Freedom

Covered at Reason 24/7: Americans Migrate to Conservative States

|

Reason 24/7
Reason

People are migrating in this great country of ours and, by and large, they're moving from "blue" states to "red" states. Traditional assumptions have it that conservative-leaning jurisdictions favor economic freedom, while liberal jurisdictions favor social freedom, so you have to pick your poison. But a new study by George Mason University's Mercatus Center suggests that red states gain an overall edge on personal liberty while also offering greater economic opportunity. That's proven to be a magnet for Americans.

From Investors Business Daily:

Americans are migrating from less-free liberal states to more-free conservative states, where they are doing better economically, according to a new study published Thursday by the George Mason University's Mercatus Center.

The "Freedom in the 50 States" study measured economic and personal freedom using a wide range of criteria, including tax rates, government spending and debt, regulatory burdens, and state laws covering land use, union organizing, gun control, education choice and more.

It found that the freest states tended to be conservative "red" states, while the least free were liberal "blue" states.

The freest state overall, the researchers concluded, was North Dakota, followed by South Dakota, Tennessee, New Hampshire and Oklahoma. The least free state by far was New York, followed by California, New Jersey, Hawaii and Rhode Island.

The study also compared its measures of economic and personal freedom to population shifts and income growth, and found that freer states tend to do better on both scores than those less free.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at 24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

315 responses to “Covered at Reason 24/7: Americans Migrate to Conservative States

  1. This is why we win in the end. Revealed preference. People will even put up with redneck insanity if it means they’re freer to live their lives. As a transplant from Nazi Northern Virginia to East Tennessee, I can attest.

    1. The problem is people move and then immediately start voting for the Nazi policies they left.

      1. See also Colorado, Oregon, et al

        1. Exactly. It’s like someone who sets their house on fire, flees to your home for shelter, and then sets your house on fire.

          1. It’s not so extreme as somebody who destroys their own house. It’s more like somebody who uses every room as a toilet. Pretty soon only a person suffering from some bizarre mental state could continue to live there.

        2. In Texas we used to say that Yankees are like hemorrhoids. If they come down and go back up, they’re not so bad. But when they come down and stay down, they’re a source of constant irritation.

          Same applies to Californians. Open borders wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for Yankees and Californians.

          1. Yankeefornians.

            1. Fantastic! I now have a new favorite standup comedian.

      2. The problem is people move and then immediately start voting for the Nazi policies they left.

        I suppose a law requiring you to live in a state for a certain number of years before being allowed to vote there would be struck down as unconstitutional, but I wish there was one.

        When I moved from California to Nevada, I did so in full knowledge of — in fact, because of — Nevada’s politics. Yet a lot of the other Californians who moved here and immediately started trying to remake it. For example, it used to be that restaurants had smoking and non-smoking sections, long after California had banned such things. Now, I don’t smoke. I hate the smell of it. But I loved the fact that here was a decision the government left to the restaurants and their customers. Then came an anti-smoking ballot measure in 2006, which would never have passed but for the folks who now lived in Nevada but still thought like Californians. One more freedom gone.

        At least with one of the major things I moved here for — gun rights — the national momentum has been in the right direction.

        1. I wonder if there could be a residency period for voting in state and local elections while still allowing votes in national elections.

          Up until the voting rights act, I was always taught the state gives the right to vote. So, as long as it wasn’t administered in a discriminatory manner, maybe we could get away with it.

    2. and most rednecks, who are in found in every state by the way, are content to live and let live. The only difference among rednecks is geographic accent.

      1. And the occasional drunk redneck chasing his wife through your back yard after he shot her brother dead.

      2. As a Southerner driving in very upstate NY several years ago, I was surprised to see the Confederate battle flag flying on the shores of the St Lawrence River.

      3. Rednecks from Wisconsin. Best redneck accent ever.

        1. I bet that would be hilarious. I know plenty of both.

      4. In New England we call rednecks “Townies”. Other than the accident, not much difference.

      5. I’m from Missouri, lived in Texas and now reside in true blue Maryland. In my 10 years here I’ve run into more rednecks in MD than I have in MO and TX combined.

        1. I’m from Maryland, which, it is true, is not a southern state. That said, southern Maryland gets pretty close, and Montgomery Co., and the whole DC metro is not the same Maryland as, say, the Eastern Shore, or St. Mary’s County, or western Maryland.

