What state is the most free?

[Ranb]

For the Americans here; what state in the Union has the fewest restrictions on how its residents live? It sure is not Washington State where I live. Thanks.

Ranb

[Freddy]

I would guess New Hampshire, the "live free or die" state. No seatbelt or helmet laws, you can carry a gun just about anywhere, no sales tax, no state income tax (for now). Definitely a strong libertarian streak.

Vermont is also pretty big on leaving people alone, but I've never spent any time there.

[Tony]

Let's define a criterion for "free", questions I would ask:

Which state has the most liberal gun laws?

Which state has the most liberal drug and alcohol laws?

Which state has the most liberal bedroom laws?

Which state has the most gay, women and minority rights?

Which state seeks to protect the rights of the individual over the rights of the business class?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Washington State

[Darth Rotor]

What state is the most free?
Ranb
New Hampshire.

Live free or die. Anyone not dead in NH is free, so they are 100% free, so they are the most free state, in that one cannot get any freer than 100% free.

This analysis was brought to you by Jack Daniels, Charlie Daniels, and Daniel's Travelin' Tonight on the Plane Productions, LLC. IT support by Kim Kommando.

DR

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Let's define a criterion for "free", questions I would ask:

Which state has the most liberal gun laws?

Which state has the most liberal drug and alcohol laws?

Which state has the most liberal bedroom laws?

Which state has the most gay, women and minority rights?

Which state seeks to protect the rights of the individual over the rights of the business class?

In Ranb's case, it's which state will allow him to legally marry his 50 BMG rifle.

[The Painter]

New Hampshire.

[Katana]

I would guess New Hampshire, the "live free or die" state. No seatbelt or helmet laws, you can carry a gun just about anywhere, no sales tax, no state income tax (for now). Definitely a strong libertarian streak.

Vermont is also pretty big on leaving people alone, but I've never spent any time there.


I can assure you that Vermont should not be included in this list. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, income tax, HEFTY property taxes, lots of social programs - that is if these are the things upon which we are judging the relative "freedom" within states.

New Hampshire came to mind first, but then I wondered about states out west like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

[EvilSmurf]

I could make the argument that Oregon is the only state with an assisted suicide law on the books, as well as no state sales tax.

[Miss Anthrope]

I can assure you that Vermont should not be included in this list. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, income tax, HEFTY property taxes, lots of social programs - that is if these are the things upon which we are judging the relative "freedom" within states.

New Hampshire came to mind first, but then I wondered about states out west like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

Not Idaho. They have some pretty repressive laws regarding nudie bars and sex in general. Montana didn't used to have speed limits I think.......

As for Washington, we have it pretty good, but in some ways we're going so far liberal that it's getting nanny like. For instance, there is a councilperson in Seattle trying to pass laws regarding the recycling of table scraps, and recycling is already required by law in Seattle. And our civil union law is a joke. We're also that state that not only banned smoking, but smoking 25 feet from a door, window or air intake fan. And we passed a law about nudie bars requiring bright lights and certain distances to be maintained. Let's see........state liquor stores which are only recently opening on Sundays.

WA has a very long way to go. I thought of Oregon, but they won't even let you pump your own gas. I vote for New Hampshire.

[Katana]

Not Idaho. They have some pretty repressive laws regarding nudie bars and sex in general. Montana didn't used to have speed limits I think.......

As for Washington, we have it pretty good, but in some ways we're going so far liberal that it's getting nanny like. For instance, there is a councilperson in Seattle trying to pass laws regarding the recycling of table scraps, and recycling is already required by law in Seattle. And our civil union law is a joke. We're also that state that not only banned smoking, but smoking 25 feet from a door, window or air intake fan. And we passed a law about nudie bars requiring bright lights and certain distances to be maintained. Let's see........state liquor stores which are only recently opening on Sundays.

WA has a very long way to go. I thought of Oregon, but they won't even let you pump your own gas. I vote for New Hampshire.


