States ranked by FREEDOM

What happens here of course is that we get a contested and partisan concept of “freedom.”

There’s no such thing as freedom, there are always only different ideas of it and what it is.

And, a lot of those different sets of ideas are in conflict.

I didn’t even look at your list, to be honest. I saw quickly that that operative concept of “freedom” at work there sounded to me like it ignored what I would identify as freedom and democracy.

The only danger in these things is that someone will take their definition as dogmatically true and detest all heretics.

I identify with particular ideas of freedom, but then, I know there are competing and different ideas of that. I cling to mine, and I reject some of the others, and then just live with the other part of the others, but at the end of the day, I kinda know the ideas of freedom I identify with just represent one view of the issue and not some god-given “truth.”

The above list is from the Cato Institute, a Koch brothers obscenity, filled with endless lies, especially on economic issues. It’s rabidly pro-corporate, pro-rich-white-dudes, anti-labor, anti-environment. Its idea of “freedom” is freedom for the rich to do as they please, and screw everyone else, especially the poor. It’s all about freedom from taxation and regulations and any attempt by the public sector to help the non-rich. It’s freedom from common sense preventative measures to improve quality of life, etc.

Take, for example, their recommendations on how to “improve” New York from its supposed ranking as the most unfree state:

Policy Recommendations
Fiscal: Cut spending on hospitals, housing, libraries, public welfare, sanitation and sewerage, public transit, employee retirement, and “miscellaneous”; cut all taxes, and pay down debt.
Regulatory: Abolish rent control. This move could have raised New York to 47th, just behind Connecticut, on regulatory policy.
Personal: Slash tobacco taxes, which are so high as to be almost tantamount to prohibition.

In short, its use of “freedom” is Orwellian.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.

I missed this the first go through:

cut all taxes, and pay down debt.

That is typical right-wing mantra/idiocy, and Trump has embraced it as well.

Cutting taxes increases the debt. It causes the debt. It ensures a radical increase in the debt. And you can’t cut your way out of that. Primarily because when you cut public sector spending, it’s the same exact thing as cutting private sector spending, and under capitalism, if you cut spending you shrink the economy. You contract it.

And when you cut spending you have to cut jobs, and when you do that, it kills demand, and that in turn forces businesses to cut back even more on jobs and investment, which further contracts the economy, and further causes job losses and lost revenues and more debt.

A downward spiral that can ONLY be stopped by, ironically, more government spending and intrusion.

It takes a hell of a lot of effort not to say what I really think about right-wing worldviews — not only on a moral and ethical ground, not only when it comes to despairing over the suffering the right causes . . . . but even just being cold-eyed and looking at the economy from a logical and mathematical point of view.

In both those ways, the right — including Cato — gets a big fat zero.

Oh the drama! Why not post the same thing from the pinko standpoint? Or is the word ‘freedom’ so alien or undesired as to never making the radar?

BTW if you owned a building that was rent controlled you would sing a much different tune.

Actually, the word “freedom” isn’t important at all. What’s important is its reality. The existence of freedom in the real world, and for whom. Who has it. Who doesn’t. In real life. The right tends to fetishize the word and do everything it can to make sure it doesn’t exist in the real world, except for very rich people and the ruling class in general. Everyone else gets to see the word, but not the thing itself.

As for rent control: You epitomize the right’s vision to a T. Your only concern is how rent control impacts the owner. No mention from you — or Cato — how it impacts renters.

freedom = least regulated. Funny how the most populated states are the least “free”.

wv wrote:

——————-
Yes, which leads me to repost my favorite ‘law quote’ for the
gazillionth time. I never tire of reading
btw, what do you think is the core, fundamental, difference tween
right-thinkers and left-thinkers? What is the heart of the ‘difference’ ?

I think of this right / left thing sometimes when i see debates
about Fisher, btw. Sometimes i think the core difference tween righties and lefties has ‘something’ to do with how they view…’context’. I mean is ‘injuries’ an ‘excuse’ or do we look at the context…. I dunno. Just rambling…

w
v

My all too brief and simplistic response to that is the right views the world through a ‘moral absolutist’ lense. Everything falls into a category of either right or wrong, true or false. There’s no gradation between the categories. It’s black or white, period. No room for more than one truth. Whereas a leftist’s views are more nuanced. They recognize an entire spectrum exists between black and white…one shade grading into the other and what shade you see is a matter of perspective. Of course as I said that’s overly simplistic and there is a lot more to it and there are exceptions yada, yada but to me that’s the gist of it.

nittany ram wrote:

wv wrote:

——————-
Yes, which leads me to repost my favorite ‘law quote’ for the
gazillionth time. I never tire of reading
btw, what do you think is the core, fundamental, difference tween
right-thinkers and left-thinkers? What is the heart of the ‘difference’ ?

