The most free of the 50.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/

People like to think it's places like Texas. Unfortunately, it's not. New Hampshire comes in at or near the top every year.

Cali? Mao or Hitler would be impressed.

Um...the CATO Institute?  The Charles Koch Institute of the Charles Koch Foundation?

I've got a good source too.  It's Marvel Comics.  But it's an expensive piece of propaganda...nice graphics.  Well done.

BTW...isn't Dartmouth College in New Hampshire?

Original Quill wrote:Um...the CATO Institute?  The Charles Koch Foundation?

I've got a good source too.  It's Marvel Comics.

BTW...isn't Dartmouth University in New Hampshire?

Yes, I used a libertarian group to measure liberty.

Crazy eh.

Yes, Dartmouth is in NH. Freedom and a good education can go hand in hand. Amazing eh?


Also, there is a good reason that the Free State Project picked NH over the other 50 to concentrate their efforts.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Um...the CATO Institute?  The Charles Koch Foundation?

I've got a good source too.  It's Marvel Comics.

BTW...isn't Dartmouth University in New Hampshire?

Yes, I used a libertarian group to measure liberty.

Crazy eh.

Yes, Dartmouth is in NH. Freedom and a good education and go hand in hand. Amazing eh?

Also, there is a good reason that the Free State Project picked NH over the other 50 to concentrate their efforts.

Yep, I lived there. With a groundless thesis like, oh, well...what's the state with the most freedom?...it's whatever you want it to be. What you do is frame your coding for New Hampshire, and viola...up comes New Hampshire.

We can do the same thing for, say, Who has the best ice cream? Just count the volume of sugar.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, I used a libertarian group to measure liberty.

Crazy eh.

Yes, Dartmouth is in NH. Freedom and a good education and go hand in hand. Amazing eh?

Also, there is a good reason that the Free State Project picked NH over the other 50 to concentrate their efforts.

Yep, I lived there.  With a groundless thesis like, oh, well...what's the state with the most freedom?...it's whatever you want it to be.  What you do is frame your coding for New Hampshire, and viola...up comes New Hampshire.

We can do the same thing for, say, Who has the best ice cream?  Just count the volume of sugar.

Freedom has a definition. It's the ability for you to act with the least amount of regulation. The least amount of control. The least amount of force used against you.

I can see why you left there.

But rules and regulations create freedom. They free people from private controls and force.

Isn't it illegal to kill people? That's a regulation.

Original Quill wrote:But rules and regulations create freedom.  They free people from private controls and force.

Isn't it illegal to kill people?  That's a regulation.

Yes it is.

Regulations should be used to protect people from harming each other.

New Hampshire is the best at limiting regulations beyond that. California and New York are the worst.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:But rules and regulations create freedom.  They free people from private controls and force.

Isn't it illegal to kill people?  That's a regulation.

Yes it is.

Regulations should be used to protect people from harming each other.

New Hampshire is the best at limiting regulations beyond that. California and New York are the worst.

arent cali and NY ultra liberal??

smelly-bandit wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes it is.

Regulations should be used to protect people from harming each other.

New Hampshire is the best at limiting regulations beyond that. California and New York are the worst.

arent cali and NY ultra liberal??

Liberal and regulated, however regulations can come from the right. Many drug laws and morality laws come from the right.

Maddog wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

arent cali and NY ultra liberal??

Liberal and regulated, however regulations can come from the right. Many drug laws and morality laws come from the right.

As is abortion.

Protecting "people from harming each other" is just another way of saying rules and regulations. After all, the definition of "regulation" is "public protections".

Then the game is, more laws and regulations. Just another way of choosing whose ox to gore.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Liberal and regulated, however regulations can come from the right. Many drug laws and morality laws come from the right.

As is abortion.

Protecting "people from harming each other" is just another way of saying rules and regulations.  After all, the definition of "regulation" is "public protections".  

Then the game is, more laws and regulations.  Just another way of choosing whose ox to gore.

Abortion is tricky one. One could say that someone is being harmed during an abortion, depending on how you define a "someone". I leave that topic alone because I have decided that I'm not going to try to define a "someone". It's too arbitrary.

