Freedom Rankings for the 50 States


Glock27's picture

Interesting that someone has made the effort to rank freedom. I am sure it will and has incited some personal feelings about the state in which one resides. As one of the unwashed masses, the only true freedom will come at the last breath released from the lungs. It is a sad view, but I believe the truest view of pure freedom, but still huffing and puffing I must weave my way through secular ideologies of freedom.

Is the definition of freedom the idea that a person can do anything they desire as long as they do no harm to another? (There are several different phrasings of this and each will bring slightly different answers). But, if the above phrase containing “do no harm" is adhered to and then commit ones ideology to the idea that the free use of drugs does no harm, I cannot be convinced that this is an honest description then of freedom. If I do drugs and I bring grief to my wife through the usage of them then I have harmed her, have I not? She cries, implors me to cease yet I persist. Is this not harm to another human being? I am destroying her emotionally which ultimately may lead to physical problems. Then I reach a point wherein I can't do without the, but no longer have the finances, what am I going to do? I am going to steal from you, rob your and etc. It appears as if drug useage does create harm to others.
Secular freedom I believe requires us to give up some freedoms. If then I am not married, then surely doing drugs is o.k.? If the phrase “do no harm” is to be a true, authentic term I have to ask then “Is not my doing drugs harming myself, my body; do I have a responsibility to my physical well-being? Some may suggest that “Ah! That is the idea of freedom—your ability to choose without the interference of someone else telling another what to do”. That evades the responsibility of “do no harm”. Do you have absolutely no concern for another's life? "I'm not responsible for what he chooses. I care not when or what he eats, when he s***'s." True, granted. But those things cause no harm. I am interested here in what causes harm, or is my line of thought off course relative to the freest states and the espoused ideology.

I want to take my life and put an end to the physical pain I have had to live with for years now. I have the choice of saying no to that freedom to take my life, but if I stay within the context of the phrase “do no harm”, then I am not truly free to take my life. Why? Because my expiration will generate grief among a select few. If I cause grief, is it not causing harm to someone else? I am not convinced I have that right of freedom. The commission of suicide does not seem to fit with the "non-aggression" policy of the -ism's and -ologies presented here.

If you hurt my feelings regarding an issue or etc., have you not done harm to me then? Does this then violate a principle of freedom? Is freedom up for grabs wherein one can define on his/her own what freedom is to be? If one person defines freedom then all are to be governed by that one person. If one –ism, defines freedom then all who subscribe are governed by that –ism. Should this be the case, then are you free? If I tell you to shut up and get the hell outa here and never come back, have I not violated a fundamental of the espoused beliefs here about freedom.
Does not freedom have some sort of code of conduct? I do not know.
Over time, I am growing to believe that freedom does not necessarily mean that I am free to do whatever I wish. That is if we define freedom as above given. I am coming to realize that STR is more an issue of government control than it is individual, yet individual is implied, though maybe with a slightly different twist to it via definition.

It saddens me to know the state I live in is not one of the top five or ten, or twenty. Regulation of each state will go according to the dictates of the limited few who, by the grace of vote, are found to be more capable of knowing how to run everyones lives. This is part of the sadness; as a group of people, vote or not, power is so casually given over to some slobbering idiot to crank out legislation and regulations. I live in a state where an organization places on a web site all the legislation proposed by the senate and house on a weekly basis. It is frightening that they can find so many things to try and regulate and legislate over. Nearly all of them are needless. In fact all of them are. These elected maggots do it because they can. An abortion be being performed in each state of state liberties of its people just as the Fed is performing an abortion on everyone. Yes Samarami, I know you are a Soverign state. I don't know how you achieve that but it is good that you have. I can't seem to figure out how to get there.

I want to say that each person is responsible for determining what freedom is, but I am affraid that makes no sense at all. In some manner it seems as if a focus point needs to be discovered. A focus point all can agree too, but then that also is an impossibility--for among two people there cannot always be agreement. Here there are anarchists, libertarian, voluntarists, agorians and etc which demonstrates the point because all of them arrive at a conclusion via a different means. Someone has lain a foundation.

I have said enough to get in trouble so I shall stop. Please note that my remarks are observations, puzzels that have not been finishe by me. Maybe you can help?

May the force be with you

Samarami's picture

I can be every bit as free in California or New York as I can be in Oklahoma, New Hampshire or the Dakotas. That's because I am a sovereign state -- not yoked to the predators and parasites, psychopaths all, who make up that beast abstraction called "government". In the link I just embedded Sabastian (C4ss author) had a fatal flaw -- in the title, no less: "Our" rulers are not "my" rulers.

That's a significant distinction if one is ever indeed to become sovereign.
If I'm going to be free I've got to start acting free (thanks, Mark Davis); and to act free I'm going to need to start thinking free.

So let's start asking some of the right questions:

Am I free to abuse my wife and/or children with my drunkenness and gettin' high? Indeed I am. And she's free to call in her big brothers and/or neighbor friends who will whip my scrawny ass; after which she might send me packing with nothing but the shirt on my back.

I used to own a farm 35 miles east of here. Now my ex wife owns a farm 35 miles east of here. The farm's paid for. I paid for it. She's a wealthy woman. I'm free.

Does crude behavior fall under the definition of "freedom"? No. To be in a truly free, sovereign state I had to make many personal changes. I want and need the love and honor and respect of my wife, my kids, and my neighbors. It's hardly a free, sovereign state to be in if I'm afraid to walk down the street for fear of some big bozo(s) beating me to a pulp over my behavior towards them, their families -- or even my own wife and kids.

Bad enough side-stepping the dangerously armed thugs in state costumes who cruise around in pompous "swat" type vehicles; who'd like nothing better than to prove to me that I'd better be submissive and obsequious to them.

So I had to quit drinking and drugging to achieve freedom.

Rudeness and unkindness won't buy freedom. Fairness and honorable behavior works much better. My health improves when I know I've been straightforward and just with my neighbors, family and friends.

Freedom ain't free. But it's better than the alternative.