NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/lists/freest-least-free-states/intro.html

The study, conducted by William P. Ruger and Jason ReSorens and released earlier this year, explores what the authors claim is the "first-ever comprehensive ranking of American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres." To create this ranking, Ruger and ReSorens outline three categories into which freedoms fit: fiscal policy (which covers spending and taxation), regulatory policy (which refers to such issues as labor regulations and health insurance), and Paternalism (which includes such categories as gambling and alcohol regulations).

This set of metrics was used to determine each state's ranking, which the authors of the study describe as the "ability to dispose of one's own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one does not coercively infringe on another individual's ability to do the same." Such indicators, which could prove controversial based on their potentially partisan associations, include citizens' right to educate one's child as well as the right to possess and carry guns "and be free from unreasonable search and seizure." Based on state gun laws, this metric would be more likely to favor conservative states, and the authors of the study concede as much when they note that freedom is defined differently by different people. However, liberties such as the right to smoke marijuana and same sex partners are factored in as well, which would lend weight to states with a more liberal sociopolitical bent.


According to this study's parameters and calculations, the top five "freest" states are:

1. New Hampshire
2. Colorado
3. South Dakota
4. Idaho
5. Texas

And the least "free":

1. New York
2. New Jersey
3. Rhode Island
4. California
5. Maryland

What do you think of the rankings, NSG? Which states do you think are the "freest", and what factors would you consider when creating such a ranking?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/lists/freest-least-free-states/intro.html




According to this study's parameters and calculations, the top five "freest" states are:

1. New Hampshire
2. Colorado
3. South Dakota
4. Idaho
5. Texas

And the least "free":

1. New York
2. New Jersey
3. Rhode Island
4. California
5. Maryland

What do you think of the rankings, NSG? Which states do you think are the "freest", and what factors would you consider when creating such a ranking?Technically speaking, you could also call it a ranking of which state is most and least anarchic. The total freedom doesn't really say much, since just about everybody has freedoms they can comfortably live without that others would have a problem with giving up.

Haha, skewed towards the conservativism's laughable idea of freedom, I think.

Is it just a coincidence that at least four of the five "freest" states on his list appear to be traditionally Republican states? Without more information on the methods of determining levels of "freedom," I fear Conservative revisionism.

Though I would add that some freedoms are more important than others. A nation with zero laws might seem the most free on paper, but in practice it would be a might makes right warlord state or else complete chaos. If you give all "freedoms" equal weight in a study, you're likely to get some odd results. Of course, anything else would seem biased.

Is it just a coincidence that at least four of the five "freest" states on his list appear to be traditionally Republican states? Without more information on the methods of determining levels of "freedom," I fear Conservative revisionism.

Though I would add that some freedoms are more important than others. A nation with zero laws might seem the most free on paper, but in practice it would be a might makes right warlord state or else complete chaos. If you give all "freedoms" equal weight in a study, you're likely to get some odd results. Of course, anything else would seem biased.

You can read through why each state got ranked where it did. Basically, since Texas has lower taxes and less regulations on cigarette smoking, it gets ranked high up. California has heavier gun control and higher taxes, so it's unfree.

Seems they used pretty terrible gauges for what constitutes freedom. Cigarette and alcohol taxes, seriously? I agree that the regulation of drugs should be included (and I think marijuana deserves attention more so than the other two given its unjust status as a schedule I drug), but what about things like gay rights, minority rights, immigrant rights, free speech, religious freedom, etc? Seems like regulatory freedoms don't get much attention either, so things like pay gaps between the genders and inequality among the races don't aren't given as much weight...

You can read through why each state got ranked where it did. Basically, since Texas has lower taxes and less regulations on cigarette smoking, it gets ranked high up. California has heavier gun control and higher taxes, so it's unfree.

Seems they used pretty terrible gauges for what constitutes freedom. Cigarette and alcohol taxes, seriously? I agree that the regulation of drugs should be included (and I think marijuana deserves attention more so than the other two given its unjust status as a schedule I drug), but what about things like gay rights, minority rights, immigrant rights, free speech, religious freedom, etc? Seems like regulatory freedoms don't get much attention either, so things like pay gaps between the genders and inequality among the races don't aren't given as much weight...

He actually does mention marijuana penalties as being one of the reasons Rhode Island ranked low on freedom.
And the list's #1 free state seems be set to pass both medical marijuana and gay marriage.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2009/04/30/gay_marriage_bill_passes_in_nh_senate/

also read the actual study.
http://www.mercatus.org/uploadedFiles/Mercatus/Publications/Freedom%20in%20the%2050%20States.pdf
every single state by state report mentions marijuana laws,
And civil unions come up several times
(didnt look like he differentiated between civil unions and gay marriage).

Seems like regulatory freedoms don't get much attention either, so things like pay gaps between the genders and inequality among the races don't aren't given as much weight...
What does that even mean? "Regulatory Freedom"?

According to this study's parameters and calculations, the top five "freest" states are:

1. New Hampshire
2. Colorado
3. South Dakota
4. Idaho
5. Texas

And the least "free":

1. New York
2. New Jersey
3. Rhode Island
4. California
5. Maryland


NH: gov=D. sen=1R,1D. house=2D
CO: gov=D. sen=2D. house=5D,2R
SD: gov=R. sen=1R,1D. house=1D
ID: gov=R. sen=2R. house=1D,1R
TX: gov=R. sen=2R. house=20R,12D

NY: gov=D. sen=2D. house=26D,3R
NJ: gov=D. sen=2D. house=8D,5R
RI: gov=R (with D lt.gov.). sen=2D. house=2D.
CA: gov=R (with D lt.gov). sen=2D. house=34D,19R
MD: gov=D. sen=2D. house=7D,1R


clearly the Democrats hate freedom. :p
Meeeehhhh...

According to this study's parameters and calculations, the top five "freest" states are:
1. New Hampshire
2. Colorado
3. South Dakota
4. Idaho
5. Texas

What do you think of the rankings, NSG? Which states do you think are the "freest", and what factors would you consider when creating such a ranking?
I completely agree. This is a good evaluation of freedom in all of the states. At least, when I heard "freest", I instantly thought of New Hampshire, Texas, Colorado and South Dakota.

Technically speaking, you could also call it a ranking of which state is most and least anarchic.
"More anarchic" is more free. Freedom comes from the people, not from the state.


Seems like regulatory freedoms don't get much attention either
Lol what? "Regulatory freedoms"? Is that something like "freedom to be oppressed"?

"More anarchic" is more free. Freedom comes from the people, not from the state.
Indeed. However, "more anarchic" (and subsequently "more free") doesn't corelate to "more good". For one, I wouldn't want to live somewhere where you were free to piss in someone's convertible if you felt like it.

It's a list of least government versus most government, not most free versus least free.

Indeed. However, "more anarchic" (and subsequently "more free") doesn't corelate to "more good".
Of course, not everyone likes freedom. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many governments curbing it.


For one, I wouldn't want to live somewhere where you were free to piss in someone's convertible if you felt like it.
There are limits of how much freedom is needed, but even New Hampshire is miles away from approaching these limits.
For one, this wouldn't be allowed even under Libertarian Party's rule.


It's a list of least government versus most government, not most free versus least free.
And how do you define freedom, if not as less governmental intervention?

And how do you define freedom, if not as less governmental intervention?

The point is it's not a numeric thing. You can't say, "well state X has 150 laws, but state Y has 149 laws, so state Y is more free."

It's hard to say how the study weighed the value of different freedoms, but it seems to heavily favor less government intervention, even when government intervention is what guarantees that freedoms aren't stripped by other people.

For example, if state X had minimal government intervention, to the point where there were no laws prohibiting slavery, but extensive gun rights and no income tax, would you say it was more or less "free" than state Y with extensively protected civil liberties (including laws prohibiting slavery) and a high income tax? Government intervention does not have an inherent negative impact upon freedom, and there is ample room for disagreement as to how much government intervention is necessary for the most freedom. Issuing a blanket statement like "less government intervention = more freedom" is stupid.

It's hard to say how the study weighed the value of different freedoms, but it seems to heavily favor less government intervention, even when government intervention is what guarantees that freedoms aren't stripped by other people.
Such favorable intervention is present on more than sufficient level in all states already.


For example, if state X had minimal government intervention, to the point where there were no laws prohibiting slavery, but extensive gun rights and no income tax, would you say it was more or less "free" than state Y with extensively protected civil liberties (including laws prohibiting slavery) and a high income tax?
"Ifs" are nice, but we're dealing with reality, and the reality doesn't have such a situation.

The reality has a situation of some states barely tolerating their citizens breathing, and some states line NH having extensive civil, political and economic freedoms.

What does that even mean? "Regulatory Freedom"?

The site lists things such as labor regulations and health insurance, so I'm guessing things concerning worker's rights.

Such favorable intervention is present on more than sufficient level in all states already.

That's debatable. Some could argue that there is not enough favorable intervention present to protect civil liberties in many states.

"Ifs" are nice, but we're dealing with reality, and the reality doesn't have such a situation.

The reality has a situation of some states barely tolerating their citizens breathing, and some states line NH having extensive civil, political and economic freedoms.

"Ifs" are how you illustrate points. If you're only interested in arguing is and not ought, then perhaps this isn't the forum for you. If "nuh uh" is all I can expect from you, let me know now, so I don't waste any more of my time talking to a brick wall.

In description of Idaho:

"It deserves credit for being one of the few states to refuse to authorize
privacy-invading sobriety checkpoints. On educational policies Idaho really shines, with only nine years of mandated schooling and no regulations on
private or home schooling other than curriculum requirements."

Fewer laws certainly seems to be the key. I don't know many people who would call an educational system with no private school regulations and mandatory attendance until only 15 "shining".

I've only lived in California and Colorado, so my personal experience is limited. But it seems population density may also be a factor as well as relative diversity of said population.

I certainly "feel" freer in Colorado. The government seems less intrusive than that in California.

In description of Idaho:

"It deserves credit for being one of the few states to refuse to authorize
privacy-invading sobriety checkpoints. On educational policies Idaho really shines, with only nine years of mandated schooling and no regulations on
private or home schooling other than curriculum requirements."

Fewer laws certainly seems to be the key. I don't know many people who would call an educational system with no private school regulations and mandatory attendance until only 15 "shining".

Right. A lax approach to the very real drunk-driving problem, and low education expectations = freedom.

I think Fox news, and other people that favor a certain kind of politics, will make extensive use of this kind of data.

I think the majority of other people will look at what constitutes 'free' according to the criteria, and dismiss the report.

That's debatable. Some could argue that there is not enough favorable intervention present to protect civil liberties in many states.
Some could. Let's argue with these people.


"Ifs" are how you illustrate points. If you're only interested in arguing is and not ought [...]
You see, your point is completely valid. I agree with it. I just believe it's not applicable to the current situation.

One's freedoms end where another's begin. Slavery is a case where one group steps on another group's freedoms and smashes them under their foot. It is, however, a very special case.
I would consider long or frequently issued prison sentences (also a hallmark of CA with its overzealous three-strike laws) a similar suppression of freedom that still exists now. One with some justification. But the sentences come from the government too.

Suppression of freedom that comes from other citizens? We have very little of it left now, the governments have done a good job of monopolizing that activity. Perhaps parents' right of control over their children could count.

The only major controversial issue I can think of, where state regulation cuts some freedoms in favor of more important others, as of today, is the non-compete contract clauses. But that's about it.

Equality and especially equalization don't equal freedom. For instance, a state where only immigrants are required to license cats is more free than a state where no one may own cats at all, even though it's less equal.

Right. A lax approach to the very real drunk-driving problem, and low education expectations = freedom.
Yes.

I'm glad you understand.

Freedom is not about what you like. If it was, it would be called "Things that you like".

The freedom not to be stopped and checked is a freedom. The freedom to make decisions about your life at an early age is a freedom. Heck, even the freedom to drive drunk is a freedom, albeit one virtually all people oppose because of the risks involved.