I'll tell you that New Hampshire is interesting.

Aside from the speed limit issue, though, what about Montana?

I ask because I really don't know much about the state. I guess I just PERCEIVE it as being more "free" some how.

[Pardalis]

Is the question of the OP asking which state is the cheapest? :confused:

[Cain]

"What state is the most free?" does not strike me as an interesting question. It also carries that baggage of defining "free," and I object to the negative liberty model taken for granted above. I'm sure you can get yourself dropped off on some desert island and you will be completely free from any outside state interference -- assuming of course that you're not developing weapons technology. You'll also have to gather your own food, live in isolation (not necessarily a bad thing), lack access to emergency services, and so on. Free to do... not a great deal.

I think until recently you could drive as fast as you wanted on Montana highways (and they had a rather high percentage of traffic fatalities). So who is free there? It's a hospitable environment if you want to drive 100 mph without interference. If all I care about is beach access, then an ideal state might have lots of nice, publicly accessible coastline. Such a state might also have strict environmental regulations, which certain businesses might consider an assault on their freedom. Then there are questions of social justice ("free for whom?").

Freedom is purposive. Maybe you can go wherever you want 100 mph, but where do you want to go? If I prefer to live in a place that has certain restrictions on certain things (such as owning firearms), and also has activities I enjoy doing, then does that mean I don't value freedom? I read an article recently about some city in Vermont that has no law against public nudity, though recent "incidents" have been causing a stir.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France

[Ohmer]

Nevada. Gambling, 24 hour alcohol sales and prostitution*. Who cares about the rest.:D

*prostitution is only legal outside Las Vegas and Reno

[Miss Anthrope]

I'll tell you that New Hampshire is interesting.

Aside from the speed limit issue, though, what about Montana?

I ask because I really don't know much about the state. I guess I just PERCEIVE it as being more "free" some how.

I don't know much more than the speed limit. I've been to Montana. Beautiful place, but the people loved their country music and church far too much for my tastes.

According to dumblaws.com:

Prostitution is considered a "crime against the family".
http://www.dumblaws.com/images/spacer.gif
Full Text (http://www.dumblaws.com/law/1400)
http://www.dumblaws.com/images/spacer.gif
One may not pretend to abuse an animal in the presence of a minor.
http://www.dumblaws.com/images/spacer.gif
Full Text (http://www.dumblaws.com/law/1401)
http://www.dumblaws.com/images/spacer.gif
It is illegal to have a sheep in the cab of your truck without a chaperone.
It is a felony for a wife to open her husband's mail.
It is a misdemeanor to show movies that depict acts of felonious crime.
In Montana, it is illegal for married women to go fishing alone on Sundays, and illegal for unmarried women to fish alone at all.
It is illegal for a man and a woman to have sex in any other position other than missionary style.
Seven or more indians are considered a raiding or war party and it is legal to shoot them.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I could make the argument that Oregon is the only state with an assisted suicide law on the books, as well as no state sales tax.

Yeah, but you can't even pump your own gas. How backward is that?

[Ohmer]

Yeah, but you can't even pump your own gas. How backward is that?

We're free to sit in our warm, dry cars and have some alcoholic pump it free of charge. It really chaps my hide when I go to California and pay more per gallon and I have to pump it myself. If that's freedom you can have it.

[Ranb]

"What state is the most free?" does not strike me as an interesting question. It also carries that baggage of defining "free," and I object to the negative liberty model taken for granted above. I'm sure you can get yourself dropped off on some desert island and you will be completely free from any outside state interference.....

I intended to just ask about the state with the fewest restrictions while living in society in general. My home state of WA is definitely not the one.

Ranb

[casebro]

But New Hampshire has vehicle inspection laws. Rust holes? Junk it! AND housewives forewarned: not a community property state either.

I would think some western state would probably fit my definition, but that's just a guess.