          In Annapolis, there are a lot of yuppies and assorted rich, leftist scumbags. However, if you look closely, you’ll also find many people who believe that Mason jars are beverage ware, and that duct tape is a structural reinforcement device suitable for use in virtually any application. I am of the latter camp.

          1. Carollobama and Harfordtucky counties are both pretty redneck. It’s just that the population’s concentrated in Baltimore, the DC burbs, and along the 95 corridor. The Eastern Shore and everything Fredneck and west are pretty solidly Red counties.

          2. I’m from Maryland, which, it is true, is not a southern state.

            Yes, it is. The Mason-Dixon line is the Maryland-Pennsylvania border.

  2. I lived in ND for almost 4 years when I was in the Air Force; cold as shit, not much of a night life, but yeah, I can believe that they’re one of the freest states.

    And the economic boom due to the fracking is amazing.

    1. North Dakota’s unemployment rate right now is 3.2%. That’s insane.

      1. Unemployment for the whole country in 2006 was 4.5%. Back before the enlightened Democrats took over Congress from the ignorant evil Republicans.

        1. While they certainly haven’t helped, it’s a bit unfair to imply that electing a Democratic Congress in 06 caused the economic downturn.

    2. I lived in ND for two weeks (yay fracking!), and thought it was boring has shit.

  3. All states are some shade of purple. Urban areas tend to be more blue and less free, of course. Maybe they should study regions rather than states. Or maybe I should get a big fat grant to do so. GIMME A GRANT.

      1. Not big and fat enough. (That’s what she said.)(Oh, wait…)

        1. That’s what your mom said to Episiarch…

          1. That is kind of you to step in for Epi. I am sure he will be pleased to see this!

            1. How do you figure? FoE’s mom is an insatiable size queen, in which case it insults Epi’s manhood overdeveloped clitoris.

              FoE’s mother being a chubby chaser and ASM saying Epi is just too svelte for her is the least fun interpretation of that.

              1. Most of this is generally untrue.

    1. I got five on it.

    2. Except the blue urban areas pass laws that affect the red rural areas in the state. It doesn’t matter how red Trinity County is when it’s still within the state of California.

  4. Molestation scandals in the Catholic Church or bourgeois football programs are an indication of a sick culture. Molestation scandals in high end private schools attended by decent white people, an isolated incident.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..chool.html

    1. I thought sodomy in private schools was a rite of passage. Or was it just an aping of superior English culture? I forget.

      1. Ass raping is one way to make proper men of upper class twits.

        1. It’s all rum, sodomy and the lash.
          Or is that the Navy?

          1. Love, blood, and rhetoric.

        2. The English public schools are supposed to be bad, so that English aristocrats will think the military is a breeze by comparison. Guarantees a reliable supply of officers.

    2. Is this article from Megan Mcardle or Mrs. Suderman?

    3. “The incentives to hush up such incidents are obvious, particularly in a private school, where it’s easy to imagine all the parents pulling their children out, and the school actually collapsing.”

      As opposed to a public school, I suppose, where the risk of collapsed is cushioned by govt. aid and mandatory-attendance policies (for those who can’t move out of the district).

  5. The freest state overall, the researchers concluded, was North Dakota

    The same North Dakota that may lose its only abortion clinic?!

    1. Because abortion is the only freedom that matters.

      1. Riddle me this!

        How could there possibly be a “privacy interest to control your body in such a way that results in the termination of a pregnancy” and not also be a “privacy interest to control your body in such a way that results in experiencing a relaxing marijuana high”?

        What the fuck?

        1. Until constitutional law expert Barack Obama starts posting here, shrike is HandR’s resident expert on the “Right to Privacy.” Ask him.

          1. I’m curious how the people who do recognize the privacy interest aspect of substantive due process in respect to women and pregnancy don’t extend the rationale to drug use.

            So tell me MBC.

            Shouldn’t people who support abortion rights also support the right to control our bodies when it comes to drug use?

            1. Pay attention Captain, it’s perfectly simple: the state can tell what you can do with your body unless you’re a woman and you pour the substance down your vagina. This goes for marijuana, a Big Gulp, a gun, and a ferret in some states.

            2. “Shouldn’t people who support abortion rights also support the right to control our bodies when it comes to drug use?”

              Yes, and for liberal that don’t their heads should explode from cognitive dissonance.