They are not things that everyone likes, but they are freedoms.

Yes.

I'm glad you understand.

Freedom is not about what you like. If it was, it would be called "Things that you like".

The freedom not to be stopped and checked is a freedom. The freedom to make decisions about your life at an early age is a freedom. Heck, even the freedom to drive drunk is a freedom, albeit one virtually all people oppose because of the risks involved.

They are not things that everyone likes, but they are freedoms.

That's true. But this "study" isn't applying even that standard consistently. They rank Texas highly because it has low taxes and gun control. Yes, those are freedoms. However, they ignore things like capital punishment--certainly LIVING is quite a freedom to take from someone. They assign arbitrary weight to issues like blue laws and barely gloss over civil unions/same-sex marriage, like it's a "bonus" if it's offered. Not all freedoms have the same weight. I'd say the freedom to be alive and the freedom to marry the consenting partner of your choice should weigh a little heavier than the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or smoke indoors.

The freedom not to be stopped and checked is a freedom.

But so is the freedom to not be subjected to the unwanted depredations of people who have not been stopped and checked.

Heck, even the freedom to drive drunk is a freedom

But so is the freedom to not be subjected to the risk of dying from being hit by a drunk driver.

Most meaningful individual freedoms are competitive: one negates another. The exceptions are truly "victimless" acts, which when it comes down to it are rare in the extreme. Rankings like this one are just attempts to advance one particular set of freedoms over another by twisting definitions in a politically propagandistic way.

However, they ignore things like capital punishment--certainly LIVING is quite a freedom to take from someone.
However, what DP replaces is life imprisonment. I would contend that a state where convicts are just terminated is more free than one where they are locked up for the rest of their life. Killing a person removes them from the picture, locking them up creates government-controlled slavery.


They assign arbitrary weight to issues like blue laws and barely gloss over civil unions/same-sex marriage, like it's a "bonus" if it's offered.
Because it is a bonus. 97% of the population is straight (at least openly) and so isn't affected. Freedom and equality aren't the same thing.

But so is the freedom to not be subjected to the unwanted depredations of people who have not been stopped and checked.
It's not a freedom. Being subjected to them does not restrict what you are able to do. It's a """positive right""" at best.


But so is the freedom to not be subjected to the risk of dying from being hit by a drunk driver.
It's not a freedom. Freedoms do not equal desires. Risk is a natural part of life and freedom. You are free to take measures to avert it yourself - buy a safer car, attend a performance driving school, train your body to withstand accelerations. [ BTW, with certain effort in all aspects, you'll be safe from the risk of being killed or disabled in accidents within legal speeds - look at what crashes racing drivers walk away from. ]

Increasing your safety by decreasing others' freedom is not a tradeoff between freedoms, it's a sacrifice of freedom. A sacrifice almost all of us accept, but a sacrifice.


Most meaningful individual freedoms are competitive: one negates another.
They aren't. What if I say I want the "freedom not to share the street with whites and gays", is that a freedom too?

It's not a freedom. Being subjected to them does not restrict what you are able to do.

First... yes, it can. My liberty of action is restricted routinely by the actions of other people: their decisions about how their property may be used, for instance.

Second, this is a stupidly narrow notion of freedom. Imagine the state says, "Anyone who blasphemes will be shot." By your logic, the implementation of this law would not be a violation of freedom, because people do not suffer prior restraint on their blasphemy; they are simply "subjected" to death if they go ahead and do it.

Freedom is more than liberty of action; it implies autonomy, a notion of rule and control over my life. If I am subjected to something against my will, my freedom is restricted because I have no choice in the matter, I have no power over an aspect of my life.

It's a """positive right""" at best.

Actually, most "negative rights" involve the freedom to not be subjected to this or that circumstance.

Risk is a natural part of life and freedom.

That's right. That does not mean that the imposition of a given risk does not constitute a violation of my freedom; it just means that risk in general will never be obviated entirely.

You are free to take measures to avert it yourself - buy a safer car, attend a performance driving school, train your body to withstand accelerations.

Similarly, I am free to undertake any number of measures to protect myself from the depredations of a totalitarian government. But this is merely freedom of response, the narrow freedom to find ways to deal with a circumstance that has been imposed on me. Real freedom, broad freedom, involves the choice to reject the circumstance in the first place.

Increasing your safety by decreasing others' freedom is not a tradeoff between freedoms, it's a sacrifice of freedom.

A violation of my "safety" puts my life at risk due to choices over others over which I have no power. How is this anything but a violation of my freedom?

They aren't. What if I say I want the "freedom not to share the street with whites and gays", is that a freedom too?

Absolutely. It is not necessarily a freedom I value very highly. But that is my whole point: it is not enough to say "Freedom is the highest value", we must use other standards of justice to evaluate which freedoms we elevate over others. It is this critical process that rankings like the one posted (and the sort of unthinking libertarianism it represents) seek to evade.

Second, this is a stupidly narrow notion of freedom.
Being narrow is the whole point of definitions.

Imagine the state says, "Anyone who blasphemes will be shot." By your logic, the implementation of this law would not be a violation of freedom, because people do not suffer prior restraint on their blasphemy; they are simply "subjected" to death if they go ahead and do it.
No. This is a violation of freedom, because it restricts what you can do. Because it coerces you not to do something.

On the other hand, if the country had meteorites drop on it every day and kill a random person, it would not be any less free than one where this doesn't happen. A more dangerous one, yes. A less free one, no.

Think about this. That's part of what I'm building the argument on.


Freedom is more than liberty of action; it implies autonomy, a notion of rule and control over my life.
It does imply autonomy. But it does not imply isolation. And it does not imply control over the actions of others to suit your fancy (or safety) either.


If I am subjected to something against my will, my freedom is restricted because I have no choice in the matter, I have no power over an aspect of my life.
No. Being subjected to things against your will is what the whole life consists of. If you weren't subjected to things against your will, what would be the point of your having a brain - something designed to find a way out of those situations? You'd just eat, sleep, defecate and reproduce, all in a soft white room.

The state intentionally subjecting you to things against your will is a violation of your rights. A violation of your freedoms, too. But the existence of risks in life is not.
And, you still have a choice in the matters concerning road safety. You can choose safer roads, you can drive a safer car, you can drive better, you can train your body, you can improve your car for additional safety. Just because the State doesn't cuddle you into a soft rubber ball doesn't mean you're less free.

Consider this: Who is more free, a wilderness hunter, or a cubicle shrimp? The latter is a hundred times safer, but (s)he's less free.


That's right. That does not mean that the imposition of a given risk does not constitute a violation of my freedom; it just means that risk in general will never be obviated entirely.
The intentional imposition of a given risk by the State does constitute a violation of your freedom. But the State tolerating the existence of a natural risk does not.


Real freedom, broad freedom, involves the choice to reject the circumstance in the first place.
Well... you have the option of living next to your workplace, of course, so that you don't have to drive.


A violation of my "safety" puts my life at risk due to choices of others over which I have no power. How is this anything but a violation of my freedom?
This is a normal part of life and people executing their freedoms. Your life is supposed to be at risk, otherwise what would be the point.

Your being life at risk independently of what you do is no violation of freedom. Now, putting your life at risk depending on the choices you make - now that is a violation of freedom. Admittedly, if you're safer not using the roads than using them, this creates a potential for damage to your freedom of movement.
But it would only be a violation of freedom if the risk discourages you from using the roads. If it doesn't, this may be considered a very minor touch of your freedoms, but a negligibly minor one.


Absolutely.
And here we disagree. No. It's not a freedom.

There exists a homonym-like confusion about what freedom means. One much like "free beer" versus "free speech".
Specifically, the phrase "freedom not to share the street with whites", or just "freedom to X" can be interpreted in two ways: as freedom to act to achieve X or as receiving X.

The latter is a misinterpretation, a common one, but a misinterpretation. Let's take a good example: "Freedom to drink beer". It is a freedom. But it doesn't mean receiving beer. It means having the unimpeded right to produce or purchase and consume beer.

Similarly, my freedom not to share the streets with whites - doesn't actually mean cleaning the whites off the streets. Such a freedom would means me or someone else having the right to create special streets free of whites. If I had the right to do it, I would have that freedom. Even if all existing streets were mixed-race. One's inability to exercise a freedom doesn't mean lack of that freedom.

Of course, in the current society, even the latter freedom is denied to me, because historically it was about streets free of blacks, and for Blacks' own protection, that is banned. Such a freedom also slightly clashes with another freedom - the freedom of a person to walk anywhere they want. Although, private property is a common exception to such a freedom. So, actually, one not having the right to create a black-only street is a restriction of freedom done in favor of equality. Said piece of freedom has been (rightly) considered insignificant enough to sacrifice in favor of equality.

And similarly, my freedom to safety means my freedom to take actions to protect myself. To install a steel door, buy bullet-resistant window film and security window frames, own a protective vest and a means of defense, for instance, when considering safety against burglary. But it does not mean safety handed to me on a silver platter. Although handing these things out to everyone would also satisfy the freedom to safety against burglary, it's not necessary to satisfy it.

freeest state? Denial.

However, what DP replaces is life imprisonment. I would contend that a state where convicts are just terminated is more free than one where they are locked up for the rest of their life. Killing a person removes them from the picture, locking them up creates government-controlled slavery.
People can be released from prison, restoring their freedom. If you put someone to death their freedoms are gone forever.



Because it is a bonus. 97% of the population is straight (at least openly) and so isn't affected. Freedom and equality aren't the same thing.

Freedom for 3% of the population is still freedom.

(ssshhhh, they messed up and mixed up "most free" and "least free" :D)

People can be released from prison, restoring their freedom. If you put someone to death their freedoms are gone forever.
On one hand, this. On the other, subjecting people to a life of no freedom is arguably a greater hit to freedoms than merely eliminating them.
Which country would you consider more free: One that is filled with slaves from defeated enemy populations, or one that exterminates its enemies? Not better. But more free.


Freedom for 3% of the population is still freedom.
It is, so the study authors did take it into account. They have mentioned it. They just didn't put it on top of the list.

Remember, what you read in the popular report is not everything they had considered. It's just the tip of the iceberg, what they considered important to mention in these few words that fit near the pic.

On one hand, this. On the other, subjecting people to a life of no freedom is arguably a greater hit to freedoms than merely eliminating them.
Which country would you consider more free: One that is filled with slaves from defeated enemy populations, or one that exterminates its enemies? Not better. But more free.
It's the same really. Slaves have no freedom. Dead people have no freedom.

It's the same really. Slaves have no freedom. Dead people have no freedom.
But dead people do not exist. "Live free or die". Being dead, i.e. not being, is better than living as a slave.

Life sentences instead of DP only serve two purposes - one, to protect against brief mistakes, two, to trick our conscience.
Although, with US DP prisoners being kept for years in torture-like conditions - http://www.fdp.dk/uk/cond/oversigt.htm#cond-11 - and aggressive prevention of their suicide attempts - it's even worse. But that's a problem of the US system, not DP in itself.

On one hand, this. On the other, subjecting people to a life of no freedom is arguably a greater hit to freedoms than merely eliminating them.
Which country would you consider more free: One that is filled with slaves from defeated enemy populations, or one that exterminates its enemies? Not better. But more free.

I thought we were only dealing with reality?

The right to live is the most important right there is. The slaves might think they have no freedoms, but at least they have the freedom to be alive. The ones that are dead were denied that freedom when they had their lives taken from them against their will.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I think I'd love to have a winter-house in Colorado.

Being narrow is the whole point of definitions.

No, setting lines is the whole point of definitions... the area the lines mark off is a separate question entirely.

No. This is a violation of freedom, because it restricts what you can do. Because it coerces you not to do something.

Yes, it does, but only by virtue of subjecting you to a certain condition.

You suggest that, if the state decided to shoot people randomly, it would somehow be a lesser violation of freedom. Nonsense.