[The Painter]

Just a little info on New Hampshire;

http://www.freestateproject.org/

[shemp]

Note: TANSTAAFS

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I can assure you that Vermont should not be included in this list. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws, income tax, HEFTY property taxes, lots of social programs - that is if these are the things upon which we are judging the relative "freedom" within states.

New Hampshire came to mind first, but then I wondered about states out west like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

So true. I'm from New Hampshire, but went to school in Vermont. Scenery-wise, not much difference. Law-wise, quite a bit.

On the other hand, Burlington is a bastion of "free-thinking," at least, according to people I went to college with. Can't say I ever saw it that way, but...

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Isn't Alaska pretty willd? I think it's legal to conspicuously carry a handgun there, but I'm too lazy to look it up.

[Katana]

I don't know much more than the speed limit. I've been to Montana. Beautiful place, but the people loved their country music and church far too much for my tastes.

According to dumblaws.com:


:D

I'd love to see those rules enforced.

[Beerina]

Well, my summer property taxes went up $700 this year. It sure as hell ain't Michigan, a failing state in a depression with a government that's essentially a kleptocracy.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

We're free to sit in our warm, dry cars and have some alcoholic pump it free of charge. It really chaps my hide when I go to California and pay more per gallon and I have to pump it myself. If that's freedom you can have it.

When you get right down to it, freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

[Lothian]

Orange.

[Kerberos]

:D

I'd love to see those rules enforced.

Just show me seven redskins!

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/fighting/fighting0002.gif

[Charlie Monoxide]

Here in Nevada, you're free to give money to casinos or brothels ...

Charlie (or both) Monoxide

[Ohmer]

When you get right down to it, freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Kris Kristofferson is a freaking genius.

Might just ain't as righteous as it used to be before
When your army's out of gas

Singin' crime still don't pay just like it used to
And you know that time slips away till you die
Well, I don't give a damn when I choose to
No it don't hurt so bad when you're high.

Oregon has pretty liberal pot laws too. Too bad the Feds don't respect them.

[Cleon]

When you get right down to it, freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.

And nothing ain't worth nothing, but it's free.

[Esperdome]

Texas wouldn't be so bad if we could just get the Baptists to mind their own business.

[DanishDynamite]

For the Americans here; what state in the Union has the fewest restrictions on how its residents live? It sure is not Washington State where I live. Thanks.

Ranb
I'm not American but it seems to me that your question equates to: "which color in the spectrum is best?"

[MaGZ]

I was told West Virginia has less bureaucratic tape for building homes and starting businesses.

[WildCat]

I would guess New Hampshire, the "live free or die" state. No seatbelt or helmet laws, you can carry a gun just about anywhere, no sales tax, no state income tax (for now). Definitely a strong libertarian streak.
No state that still adheres to the 55mph speed limit can claim to be free.



:p

[negativ]

IT support by Kim Kommando.
Which would explain why none of the computers in New Hampshire work.

[negativ]

Aside from the speed limit issue, though, what about Montana?

I once heard of a guy who moved to Montana to be his own boss and ride along the border on a pygmy pony, harvesting his rather lucrative crop with a pair of heavy-duty zircon-encrusted tweezers. He also grew himself some bees, but he gave the sweet stuff to somebody else. He kept the wax and melted it down, though.

Just sayin'.

[Gregoire]

Rhode Island would definitely not make the list. They used to have a law that stores couldn't advertise the price of alcoholic beverages. This ended up getting struck down by the US Supreme Court (due to that pesky 1st amendment LOL!) (See the 1996 decision 44 Liquormart, Inc et al v. State of RI et al) Interestingly, when I left 3 years ago, bars were still not allowed to use the term "Happy Hour".

I also met an owner of a coffee shop in Rhode Island who said it was very hard to keep his shop open on Sundays due to all the red tape. And certainly, there were many Sundays I drove by his closed shop. He has since moved away and his coffee shop is no longer there.

Take this and add in high property taxes, sales taxes and income taxes and it certainly does not even come close.

[Dorian Gray]

New Hampshire.

