consider such types libertarians in the strict sense of the word:

one who advocates liberty -- American College Dictionary

I think we have to keep in mind that Bush's plan, although in a primitive form right now, would create private accounts as an option, not a requirement. I don't see the harm in allowing someone an option which, if trends do as they always have, would be superior to the existing system. If someone else thought it was too risky, they could abstain. Seems reasonable.. more options are never a bad thing, or at least rarely, in terms of government.

I would personally prefer that social security in any form be stopped (people who have already payed in or are dependant on it should, of course, expect necessary reparation from the government) so that people can have total control over how they dispose of their incomes and how they plan for their futures. Exactly because more options are a good thing.

(EDIT: it might be argued that investing social security into the stock market is a step in the direction of what I describe above, but I doubt it. Once the stock market gets the new stream of investment from social security, social security will be defended vigorously from the right-wing as well as the left. Once big business gets hold of social security, it will not let go without a fight.)

Idaho is. It's libertarian in the sense that it's more seperatist. People will buy up thousands of acres of land, just so no one can tell them what to do on it. It's sort of rediculous, actually.

LOL.

Idaho is one of the most conservative states in the nation.

There is a definite libertarian streak on some issues, but the state is overwhelmingly social authoritarian.

NO ONE DOES!

It's called: "investment".

We ALL have the option RIGHT NOW.

All this proposal does is take a mandatory investment, and move it to an optional private account, which your decendants can take from capital-gains tax free. No kidding here - it's another death tax avaoidance scheme.

If you like the investment idea, go ahead and do it right now - just don't use the few percent that must be set aside to promote social welfare.
Few percent? Do you have job? Have you looked at your pay stub? And remember your employer has to "match" your "contribution" to social security, so it's really double what you see.

LOL.

Idaho is one of the most conservative states in the nation.

There is a definite libertarian streak on some issues, but the state is overwhelmingly social authoritarian.

Do you live here? Nope. It is conservative, and so are libertarians these days.

Do you live here? Nope. It is conservative, and so are libertarians these days.

I was born and raised in Idaho. I lived there most of my life, more than 20 years by an off-the-top-of-my-head count. I went to high school, college, and law school there. I am happy to have escaped.

Generations of my family on both sides have lived in Idaho since before it was a state. My great-granfather was in the territorial legislature. My wife's family also has lived in Idaho going back several generations.

My living grandparents, my parents and sister, more than a dozen aunts and uncles, etc., all live in Idaho.

My mother is on a first-name basis with many of Idaho's politicians, including the current senior Senator, Mike Crapo. My wife worked in the office of one of the recent Governors.

I could go on and on .... but I think I know a little about the state.

And it is very conservative overall. As I said, on the social end, it is authoritarian.

You're 100% correct about that. Texas changed from a good state to a shit state in a matter of years. Maybe even months.

Yeah he was so hated that he was only the first Texas Governor to be re-elected for two consecutive terms. Bush is a good leader.

Back on subject, I think it would be New Hampshire. Northern Maine too, southern Maine is all socialists and liberals. Pennsylvania, the Rockies area.