On the other hand, if the country had meteorites drop on it every day and kill a random person, it would not be any less free than one where this doesn't happen.

Yes... and no. There is a difference between the two, but it is not the difference you seek to point out. Being imposed upon by natural law is not the same as being imposed upon by other human beings because natural law is not in our power to change: it simply is, and we rationally must accept it for what it is. But because other human beings have free will, we can legitimately challenge and resent their authority to do certain things: all products of human action are artificial.

Imagine if, purely naturally, prisons appeared that locked certain people in cells. On the same grounds as your meteorite example, perhaps the result would not be a society that is less free. But when the state (or private individuals) lock people up in cells, that certainly constitutes a violation of freedom. It's not the act itself, it's the source: nature or other people, other wills.

It does imply autonomy. But it does not imply isolation. And it does not imply control over the actions of others to suit your fancy (or safety) either.

No... and this is precisely why freedom is competitive.

My freedom does not mean that I am entitled to trump your freedom. But our freedoms, in non-isolated conditions, are inevitably in conflict: so we must find some standard independent of freedom to resolve which one is to triumph.

The state intentionally subjecting you to things against your will is a violation of your rights. A violation of your freedoms, too. But the existence of risks in life is not.

Right.

But you would somehow have us believe that while the state "subjecting you to things against your will" counts, private individuals doing exactly the same thing--subjecting people to risks to their life against their will--doesn't count.

Nonsense.

And, you still have a choice in the matters concerning road safety.

Purely responsive ones. Not fully autonomous ones.

Consider this: Who is more free, a wilderness hunter, or a cubicle shrimp?

Probably the former. But this is just a restatement of the natural/artificial point.

The intentional imposition of a given risk by the State does constitute a violation of your freedom. But the State tolerating the existence of a natural risk does not.

Not on the part of the state, no. But on the part of the individual in question, yes. Perhaps the problem here is that you are simply blind to the fact that individuals are capable of violating the freedom of other individuals; indeed, the only reason specifically government violations of freedom feature so prominently in our thinking is because we live in highly regulated societies with effective and extensive systems of law enforcement.

Well... you have the option of living next to your workplace, of course, so that you don't have to drive.

Still responsive. I am still determining my life on the basis of coping with an imposition that I do not will.

This is a normal part of life and people executing their freedoms.

That's right. I'm not sure why you think "normal" means "free."

Your being life at risk independently of what you do is no violation of freedom. Now, putting your life at risk depending on the choices you make - now that is a violation of freedom.

That's ridiculous. Essential to the possession of civil freedom is for impositions to be discriminate, to be targeted specifically at those who have made certain choices. There are a number of reasons for this, but one of them is that it actually makes the person imposed upon more free: while that person still cannot choose not to be imposed upon, the choice to avoid behavior that will result in being imposed upon is still open.

You would have us believe that this is a delusion, that we are more free if we have no control over the matter at all--if the state can execute us on a whim instead of only if we commit blasphemy!

But it would only be a violation of freedom if the risk discourages you from using the roads.

...hey, wait, you've just been telling me repeatedly that the risk of drunk driving deaths is not a violation of freedom because I can modify my actions to cope with it. Now you wish to say that my freedom is violated only if I modify my actions to cope with it?

When your conception leads you to this kind of rhetorical absurdity, you should consider revising it.

Specifically, the phrase "freedom not to share the street with whites", or just "freedom to X" can be interpreted in two ways: as freedom to act to achieve X or as receiving X.

Actually, it's neither. You come closest with your second formulation later.

It means having the unimpeded right to produce or purchase and consume beer.

That's better. The crucial element is the issue of "restriction", of another person interfering with my autonomy. The problem is you are selective about what you consider to be such a restriction, such an impediment. A gay person walking down the street is an obvious impediment to my freedom to not be on the same street as gay people.

You undoubtedly want to draw a distinction between "opportunity" and "capacity", but the problem is that any such distinction presupposes a distribution of property (in a very broad sense), of specific entitlement rights. Those distributions, however, are themselves resolutions of the original fact of competing freedom: they favor certain freedoms over others, strike a certain balance. None are generally "pro-freedom" or "anti-freedom."

What we are doing when we arrange such a distribution is marking off certain impediments as legitimate and certain impediments as illegitimate. You presuppose these distinctions, and pretend disingenuously that the legitimate impediments are actually not impediments at all. Worse, the distinctions you presuppose are not even the actually existing ones--like the people in the OP's rankings, you have your own preferences, and you are blind to their character.

Similarly, my freedom not to share the streets with whites - doesn't actually mean cleaning the whites off the streets. Such a freedom would means me or someone else having the right to create special streets free of whites.

...but how may you legitimately go about creating such streets? Your distinction here suggests that freedom does not amount to freedom of means, only of ends: I may seek to achieve any particular objective (such as having streets free of whites), but I am not automatically entitled to that objective by any means necessary. I agree that this is an important notion of freedom. But you are putting it in the wrong place, because this notion only works subsequent to laws determining allocation--and we are here dealing with using "freedom" to critique laws and social systems.

What does it mean to have the "right to create" such streets? Does it mean that any street I so designate (that I actually use) may become white people-free? That is surely one way to express such a "right to create", but it is indistinguishable from the formulation you reject. You probably want to say that my freedom only extends to using certain means to bring about the end of white-free streets, but this condition holds even in a society that bans discrimination on streets: yes, I may seek white-free streets, but I may not discriminate to bring about such an end. (This rule may practically prohibit me from ever achieving white-free streets... but, hey, "[o]ne's inability to exercise a freedom doesn't mean lack of that freedom.")

To put this point a different way, perhaps you are right, and the pure "freedom to achieve white-free and gay-free streets" does not extend to actually clearing them off the streets I walk on by law. But "the freedom to achieve white-free and gay-free streets by my personal declaration" does, and is impeded by (and impedes) their freedom of movement. "The freedom to achieve white-free and gay-free streets through free-market practices" is more limited in the means I may use, but still impedes and is impeded by their freedom of movement. Freedom is competitive.

And similarly, my freedom to safety means my freedom to take actions to protect myself.

That is one means that might express it, one that interferes with my freedom to acquire property by taking it from others without their consent. There are others. And all of them are competitive.

On one hand, this. On the other, subjecting people to a life of no freedom is arguably a greater hit to freedoms than merely eliminating them.
Which country would you consider more free: One that is filled with slaves from defeated enemy populations, or one that exterminates its enemies? Not better. But more free.

Very arguable. So arguable that, given the choice, 99% of people given the choice between life imprisonment and death will choose life. If it's all about personal freedom, the fact that the overwhelming majority would choose life in prison over execution makes a pretty strong argument.

I would consider the latter more free, because the freedoms that have been taken are ones that can be given back.

Looks like two out of three categories are messed up. Taxation and spending? Not about freedom of the individual. Regulating corporations? Not about freedom of the individual.

You suggest that, if the state decided to shoot people randomly, it would somehow be a lesser violation of freedom.
Yes, it would be a lesser violation of freedom. It would violate your right to life, but since that doesn't depend on how you act, you won't be coerced to modify your behavior because of that.

Consider as an example the state that conducts regular NBCR weapons testing, which does spill out to kill random people once in a while.
It's clearly a lesser violation of freedom than a state that rounds up people who speak up against it. Because being a victim of testing is not in your control, and speaking against the government is.


Imagine if, purely naturally, prisons appeared that locked certain people in cells.
No much imagination needed - mountains where you can be trapped under ice. Or, if we assume resources provided, the natural wildlife that's trapped by roads into their limited sector.

On the same grounds as your meteorite example, perhaps the result would not be a society that is less free. But when the state (or private individuals) lock people up in cells, that certainly constitutes a violation of freedom. It's not the act itself, it's the source: nature or other people, other wills.
Yes. And here's a ranking: nature, other people, the state.

This is, mostly, a question of certainty. If the nature curbs your freedom, it's usually a small risk. If the other people, a modest risk. If the state does it, a near certainty. It's also a matter of what we accept as natural or artificial. Out of the three, the actions of the State are the most artificial ones, as they don't come as a side effect of any natural life. The actions of the people are partially natural.


My freedom does not mean that I am entitled to trump your freedom. But our freedoms, in non-isolated conditions, are inevitably in conflict: so we must find some standard independent of freedom to resolve which one is to triumph.
They are not inevitably in conflict. Our desires are. Our rights might be. But freedoms are a specific subset of rights (which are themselves a subset of desires), and they have a much lower chance of coming in conflict.
Freedoms can also be ranked, and often this ranking is very clear-cut.

We can both drive on the road at 180 mph (if your car allows it) and we'll have full freedom, with no conflict between one another. The risk that one of us can kill another in an accident does not in any way harm our freedoms, since we have consented to this.
Now, one may want the freedom of having all lanes clear to himself, but that's a very low-ranked and debatable freedom (since he didn't build the road), far below the freedom of transportation which dictates that both of us should be free to use the road.


But you would somehow have us believe that while the state "subjecting you to things against your will" counts, private individuals doing exactly the same thing--subjecting people to risks to their life against their will--doesn't count.
It does count, but in a different way and on a different level. First of all, private individuals subjecting each other to risks is a part of the way of how the human society naturally works.

Second, certainty matters. State punishing you for doing X is a near certainty. A private individual subjecting you to risk is a double hypothetical - one, you have to cross paths with them first, two, the event has to happen.

I recall someone mentioning a similar distinction concerning justified killing - it's justified if the target is an imminent threat with high certainty, but it's not for a low- or moderate-probability hypothetical threat.


Purely responsive ones. Not fully autonomous ones.
Full autonomy is only possible on your own planet, assuming you can protect it from meteorites.

Hence, it's not even worth mentioning as a theoretical, much less practical concept.


Probably the former. But this is just a restatement of the natural/artificial point.
No. It's not just a restatement. It would be the same if the hunter was hunting elusive robots (lol). You see, the hunter has hundreds of much greater dangers... BUT, all these dangers do not significantly restrict him from exercising his freedoms. He can go anywhere, select his risks, take or not take them.
The cubicle worker, on the other hand, has his risks control him. He knows he will be fired if he violates the office code. He has to follow it to evade the risks.

That's why meteorites falling, or nuclear tests in the sky are an incomparably lesser, if any, harm to freedom than active actions of the state or the office supervisor.



Essential to the possession of civil freedom is for impositions to be discriminate, [...]
[...] the choice to avoid behavior that will result in being imposed upon is still open.
No.

Discrimination involves a restriction of freedom, whether it's a discrimination on the basis of choice or on the basis of birth-derived properties. And discrimination based on choices that you make is a particularly freedom-damaging one. A society where people are discriminated based on their color is more free than the one where they are discriminated based on their chosen ideology. It's less equal, but more free.


You would have us believe that this is a delusion, that we are more free if we have no control over the matter at all--if the state can execute us on a whim instead of only if we commit blasphemy!
Yes. You are more free if the state holds a lottery to execute a random person regularly - for instance to curb overpopulation - than if the state executes those who commit blasphemy. Because the former does not coerce you to modify your behavior, and the latter does.

Coercion is not just a fiction here, it's also a legal concept, which might be looked at as a reference. I.e. the presence of drunk drivers on the streets is not coercion, but laws against blasphemy are.


...hey, wait, you've just been telling me repeatedly that the risk of drunk driving deaths is not a violation of freedom because I can modify my actions to cope with it. Now you wish to say that my freedom is violated only if I modify my actions to cope with it?
No, you've misunderstood me. The risk of drunk driving deaths is not a violation of freedom despite your being able to modify your actions to cope with it.
I was addressing the factual side of the issue there, i.e. the notion that one can't protect themselves against the actions of drunk drivers.

It's not a violation of freedom despite your being able to modify your actions to cope with it, because the people don't actually modify their actions in a way that would make them less free in order to cope with it.