Less laws and regulations means that the government does not choose who's ox to be gored. It leaves the people and their oxen alone.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As is abortion.

Protecting "people from harming each other" is just another way of saying rules and regulations.  After all, the definition of "regulation" is "public protections".  

Then the game is, more laws and regulations.  Just another way of choosing whose ox to gore.

Abortion is tricky one. One could say that someone is being harmed during an abortion, depending on how you define a "someone". I leave that topic alone because I have decided that I'm not going to try to define a "someone". It's too arbitrary.  

Yet abortion is real.

Maddog wrote:Less laws and regulations means that the government does not choose who's ox to be gored. It leaves the people and their oxen alone.

No private interests do that. Or...just leave it to chance, like the BP oil spill in the Gulf. It's still whose ox gets gored, just shifting who does the goring.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Abortion is tricky one. One could say that someone is being harmed during an abortion, depending on how you define a "someone". I leave that topic alone because I have decided that I'm not going to try to define a "someone". It's too arbitrary.  

Yet abortion is real.

Maddog wrote:Less laws and regulations means that the government does not choose who's ox to be gored. It leaves the people and their oxen alone.

No private interests do that.  Or...just leave it to chance, like the BP oil spill in the Gulf.  It's still whose ox gets gored, just shifting who does the goring.

Of course abortion is real, and in spite of all of those expensive regulations, the oil spill occurred.

You prefer security over freedom, which is hardly an unusual stance. It's just that many people have a hard time admitting that they don't really want their fellow man to have too much freedom.

Freedom from regulation is not the only freedom, or even an important freedom.
Freedom for fearing a lunatic with an automatic weapon is a much more Critical freedom
Freedom from slave like employment conditions is a greater freedom.

the Op is So wrong on so many levels

"
The education category takes into account requirements and restrictions for private and homeschools.
"
So the freedom to be Uneducated is supposably educational freedom?? what sort of fucked up measure is that!!! Freedom of education should be measured by the quality of FREE education, the universal access to Cheap High Quality education, Not the freedom to avoid education.

Quills right that is Some fucked up propaganda right there....
And the Libertarian movement is Anti Peoples Freedom, more accurately known as the Pro-Corpocracy Movement.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yet abortion is real.



No private interests do that.  Or...just leave it to chance, like the BP oil spill in the Gulf.  It's still whose ox gets gored, just shifting who does the goring.

Of course abortion is real, and in spite of all of those expensive regulations, the oil spill occurred.

You prefer security over freedom, which is hardly an unusual stance. It's just that many people have a hard time admitting that they don't really want their fellow man to have too much freedom.  

Don't pretend to define me.  We're talking about what's out there.  You think that freedom from regulations is some sort of absolute freedom.  But you're avoiding the point that in a field of absolute freedom, someone else will just come along and take it away.

That's what free market capitalism is all about.  Just another authority, with his form of regulations, who says, 'that's my private property, I'm removing it from you.' So what if the property goes to City Hall, or Mar a Lago...it's still a system that deprives you of property.  Just another set of regulations.  It's either system X or system Y.  If you removed all laws, someone else would come along and establish a news set of laws (that suits him), and here we go again.

That's what I mean when I say, it's still whose ox gets gored.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Of course abortion is real, and in spite of all of those expensive regulations, the oil spill occurred.

You prefer security over freedom, which is hardly an unusual stance. It's just that many people have a hard time admitting that they don't really want their fellow man to have too much freedom.  

Don't pretend to define me.  We're talking about what's out there.  You think that freedom from regulations is some sort of absolute freedom.  But you're avoiding the point that in a field of absolute freedom, someone else will just come along and take it away.

That's what free market capitalism is all about.  Just another authority, with his form of regulations, who says, 'that's my private property, I'm removing it from you.'  So what if the property goes to City Hall, or Mar a Lago...it's still a system that deprives you of property.  Just another set of regulations.  It's either system X or system Y.  If you removed all laws, someone else would come along and establish a news set of laws (that suits him), and here we go again.

That's what I mean when I say, it's still whose ox gets gored.