              1. Cognitive dissonance only happens to people who think for themselves. Parrots can never suffer from it.

            3. That’s different. Any such comparison offends me deeply. You just don’t get it. [/prog]

              Seriously, never underestimate the power of doublethink. I’ve heard progs argue that reproductive autonomy has nothing to do with whether a woman should be free to sell her ova.

            4. Shouldn’t people who support abortion rights also support the right to control our bodies when it comes to drug use?

              Yes, and the fact that so many pro-choice liberals are NOT sufficiently anti-War on Drugs (merely wanting to decriminalize pot isn’t enough) is one of the main reasons why I can’t see myself voting Democrat any time in the near future.

        2. I have difficulty squaring the RvW “privacy interest” with the standardized medical reporting mandated under ObamaCare and the Feds’ newly appropriated surveillance authorities.

          Maybe privacy doesn’t mean what normal people think it means.

        3. Re: Capt Ace Rimmer,

          How could there possibly be a “privacy interest to control your body in such a way that results in the termination of a pregnancy” and not also be a “privacy interest to control your body in such a way that results in experiencing a relaxing marijuana high”?

          Because one is killing another human being while the other is not.

          Q.E.D.

      2. it’s still a personal choice that the government is getting into.

        Leave abortion up to the family, with a legal route to stop an abortion through a court order initiated by the parents or spouse

    2. Coat hangers are still available at Wal-Mart.

      1. Coat hangers are still available at Wal-Mart.

        Sure but there’s a seven day waiting period.

        1. That’s what stairs are for. Why waste a perfectly good coat hanger. You’re never going to get it back together right even with pliers.

      2. I don’t even have the necessary lady parts and that hurt me. Damn you synesthesia!

      3. Or they could not murder the child. They might get a few cramps or something! We’re so uncivilized.

    3. Poor babies, might not be able to create and then murder innocent life.

    4. you know, I once walked across the bridge from Fargo to Moorhead, and let me tell you, there were armed guards, barbed wire, and a 2-day inspection process before I could cross the Red River.

  6. I would say migration is almost exclusively due to economics. Any social consideration is purely coincidental. However, are those moving self-aware to understand why their former homes were no longer worth living in and that bringing the same mentality to their new environs will not end well?

    1. I think we all know the answer to that question. Especially those of us unlucky enough to live in places that are being slowly overrun by fleeing Californians.

      1. Colorado stands as an example, and a warning to all places …beware lest the locust swarm of Californians land upon you.

        1. When the Californians swarmed Oregon I moved to Colorado. When they swarmed Colorado I moved to Maine. When the Massholes swarmed the southern part of the state I moved north. Now I’m backed into a corner with no place to go.

          1. I moved to Vermont when it was Republican to the core. Then NYC and Boston discovered the hipness of the L.L. Bean lifestyle next door. Now this state is old money and new poverty. Working people got to carry both of them.

            1. And the other side gets SOOO pissed when you try to work it the other way. Look at New Hampshire and the freedom oriented movement happening. The residents already living there are unhappy that people want to “move to a place and just start changing everything! [pouty face]” Yet they don’t see any problem with moving to relatively freer places and turning them into the shitholes they just left.

              1. How can people know what to do without having to ask permission and take orders?
                It would be chaos.
                There must be a rule in place backed up with violence for everything. I mean, everything.
                That’s what freedom is to a liberal.

          2. You moved to states that are seen as reasonable to liberals.

            Come to Kentucky. I can assure you that we won’t be having an influx of Californians or Massholes coming in, shitting on the carpet, then complaining about the smell here.

      2. Or overrun with hordes of Northeastern statist scum, as any Virginian could tell you.

        1. Yup. When I went to JMU it blew my mind how many people were there from Jersey, NY, and Mass.

      3. It might also be enlightening to look at the demographics of those most free states. Also the least free.

        Just satin’

        1. You can always move to a overwhelmingly white libertarian paradise like Sweeden or Australia.

      4. Exactly. So why do libertarians (generally! not all!) have so much trouble applying this same reasoning to massive migrations from south of the national border?

        1. probably something about borders and sovereignty and laws and tax dollars. otherwise, can’t think of a thing.

        2. I’ve never had a reason to doubt this. An old roommade of mine from Ecuador, who was a really cool guy, had a cousin who’d go on and on and on about how much better his home country was. Never once did he stop to think that if his home was so much better, he’d be there and not here.