Now, if it was on the level of danger that people were forced to live near where they work as not to be killed on the highway, it would be violating their freedoms.




That's better. The crucial element is the issue of "restriction", of another person interfering with my autonomy. The problem is you are selective about what you consider to be such a restriction, such an impediment. A gay person walking down the street is an obvious impediment to my freedom to not be on the same street as gay people.
No.

It's a restriction to your desire to not be on the same street as gay people. It could be a restriction to your positive right to [...], if said right was guaranteed as a positive right (but not as a negative right).

It does not violate your freedom to not be on the same street as gay people, as long as you can leave the street and move on another one.

Again, this is confusion coming from free speech and free beer getting mixed up. Free beer isn't freedom; it's a "positive right". Free speech is freedom.


You undoubtedly want to draw a distinction between "opportunity" and "capacity", but the problem is that any such distinction presupposes a distribution of property (in a very broad sense), of specific entitlement rights. Those distributions, however, are themselves resolutions of the original fact of competing freedom: they favor certain freedoms over others, strike a certain balance. None are generally "pro-freedom" or "anti-freedom."
They are. Freedom has a narrower meaning than the one it's often ascribed. Freedom is the ability to act in any way you desire. That is the primary freedom. The source of it. Other freedoms are just scaffolding that sacrifices some of the primary freedom to remove the counter-incentive against acting in certain ways.


...but how may you legitimately go about creating such streets? Your distinction here suggests that freedom does not amount to freedom of means, only of ends: I may seek to achieve any particular objective (such as having streets free of whites), but I am not automatically entitled to that objective by any means necessary.
Exactly. Exactly. By being entitled to seek a certain objective, you are not automatically entitled to use any means necessary. You are also not entitled to the means to achieve that objective.


You probably want to say that my freedom only extends to using certain means to bring about the end of white-free streets, but this condition holds even in a society that bans discrimination on streets: yes, I may seek white-free streets, but I may not discriminate to bring about such an end.
No, that's a bit of a misunderstanding... In the current society, you are not entitled to the freedom to have a white-only street. Such a goal is discrimination in itself.

The point is that even if you were entitled to a freedom to have white-free streets, said freedom would not mean that the whites should leave any street you enter. Said freedom would only entitle you to build a street, or have the street's community vote for, that street being off-limits to the white populace.

Making the whites leave any street you enter would rather be a so-called "positive right", which is not a freedom, but entitlement to fulfillment of a desire. Freedom doesn't mean entitlement to fulfillment of the goal, freedom means the lack of explicit or implicit restrains against seeking out the goal.


That is one means that might express it, one that interferes with my freedom to acquire property by taking it from others without their consent. There are others. And all of them are competitive.
Yes to the former. And no to the latter. Some of the freedoms compete. Others don't.

My property rights do compete with your rights to use anything. Indeed, this competition has lasted for 40 years, prompting tens of thousands of nuclear weapons to be built.

On the other hands, my freedom to protect my property by obtaining weapons, armor, home alarms and reinforcement, does not compete with your freedom of doing the same in any way.

the freedom to marry the consenting partner of your choice should weigh a little heavier than the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet or smoke indoors.
Go to page 48 on the study, a nice pie chart of how he weighted the study.
Civil unions are weighted to count for 1/24th of the total.
Auto regulations are only 1/30th.
And tobacco regulations are only 1/30th.

So yes he did weigh civil unions more then the ability to smoke indoors , and to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
So he did weigh civil unions more heavily than smoking and motorcycle riding.

In description of Idaho:

"It deserves credit for being one of the few states to refuse to authorize
privacy-invading sobriety checkpoints. On educational policies Idaho really shines, with only nine years of mandated schooling and no regulations on
private or home schooling other than curriculum requirements."

Fewer laws certainly seems to be the key. I don't know many people who would call an educational system with no private school regulations and mandatory attendance until only 15 "shining".

Well the UK only has mandatory attendance until 16, and their education system out performs ours.
looking here
http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm
Idaho ranks 20th in the country.
I might suggest required attendance is not related to performance of the educational system.

I might suggest required attendance is not related to performance of the educational system.
Indeed. Education should be seen as a privilege, not a right or duty.

A readily available privilege, if speaking about high school, but still one.
That changes the attitude radically.

Indeed. Education should be seen as a privilege, not a right or duty.

A readily available privilege, if speaking about high school, but still one.
That changes the attitude radically.

My brother was held back by mandatory attendance.
He was wanted to drop out get a GED and go to community college at 14, because he didn't feel he was learning anything.
Instead he had to wait until he was 17, to do that. Right now he is in the PHD program at UT.

Well the UK only has mandatory attendance until 16, and their education system out performs ours.
looking here
http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm
Idaho ranks 20th in the country.
I might suggest required attendance is not related to performance of the educational system.

Everyone's education system out-performs ours. We have no money for education. How does another country's superior public school system make going to school any less necessary? Of course it's related.

My brother was held back by mandatory attendance.
He was wanted to drop out get a GED and go to community college at 14, because he didn't feel he was learning anything.
Instead he had to wait until he was 17, to do that. Right now he is in the PHD program at UT.

Then your brother isn't very imaginative, because he could have been taking AP classes, interning, auditing college courses, researching... hell, even spending time in a library. Why didn't he go into advanced classes? How does getting a GED help anything?

Everyone's education system out-performs ours. We have no money for education. How does another country's superior public school system make going to school any less necessary? Of course it's related.

It seems unrelated. Besides does forcing a teenager to go to school actually produce results ? Or does it mean you now have a disruptive teenager making it harder to teach those who want to be there?
I think around the age of 16 those who don't want to learn should be turned lose with parental consent of course.

Then your brother isn't very imaginative, because he could have been taking AP classes, interning, auditing college courses, researching... hell, even spending time in a library. Why didn't he go into advanced classes? How does getting a GED help anything?

Because he can be done with a GED and in college within a semester, and have a degree before your 17 ?
The solutions you presented did not offer him that opportunity.
I don't believe your allowed to intern at 14, thought that falls under state employment laws. (I think most internships require 16 or 18 depending on the job).

What bothers me is why you feel the need to tell him how to manage his Academic career. The path he took seems to have worked out really well for him and current law only got in the way of that.

Because he can be done with a GED and in college within a semester, and have a degree before your 17 ?
The solutions you presented did not offer him that opportunity.
I don't believe your allowed to intern at 14, thought that falls under state employment laws. (I think most internships require 16 or 18 depending on the job).

What bothers me is why you feel the need to tell him how to manage his Academic career. The path he took seems to have worked out really well for him and current law only got in the way of that.

I don't feel the need to tell him anything. I don't know your brother. You said that mandated school "held him back", and that he would have been further along now if he could have dropped out at 14. I presented a number of ways your brother could have worked at advancing himself without dropping out. These are called hypotheticals, because your brother didn't drop out at 14, and you don't know how to would have worked out for him.

We already have ways to legally advance extremely gifted children through grades. There are students who finish high school at 14. There are children who are home schooled so that their education can be tailored to their gifts and needs. We have college prep classes. I hardly think that your brother's boredom in high school is a good reason to eliminate mandatory years of schooling.

You also don't know what would have happened had he dropped out at 14. Most students aren't ready for college at that age. And most colleges aren't impressed with drop-outs.

I don't feel the need to tell him anything. I don't know your brother. You said that mandated school "held him back", and that he would have been further along now if he could have dropped out at 14. I presented a number of ways your brother could have worked at advancing himself without dropping out. These are called hypotheticals, because your brother didn't drop out at 14, and you don't know how to would have worked out for him.

I have a pretty good idea based on the results of him dropping out at 17.
Namely 6 months away form a PHD today.

We already have ways to legally advance extremely gifted children through grades. There are students who finish high school at 14. There are children who are home schooled so that their education can be tailored to their gifts and needs. We have college prep classes. I hardly think that your brother's boredom in high school is a good reason to eliminate mandatory years of schooling.

None of the ways to "legally advance" that were available to him fitted with him.
I got to go to the magnet school the city he lived in did not have that program(He lived with a different parent). Parents were divorced and had to work Home/Private school was never an option for us.


You also don't know what would have happened had he dropped out at 14. Most students aren't ready for college at that age. And most colleges aren't impressed with drop-outs.
He did drop out at 17. Considering he spent most of 14-17 not in class I guess similar results just earlier.
And after a year of community college the university was impressed with him having an associates degree and a 4.0 GPA, and a 1500 on the SAT (old system don't know how the new one scoring system works).

On the other end of the spectrum there are those who wont get a degree even if you forced them to stay in school until they are 21. What good is it for them to be forced into school? If they want to go work let them go work.
There is always the GED program and community college if they change their mind a few years after working.

Within the US Idaho does better then most of the states in terms of education. So how has the lack of mandatory education hurt Idaho ?
If anything it allows those students most likely to succeed to have more access to educational funding.

Mandatory education should only be for the bare minimum to function in society. Anything after say middle school should be optional, especially as high school now really only acts as a stepping stone to college (or a day care for those not going to college).
50 years ago it used to be possible to get training in that would give you a head start coming out as a carpenter or a machinist.

That NY, NJ, and Cali all made the top 5 of the least free doesn't suprise me at all. You can't pump your own gas in NJ and NY and CA don't just ban guns, they've banned knives. Seriously, you cannot own a balisong knife, among others, in NY or CA. I was a little suprised that my homestate didn't end up in the top 5 of least free. In MN you can't smoke in public or in your car and cops can now pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt. Our legislature can't pass a balanced budget and our guv is so desperate for cash he'll sign off on new fines for anything.

I have a pretty good idea based on the results of him dropping out at 17.
Namely 6 months away form a PHD today.

None of the ways to "legally advance" that were available to him fitted with him.
I got to go to the magnet school the city he lived in did not have that program(He lived with a different parent). Parents were divorced and had to work Home/Private school was never an option for us.

He did drop out at 17. Considering he spent most of 14-17 not in class I guess similar results just earlier.
And after a year of community college the university was impressed with him having an associates degree and a 4.0 GPA, and a 1500 on the SAT (old system don't know how the new one scoring system works).

On the other end of the spectrum there are those who wont get a degree even if you forced them to stay in school until they are 21. What good is it for them to be forced into school? If they want to go work let them go work.
There is always the GED program and community college if they change their mind a few years after working.

Within the US Idaho does better then most of the states in terms of education. So how has the lack of mandatory education hurt Idaho ?
If anything it allows those students most likely to succeed to have more access to educational funding.

Mandatory education should only be for the bare minimum to function in society. Anything after say middle school should be optional, especially as high school now really only acts as a stepping stone to college (or a day care for those not going to college).
50 years ago it used to be possible to get training in that would give you a head start coming out as a carpenter or a machinist.
In the here and now, having a high school diploma or GED is necessary to get hired most places. With only a middle school education, your average fella will not be able to get past the poverty line - and it will take great effort to find the time or money to spare, as little as it may seem, to go back to school and get the GED. Your brother is the exception among high school dropouts, not the rule.

If your high school only serves as a daycare for those not intending to go to college, it's failing in its mission. Even the high school I went to, though - and most of my class has at least a bachelor's degree by now, with many (like myself) in graduate school - had vocational classes. You had to commute over to the other high school in town for some of them, but still, they were available, and there was a non-college track on the curriculum.

That NY, NJ, and Cali all made the top 5 of the least free doesn't suprise me at all. You can't pump your own gas in NJ and NY and CA don't just ban guns, they've banned knives. Seriously, you cannot own a balisong knife, among others, in NY or CA. I was a little suprised that my homestate didn't end up in the top 5 of least free. In MN you can't smoke in public or in your car and cops can now pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt. Our legislature can't pass a balanced budget and our guv is so desperate for cash he'll sign off on new fines for anything.
NC, tobacco haven of yore, just passed a ban on smoking in public places. That's the norm now that the hazards of secondhand smoke are accepted.