Live free or die. Anyone not dead in NH is free, so they are 100% free, so they are the most free state, in that one cannot get any freer than 100% free.

This analysis was brought to you by Jack Daniels, Charlie Daniels, and Daniel's Travelin' Tonight on the Plane Productions, LLC. IT support by Kim Kommando.

DRNot true. If you are truly free, then you are free to be freer than 100%. That's the state we need to find.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I once heard of a guy who moved to Montana to be his own boss and ride along the border on a pygmy pony, harvesting his rather lucrative crop with a pair of heavy-duty zircon-encrusted tweezers. He also grew himself some bees, but he gave the sweet stuff to somebody else. He kept the wax and melted it down, though.

Just sayin'.Moonunit and Dweezil's dad would be proud of this post ...

Charlie (slime oozing out of your TV set) Monoxide

[CFLarsen]

No seatbelt or helmet laws

How is that a sign of how "free" you are?

[corplinx]

How is that a sign of how "free" you are?

You are free to be reckless and/or retarded as long as it doesn't directly endanger anyone else.

[CFLarsen]

You are free to be reckless and/or retarded as long as it doesn't directly endanger anyone else.

If you are sitting in a car without a safety belt, and the car hits something, your body will become a projectile. Thereby becoming a danger to others.

Or perhaps Newton's third law doesn't apply to those who are "free"?

[E.J.Armstrong]

I intended to just ask about the state with the fewest restrictions while living in society in general. My home state of WA is definitely not the one.

Ranb
That would be be an anarchist state then.

Perhaps it would also be a state that does not approve torture.
Perhaps that would be a state that doers not murder the mentally ill or juveniles on death row.
Perhaps that would be a state that allows you to keep tactical nuclear weapons, polonium or Siberian tigers for decoration in your bedroom once the door has been unlocked.

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps that would be a state that doers not murder the mentally ill or juveniles on death row.

Or simply, a state that does not murder its own citizens, period.

What is so "free" about state-sanctioned murder?

Trusting the government to kill citizens (knowing that not all on death row are guilty), but not trusting the government to decide (based on strong evidence) that the same citizens should wear seatbelts?

That doesn't make sense.

[Katana]

If you are sitting in a car without a safety belt, and the car hits something, your body will become a projectile. Thereby becoming a danger to others.

Or perhaps Newton's third law doesn't apply to those who are "free"?


Having worked in the hospital that gets New Hampshire's major trauma cases, I, also, can assure you that the medical care for these guys is most definitely NOT free. Then again, most of the fools who don't wear helmets probably didn't make it to us.

I remember my ICU rotation and looking down the row of beds: motorcycle versus tree, car versus deer, car versus motorcycle, motorcycle versus deer, roll-over ATV accident, etc. No one had worn helmets or seat belts at the time of their accidents. Hard to say whether some folks would have done better, but I have to suspect at least that the guys that got thrown from their cars would have been better off.

It was a long way from the knife & gun club in Chicago.

[CFLarsen]

Having worked in the hospital that gets New Hampshire's major trauma cases, I, also, can assure you that the medical care for these guys is most definitely NOT free. Then again, most of the fools who don't wear helmets probably didn't make it to us.

I remember my ICU rotation and looking down the row of beds: motorcycle versus tree, car versus deer, car versus motorcycle, motorcycle versus deer, roll-over ATV accident, etc. No one had worn helmets or seat belts at the time of their accidents. Hard to say whether some folks would have done better, but I have to suspect at least that the guys that got thrown from their cars would have been better off.

It was a long way from the knife & gun club in Chicago.

Snopes on seatbelt safety. (http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/seatbelt.asp)

And, another Snopes: Oh, irony. (http://www.snopes.com/autos/accident/seatbelt.asp)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Trusting the government to kill citizens (knowing that not all on death row are guilty)

Evidence?

[Cheesejoff]

Every state demands we drive on the left or the right side of the road. In a truly free society, citizens could drive on any side at any speed without interference from the government.