            1. I like to be in America!
              O.K. by me in America!
              Ev’rything free in America–
              Just vote for the Ds in America!

            2. If only he had been that interesting. He mostly spent his time eating plain pasta covered with dry parmesan cheese and watching some Spanish-language cartoon about a talking egg.

          1. I agree. I don’t want to hear a foreigner talking about how much better their native country is either. It’s rude, and obnoxious. If they like it so much, by all means, go the fuck back there!

          2. I feel like this attitude is really common amongst Europeans who live here, or at least the ones I’ve met

        3. So why do libertarians (generally! not all!) have so much trouble applying this same reasoning to massive migrations from south of the national border?

          Wait, do we point guns at Californians when they cross the Colorado border?

          1. you know…now that you bring it up..

          2. No, but what you (generically) do do is assume that letting in a butt load of takers is not going to decrease liberty when they start voting.

            1. Because I decide not to engage in that sort of collectivism.

              1. That’s my point. We engage in that sort of collectivism when pondering the effects of liberals moving from blue states to red states, but we close our eyes to it when pondering the effects of liberals/statists moving from other countries to the U.S.

              2. This is the guy who accused me of being a collectivist when I said that tenty year old women are more attractive than thirty year old women. Don’t even bother trying to reason with him.

                1. twenty

                2. Citation? I don’t remember saying that.

                3. I said that twenty year old women are more attractive than thirty year old women.

                  Sloopy is that you?

        4. Probably due to the fact that these migrations coupled with the requirements imposed by DC leads to more taxes and less freedom.

    2. I would say migration is almost exclusively due to economics. Any social consideration is purely coincidental.

      I would agree for a couple of reasons.

      1) Unless you’re LGBTM, socially conservative areas are usually just an annoyance. I’m tired of always being asked where I go to church, but it’s tolerable.

      2) Socially conservative areas are better than socially liberal ones in one “social freedom” area: firearms.

      1. Unless you’re LGBTM, socially conservative areas are usually just an annoyance. I’m tired of always being asked where I go to church, but it’s tolerable.

        If I were single I’d be very concerned about the dating market for this reason though.

        1. Just can’t wait for marriage?

        2. I am single (and atheist), and it does suck. In fact, the original post had “or single” in it, but I didn’t want to go into a long explanation.

          It is tough to meet a woman who isn’t all about either Jesus or the Patriarchy.

          1. I mean I think for a lot of us it would be a problem either place. If I were single now, in Chi, I would have a hard time finding someone who was into guns, homeschooling, and lower taxes. If I were someplace “red,” there would be religious issues. At this point I’m not sure which would be tougher to deal with, but the side I grew up around seems a bit easier. And hopefully I won’t have to find out.

            1. If I were someplace “red,” there would be religious issues.

              I don’t know that this is necessarily true. I meet a lot of atheist or irreligious Republicans. A lot of suburban or exurban areas are hugely Republican, but aren’t hugely religious and don’t have that many social conservatives. I’ve lived in suburbs and never had a problem with social conservatives or super religious people.

              1. Depends on what kind of Red area you’re in

          2. It is, though they exist in parts of middle America. You will have to deal with marrying beneath your class, though. Asian women also have class, though for the ones who are of the third or even the second generation they are just as bad as the white liberals.

        3. Didn’t you say you are a woman?

          The dating market is certanly a better place in blue states if you are only looking for a party slut and uninterested in marriage or children. If you actually want to reproduce though, you can either move to middle America or get a mail-order bride. Whatever you do, don’t marry one these SWPL sluts.

      2. I live in Maryland, and am planning on moving south as soon as the wife is done with her PhD. One of the places we’re considering is Savannah, where we spent our honeymoon.

        By way of allegory:

        We were totally blown away by the fact that we could drink booze in the streets, smoke in bars, and spend four hours in a bar with a tab that came in under $40. People were really nice and generally laid-back. The food was good, everywhere was way cheaper than MD, and even housing was much less expensive.

        So, I was completely flummoxed when, in one bar, smoking my face off and chatting with an art student from Cleveland, everyone in the bar stopped what they were doing and put hand over heart. A lady across the room started waving frantically at me like I was standing on a child or something. Then, very slowly, I realized that there was a baseball game starting, and the National Anthem was playing, and here I was still wearing a hat. I took it off.