We've also had seatbelt laws on the books for quite some time. The freedom to give the morgue extra work by being an idiot on the road disappeared a while back.

The fact that you can't pump your own gas in NJ weirded me out when I visited there. In NC, all stations are self-service.

Yes, it would be a lesser violation of freedom. It would violate your right to life, but since that doesn't depend on how you act, you won't be coerced to modify your behavior because of that.

One offers me a choice, the other does not. The one that I am more free to control is the one that allows me more freedom.

Consider as an example the state that conducts regular NBCR weapons testing, which does spill out to kill random people once in a while.

Freer, because the violation of freedom is indirect and incidental to another end that may be worthy. But a state that rounds people up at random and shoots them? Less free. With this clarification: on the individual level, being shot for no reason at all is a greater violation of freedom than being shot because you have chosen to speak out. But with an equal number of executions, the society where people are shot for speaking out will restrict more people's freedom: not just the ones killed, but all the ones who will not speak out. But this does not really prove anything useful to us about freedom.

Out of the three, the actions of the State are the most artificial ones, as they don't come as a side effect of any natural life. The actions of the people are partially natural.

The standard is not "artificiality" as such--"How far is human action from its natural state?"--but changeability. It may be "natural" for certain murders to occur; they are still violations of freedom because they need not occur, and thus constitute not "How the world is", but "What the world has been made to be against my will."

Now, you're not entirely wrong about this. I think freedom is most fundamentally political, not exactly for the reasons you've stated but because politics is the means by which the depredations of others may be controlled. What I am really getting at here is not so much individual choices as political decisions, which are always artificial (indeed, the function of politics is to replace "natural" human relations with artificial ones). When we choose politically to allow a given element of autonomy/control in respect of "freedom", unless it is an act so private as to have no effect whatsoever on others, we are taking away another element of autonomy/control, another freedom, at the same time.

Freedoms can also be ranked, and often this ranking is very clear-cut.

Not usefully. Oh, I know we've been doing it throughout: both of us have attempted to use our intuitions of "greater" or "lesser" violations of freedom to support our respective conceptions. But when we make this comparison interpersonal it only confuses matters to attempt to "rank."

For instance, we are agreed that incidental risk to others is "freer" in a sense than targeted force. But if the community imposes targeted force to stop people from imposing incidental risks on others? Has society become "more free" or "less free"? When we look at it this way, I doubt the respective freedoms are truly commensurable. Which is to count more: A's freedom to drive drunk or B's freedom to avoid being endangered by drunk drivers? Either way, somebody is imposed upon, and with an equivalent level of "directness": either way, someone's freedom is restricted.

Oh, you may be able to articulate a concept of freedom that manages to compare freedoms: you're trying to right now and are good enough at this to make a cogent argument, I've toyed with a (very different) conception having to do with how personal, how fundamental to one's individual life experience, certain aspects of sovereignty are. But none of these are politically useful. What's the role of speaking of "freedom"? Generally we consider it a good: perhaps not the only good, but one of them. Freedom on these conceptions, on the other hand (at least if it is admitted to be competitive), is not necessarily "better" if there is "more" of it: the quantitative comparison is meaningless. The fact that the risk you cause me is incidental rather than intentional and direct does not mean that letting you do it at the expense of my freedom to control my risks constitutes a good. The fact that a given aspect of my life is fundamental to my existence does not mean that letting me control it, at the expense of (say) another's freedom over his or her property, constitutes a good.

If something is mine to control by right, it doesn't matter if it also has an effect on your freedom: it's still mine. The real question, and the real point where libertarianism differs from its political alternatives, is not on the valuation of "freedom" but on the question of distribution. It's its entitlement theory of property that makes political-philosophical libertarianism coherent.

We can both drive on the road at 180 mph (if your car allows it) and we'll have full freedom, with no conflict between one another. The risk that one of us can kill another in an accident does not in any way harm our freedoms, since we have consented to this.

We have consented to go on the road, yes. But there is a third option that has been denied to us: the choice to go on the road without anyone else present.

Now, one may want the freedom of having all lanes clear to himself, but that's a very low-ranked and debatable freedom (since he didn't build the road),

"The freedom to have clear roads by personal declaration (rather than by construction and ownership)." Seems perfectly legitimate to me.

far below the freedom of transportation which dictates that both of us should be free to use the road.

What does your freedom of transportation have to do with my freedom to have clear roads? Nothing whatsoever. They are not commensurable on these terms: not meaningfully. The real question is, to whom does power over the roads in this respect belong? This society recognizes freedom of transportation: to all drivers belong the power to use (most) roads as they see fit, but they are not permitted to bar others from using them. In another society, the roads might be privately-owned, with the owners free to decide who is to use and not to use them. If I am forced to make a quantitative comparison, my inclination is to say the first situation is freer--but this is not really a meaningful statement because freedom of transportation does not count against freedom to control access to a road (or vice versa), without some other reason to favor one against the other. The comparison does not constitute an independent reason to so allocate powers.

I recall someone mentioning a similar distinction concerning justified killing - it's justified if the target is an imminent threat with high certainty, but it's not for a low- or moderate-probability hypothetical threat.

Right, but this is a standard of "rights", not of freedom. As a matter of fact, this example does not even support your case, because if we go after low-probability threats there will be a general incidental risk to many people rather than a targeted, certain risk for a few.

He knows he will be fired if he violates the office code. He has to follow it to evade the risks.

...and the hunter can evade the risks if he so chooses, too. So?

And discrimination based on choices that you make is a particularly freedom-damaging one.

So you think that a society without fair trials or habeus corpus or any of the other various rights that protect people from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment is more free than a society with those things?

Because the former does not coerce you to modify your behavior, and the latter does.

It coerces you into modifying your behavior because it has the power to inflict death on you against your will. The infliction of death is the worse violation: it does not permit you to choose to avoid it. I'm not sure why you're inclined to resist this point.

Coercion is not just a fiction here, it's also a legal concept, which might be looked at as a reference.

Coercion is only a subset of acts that violate freedom.

It's not a violation of freedom despite your being able to modify your actions to cope with it, because the people don't actually modify their actions in a way that would make them less free in order to cope with it.

So for a given imposition of risk, there are two possibilities:

a. Because my need to engage in the risky activity is strong enough that I do not modify my behavior, I take the risk against my will: I have no better options.

b. Because my life is flexible enough that I can modify my behavior in response to risk, I effectively cope with and minimize the imposed risk: it is still against my will, but I have better options and I choose them.

You want me to believe that (b) is a greater violation of freedom than (a)?

Freedom is about choice. You seem bent instead on an extremely narrow and basically useless notion of freedom: a set of circumstances such that, as far as other people's impositions go, nothing you can do makes any difference. For you, then, powerlessness is freedom... and empowerment is a direct route to coercion, because it gives you more options!

It does not violate your freedom to not be on the same street as gay people, as long as you can leave the street and move on another one.

But it violates my freedom to not be on the same street as gay people by virtue of my statement that they should get off.

No, that's a bit of a misunderstanding... In the current society, you are not entitled to the freedom to have a white-only street. Such a goal is discrimination in itself.

No, it isn't. You misunderstand anti-discrimination law. I can have any goal I like, including having white-only streets: indeed, often enough I will find streets that are effectively white-only. What I cannot do is discriminate to bring about such an end: insofar as a street falls under the purview of public accommodations anti-discrimination law, I cannot bar people from entering a street I own on the basis of their race (and in some states, their sexual orientation). But that is a restriction on means, not on ends.

As a matter of practical fact, there are other means that I can use legally to get white-only streets. I can go with your advice and find another street. I can go to a neighborhood that is predominantly white. I could have a private road open only to an exclusive few with my express invitation (one not operated as a business for the general public), and only invite white people. None of these are illegal even if they have discriminatory intent. But even if they were, it would still be a restriction on means. Even if there were a general law stating "No act with discriminatory intent may be committed": still only a restriction on means, though a universal one.

Why? Because anti-discrimination law doesn't care about my thoughts as such. It cares about the effects of my actions on others (with respect to which intent is relevant, because business-related reasons trump racial equality while arbitrary prejudice does not). A restriction based on that criterion is a restriction on means, not ends, and takes us into the territory of competitive freedom. Some prohibitions on victimless behavior--not all--might qualify as restrictions on ends, not means, but no non-victimless act falls into that category.

The point is that even if you were entitled to a freedom to have white-free streets, said freedom would not mean that the whites should leave any street you enter. Said freedom would only entitle you to build a street, or have the street's community vote for, that street being off-limits to the white populace.

You are asserting that your preferred means, but not my hypothetical ones, are demanded by the freedom, but you have proposed no basis for the distinction.

Making the whites leave any street you enter would rather be a so-called "positive right",

No, it would not be. Any more than it would be a "positive right" to make them leave if I bought the street. The difference is only in the legitimate means I may use to attain sovereignty over this matter, but, regardless, if sovereignty is allocated to me by the existing social rules, then it is a negative right, not a positive right. The whites do not have the right to trample on what is mine (said sovereignty): indeed, for them to assert such a right would constitute demanding a "positive right." ;)

On the other hands, my freedom to protect my property by obtaining weapons, armor, home alarms and reinforcement, does not compete with your freedom of doing the same in any way.

...but it competes with other freedoms of mine.

How did they come up with that? I can't think of anything I couldn't do in NY.

The fact that you can't pump your own gas in NJ weirded me out when I visited there. In NC, all stations are self-service.

Wait, what? There are actually places that have full service gas stations? That's weird. I've never seen a full service gas station. Always self-service for me too.

But then I've not been to as many places across the country as I might've though I have. Mostly just in straight lines going cross country from Ohio to California to Colorado.

In the here and now, having a high school diploma or GED is necessary to get hired most places. With only a middle school education, your average fella will not be able to get past the poverty line - and it will take great effort to find the time or money to spare, as little as it may seem, to go back to school and get the GED. Your brother is the exception among high school dropouts, not the rule.


Really, because Wal Mart hires without a Diploma.
McDonalds hires with out a Diploma.
Roofing contractors don't care if you have a Diploma(and they pay 25 an hour more if you speak both English and Spanish).
Plumbers don't require a High school education(A master plumber makes upwards of 50,000 a year).

there are free online GED courses
http://distancelearn.about.com/b/2007/03/14/no-cost-online-ged-course.htm
And the GED cost 70 bucks.
http://lindsey.dadeschools.net/cost.htm

GED seems very affordable even with a minimum wage jobs.

And even if My brother is in the minority freedom means protecting the rights of minority to choose for themselves.

Really, because Wal Mart hires without a Diploma.
McDonalds hires with out a Diploma.
Roofing contractors don't care if you have a Diploma(and they pay 25 an hour more if you speak both English and Spanish).
Plumbers don't require a High school education(A master plumber makes upwards of 50,000 a year).

there are free online GED courses
http://distancelearn.about.com/b/2007/03/14/no-cost-online-ged-course.htm
And the GED cost 70 bucks.
http://lindsey.dadeschools.net/cost.htm

GED seems very affordable even with a minimum wage jobs.

And even if My brother is in the minority freedom means protecting the rights of minority to choose for themselves.

Which state do you live in that plumbers don't have to be licensed...

He did drop out at 17. Considering he spent most of 14-17 not in class I guess similar results just earlier.

Your brother would have been a failure at 14, then.

You complain that he couldn't get out of mandatory school at 14 to go do a GED and get into college, but based on the evidence, he'd have failed. You admit, yourself, that he spent most of his time for three years not in class.

Colleges don't look at laziness and inability to commit as bonuses for selection.

Indeed. Education should be seen as a privilege, not a right or duty.

A readily available privilege, if speaking about high school, but still one.
That changes the attitude radically.

No, education should be a right.

If it's a privilege, it is optional, which means school districts will find ways to cut budgets by refusing service, for example. Rather than find ways to pay for the education of all that need it (which, let's face it, doesn't happen, anyway) the system will revert back to the historical 'education is something rich people get' model.