If someone can come along and just take my stuff away, I don't have freedom. Freedom means my private property is mine, and one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to protect my property from those that would take it without my permission.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't pretend to define me.  We're talking about what's out there.  You think that freedom from regulations is some sort of absolute freedom.  But you're avoiding the point that in a field of absolute freedom, someone else will just come along and take it away.

That's what free market capitalism is all about.  Just another authority, with his form of regulations, who says, 'that's my private property, I'm removing it from you.'  So what if the property goes to City Hall, or Mar a Lago...it's still a system that deprives you of property.  Just another set of regulations.  It's either system X or system Y.  If you removed all laws, someone else would come along and establish a news set of laws (that suits him), and here we go again.

That's what I mean when I say, it's still whose ox gets gored.

If someone can come along and just take my stuff away, I don't have freedom. Freedom means my private property is mine, and one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to protect my property from those that would take it without my permission.

Bullshit.  Private property is an invention of 17th-century economists and political philosophers, describing the conditions of artisans and shopkeepers of their time.  Property cannot be understood without understanding the concept of labor [work].  It was invented by John Locke (1632-1704) to describe the creative process, or as he called it, "...making the world his own":

John Locke wrote: He [man] combines his work at everything he does leave the state in which nature left it, and attach to something that is hers [nature]. By this, he made his property. This thing is extracted from it being common where nature had put it, his work adds something, which excludes the common right of other men.[/i].

Thomas Jefferson took this phrase and turned "property" into "happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, thereby blossoming the passage into some timeless, universal right.  In fact, it was a recognition that what I make, I get to keep.  No more.

Capitalism is the very antithesis of this idea.  A capitalist has never made anything with his hands in his life, and lives by way of trading things...in a world called "markets".  The "property" the capitalist speaks of is commodity, not creation.

You have chosen the wrong path, which is understandable because in a world of capitalism, the capitalists skew everything their way.  The Age of Industrialism separated the artisan from his product, and made it into a commodity for possession.  Thereafter, the idea of property became commodity, and lost its moral legitimacy.

You speak from the point where the property has already been stolen from its creator:

Maddog wrote:Freedom means my private property is mine, and one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to protect my property from those that would take it without my permission.

Freedom...after the theft has taken place. The state is the instrument of the victor.  What you say in so many words is, since I now possess the commodity, the state will come along and vouchsafe my possession.  But, since it has lost its moral legitimacy, the state is no more than a realpolitik strongman.

It's still, whose ox is gored.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:


If someone can come along and just take my stuff away, I don't have freedom. Freedom means my private property is mine, and one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to protect my property from those that would take it without my permission.

Bullshit.  Private property is an invention of 17th-century economists and political philosophers, describing the conditions of artisans and shopkeepers of their time.  Property cannot be understood without understanding the concept of labor [work].  It was invented by John Locke (1632-1704) to describe the creative process, or as he called it, "...making the world his own":

John Locke wrote: He [man] combines his work at everything he does leave the state in which nature left it, and attach to something that is hers [nature]. By this, he made his property. This thing is extracted from it being common where nature had put it, his work adds something, which excludes the common right of other men ”[/i].

Thomas Jefferson took this phrase and turned "property" into "happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, thereby blossoming the passage into some timeless, universal right.  In fact, it was a recognition that what I make, I get to keep.  No more.

Capitalism is the very antithesis of this idea.  A capitalist has never made anything with his hands in his life, and lives by way of trading things...in a world called "markets".  The "property" he speaks of is commody, not creation.

You have chosen the wrong path, which is understandable because in a world of capitalism, the capitalists skew everything their way.  Industrialism separated the artisan from his product, and made it into a commodity for possession.  Thereafter, the idea of property became commodity, and lost its moral legitimacy.

You speak from the point where the property has already been stolen from its creator:

Maddog wrote:Freedom means my private property is mine, and one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to protect my property from those that would take it without my permission.

The state is the instrument of the victor.  What you say is, since I now possess the commodity, the state will come along and vouchsafe my possession.  But, since it has lost its moral legitimacy, the state is no more than a realpolitik strongman.

It's whose ox is gored.

