Some scholars at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center have compiled an assessment of the personal and economic freedom enjoyed by residents of each state. Similar studies from Cato, Heritage, and other groups have ranked various nations based on their economic freedom, but this is the first ranking of the states.
As indicators of personal freedom, the Mercatus study considers such things as marijuana, alcohol, smoking, and similar laws. As indicators of economic freedom, the study considers such things as land-use regulation, regulation or deregulation of such industries as cable television, natural gas, telecommunications, and health insurance. Each of these indicators is assigned a score (e.g., 1 if the state has a smart-growth law, 0 if it does not), which is then weighted somehow against the other indicators. The economic and personal freedom indices each rely on close to 150 different indicators, many of which are themselves summaries of several other indicators.
When the weighted results are totaled up, the personal freedom index ranges from about 0.40 (for South Dakota) to minus 0.59 (for New York), with positive meaning more free and negative less. The economic freedom index ranges from 0.27 (for Alaska) to minus 0.29 (for Maryland). When added together, New Hampshire has the most overall freedom (with a score of 0.43) and New York the least (with a score of minus 0.77).
Another alternative and one that is preferable for many drivers is to take drivers education courses online. online cialis soft There are many women who suffer from problems in sildenafil price their sex lives. You should only take the Kamagra Oral jelly, you stand higher chances viagra pfizer pharmacie of performing sexually and having a good time. One lowest prices cialis just needs to find out the reliable and reputed online store. If you want to live in a state that ranks high on both personal and economic freedom, your first choices would be Idaho and Texas. Many other states rank high on one but low on the other. For example, Alaska ranks first on personal freedom but second-to-last on economic freedom. Georgia is pretty good on economic freedom (ranking 6), but not so hot on personal freedom (42).
Looking over the data, I see some gaps. Only three states are said to have smart growth laws: Colorado, Maryland, and New Jersey. In fact, I wouldn’t even put Colorado on the list, but I would add Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington. Having a smart-growth law results in a score of “1”; Because the Denver-Boulder and Ft. Collins metro areas practice smart growth, I might score Colorado a 1/2. I’d also give a half point to Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Massachusetts should get at least 3/4 of a point.
The authors also have not received word that the Oregon legislature has banned cell phones while driving. I suspect there are more gaps that the authors would like to have filled in. Just fixing these things changes the ranking of the states slightly; Oregon, for example, drops from 25th to 26th in total freedom.
What do indices like these mean? Comparisons of the Cato/Heritage index of economic freedom with economic growth show that countries with more economic freedom tend to grow faster. In the long run, this means fewer people in poverty. It will be interesting to compare the state indices with economic growth of the various states.
The Autoplanner: The authors also have not received word that the Oregon legislature has banned cell phones while driving.
THWM: http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=708327n
As a recreational biking enthusiast, I have to object to any criticism of a ban on cell phone use while driving. I would support the use of concealed weapons on those idiots driving while talking on a cell phone, however.
“The authors also have not received word that the Oregon legislature has banned cell phones while driving.”
The ban doesn’t take place until January.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. One has a constitutional right to own a car; one does not have a constitutional right to drive said car. It is a privilege that must be earned through training, testing, and licensing. Whether that is done by the state or private sector (I prefer the latter) is irrelevant to the need for driving regulation (or “rules” if you prefer).
Were roads privatized, would stop signs, yield signs, traffic signals, and traffic rules simply vanish? Of course not. They exist to reduce traffic accidents (to increase safety, if you will). The exist in private parking lots and in private gated communities.
Driving rules limit the freedom to put others’ lives at risk. You don’t have the freedom to drive 100 MPH down my neighborhood street or to run a stop sign at the end of the block. Those actions create unnecessary risk.
The best answer would be privatization of all roads, for then it wouldn’t be government banning cell phone usage. Owners of private roads would feel pressure from shareholders and customers to provide the safest environment.
There are many studies, both formal and informal, showing how cell phone usage, because of the distraction it creates, leads to higher risk of accidents. Again, from published studies to Discovery’s “Myth Busters”, the case against talking/texting and driving is quite clear.
Anecdotal evidence also supports a ban; I’ve seen numerous people texting while driving on the freeway. Usually, the texters jump to the middle lane and drive about 10-15 miles slower than traffic around them and swerve in and out of the lane.
With over 40,000 deaths a year, driving is already dangerous enough without adding risk associated with cell phone use.