However, what DP replaces is life imprisonment. I would contend that a state where convicts are just terminated is more free than one where they are locked up for the rest of their life.


Well, of COURSE you would contend that, because it suits the model you like.

Yes.

I'm glad you understand.

Freedom is not about what you like. If it was, it would be called "Things that you like".

The freedom not to be stopped and checked is a freedom. The freedom to make decisions about your life at an early age is a freedom. Heck, even the freedom to drive drunk is a freedom, albeit one virtually all people oppose because of the risks involved.


'Freedom' in this context, is nonsensical.

Your freedom ends where mine begins - any state that grants you GREATER freedom than that is creating an ILLUSION of freedom, not a free state.

Rape is illegal because it intrudes in the person of another - to illegalise rape is not to reduce your freedom as a rapist, it is to make our freedoms equal.

The idea that something is limiting freedom just because it stops you doing things is immature. It's a toddler pitching a fit with his hand half in the cookie jar.

Drunk driving laws are not a mark against a free society, they are a mark in favor of a society that considers all people to be equal... and to be equally accountable.

Really, because Wal Mart hires without a Diploma.
Really? (http://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=bdd112033c5a3ff1) Depends on the position and the Wal-Mart. Good luck getting the job if you're competing with someone who has one.
McDonalds hires with out a Diploma.
Exact same situation. See above.
Roofing contractors don't care if you have a Diploma(and they pay 25 an hour more if you speak both English and Spanish).
Whaddaya know? Aside from the people actually crawling on the roof, looks like they require diplomas (http://www.dctaylorco.com/AboutUs/CSCoordATL.html) for most of the other positions.
Plumbers don't require a High school education(A master plumber makes upwards of 50,000 a year).
Which requires an extensive education in - wait for it - plumbing. Usually a special license that requires training. A four year trade apprenticeship is common. And if you're a 17 year old dropout, and competing with an 18 year old high school graduate for the trainee slot, guess who's got the advantages?

And guess who they'll think is more likely to be able to pass the plumber's exam several years down the road?
there are free online GED courses
http://distancelearn.about.com/b/2007/03/14/no-cost-online-ged-course.htm
Internet access costs money or time. Coursework costs time, period, and not everybody will learn well from an online course. Many will need substantial in-person or in-classroom instructional time to learn the material, which means the local community college. Usually it'll take you longer than if you had just stayed in school.
And the GED cost 70 bucks.
http://lindsey.dadeschools.net/cost.htm

GED seems very affordable even with a minimum wage jobs.

And even if My brother is in the minority freedom means protecting the rights of minority to choose for themselves.
But will minors choose for themselves, or being pushed by their parents? And are they old enough to make these decisions? In most states, you cannot work full-time until you've reached the age where you're allowed to drop out of school, and in most states, you are tied to your parents until the age of 18, barring a court order.

What you're saying is that a 14 year old - who is not allowed to vote, to get married or have sex in most states, who is considered too great a risk to be allowed to drive, who is not yet old enough to work except under very specific limited circumstances, et cetera - knows whether or not they need any more education, and doesn't need protection from exploitation by their parents.

And that is half the benefit of mandatory schooling through the end of high school or very near to it. It gives every child the opportunity to get enough of an education to stand on their own regardless of what their home life situation is like and whether or not their guardians have the child's best interests in mind. Since those guardians have great control over the child's life, making schooling mandatory is the only way to protect the right to get an education from parental meddling.

Which requires an extensive education in - wait for it - plumbing. Usually a special license that requires training. A four year trade apprenticeship is common.

Most places actually require a GED as a step towards getting a license, too - so I suspect the argument was all sound and fury.

Really, because Wal Mart hires without a Diploma.
McDonalds hires with out a Diploma.
And do you think most people working at WalMart or McDonald's are above the poverty line? Or are many teens and seniors supplementing another income -- say, parents providing room and board or Social Security?

Really? (http://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=bdd112033c5a3ff1) Depends on the position and the Wal-Mart. Good luck getting the job if you're competing with someone who has one.
Never had a job in high school then ???Jobs do exist with out a degree.

Exact same situation. See above.

Whaddaya know? Aside from the people actually crawling on the roof, looks like they require diplomas (http://www.dctaylorco.com/AboutUs/CSCoordATL.html) for most of the other positions.

And yet, most of the Mexicans reroofing my apartment complex right now do not speak English, much less have a degree. I doubt they even have citizenship.


Which requires an extensive education in - wait for it - plumbing. Usually a special license that requires training. A four year trade apprenticeship is common. And if you're a 17 year old dropout, and competing with an 18 year old high school graduate for the trainee slot, guess who's got the advantages?

It depends on the individual master plumber. Most of the time they hire as many apprentices as they can get because there is a high turn over rate, because the job is dirty as hell. right now there is a plumber shortage, so it is more the job is competing for you.

And guess who they'll think is more likely to be able to pass the plumber's exam several years down the road?

The test for journeyman plumber is not that hard. I passed a practice test with only limited experience in water (I was a back flow prevention tester).
Haven't found a online master plumber test.
Here take it.
http://www.contractor-licensing.com/web/online/free-tests/Plumbing-Practice-Exam-output/quizmaker.html If you have any clue about water you can pass the journeyman's plumbers exam.

Internet access costs money or time. Coursework costs time, period, and not everybody will learn well from an online course. Many will need substantial in-person or in-classroom instructional time to learn the material, which means the local community college. Usually it'll take you longer than if you had just stayed in school.

Most libraries offer free internet access, mine even has private rooms you can take online courses in.
Yes it will take longer because they are going to be working at the same time.

But will minors choose for themselves, or being pushed by their parents? And are they old enough to make these decisions? In most states, you cannot work full-time until you've reached the age where you're allowed to drop out of school, and in most states, you are tied to your parents until the age of 18, barring a court order.

The parents should be included, in the decision yes. Few students and fewer parents will elect to drop out. It is simply giving an option to a minority.

What you're saying is that a 14 year old - who is not allowed to vote, to get married or have sex in most states, who is considered too great a risk to be allowed to drive, who is not yet old enough to work except under very specific limited circumstances, et cetera - knows whether or not they need any more education, and doesn't need protection from exploitation by their parents.
Ever have a summer job ??? Those are normally full time hours.
Most states let you work full time from 15 on when your not in school. Which if you've dropped out is not an issue. Even the curfew laws have an exception for teenagers coming to and from work.

And that is half the benefit of mandatory schooling through the end of high school or very near to it. It gives every child the opportunity to get enough of an education to stand on their own regardless of what their home life situation is like and whether or not their guardians have the child's best interests in mind. Since those guardians have great control over the child's life, making schooling mandatory is the only way to protect the right to get an education from parental meddling.
First that's not mandatory schooling that's give opportunity that's is free schooling which provides that. I am not talking about removing free public education.
Opportunity implies a choice to not take the option.


We already have a court system that investigates parents. Of course any request for dropping out will be investigated, at the bare minimum the school should interview the student and have a firm idea that is what they want. And mention options for returning to education.

And how do you define freedom, if not as less governmental intervention?Given that government intervention can, at times, increase freedom, it would be absurd to declare freedom to be the lack of intervention.

Given that government intervention can, at times, increase freedom, it would be absurd to declare freedom to be the lack of intervention.

Example ??

Never had a job in high school then ???Jobs do exist with out a degree.

Yes, they do. But very rarely jobs you can live on.

And yet, most of the Mexicans reroofing my apartment complex right now do not speak English, much less have a degree. I doubt they even have citizenship.

How is fluent English a requirement for a degree? They have high schools all around the world, you know. And those roofers--even if they have diplomas from Mexico, which drop-outs in the U.S. wouldn't have--very likely live below the poverty line.

It depends on the individual master plumber. Most of the time they hire as many apprentices as they can get because there is a high turn over rate, because the job is dirty as hell. right now there is a plumber shortage, so it is more the job is competing for you.

Really? In a time in this country where unemployment is higher than it has been in decades, there are jobs that pay good money, don't require a high school education, and will compete for you? Because that sounds very unlikely.

We already have a court system that investigates parents. Of course any request for dropping out will be investigated, at the bare minimum the school should interview the student and have a firm idea that is what they want. And mention options for returning to education.

And child protective services is such an under-worked and over-funded department, too. In addition to investigating molestation, abuse and neglect, I'm sure they'll have time to interview every student who doesn't want to go to high school anymore because it's boring.

Or, you know, we could use the current system, and not create fifteen hundred other procedures.

Example ??

Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Civil Rights Act of 1964?

In regards to freedom the act was only correcting state laws which were denying freedom.
The act itself would not have been required, if the laws within states were not denying freedom to begin with.
Isn't making laws to protect from other laws a bit contradictory?

And how do you define freedom, if not as less governmental intervention?

Is the government the only entity that can intervene in your life and make you less free?

The test for journeyman plumber is not that hard. I passed a practice test with only limited experience in water (I was a back flow prevention tester).


If you were a licensed backflow prevention tester, you almost certainly needed a GED as a requisite for the license.

In regards to freedom the act was only correcting state laws which were denying freedom.
The act itself would not have been required, if the laws within states were not denying freedom to begin with.
Isn't making laws to protect from other laws a bit contradictory?

What a lot of words to say "Oh, yes, you're right".

If you were a licensed backflow prevention tester, you almost certainly needed a GED as a requisite for the license.

In most states in theory yes.
In most states in reality no.
They don't mention accrediting requirements of the degree. So 200 dollars to a degree mill is sufficient, The guy we had working with us (that alter turned out to be a meth head) got a degree from a mill jsut so he can get the certification.

Soheran:
Sorry. This discussion has just started getting interesting, but right now I don't have the physical time to respond in full, quote-by-quote. I'll try later.


But, basically, I think the issue is that we use different interpretations of freedom. I interpret it in a more strict way, as freedom of action and just that. Like in degrees of freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(mechanics)) - the more [legal] choices I have about what to do next, what ends to pursue and via which means, the more freedom do I have. Of course, considering different weight for different ends, et cetera, but in general.
You seem to have to your definition of freedom the element of entitlement. Hence, many things that you define as freedoms, I don't.


For instance:
But it violates my freedom to not be on the same street as gay people by virtue of my statement that they should get off.
- No. "Freedom" to not have gay people on the street by the virtue of a statement would be a positive right. An artificial modification of the environment to allow certain ends to be achieved in an easier way.
The fact that the gays don't leave the street on your command does not in any noticeable way restrict your freedom. [Except possibly very indirectly by streets' crowding level]. So, it's not a freedom to be considered. Now, the fact that you aren't allowed to discriminate to create a straight-only street, that one does restrict your freedom in a noticeable way, as it forbids you to take a certain action.


Our definitions may have controversy about them, but consider this example: Suppose in state A there are no speed limits and in state B there is a 55mph limit, and there are no other differences. Which state is more free, regarding road laws? I doubt many people (not philosophizing, but in a normal environment) would seriously say "state B". That, in my opinion, about settles it.

What a lot of words to say "Oh, yes, you're right".

That the "law" to restore freedom only existed to counter act laws that took freedom away.
We simply could have just repealed those laws and had the exact same result. It would have took longer.

Never had a job in high school then ???Jobs do exist with out a degree.
Didn't read the links I provided, did you? Note many of the Wal-Mart positions are open to high school students currently working towards their diploma. But not, you will note, high school dropouts.
And yet, most of the Mexicans reroofing my apartment complex right now do not speak English, much less have a degree. I doubt they even have citizenship.
You might be surprised by the number that have something recognized as an equivalent in their home country; you might also be surprised how hard you might find it to get hired for the job if you don't speak Spanish. Depending on the contractor, they may not even be paid minimum wage; there's a lot of abuse of illegal immigrants.
It depends on the individual master plumber. Most of the time they hire as many apprentices as they can get because there is a high turn over rate, because the job is dirty as hell. right now there is a plumber shortage, so it is more the job is competing for you.