I think of this right / left thing sometimes when i see debates
about Fisher, btw. Sometimes i think the core difference tween righties and lefties has ‘something’ to do with how they view…’context’. I mean is ‘injuries’ an ‘excuse’ or do we look at the context…. I dunno. Just rambling…

w
v

My all too brief and simplistic response to that is the right views the world through a ‘moral absolutist’ lense. Everything falls into a category of either right or wrong, true or false. There’s no gradation between the categories. It’s black or white, period. No room for more than one truth. Whereas a leftist’s views are more nuanced. They recognize an entire spectrum exists between black and white…one shade grading into the other and what shade you see is a matter of perspective. Of course as I said that’s overly simplistic and there is a lot more to it and there are exceptions yada, yada but to me that’s the gist of it.

==================

I dunno. I think there is something to that, but i dunno.

Sure seems like, above all else, they Blame the Poor.

I just wonder where that comes from.

w
v

zn wrote:

There are many differences but here is one key one.

That has changed over the years. The right has gone from being conservative traditionalists who believe collective moral norms are paramount to being sociopathic individualists who defend the power of a wealthy few to dominate a society.

The left believes in using public resources to both limit the arbitrary power of the wealthy few over the majority and to give more individuals in general more opportunities to live comfortably well and pursue happiness.

Yes, and Taibbi nailed that one with precision: “The most successful trick was linking the corporate mantra of profit without responsibility to the concept of individual liberty.”

On the question of contempt for the poor, afaik that is a uniquely American thing. I think we are the only culture that equates net worth to spiritual worth.

WV,

Science has being doing a lot of studies in recent times about the difference between lefties and righties. There seem to be actual hard-wired differences which impact how we think and feel. I’ve always been a nature/nurture guy, and see them both as vital, along with environment and “systems,” etc. etc. But the biological component can’t be ignored.

The amygdala is more prominent among righties — recent science tells us. This means righties tend to start from a position of fear and paranoia to a much greater degree. A lesser ability to be compassionate, or extend that compassion to a larger group, is also a big part of the right-wing mind. Obviously, the science isn’t saying all righties or lefties are this or that way. They’re talking aggregates, and there are always exceptions. But I think this is a very interesting difference between humans which seems to influence political and social philosophies.

IMO, the biggest difference between left and right is the acceptance or rejection of inequality, and all the variations in between. And that the presence of inequality is seen by the left as immoral and profoundly wrong, and that this tends to loom larger the further you move to the left. Lefties tend to have more advanced moral compasses, extending to a greater portion of the earth. The further you move to the right, the more inequality is embraced as “natural” and normal and not worth bothering with, and the moral compass shrinks. The self and immediate family and friends tend to be the boundaries for care and concern. They get downright (self)righteous about the self and the tiny circle around the self. The “Other, ” out there, beyond that circle, is seen as a threat — which is where the paranoia and fear kick in again, as that old amygdala works overtime.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 3 months ago by Billy_T.

And, I think this concentration on the self makes it a great deal easier to support policies that help the few at the expense of the many. Because the right’s focus has always been the ruling class, the rich, the Church and State hierarchies and their privileges. The right has always been the side of the political spectrum most concerned about keeping existing hierarchies in place and preventing inclusion of “the lower orders” from happening, much less any kind of universal access/franchise, etc.

Historically, they’ve fought against every movement to extend civil and social rights and access . . . from the landless, to women, to ethnic and sexual minorities, to the poor.

The left has always been the side of the aisle championing the “underclasses,” in opposition to the rulers. And the further left within the left you go, the broader that support goes, the less support for hierarchy, for inequality, for concentrations of power of any kind.

Both the left and the right have faults, of course. Both have blind spots and have made tons of errors, historically. But, IMO, the left — especially the far left — has the moral high ground to an overwhelming degree . . . . and I don’t mean that in a religious sense. Well, because I don’t see organized religions as good arbiters of morality in the first place, with the possible exception of Buddhism. Which many see as a philosophy, not a religion anyway.

bnw wrote:

Or is the word ‘freedom’ so alien or undesired as to never making the radar?

Billy_T wrote:

It’s pretty clear, bnw, that you really don’t want to engage in any discussions here, beyond taking silly pot shots.

bnw wrote:

If the shoe fits

Guys don’t make me close this thread. There’s some discussion going on in spite of barbs like this.

It;s the rules. Don’t use anatagonistic attack language, don’t go after posters, if someone else starts it don’t respond in kind.

So consider that aspect of the exchange over.

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

Or is the word ‘freedom’ so alien or undesired as to never making the radar?

Billy_T wrote:

It’s pretty clear, bnw, that you really don’t want to engage in any discussions here, beyond taking silly pot shots.

bnw wrote:

If the shoe fits

Guys don’t make me close this thread. There’s some discussion going on in spite of barbs like this.

It;s the rules. Don’t use anatagonistic attack language, don’t go after posters, if someone else starts it don’t respond in kind.

So consider that aspect of the exchange over.

Stop deleting my response to Billy’s post!

It’s delete or close the thread. And I am not arguing, btw, I am stating…it’s not open to debate. I just said stop the antagonistic language. You then do the “drama” riff. That’s antagonistic language aimed at the poster which has the effect of being derisive and dismissive…which is of course antagonistic.

So if it keeps up, it’s either more deletions or closing the thread.

I am reluctant to close the thread because others are having good discussion. But if it reaches that point I will.

…