        So, yeah, I’ll trade stuff like that and having to explain why atheism isn’t a bad thing for being taxed to death and treated like a malevolent toddler by a nanny state any damn day of the week, my friend.

        1. You can’t smoke in Savannah anymore.

      3. I’m tired of always being asked where I go to church, but it’s tolerable.

        People actually ask you that shit? I live in a small farming town in KY where the largest institution is a Christian College and Seminary, and I’ve never ONCE been asked where I go to church.

        1. Being an atheist in rural Ohio, I get this all the damn time. It’s always “Which church do you attend” or “What denomination are you?”

          I always have some snarky comment to reply with like “I attend the Church of St Sleepytime” or “I was a satanist for a while, but the cops kept finding the bodies so I switched to plain old atheism”

          Regardless, when they find out I’m an atheist they back away slowly with wide eyes and fear. I’ve just learned to chuckle at them. Worst that’s ever happened is someone splashed me with holy water.

  7. I guess this is why “gerrymandering” has started showing up in the lefty talking points.

    1. I find it quite interesting that Obama won the national election and the GOP continues to control the House, which you would think would be a proportional representation of the electorate who voted Obama in. Yet the GOP are also the minority in the Senate, even though there are more red than blue states.

      1. If you add up all the house votes, the DNC got more total votes than the GOP. For example in PA, Democrats got approx 55% of the house votes statewide, yet GOP won 13 of the 18 districts.

        1. When you have precincts in Philadelphia that went 100.0% Democratic, that 55% of the vote capturing 5 of 18 districts makes sense.

          Those Blue dots on the map can be very Blue.

      2. We should remember that the election figures were revised (just like monthly employment, inflation, and every other gubbermint metric) to reveal that obozo barely won the popular election, it was like 51/49.

        And now that California is progressively going back to the dark ages, and anyone with any sense (or not) are fleeing it, it might be time to “gerrymander” that ridiculous electoral vote count that California gets.

        1. It’s still odd that the GOP has two thirds of the congress seats in PA when they didn’t get anywhere close to two thirds of the popular vote.

          Someday the shoe is going to be on the other foot, and if the GOP keeps mistaking procedural advantage for actual popularity, that someday is gonna be sooner rather than later.

          1. Right, that definitely explains the 30 governorships they hold.

          2. There’s actually a compelling argument to be made that the GOP is the popular party. Control of wide swaths of the states, often across the board. Control of the House and the Supreme Court. Not to mention that only the GOP has had control of all three branches in the last few decades.

          3. That is consistent with gerrymandering, but it isn’t proof. And I really don’t know if PA is gerrymandered or not. But I’d have to look at a map before I agreed.

            I’d actually like it if either party proposed some anti-gerrymandering laws that weren’t just attempts to gerrymander in the opposite direction, at the state level.

            1. Take a look at PA-16 and tell me it has some purpose other than making sure largely Democrat voters in Reading and West Chester are represented by a Republican picked by Lancaster County?

              1. I think it’s a consequence of both. Dems running up huge MOV in urban areas will distort the statewide vote

              2. that looks like it’s gerrymandered to do something. I’m not familiar enough with the area to know for sure, but your theory sounds pretty damn plausible.

                Best anti-gerrymandering rule I can come up with is that, except where it’s impossible because of an external border (so in this case, the border of PA), your should be able to draw straight line from every point in a district to every other point in the district, and that line should still be completely inside the district.

                Gerrymandering will still be possible, and still be done, but would be less powerful.

                1. The best anti-gerrymandering rule would be to vastly increase the size of the House of Representatives. The more finely the districts aggregate the population, the harder it becomes for them to diverge from them.

          4. It’s still odd that the GOP has two thirds of the congress seats in PA when they didn’t get anywhere close to two thirds of the popular vote.

            Do you also think it is odd that about 35% of the voters in Hawaii vote Republican, but only 1 out of 24 state Senate seats there is Republican?

            Or that Republicans in Philadelphia get 0% of the representation there?

            Which part of “first past the post system” do you have trouble figuring out?

  8. Fuck California.

    Also, fried calamari.

    1. Hey! I like fried calamari.

      1. Fried calamari is the squid of freedom.

        1. I thought it more like the deep fried eraser taste of bleargh.

          Oh no, we didn’t just start a new thin vs deep dish type war did we?!