Will laws fix the problem? Probably not, and that’s where any “solution” falls apart. Here in Oregon, a cell phone ban while driving goes into effect in January. But if it’s not enforced, which I don’t see how it can be, it won’t accomplish much. Even still, some private road companies might seek ways to enforce these rules, perhaps going as far as to jam cell phone signals were the market really free and the government truly limited (FCC oversight currently prohibits jamming).
And of course, there are exceptions to every situation. Texting at a red light, talking for hours while cruising Nevada’s desolate Highway 50.
Perhaps the best tactic is education; billboards and TV spots with mangled cars from accidents where the driver had been texting might prove effective in dissuading drivers from texting and driving.
AP: Can you provide for why you think Florida has “Smart Growth” legislation? I’m down here now and have been here many times before, and Florida seems to me to be the opposite of Smart Growth – suburbs, wide roads, strip malls and Wal-Marts, unchecked growth (see all the abandoned subdivisions everywhere, just roads and no houses even built). I am quite confused as to why you label this “Smart Growth” at all.
Frank said: The best answer would be privatization of all roads, for then it wouldn’t be government banning cell phone usage. Owners of private roads would feel pressure from shareholders and customers to provide the safest environment.
THWM: Limited access roads are one thing, but not all roads.
They do have an important civic function as a commons.
Frank: Perhaps going as far as to jam cell phone signals were the market really free and the government truly limited (FCC oversight currently prohibits jamming).
THWM: Though some one riding a bus and texting isn’t causing any problem.
hkelly1 asked:
> Can you provide for why you think Florida has “Smart Growthâ€Â
> legislation?
The Antiplanner should answer this as well, but I think the answer lies in Florida’s so-called “concurrency” laws, which date back to 1985.
The Antiplanner wrote:
> As indicators of personal freedom, the Mercatus study
> considers such things as marijuana, alcohol, smoking, and
> similar laws. As indicators of economic freedom, the
> study considers such things as land-use regulation, regulation
> or deregulation of such industries as cable television,
> natural gas, telecommunications, and health insurance. Each
> of these indicators is assigned a score (e.g., 1 if the state
> has a smart-growth law, 0 if it does not), which is then
> weighted somehow against the other indicators. The economic
> and personal freedom indices each rely on close to
> 150 different indicators, many of which are themselves
> summaries of several other indicators.
I am no fan of Maryland’s Smart Growth laws, which can mostly be traced to ex-Gov. Parris N. Glendening (and I am no fan of him either).
But the Mercatus study is deeply flawed for failing to take into account efforts by states to infringe on personal rights in one huge area – religion – and it could be argued that this was done to skew the study in favor of states dominated by the Republican Party.
While it can be (correctly) argued that Smart Growth laws are an effort to impose religious beliefs on others people, Mercatus really blew it by failing to consider efforts by many state legislatures to restrict access to or outlaw birth control, outlaw abortions, curtail sex education in public schools (or modify it to conform to beliefs of certain members of the clergy), forbid same-sex marriages (arguments against same-sex marriages are almost always grounded in religious belief) and efforts to prevent the teaching of Darwinian evolution in public schools.
The personal freedom index would be quite different if these were considered.
CPZ: But the Mercatus study is deeply flawed for failing to take into account efforts by states to infringe on personal rights in one huge area – religion – and it could be argued that this was done to skew the study in favor of states dominated by the Republican Party.
THWM: Then there’s the cult of Ayn Rand.
highwayman:
Do you have anything else in your repertoire other than non-sequitur and ad hominem fallacies?
Frank:
Do you have anything else in your repertoire other than non-sequitur and ad hominem fallacies?
Parrot.
spam queue…
I spammed your mom last night. She kept calling out your name.
This is whole blog is based on spam, so no one fucking cares!
Dan, Railwayman… your troll tail is showing.
Mike, I have something in the spam queue. Not that your faulty assumptions have stopped you before, of course.
DS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VST2KKIYn50
Frank said: Driving is a privilege, not a right. One has a constitutional right to own a car; one does not have a constitutional right to drive said car. It is a privilege that must be earned through training, testing, and licensing. Whether that is done by the state or private sector (I prefer the latter) is irrelevant to the need for driving regulation (or “rules†if you prefer).
THWM: That’s great theory yes, in practice no.
Then why do you want to make lives harder for those with out cars?
Driving should be a real choice done with ones own free will, not some social engineering objective.