Private property exists, and I have some. I would prefer that it be left alone.

New Hampshire does a far better job of that than other states. Perhaps you don't like that they do that, which is your choice.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Bullshit.  Private property is an invention of 17th-century economists and political philosophers, describing the conditions of artisans and shopkeepers of their time.  Property cannot be understood without understanding the concept of labor [work].  It was invented by John Locke (1632-1704) to describe the creative process, or as he called it, "...making the world his own":



Thomas Jefferson took this phrase and turned "property" into "happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, thereby blossoming the passage into some timeless, universal right.  In fact, it was a recognition that what I make, I get to keep.  No more.

Capitalism is the very antithesis of this idea.  A capitalist has never made anything with his hands in his life, and lives by way of trading things...in a world called "markets".  The "property" he speaks of is commody, not creation.

You have chosen the wrong path, which is understandable because in a world of capitalism, the capitalists skew everything their way.  Industrialism separated the artisan from his product, and made it into a commodity for possession.  Thereafter, the idea of property became commodity, and lost its moral legitimacy.

You speak from the point where the property has already been stolen from its creator:



The state is the instrument of the victor.  What you say is, since I now possess the commodity, the state will come along and vouchsafe my possession.  But, since it has lost its moral legitimacy, the state is no more than a realpolitik strongman.

It's whose ox is gored.

Private property exists, and I have some. I would prefer that it be left alone.

New Hampshire does a far better job of that than other states. Perhaps you don't like that they do that, which is your choice.

You haven't understood a word, have you? Perhaps if I use simpler terms: "Private property" is the fruits of theft. If you think government exists to protect thieves, you have just correctly described capitalism.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Private property exists, and I have some. I would prefer that it be left alone.

New Hampshire does a far better job of that than other states. Perhaps you don't like that they do that, which is your choice.

You haven't understood a word, have you?  Perhaps if I use simpler terms: "Private property" is the fruits of theft.  If you think government exists to protect thieves, you have just correctly described capitalism.

I understand it all quite well. I'm just far more succinct than you.

You're typing on some sort of device. From whom did you steal it?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You haven't understood a word, have you?  Perhaps if I use simpler terms: "Private property" is the fruits of theft.  If you think government exists to protect thieves, you have just correctly described capitalism.

I understand it all quite well. I'm just far more succinct than you.

You're typing on some sort of device. From whom did you steal it?

You're deflecting...a sure sign that you are flummoxed. You're not succinct, you're lost...trying to find 'the moment' for your position.

"Stealing" is a common metaphor for the conservative description of what liberals do. It reifies the notion of property, while delegitimizing the notion of 'common interest'. It's a moral euphemism, quite meaningless without a context.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I understand it all quite well. I'm just far more succinct than you.

You're typing on some sort of device. From whom did you steal it?

You're deflecting...a sure sign that you are flummoxed.  You're not succinct, you're lost...trying to find 'the moment' for your position.  

"Stealing" is a common metaphor for the conservative description of what liberals do.  It reifies the notion of property, while delegitimizing the notion of 'common interest'.  It's a moral euphemism, quite meaningless without a context.

So you're a metaphoric thief?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're deflecting...a sure sign that you are flummoxed.  You're not succinct, you're lost...trying to find 'the moment' for your position.  

"Stealing" is a common metaphor for the conservative description of what liberals do.  It reifies the notion of property, while delegitimizing the notion of 'common interest'.  It's a moral euphemism, quite meaningless without a context.

So you're a metaphoric thief?

What I mean is that conservatives like to borrow from the language of anger and discord when describing the other side. 9-11 was not just a crime by only 19-men, but a War on America. They still view mere police matters as needing a military response.

And with programs for the poor, they liken it to stealing...like a lawful alternative would be to go be a millionaire.

Conservatives have an unrealistic view of the world. They don't start with reality; they start with their ideology and work backwards. Again, it's the lack of critical reasoning skills that permits them to do this. And they oppose education because it would expose their imaginary world.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So you're a metaphoric thief?

What I mean is that conservatives like to borrow from the language of anger and discord when describing the other side.  9-11 was not just a crime by only 19-men, but a War on America.  They still view mere police matters as needing a military response.  