          1. I dunno, is there a side against fried calamari? I mean, there’s bad calamari, surely, which is objectionable, but good calamari?

            1. It is quite delicious sauteed as well. Dare I say… better??

              1. Sauteed, fried, whatever.

          2. The window between delicious and rubber if very small.

          3. So I’m not the only one who thinks it tastes like pencil erasers. Good.

            Fried calamari can actually be really good when it’s done right, though. Had some in Chicago that partially reversed my distaste for the meal.

            1. An ex LOVED fried calamari, so I spent time getting used to it. It seemed like every other time we ordered it, it alternated between delicious and tire-like.

              1. An ex LOVED fried calamari, so I spent time getting used to it.

                There you go again, bringing your perversions into a perfectly innocent topic.

                1. Like you’re one to judge the love between man and squid.

          4. Living in Japan, where squid is found in lots of different menu items, one day it hit me that to get used to eating squid you either have to have grown up with it or be a hooker. If you had not grown up with it you’d have to be a hooker to have gotten used to having the flavor and texture of a condom in your mouth.

            After that I couldn’t eat it any more.

    2. Wait, are you objecting to fried calamari?

    3. Mmmm, fried contracts professor.

      1. I had that hornbook and ate a lot of fried squid in law school. Coincidence?

  9. Red states in general have a lower cost of living. So part of the trend may be retirees moving to red states as the boomers retire.

    But the lower cost of living in Red states probably is at least partially a product of economic policies that favor actual production over make-work. Many red states have more active agricultural sectors, hence cheaper food. Also you can’t really explain things like lower rent and housing costs by much other than the ease of access to cheap labor for construction, and lower regulatory burdens on builders. The northeast and california are both notorious for rant control and restrictions on developers, and both have high housing prices, which is the biggest component of cost of living.

    1. When progressives move to these places for economic reasons, they recoil in horror that people are actually allowed to do things without asking permission and taking orders. That’s… anarchy! Chaos! So they move to put in place all kinds of rules and regulations to make sure that when something is done that it is done their way, and then scratch their heads when the economy turns to shit.
      Cause and effect? What’s that mean? Only intentions matter.

    2. The northeast and california are both notorious for rant control

      Nice.

      1. Curse you! May your speedy fingers grow stiff and slow!!!

        1. For once, a time stamp works in my favor.

    3. “The northeast and california are both notorious for rant control”

      I dunno, it sure seems like we get some epic rants on this here blog, and it comes from California, no?

    4. Lower rent and housing costs come in large part from having more land to build upon. The red states tend to have a bit more room to expand.

      1. Bullshit from beginning to end. The problem is the economic backwardness and political racketeering of neo-liberalism–not lack of lebensraum lol

        1. Blue States also tend to have far more restrictions on where you can build. They create scarcity and then whine that housing costs are too high.

          1. Or they ban building on lots under a certain size and claim that they helped to add value to existing homes.

          2. In Minneapolis, developers are forced to provide amenities for the greater social good (e.g., you can build that 80-story high-rise, but you also have to purchase the adjacent two blocks and then create and maintain it as a green-space for the community at large. How fucked up is that?

        2. The problem is lack of lebensram. California is much denser in population than Oklahoma. It is a problem of supply and demand, and the market can’t magically create more land without bearing massive costs. If eight people in one state want to buy one orange it is going to cost more than if one person in another state want’s to buy that same orange.

          1. California is much denser in population than one of the lowest population density states. Ok, that’s not saying much.

            And California is an agricultural state, so food prices should be lower on average. Except you also have a larger number of unproductive workers (such as state and municipal public employees) so that relative to the amount of food being produced and imported (relative to the amount of productive labor) you have a larger population being supported. Hence, higher food prices.

            It’s not because there are merely more PEOPLE to eat the orange, it’s that there are fewer overall people who are working at supplying the market, relative to the size of the market, and thus fewer oranges per capita ultimately making it to market.

            If you take 30% of the workforce and shift them from doing productive stuff to unproductive stuff, all the stuff they would otherwise be working at producing is going to get more expensvie.

            1. Land ins’t something you work to supply. It’s just there. Sure, you can find out better ways to build upon it but it is still a natural resource.

      2. California doesn’t have room to expand?

        Really?

        1. They’d have room if the government would allow development. Since they don’t, California has made land you’re allowed to build on a much scarcer commodity than it should be.

        2. and isn’t NM blue, too?