[CFLarsen]

Evidence?

Of course:

Since 1973, 124 innocent have been exonerated. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412)

[E.J.Armstrong]

Or simply, a state that does not murder its own citizens, period.

What is so "free" about state-sanctioned murder?

Trusting the government to kill citizens (knowing that not all on death row are guilty), but not trusting the government to decide (based on strong evidence) that the same citizens should wear seatbelts?

That doesn't make sense.

Exactly. The league table of states that murder their own citizens is interesting. The USA is right up there with the axis of evil.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment#Global_distribution_of_death_pe nalty'China (at least 1,010 but sources suggest the real tally is between 7,500 and 8,000)[citation needed]
2. Iran (177)
3. Pakistan (82)
4. Iraq (at least 65)
5. Sudan (at least 65)
6. United States (53)'

[CFLarsen]

The death penalty is the ultimate denial of civil liberties.
ACLU (http://www.aclu.org/capital/index.html)

Ouch.

[BPSCG]

Freedonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedonia), of course.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Every state demands we drive on the left or the right side of the road. In a truly free society, citizens could drive on any side at any speed without interference from the government.Why bother even picking a side. Just barrel down the middle and let the other suckers choose ...

Charlie (throw in a few drinks as well) Monoxide

[Gurdur]

No state is free that does not provide free beer.

_______

American beer? You all lose.

[nightwind]

Well, not sure.

I can tell you that Texas, where I live is pretty liberal on guns. I believe that pretty much everyone walks around armed here.

That is about the only issue. They are pretty much against all other rights.

[Ranb]

I'm not American but it seems to me that your question equates to: "which color in the spectrum is best?"

Color as in race or political affiliation? My question is merely one that asks which state has the fewest restrictions on how one lives. There is no need to read anything else into it.

Ranb

[Gregoire]

Well, not sure.

I can tell you that Texas, where I live is pretty liberal on guns. I believe that pretty much everyone walks around armed here.

That is about the only issue. They are pretty much against all other rights.


Sad to say, after I moved to Texas, they enacted a gay marriage ban by popular vote which I personally think is totally unfair to those who are of that orientation. I guess that was the trend through out most of the country where such elections were held, though.

On the other hand, it is so nice to live in a state without an income tax.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Of course:

Since 1973, 124 innocent have been exonerated. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412)

Those people aren't on death row.

[CFLarsen]

Those people aren't on death row.

Anymore.

[Miss Anthrope]

Well, not sure.

I can tell you that Texas, where I live is pretty liberal on guns. I believe that pretty much everyone walks around armed here.

That is about the only issue. They are pretty much against all other rights.

Yeah. The very fact that battery operated "marital aids" are illegal in Texas is pretty frightening.

[Katana]

Yeah. The very fact that battery operated "marital aids" are illegal in Texas is pretty frightening.


Yes. Yes, it is.

:wackynah:

[BPSCG]

Yeah. The very fact that battery operated "marital aids" are illegal in Texas is pretty frightening.On the other hand, there's a whole chain of "Condoms to Go (http://www.condomstogousa.com/osc/eshop/shipping.php)" stores in the Dallas area. Never saw that here in Virginia. Or even New York.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Anymore.

You said there are innocent people on death row, then provided a list of people who aren't on death row. So you did not offer evidence for your assertion.

[CFLarsen]

You said there are innocent people on death row, then provided a list of people who aren't on death row. So you did not offer evidence for your assertion.

Yes, I did. Those exonerated were sitting on death row. There is an increasing number of people (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412) sitting on death row that are exonerated. Ergo, there are innocent people sitting on death row.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yes, I did. Those exonerated were sitting on death row. There is an increasing number of people (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412) sitting on death row that are exonerated. Ergo, there are innocent people sitting on death row.

No, there were innocent people on death row. Your statement that there are remains unproven.