And with programs for the poor, they liken it to stealing...like a lawful alternative would be to go be a millionaire.

Conservatives have an unrealistic view of the world.  They don't start with reality; they start with their ideology and work backwards.  Again, it's the lack of critical reasoning skills that permits them to do this.  And they oppose education because it would expose their imaginary world.

So you're not a metaphoric thief?

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Don't pretend to define me.  We're talking about what's out there.  You think that freedom from regulations is some sort of absolute freedom.  But you're avoiding the point that in a field of absolute freedom, someone else will just come along and take it away.

That's what free market capitalism is all about.  Just another authority, with his form of regulations, who says, 'that's my private property, I'm removing it from you.'  So what if the property goes to City Hall, or Mar a Lago...it's still a system that deprives you of property.  Just another set of regulations.  It's either system X or system Y.  If you removed all laws, someone else would come along and establish a news set of laws (that suits him), and here we go again.

That's what I mean when I say, it's still whose ox gets gored.

If someone can come along and just take my stuff away, I don't have freedom. Freedom means my private property is mine, and one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to protect my property from those that would take it without my permission.

Eh?

How do you come to that conclusion?

Freedom means nobody has control over anything and you own nothing.

You own something, you thus have control over others and they cease to have freedom

So freedom, does not mean property is yours. You have only decided it is yours and that others accept that it is.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


If someone can come along and just take my stuff away, I don't have freedom. Freedom means my private property is mine, and one of the only legitimate roles of the state is to protect my property from those that would take it without my permission.

Eh?

How do you come to that conclusion?

Freedom means nobody has control over anything and you own nothing.

You own something, you thus have control over others and they cease to have freedom

So freedom, does not mean property is yours. You have only decided it is yours and that others accept that it is.

I guess freedom has different definitions to different people. I like mine better.

Why I don't understand is this -- when I point out that not everybody is born into a well-off family, or receives the same quality of education, I'm told, "Life isn't fair."

But when I say we should tax those with more than they need to help out those who don't have enough, I'm told, "That's not fair."

So do anti-welfare people believe in fairness, or not? It's just not consistent to insist on fair treatment for the wealthy but tolerate unfair conditions for the poor.

I mean, I know what the real answer is. Fairness is a deflection, and authoritarian people believe the rich are where they are because of merit, and the poor are where they are because they're unworthy. Neither of which is true, but it feels good to believe that way.

Ben Reilly wrote:Why I don't understand is this -- when I point out that not everybody is born into a well-off family, or receives the same quality of education, I'm told, "Life isn't fair."

But when I say we should tax those with more than they need to help out those who don't have enough, I'm told, "That's not fair."

So do anti-welfare people believe in fairness, or not? It's just not consistent to insist on fair treatment for the wealthy but tolerate unfair conditions for the poor.

I mean, I know what the real answer is. Fairness is a deflection, and authoritarian people believe the rich are where they are because of merit, and the poor are where they are because they're unworthy. Neither of which is true, but it feels good to believe that way.

You have to understand that life is not fair, and government force used to correct that unfairness, can do more damage than the original unfairness. What is more authoritarian than a government using force to confiscate property?

I'll paraphrase Jefferson.

A tempestuous sea of freedom, is better than a calm sea of despotism.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Why I don't understand is this -- when I point out that not everybody is born into a well-off family, or receives the same quality of education, I'm told, "Life isn't fair."

But when I say we should tax those with more than they need to help out those who don't have enough, I'm told, "That's not fair."

So do anti-welfare people believe in fairness, or not? It's just not consistent to insist on fair treatment for the wealthy but tolerate unfair conditions for the poor.

I mean, I know what the real answer is. Fairness is a deflection, and authoritarian people believe the rich are where they are because of merit, and the poor are where they are because they're unworthy. Neither of which is true, but it feels good to believe that way.

You have to understand that life is not fair, and government force used to correct that unfairness, can do more damage than the original unfairness. What is more authoritarian than a government using force to confiscate property?