The test for journeyman plumber is not that hard. I passed a practice test with only limited experience in water (I was a back flow prevention tester).
Haven't found a online master plumber test.
Here take it.
http://www.contractor-licensing.com/web/online/free-tests/Plumbing-Practice-Exam-output/quizmaker.html If you have any clue about water you can pass the journeyman's plumbers exam.
Hm... I failed. I know nothing about plumbing, and only a few questions I could answer from knowing other material. That's with my having a master's degree and being a certified pool operator.

I don't doubt I could pass with a minimal amount of study; however, I also don't doubt that you need to learn a reasonably large body of regulations to work as a professional plumber, and that it would be very much more difficult to learn if you didn't have a high-school equivalent level of education.
Most libraries offer free internet access, mine even has private rooms you can take online courses in.
Yes it will take longer because they are going to be working at the same time.
Most public libraries also have a wait to get onto a machine and a time limit. So completing an online course using a typical public library's free access becomes quite time-consuming.
The parents should be included, in the decision yes. Few students and fewer parents will elect to drop out. It is simply giving an option to a minority.
In which case the parent/guardians will, oftener than not, make the decision for the child. The only way you can protect the right of a child to have access to education through age __ is to mandate schooling through age __, because until they hit 18, their parents have legal control over most of their life.
Ever have a summer job ??? Those are normally full time hours.
Most states let you work full time from 15 on when your not in school. Which if you've dropped out is not an issue. Even the curfew laws have an exception for teenagers coming to and from work.
Check your labor laws. For under-16, there's a federal restriction against working more than 40 hours per week period in most types of jobs, as well as restrictions on the types of jobs worked. From state to state, labor laws vary, but generally, hiring a 15 year old involves extra paperwork and restrictions.

Far from "most" curfew laws having blanket exceptions, most state labor laws also restrict the specific hours that can be worked (often excluding 7 pm-6am). Labor laws also apply restrictions on 16-17 year old workers as well.
First that's not mandatory schooling that's give opportunity that's is free schooling which provides that. I am not talking about removing free public education.
Opportunity implies a choice to not take the option.

We already have a court system that investigates parents. Of course any request for dropping out will be investigated, at the bare minimum the school should interview the student and have a firm idea that is what they want. And mention options for returning to education.
See, now you're talking about mandating an investigation that is not part of the usual drop-out process. The court system does not investigate parents willy-nilly; probable cause is required, and social workers are generally few compared to the number of parents.

I stand by my above statement. The only way you can protect teens' access to free public schooling from parent/guardian abuses is through a mandate for schooling. The more hoops you have to jump through to be exempted, the more protected that right is. As-is, most states do, in fact, allow parents to pull their children out of school. It's under the home-schooling regulations, though, so they actually have to fill out a couple forms.

Idaho's homeschooling regulations are particularly lax, but there's no actual requirements for either parent to be a stay-at-home parent even in North Carolina; here, of course, we require that homeschooled children take some standardized test every year and that a parent have a high school diploma. The only thing that prevented your brother from leaving school and pursuing his own education on his own time is your parents not being willing to jump through a handful of bureaucratic hoops in order to let him leave the school.

Even homeschools, in most states, are subject to very limited oversight.

How did they come up with that? I can't think of anything I couldn't do in NY.
You can't:
smoke in public
own certain guns
own certain knives
drive without a seatbelt
ride without a helmet (I think)
drive in NYC (they've closed off several streets including Time Square)

There's probably a huge ass fucking list of all the shit that's banned in that state "for your own good" somewhere, I just don't feel like looking it up.

I have no plans to ever set foot in any of the states in the top 5 least free and the sooner I head west one the better.

However, what DP replaces is life imprisonment. I would contend that a state where convicts are just terminated is more free than one where they are locked up for the rest of their life. Killing a person removes them from the picture, locking them up creates government-controlled slavery.


Hence, by your own standards, Nazi Germany became more "free" after the Wannsee conference, when the Judenfrage was addressed with extermination too, rather than "just" with imprisonment and slavery.

:rolleyes:

You can't:
smoke in public
own certain guns
own certain knives
drive without a seatbelt
ride without a helmet (I think)
drive in NYC (they've closed off several streets including Time Square)

There's probably a huge ass fucking list of all the shit that's banned in that state "for your own good" somewhere, I just don't feel like looking it up.


Smoking in public, owning certain guns and owning certain knives aren't forbidden for the smoker's or for the owner's "own good". They're forbidden for the good of the smoker's/owner's neighbour.

Hence, by your own standards, Nazi Germany became more "free" after the Wannsee conference, when the Judenfrage was addressed with extermination too, rather than "just" with imprisonment and slavery.
It didn't become any more or less free, because the slavery didn't end.


And in general, yes, liberal use of DP is still indicative of a higher standard of freedom than use of slavery.

Smoking in public, owning certain guns and owning certain knives aren't forbidden for the smoker's or for the owner's "own good". They're forbidden for the good of the smoker's/owner's neighbour.
Why do you hate French? ='(

...er, I mean "Freedom"...

It didn't become any more or less free, because the slavery didn't end.


And in general, yes, liberal use of DP is still indicative of a higher standard of freedom than use of slavery.Bullshit. If you're dead, you've lost your freedom to breathe, eat, sleep, make decisions, etc.

Bullshit. If you're dead, you've lost your freedom to breathe, eat, sleep, make decisions, etc.
Yes. Not that slaves have much freedom to lose anyway.

But despite this, you've made the country in general more free, not less. Thanks to your sacrifice, it won't be permanently affixed at the bottom of any freedom rankings as the only country to still practice slavery.

There are violations of rights that are worse than killing - specifically, slavery and extreme torture come to mind. They may not look worse from an algebraic point of view, but they are from a human point of view; these things get us outraged more than killings do, and these are things people have killed themselves to avoid. Death isn't the worst thing that can happen to one.


Chances are, if the Germans performed their genocide quietly, by arresting, convicting and executing targets for being members of ZOG, it would be shoved under the same carpet as the Turkish genocide of Armenians.

Yes. Not that slaves have much freedom to lose anyway.

But despite this, you've made the country in general more free, not less. Thanks to your sacrifice, it won't be permanently affixed at the bottom of any freedom rankings as the only country to still practice slavery.

There are violations of rights that are worse than killing - specifically, slavery and extreme torture come to mind. They may not look worse from an algebraic point of view, but they are from a human point of view; these things get us outraged more than killings do, and these are things people have killed themselves to avoid. Death isn't the worst thing that can happen to one.


Chances are, if the Germans performed their genocide quietly, by arresting, convicting and executing targets for being members of ZOG, it would be shoved under the same carpet as the Turkish genocide of Armenians.
Salvery was an issue with laws anyways.
Their is nothing inherently wrong with a transferable lifetime employment contract.
The problem lay in that the government enforced the contract in such a way that the individual could not walk away from the contract at will.

A contract assumes benefits for both party. Slavery only provides benefits for one (the slave may be fed or not fed at discretion). Hence, it doesn't count even as a "mandatory contract", no more than murder is a contract of surrendering one's life.

A contract assumes benefits for both party. Slavery only provides benefits for one (the slave may be fed or not fed at discretion). Hence, it doesn't count even as a "mandatory contract", no more than murder is a contract of surrendering one's life.

Which would have not been an issue if the state did not prevent the person be able to walk away.

Neither would murder be an issue if the murderer offered you to walk away freely.

It didn't become any more or less free, because the slavery didn't end.
Still many slaves ended their lives, thus reducing the number of slaves. So? Your argument about life sentences vs death penalty really didn't stand.

And in general, yes, liberal use of DP is still indicative of a higher standard of freedom than use of slavery.
Too bad that death penalty is about as liberal as a Gitmo interrogatory complete with waterboarding.

If you don't even have the right to life, I wonder what kind of freedom you're going to enjoy. Freedom is just for people who are alive.
At least, a person sentenced to life in jail still has some rights and freedoms. Like choosing what books to read. A dead person can't do even that.

Salvery was an issue with laws anyways.
Their is nothing inherently wrong with a transferable lifetime employment contract.
The problem lay in that the government enforced the contract in such a way that the individual could not walk away from the contract at will.

Just that?
I think that the very idea of a transferable empoyment contract is inherently wrong. It is my choice whom I work for - I and my job aren't items that can be owned or sold.
I agree that this is more of a finer philosophical point, though.

Why do you hate French? ='(

...er, I mean "Freedom"...

Je hais la langue française car je ne l'ai jamais etudiè. :D

No doubt, generations do change, but...

...why should the current young generation have the same ethics and morality when they are older and in charge?

They can change on the road as well. Before I was born, my parents were hippies. But they raised me rather conservative with a lot of rules.
And today they are the same grumpy old men as their parents....

I don't think this is an exception.

No doubt, generation do change, but...

...why should the current young generation have the same ethics and morality when they are older and in charge?

They can change on the road as well. Before I was born, my parents were hippies. But they raised me rather conservative with a lot of rules.
And today they are the same grumpy old men as their parents....

I don't think this is an exception.
Quite a few haven't changed so much - and on some issues, the change in their attitudes from that of their parents at the same age is enormous. The attitude of an old former hippie today (who might now be sixty) is on average sharply different from the attitude of a sixty year old man of the 70s, especially regarding race, sex (both act and adjective), and sexuality. Also on saving/spending, government programs, war, and many others. Attitudes change over time.

Just that?
I think that the very idea of a transferable empoyment contract is inherently wrong. It is my choice whom I work for - I and my job aren't items that can be owned or sold.
I agree that this is more of a finer philosophical point, though.

As long as your allowed to leave at will then you do choose whom you work for.
It is not you being sold it is your labor, provided conditions are met.

My point though was that it was the state that made slavery possible not freedom from the state.

My point though was that it was the state that made slavery possible not freedom from the state.

What a crock of shit.

People have been enslaving one another as long as there have been people - all it takes is two people and the application of some kind of force by one of them.

The state is irrelevant.

What a crock of shit.

People have been enslaving one another as long as there have been people - all it takes is two people and the application of some kind of force by one of them.

The state is irrelevant.
For the purposes of this dialoge we are discussing chattel Slavery.
the state was needed in the south due to the large number of slaves.
If the state did not run slave patrols, many more slaves would have left.
And if the State didn't call up the Militia at the first sign of resistance, Georgia and a few other states would be New Zululand today.

For the purposes of this dialoge we are discussing chattel Slavery.
the state was needed in the south due to the large number of slaves.
If the state did not run slave patrols, many more slaves would have left.
And if the State didn't call up the Militia at the first sign of resistance, Georgia and a few other states would be New Zululand today.

Patrols don't have to be state organised - hence 'the Klan'. Similarly for your ridiculous 'New Zululand' notion.

Patrols don't have to be state organised - hence 'the Klan'. Similarly for your ridiculous 'New Zululand' notion.

"The Klan" was formed after the Civil war. And it was not a salve patrol it was a terrorist organization.

The country of Haiti does not see the New Zululand option as silly.

For freest (or is it freeest?) state would have to be South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming.

Why?

Because outside of cities and towns, the law is almost unenforcable, due to the low population densities. The only thing that keeps people from breaking the law is the person in question.

For freest (or is it freeest?) state would have to be South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming.

Why?

Because outside of cities and towns, the law is almost unenforcable, due to the low population densities. The only thing that keeps people from breaking the law is the person in question.

Unless your native American, then expect the federal Marshall service to squash anything you do, including demanding civil rights.

Unless your native American, then expect the federal Marshall service to squash anything you do, including demanding civil rights.

Have you ever actually spent time in any of those states rural areas?

I bet you live out east or on the West coast. You've propably never seen those states.

Have you ever actually spent time in any of those states rural areas?

I bet you live out east or on the West coast. You've propably never seen those states.

Nope I live right in the center. My uncle even owns a farm.
Have you actually read about the history of the American Indian Movement ?