        3. The “good” parts of CA don’t have room to expand. People have already moved out of LA and into Corona (blech). Past that you’ll end up in Hemet and be blown up by your meth-cooking neighbors in their doublewide.

          1. Hey! I Hemet noticed that out there.

        4. California is big, therefore, it must not be overcrowded. A little juvinile, don’t ya think?

          1. There are parts of Caifornia that are crowded, but you’re talking about cities on the coast. Caifornia as a whole still has large tracts of unpopulated land.
            You just can’t build on it, because there are restrictions on development.
            Nevermind building height restrictions and such that keep people from building UP in places like LA.

            1. Caifornia as a whole still has large tracts of unpopulated land that smell like Hemet.

              I agree with your point, but there are nice places to be in CA and then there is the rest of CA.

            2. California still has large tracks of hilly land, desert, and land that is part of nature, which californians, to their credit, put a little value on.

  10. economic freedom, while liberal jurisdictions favor social freedom,

    For the most part, demonstrably untrue. Tell me something ‘social’ I can’t do legally in a ‘red state’ that I can do in a blue state.

    The social regulatory climate in my state (bluer than blue found in nature blue) is far more restrictive than most red states I know of.

    1. “Social” means abortion and gays.

      1. Aside from, what, North Carolina, what red state has any meaningful restrictions on abortion?

        And gays? Please. I’ll throw ’em a mulligan and admit that maybe as recently as 15 years ago, it was “difficult” for gays to live in the flyover-est flyover country.

        I grew up in a town where cowboy hats weren’t worn ironically, and rifles on gun racks in pickups were just part of the scenery.

        There was a dance club that featured ’80s night’ and everyone in town knew that was ‘gay night’.

        1. I was being a smartass.

          One thing I have noticed is that the more “tolerant” the community, the more dickish the cops are.
          Conversely the more “intolerant” the community, the more respectful the cops are.

          Since liberals view everything through the lens of force, I’m guessing that the more they can force upon other people, the more socially liberal they feel place is.

        2. I live in NC. Anyone who wants an abortion can surely get one. And gays are hardly new. Ever heard of Asheville? Blue as Portland, with an even greater micro-brew scene. In a serendipitous twist, the blue of the city is surrounded by red counties and it all manages to work anyway.

          1. Anyone who wants an abortion can surely get one.

            So you say, but they keep throwing me out of the clinic claiming men can’t get one.

            When will a-bro-tions be legal?

          2. I need to get down there for a visit soon. Asheville sounds like the sister city of Charlottesville, VA where I live.

            Central VA has a big and rapidly growing micro-brew scene as well. If you’re ever near Nelson County VA, make sure you stop by Devil’s Backbone.

      1. Correct. As long as you don’t smoke it inside or outside or around dogs or children or anyone that can smell you.

      2. Colorado?
        Arizona?

        And even if that were generally true, it was only about, what… fifteen minutes ago that a couple of blue states begrudgingly legalized marijuana, and both through citizen initiatives? The Blue Legislators fought it tooth-and-nail.

        I got one word for blue social permissiveness: Bloomberg.

        1. He tried to free people from the scourge of large soft drinks, but was foiled. Now he’s trying to free people from having to view cigarettes. It’s all in the name of freedom!

        2. But Bloomberg’s a Republican! /sarc

          I think the notion comes more from attitudes of the general population. Even though marijuana is illegal in all but two states, pot smokers are much less socially ostracized in most blue areas than compared to most red areas. Polling data shows that most liberals support marijuana legalization, but Democratic politicians are much less likely to support it (though generally still more likely than Republicans). And while sodomy isn’t illegal anywhere, gays are obviously more tolerated and accepted in blue places.

          1. This is what they mean when they say “social freedom.” The freedom to have everyone like you.

          2. Even though marijuana is illegal in all but two states, pot smokers are much less socially ostracized in most blue areas than compared to most red areas.

            Dope smoking was about nearly openly talked about when I grew up in red-state central. Not sure if even this is true.

            And while sodomy isn’t illegal anywhere, gays are obviously more tolerated and accepted in blue places.

            Well sure, probably, maybe. Less so every day. When you can broadcast a national program called Queer eye for the Straight Guy, we’re not the same country we used to be in 1954.

            And I know some red-state gay people who are happier in the red state. I have no illusions about the fact that they’re probably outliers, but the notion that the gay population in red states are one dark lonely road away from a lynching is something the press invents, not reality.