So let me get this straight

You think to right a wrong and you admit its a wrong does more damage and that we should then not correct this wrong based on how idiots may act?

Is not the idiots the problem?

That you want to bow down to fear?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You have to understand that life is not fair, and government force used to correct that unfairness, can do more damage than the original unfairness. What is more authoritarian than a government using force to confiscate property?

So let me get this straight

You think to right a wrong and you admit its a wrong does more damage and that we should then not correct this wrong based on how idiots may act?

Is not the idiots the problem?

That you want to bow down to fear?

Yes, if the cure is worse than the disease, let me have the disease and keep your cure.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So let me get this straight

You think to right a wrong and you admit its a wrong does more damage and that we should then not correct this wrong based on how idiots may act?

Is not the idiots the problem?

That you want to bow down to fear?

Yes, if the cure is worse than the disease, let me have the disease and keep your cure.

And how many people would agree on their death beds when faced with a cure?

Clearly you have never even faced death

So you answer is based off idiocy

The point was so far over your head

Its like you would say as happened in the 1850's, lets keep slavery, as in time it will end. In fact the opposite was happenning. You actually perked my interest and i saw you were talking bollocks. Infact, the situation was getting worse and that the southern states wanted new states like kansas to be slave owning states. Which under the US constiution, was not allowed. You came out with some claptrap about Lincoln. Never understanding the history preceding this, but I thank you for perking my interest

the desease was the hate and the south.

So to slavery, you say, keep the cure?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, if the cure is worse than the disease, let me have the disease and keep your cure.

And how many people would agree on their death beds when faced with a cure?

Clearly you have never even faced death

So you answer is based off idiocy

The point was so far over your head

Its like you would say as happened in the 1850's, lets keep slavery, as in time it will end. In fact the opposite was happenning. You actually perked my interest and i saw you were talking bollocks. Infact, the situation was getting worse and that the southern states wanted new states like kansas to be slave owning states. Which under the US constiution, was not allowed. You came out with some claptrap about Lincoln. Never understanding the history preceding this, but I thank you for perking my interest

the desease was the hate and the south.

So to slavery, you say, keep the cure?

No, I would say to end any system that puts one man in control of another, unless it resulted in more deaths than slavery. Then flip a coin I guess. Especially if that system took the fruits of another man's labor. In that regard, slavery has been increasing in the US for decades.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


And how many people would agree on their death beds when faced with a cure?

Clearly you have never even faced death

So you answer is based off idiocy

The point was so far over your head

Its like you would say as happened in the 1850's, lets keep slavery, as in time it will end. In fact the opposite was happenning. You actually perked my interest and i saw you were talking bollocks. Infact, the situation was getting worse and that the southern states wanted new states like kansas to be slave owning states. Which under the US constiution, was not allowed. You came out with some claptrap about Lincoln. Never understanding the history preceding this, but I thank you for perking my interest

the desease was the hate and the south.

So to slavery, you say, keep the cure?

No, I would say to end any system that puts one man in control of another. Especially the fruits of another man's labor. In that regard, slavery has been increasing in the US for decades.  

Why would you say that when humans have continually had more rights

Interesting that you say one man though

What is needed is people to stop casting and discriminating people based on labels  

We would have no need of said discriminating laws, if not for the fact people discriminate because of labels

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No, I would say to end any system that puts one man in control of another. Especially the fruits of another man's labor. In that regard, slavery has been increasing in the US for decades.  

Why would you say that when humans have continually had more rights

Interesting that you say one man though

What is needed is people to stop casting and discriminating people based on labels  

We would have no need of said discriminating laws, if not for the fact people discriminate because of labels

How much of the fruits of my labor is mine?

Is that number increasing?

How much time is mine, and how much time is someone elses?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why would you say that when humans have continually had more rights

Interesting that you say one man though

What is needed is people to stop casting and discriminating people based on labels  

We would have no need of said discriminating laws, if not for the fact people discriminate because of labels

How much of the fruits of my labor is mine?

Is that number increasing?

How much time is mine, and how much time is someone elses?

Your labour?

What has your labour contributed to the history of this planet?

You can contribute as much as you like, but really, why do you need to ask?