Nope I live right in the center. My uncle even owns a farm.
Have you actually read about the history of the American Indian Movement ?

No I haven't. You see I like to read about things are actually interesting.

No I haven't. You see I like to read about things are actually interesting.

It kinda plays out like the civil rights movement. Except the government comes in and shoots most of the Indians protesting. Because so few people in the rest of the country care.

"The Klan" was formed after the Civil war. And it was not a salve patrol it was a terrorist organization.

The country of Haiti does not see the New Zululand option as silly.

The Klan was formed in the wake of the Civil war, yes - but the point I made (which you apparently missed, entirely) was that patrols don't need to be government organised. Indeed, the fact that the historical Klan never was centralized or unified reinforces my point - not only is the State not needed for such activity, it can be entirely local and 'voluntary'. The Klan may not be good for much, but it IS a good study in devolution.

The Klan was formed in the wake of the Civil war, yes - but the point I made (which you apparently missed, entirely) was that patrols don't need to be government organised. Indeed, the fact that the historical Klan never was centralized or unified reinforces my point - not only is the State not needed for such activity, it can be entirely local and 'voluntary'. The Klan may not be good for much, but it IS a good study in devolution.

And my point still remains the clan had nothing to do with being a salve patrol.
Even in early forced labor outfits if the state didn't take an interested in keeping slaves from running away then it becomes unprofitable to keep them slaves.
The State can be a modern nation state, or a clan, or a tribe.
If there is no authority to ensure the enslaved person will remain where at work.
Otherwise they just run off first chance they get.

Example ??
If the government were to distribute motorized wheelchairs to parapalegics (who couldn't afford them), these wheelchairs would increase the parapalegics' freedom of movement.

If the government were to distribute motorized wheelchairs to parapalegics (who couldn't afford them), these wheelchairs would increase the parapalegics' freedom of movement.

While infringing on my freedom to not pay for those wheel chairs in Taxes.

While infringing on my freedom to not pay for those wheel chairs in Taxes.
Even if such a freedom existed, a wealthy taxpayer could provide wheelchairs for dozens of handicapped people, thus providing a net increase of freedom.

Quite a few haven't changed so much - and on some issues, the change in their attitudes from that of their parents at the same age is enormous. The attitude of an old former hippie today (who might now be sixty) is on average sharply different from the attitude of a sixty year old man of the 70s, especially regarding race, sex (both act and adjective), and sexuality. Also on saving/spending, government programs, war, and many others. Attitudes change over time.

How many of us were not once part of some subgroup?

But then reality is there: you get married, you get some kids, a job, a dog, some loans to pay...

Suddenly the ideals of the subgroup aren't working anymore. You just fit into what society is demanding from you.

Even if such a freedom existed, a wealthy taxpayer could provide wheelchairs for dozens of handicapped people, thus providing a net increase of freedom.

Yes it is the freedom not to have someone else direct your labor.

That implies perpetual motion. The freedom lost by the one tax payer is always equal to the freedom bought by someone else.
And when you factor in government waste the freedom taken from the wealthy man is more then the freedom gained.

Yes it is the freedom not to have someone else direct your labor. Do you mean like the freedom from bosses?

That implies perpetual motion. The freedom lost by the one tax payer is always equal to the freedom bought by someone else.
And when you factor in government waste the freedom taken from the wealthy man is more then the freedom gained.Perhaps so, but we're talking about several someone elses here.

It kinda plays out like the civil rights movement. Except the government comes in and shoots most of the Indians protesting. Because so few people in the rest of the country care.

Then g and d accepts scholarships in their name and lives out the American dream for them.

Freedom is just for people who are alive.
Exactly. People who are dead, do not exist. They are neither free nor unfree, they are not.

They don't "have" or "not have" freedoms. A void (void) function without parameters. Black paint on the white paper of history books. Having no effect on anything.

They're forbidden for the good of the smoker's/owner's neighbour.
Pretty much every time freedoms are restricted, it is done, at least supposedly, for the good of the victim's neighbor. Take any single of them. Say, the freedom to open gayness and gay marriage is restricted for the good of their neighbors' kids who should be protected against unamerican gay influences.

Pretty much every time freedoms are restricted, it is done, at least supposedly, for the good of the victim's neighbor. Take any single of them. Say, the freedom to open gayness and gay marriage is restricted for the good of their neighbors' kids who should be protected against unamerican gay influences.

Conversely, the restricted freedom to kill other human beings is generally thought to be really for the good of the would be victims

"The Klan" was formed after the Civil war. And it was not a salve patrol it was a terrorist organization.


Though we could trace the KKK origins back to the Border Ruffians and the Bushwacker bands, like Quantrill's.

Pretty much every time freedoms are restricted, it is done, at least supposedly, for the good of the victim's neighbor. Take any single of them. Say, the freedom to open gayness and gay marriage is restricted for the good of their neighbors' kids who should be protected against unamerican gay influences.

Totally different.

Case of smoke: there IS scientifical proof that unfiltered tobacco smoke damages health. Hence, a person can be free to inhale tobacco smoke if he chooses to, but no one is entitled to infringe the right to health of a person who chooses not to smoke.

Case of homosexuality: there is NO scientifical proof that gay people emit gay-rays unamericanly affecting kids.

Exactly. People who are dead, do not exist. They are neither free nor unfree, they are not.


The point is that if they were forced to die, their final state was unfree.

Because, you know, the fact that people have existed does matter.If it wouldn't, why should homicide be prosecuted?

Totally different.

Case of smoke: there IS scientifical proof that unfiltered tobacco smoke damages health. Hence, a person can be free to inhale tobacco smoke if he chooses to, but no one is entitled to infringe the right to health of a person who chooses not to smoke.

Case of homosexuality: there is NO scientifical proof that gay people emit gay-rays unamericanly affecting kids.

But in the case of smoke you can choose to go to the bar where smoking is allowed or choose not to go. You don't like the 2nd Hand smoke then don't go to a bar that allows smoking.

Though we could trace the KKK origins back to the Border Ruffians and the Bushwacker bands, like Quantrill's.

Id have to see some proof.
The clan was stronger in states that were east. of the Mississippi. The examples you listed are Westward. Not to mention the 6 founders were 'proper' Confederate officers who would have looked down on guerrilla warfare.

Then g and d accepts scholarships in their name and lives out the American dream for them.

Only when I can dispose of their bodies somewhere they can't be found, and I get a hold of their SSN number and other information. Little good it does me if the federal government find out they are dead.

Case of smoke: there IS scientifical proof [...]
Case of homosexuality: there is NO scientifical proof that gay people emit gay-rays unamericanly affecting kids.
What does science have to do with law? Are we discussing laws for the MIT Campus?

Why the discrimination against people that don't worship official science - why not accept the use of alternate science or religion as the source of beliefs?

The point is that if they were forced to die, their final state was unfree.
The point is was.


Because, you know, the fact that people have existed does matter.
Yes, but not for the purposes of determining the current level of freedom.


If it wouldn't, why should homicide be prosecuted?
If people could only be prosecuted for reducing the nationwide level of freedom, Ron Paul and Bob Barr would be seen as totalitarian.

Smoking in public, owning certain guns and owning certain knives aren't forbidden for the smoker's or for the owner's "own good". They're forbidden for the good of the smoker's/owner's neighbour.
Since when has owning a gun driven someone crazy and forced them to kill all their neighbors? How the fuck is smoking outside (you can't get much better circulation than that) going to hurt anyone? How the fuck is a balisong anymore dangerous than a bowie?

They're not forbidden to protect people from other people, they're prohibited so that the man has yet another excuse to persecute innocent people for. I am sick of the litany of victimless crimes on the books and being enforced in America today and I hate it when some asshat like yourself tells me that it's for my own good, or worse yet, for the good of everyone around me when there is no evidence to support that.

You've either got total liberty or benevolent slavery.

You've either got total liberty or benevolent slavery.

I love absolutes. Now, if only they were actually good for something...

How many of us were not once part of some subgroup?

But then reality is there: you get married, you get some kids, a job, a dog, some loans to pay...

Suddenly the ideals of the subgroup aren't working anymore. You just fit into what society is demanding from you.
I'm going to call you on that. It is true that some people change their ideology over time; it is also true that many don't. I've known quite a few old hippies who - spouse, job, dog, kids, and loans or not - remain quite ideologically liberal.

Indeed, there are plenty of people who quietly move the other direction. 40 years ago, they were opposed to school desegregation; now, they support interracial marriage. The appearance of growing more conservative over time? Is, IMO, largely driven by liberal social progress.

If you thought, in 1970, that women were frail, flighty, and irrational, that was not so far from the ideological norm of the time. To think it now is highly conservative - nearly reactionary.

If you thought that homosexuality should be attacked neither by psychiatrists nor the lawbooks back in 1960, you were a radical on the far social left. Now, you stand firmly in the mainstream. Conversely, if you thought that homosexuals should be "treated" or jailed, you were in the mainstream then - and a radical reactionary of the right now.

Since when has owning a gun driven someone crazy and forced them to kill all their neighbors? How the fuck is smoking outside (you can't get much better circulation than that) going to hurt anyone? How the fuck is a balisong anymore dangerous than a bowie?
How is ANY knife worth illegalizing when guns are legal? Seriously, that takes the cake for minimally useful regulation.

But in the case of smoke you can choose to go to the bar where smoking is allowed or choose not to go. You don't like the 2nd Hand smoke then don't go to a bar that allows smoking.

Yep, that's true.
Still, my point remains: it's not a prohibition "for the (smoker's) own good", but for the non-smokers' good.

Id have to see some proof.
The clan was stronger in states that were east. of the Mississippi. The examples you listed are Westward. Not to mention the 6 founders were 'proper' Confederate officers who would have looked down on guerrilla warfare.

Still many former guerrillas entered the KKK afterwards, iirc. (I'm not a huge expert about the American Civil War, though).

What does science have to do with law? Are we discussing laws for the MIT Campus?

Law should be based on reality - if they aren't they're useless, as they cannot affect the society or the individual.
Science is the reliable, verifiable, quantitative, objective description of reality.


Why the discrimination against people that don't worship official science - why not accept the use of alternate science or religion as the source of beliefs?

Science isn't not supposed to be worshipped, or believed. What makes science reliable is that it can be verified by everyone - while what you call "alternate science" and religion can't be verified by everyone.

Since when has owning a gun driven someone crazy and forced them to kill all their neighbors? How the fuck is smoking outside (you can't get much better circulation than that) going to hurt anyone? How the fuck is a balisong anymore dangerous than a bowie?

They're not forbidden to protect people from other people, they're prohibited so that the man has yet another excuse to persecute innocent people for.

My point wasn't about the smoking ban, or gun control, being right or wrong.
My point, as you could understand by my former post alone, if you weren't wearing your ideology glasses, was that they're SAID to be for the neighbour's good, and NOT for the own smoker's (or gun-owner's) good.

Yes, but not for the purposes of determining the current level of freedom.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!
You're saying that a country with 10000 prison sentences per year is less free than a country with 10000 death penalties a year. :rolleyes:

Really, I have better things to do than answering to someone so ideologically-driven that he falls into ridicule without even admitting it.
Better things, like picking my nose. *scratch scratch*


If people could only be prosecuted for reducing the nationwide level of freedom, Ron Paul and Bob Barr would be seen as totalitarian.

And this means... ? :confused:

(Don't bother answering, anyway).

You're saying that a country with 10000 [...]
No, I'm saying that a country with 1,000,000 free people (and some graves) is more free than one with 1,000,000 free people and 1,000,000 slaves.

That and just that.

... I hate it when some asshat like yourself tells me that it's for my own good, or worse yet, for the good of everyone around me when there is no evidence to support that.
Warned for flaming.

How is ANY knife worth illegalizing when guns are legal? Seriously, that takes the cake for minimally useful regulation.
And yet they're still banned in 2 states and Canada. And you can't import them but you can make them here.