[jimtron]

"What state is the most free?" does not strike me as an interesting question. It also carries that baggage of defining "free," and I object to the negative liberty model taken for granted above. I'm sure you can get yourself dropped off on some desert island and you will be completely free from any outside state interference -- assuming of course that you're not developing weapons technology. You'll also have to gather your own food, live in isolation (not necessarily a bad thing), lack access to emergency services, and so on. Free to do... not a great deal.

I think until recently you could drive as fast as you wanted on Montana highways (and they had a rather high percentage of traffic fatalities). So who is free there? It's a hospitable environment if you want to drive 100 mph without interference. If all I care about is beach access, then an ideal state might have lots of nice, publicly accessible coastline. Such a state might also have strict environmental regulations, which certain businesses might consider an assault on their freedom. Then there are questions of social justice ("free for whom?").

Freedom is purposive. Maybe you can go wherever you want 100 mph, but where do you want to go? If I prefer to live in a place that has certain restrictions on certain things (such as owning firearms), and also has activities I enjoy doing, then does that mean I don't value freedom? I read an article recently about some city in Vermont that has no law against public nudity, though recent "incidents" have been causing a stir.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." - Anatole France


Good points. What is freedom? I don't see how less taxes=more freedom, necessarily. Does less government=more freedom? How free do you want to be?

[Darth Rotor]

Not true. If you are truly free, then you are free to be freer than 100%. That's the state we need to find.
I've never subscribed to the "in excess of 100%" rubbish, so I can't go with you on this one. I am sure your local football coach will agree with you, so you've got that going for you. :)

DR

[Gurdur]

No, there were innocent people on death row. Your statement that there are remains unproven.

Claus would have been on much surer ground had he cited this link and the inherent argument there (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2238).

[Ranb]

That would be be an anarchist state then......

I was not asking about a hypothetical state free of all restrictions. Try thinking of which state is the least oppressive.

Ranb

[Gurdur]

I was not asking about a hypothetical state free of all restrictions. Try thinking of which state is the least oppressive.

Ranb

The most free state would be death.

[Esperdome]

Yeah. The very fact that battery operated "marital aids" are illegal in Texas is pretty frightening.

They are still sold here as "massage devices".

Texans, and I'm sure many others, are very inventive about circumventing the laws the Moral Majority inflict upon us. Still, it would be nice to do away with the whole dog and pony show.

[Gregoire]

They are still sold here as "massage devices".

Texans, and I'm sure many others, are very inventive about circumventing the laws the Moral Majority inflict upon us. Still, it would be nice to do away with the whole dog and pony show.

Thanks for the good news. For a minute there, I was starting to wonder what kind of state I had moved to.

[Wheezebucket]

I know if you love meth, Montana is the place to be. And if you DON'T love meth, but you look like you do, watch out!

[Hamradioguy]

Well until very recently you could legally walk the streets of Brattleboro, Vermont buck naked. And back when he was a county prosecutor our Senator Leahy ruled that the state had no interest in skinny dipping as long as it was being done out of view of the public. There are virtually no firearms restrictions, and the state keeps it's eyes and ears out of the bedroom. We have Civil Unions (but not same sex marriage) and gays are generally well tolerated.

On the other hand we have no cell phone coverage here because a local "green" didn't want to be irridated by "deadly cell tower radiation", if you want to do ANY construction, tree cutting, windmill erecting above 2,500 feet you'll need to spend thousands of hours and dollars getting the necessary state permits...IF you are lucky. Like to keep your old junk cars around for nostalgia? Not in Vermont- better move to new Hampshire.

New Hampshire? Yeah, "Live Free or Die" (The CORRECT motto BTW is, "Live Free or Die Trying.), and it IS somewhat Libertarian. But for those who really need some kind of social services forget about New Hampshire. Yes, there's no income or sales tax. But if your're poor AND a homeowner, it's not the place to live. A good friend owns his own home, but because of physical problems does not regularly work. His income runs around $6-7 thousand a year and his property taxes are now over $3 thousand a year. When he attended a Legislative hearing about tax reform a legislator told him (and fellow Legislators) that he didn't think anyone with an income under $10,000/yr deserved to own their own house. Yep, "live free or die".