Are feeling guilty?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How much of the fruits of my labor is mine?

Is that number increasing?

How much time is mine, and how much time is someone elses?

Your labour?

What has your labour contributed to the history of this planet?

You can contribute as much as you like, but really, why do you need to ask?

Are feeling guilty?

My labor is my time. Well, part of it's mine. The rest of my labor is the government's time. And they get very nasty if I don't give them the products of my labor, in numbers they have decided are "fair".

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Your labour?

What has your labour contributed to the history of this planet?

You can contribute as much as you like, but really, why do you need to ask?

Are feeling guilty?

My labor is my time. Well, part of it's mine. The rest of my labor is the government's time. And they get very nasty if I don't give them the products of my labor, in numbers they have decided are "fair".  

So you begrudge your time for others, when you never would have been educated off their time?

veya_victaous wrote:
Freedom from regulation is not the only freedom, or even an important freedom.
Freedom for fearing a lunatic with an automatic weapon is a much more Critical freedom
Freedom from slave like employment conditions is a greater freedom.

the Op is So  wrong on so many levels

" The education category takes into account requirements and restrictions for private and homeschools.
"
So the freedom to be Uneducated is supposably educational freedom?? what sort of fucked up measure is that!!! Freedom of education should be measured by the quality of FREE education, the universal access to Cheap High Quality education, Not the freedom to avoid education.

Quills right that is Some fucked up propaganda right there....
And the Libertarian movement is Anti Peoples Freedom, more accurately known as the Pro-Corpocracy Movement.

Too true that, veya...

Libertarianism is a far-right political ideaology --  the "liberty" in the name comes from liberal economic policies;  small government -- with freedom of businesses from environmental and workplace regulations;  less corporate taxation --  through less welfare, education and health payments..

The Koch bros. are one of the most anti-democracy and anti-freedom entities on the planet --  so any organisation that one of them might back financially is sure to be as far from a "liberal" or "freedom" leaning group as is humanly possible.

The fact that Maddog might think of a Libertarian organisation as equating with either personal "freedom" or "liberty" only goes to show that he really doesn't have a sound grasp of the relevant political terminology and labels..

Libertarians are, or at least tend toward anarchy.  The absence of government was the beginning of the response to the fall of the Old World, and the rise of industrialism, which culminated in socialism.  Government in those days was stigmatized as, and associated with monarchies, and referred to as 'Old World'.

Capitalism and self-interest began in this environment.  They were, then, all lefties in that they opposed the aristocratic Old World...hence the common root terms, liberal and libertarian.  But industrialism arose and superceded them all.  It divided liberalism into absolute anarchists (libertarians) and those who maintained the fruits of labor should go back to the laborer (socialism).

The former (libertarians) then sub-divided into (1) those who were pure libertarians (true anarchists), and (2) those, more practically, who saw the need for some constraints--ie, law and order.  But then, what laws were needed, and whose ox did they gore?

That's how certain libertarians became right wing.  They wanted laws that protected them in the free space of anarchy...but it was not a state where nothing was happening.  It was a state where they could steal from others, and run back and be protected in their 'hole-in-the-wall' hideaway.  For, as their distant socialist cousins point out, post-capitalist private property was stolen from the rightful owner, the creator.

Now, the libertarian wants to claim...Hey, that's mine anyway!!  But it's only his through the moral force of market theory, which holds that the theft can be cleansed...sort of like money laundering, except bigger.

So you see, the libertarians want law and order to protect the 'free space' in which they stole their "property".  That's the imposition of private property, an interesting term that connotes wresting it away from the rightful owner, and shouting mine!.

Then they want law and order to refrain from keeping them from stealing and keeping more.  That's the elimination of regulations.  Do you see another regime creeping into the picture?  Just like monarchy, and socialism, what is emerging is the rule of the 'freedom' regime...or what they call private property.

It's the same free market idea that inevitably results  in monopoly...freedom to allow a certain modicum of lawlessness to permit them to steal more.  What anti-regulation sentiments are saying is, don't constrain my right to steal--from others and from the environment--while I indiscriminately take what is mine! Cute turn of ideas, eh?