[jimtron]

But for those who really need some kind of social services forget about New Hampshire. Yes, there's no income or sales tax. But if your're poor AND a homeowner, it's not the place to live. A good friend owns his own home, but because of physical problems does not regularly work. His income runs around $6-7 thousand a year and his property taxes are now over $3 thousand a year. When he attended a Legislative hearing about tax reform a legislator told him (and fellow Legislators) that he didn't think anyone with an income under $10,000/yr deserved to own their own house. Yep, "live free or die".

Yes, this is what I was getting at when I said earlier that I didn't think less taxes necessarily meant more freedom.

[CFLarsen]

No, there were innocent people on death row. Your statement that there are remains unproven.

No, that's not correct. We can, given the recorded history, say that there are innocent people on death row. What we can't say is precisely who, or how many.

Are there tigers in India? Yes, we have found specimens, and they pop up from time to time. Is it proven that there, right now, are tigers in India? Yes. We don't know exactly where they are, or how many, though.

Your reasoning means that the statement "there are tigers in India" remains unproven. Which, of course, is not only silly, it is also wrong.

Claus would have been on much surer ground had he cited this link and the inherent argument there (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?&did=2238).

That's scary reading, isn't it?

What is perhaps more scary is that, once a person has been killed, nobody cares to see if he really was innocent. Let's all cover our eyes and ears and sing "LALALALALALA". That will keep the harsh reality out.

I don't think I have heard any reasons why people think it is "free" to live in a state where said state can legally kill them.

Why is that?

[Gregoire]

New Hampshire? Yeah, "Live Free or Die" (The CORRECT motto BTW is, "Live Free or Die Trying.), and it IS somewhat Libertarian. But for those who really need some kind of social services forget about New Hampshire. Yes, there's no income or sales tax. But if your're poor AND a homeowner, it's not the place to live. A good friend owns his own home, but because of physical problems does not regularly work. His income runs around $6-7 thousand a year and his property taxes are now over $3 thousand a year. When he attended a Legislative hearing about tax reform a legislator told him (and fellow Legislators) that he didn't think anyone with an income under $10,000/yr deserved to own their own house. Yep, "live free or die".


I think your point that it is citizen specific is correct. I understand your friend is in a difficult position.

Bur from my point of view, I don't mind paying high property taxes because I chose the house I live in and could always downgrade if I had to. On the other hand, (and I know this is politically incorrect to say this), paying more income taxes only because I worked more hours last year than the year before makes absolutely no sense to me. I personally would have rather worked a forty hour work week, but sometimes things happen beyond one's control.

[Gregoire]

Yes, this is what I was getting at when I said earlier that I didn't think less taxes necessarily meant more freedom.

It is probably a matter of degree. When the combined marginal tax rates of the state and federal government rise to 50%, it really feels like one is working for the government instead of one's self. On the other hand, if the government uses the concept of "user fees" where you pay for the services you get (such as a gas tax to pay for the roads), then it does not seem so onerous.

[Blue Mountain]

Overlapping or contending rights and freedoms can also be problematic:
Does my right to enjoy fresh air confict with your freedom to smoke cigarettes?
Does my right to enjoy peace and quiet interfere with your freedom to play music at 120 dB at 3:00 AM?
Does my right to raise children in a safe and healthy environment interefere with your right to let your dogs run loose?
Does my right to make a profit from my business interfere with your right to work in a safe environment?
Does my right to view adult pronography interefere with your wife's right to privacy, if I take pictures of her sunbathing in the nude?

[Gurdur]

...... a legislator told him (and fellow Legislators) that he didn't think anyone with an income under $10,000/yr deserved to own their own house. Yep, "live free or die".

Some charming people you have over there. Remind me to avoid the place.