    2. Keep and bear arms? Wait…

    3. By ‘social’ they mean ‘cultural.’ If you are a slut or homoseuxal someone might criticize you, and you know how sluts and homosexuals can’t ever handle criticism.

  11. in NY you have the right to be shot 7 times for every reload.

    1. The police can still give you 17 without delay. That’s efficient government.

  12. Anybody interested in the view from New York should check out this piece from Gawker:

    “Americans Moving Exclusively to Shitholes”

    The complete and total collapse of the global economy had at least one upside for Americans: it briefly stopped them from moving to brand new housing developments in hellish southwestern desert exurbs. Only for a few years though, alas. The great migration of Americans towards hot places their children will come to loathe is back on!

    http://gawker.com/5990623/amer…..-shitholes

    I’ve spent a lot of time in New York City over the years. They’ve got a lot of things to like. Best restaurants in the world; best delis in the world; best museums, opera, and theater in the country…

    Unfortunately, however, it’s all in New York City, which is a big giant shit hole. And I say that with great affection. When I was younger and used to “travel” a lot, New York was awesome–specifically because it was such a shit hole. What would Warriors or Escape from New York be without the understanding that New York City is an unsalvageable shit hole? Inspired this little love letter to the Big Shitty Apple:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_huJMX8uD4

    People love New York for being a shit hole!

    1. Let’s see if I got this right. NYC is a shit hole? Or is it a shit hole? I don’t think you were sufficiently clear.

      1. Well obviously I have no doubt about New York being a shit hole–it’s just weird that what New Yorkers love about it, that feeling they get in the air, is it’s shitholeness…not that they call it that.

        In fact, on that one level, New Yorkers love it for being a shit hole, but at the same time, people who’ve lived there for a while all seem to forget what a shit hole it is…to the point where they start calling other places where people can live safely with their kids–those places they call shit holes! …like in the headline to that Gawker piece.

        My guess is that this is why Bloomberg makes a big noise about sugary sodas–anything to get New Yorkers’ minds off of the fact that their city is a giant shit hole. They’ve got intractable problems there that no one in government is ever gonna solve. So you offer the locals there some kind of way to feel exceptional about themselves–that isn’t necessarily related to those intractable problems–and it makes New Yorkers think their lives are getting better somehow…despite the fact that they live in a shit hole.

        P.S. shit hole.

        1. I always thought that the reason why people in NYC are pissed off all the time was because the light at the end of the tunnel is New Jersey.

          1. If that wouldn’t make you want to felate your shotgun…

    2. Sorry, Houston has better restaurants than NYC.

      1. You’re talking about the strip bars?

        Houston’s definitely got the best of that.

        Not better restaurants, though. Let’s try not to be ridiculous.

        1. I can’t speak for Houston, but you’d be surprised where the good restaraunt are and aren’t.

        2. It’s not a ridiculous comparison, especially when you are comparing the entire budget spectrum. Sure NYC has some of the top restaurants in the world but Houston has a fantastic and diverse restaurant selection.

          1. “Houston has a fantastic and diverse restaurant selection.”

            And I hear the Indians have some nice casinos in California.

            But it ain’t Las Vegas, and, yeah, New York is the Las Vegas of restaurants.

            I mean–world wide–New York ranks near the top…if it’s not at the very top.

            The place is a shit hole, with really awesome restaurants. It also has the best damn contemporary art museums in the world, and it has one of the world’s top three opera companies.

            And it’s a shithole. Just because it has great restaurants than anywhere else in the country, doesn’t mean Houston isn’t nice, too. Houston doesn’t get into the conversation for much–and it should. I don’t think most people realize how big it is. Average Americans, if asked to rank cities by size, might not even think Houston was in the top 10. It should be that way.

            It’s a giant, sophisticated city, where the people still have plenty of Southern charm (especially the ladies), and if I lived anywhere in Texas, I’d probably want it to be Houston. …or maybe Austin. But Houston gets the edge, here, because it’s in the South. …and the rest of Texas isn’t.

            It just isn’t.

      2. Houston’s restaurants offer much better value for money than NYC.

        NYC has great restaurants — every bit as good as any in Houston — providing you’re on expense account or can afford an apartment on Central Park West.

        But, for a really great restaurant, go to Brussels. The Eurocrats really do know fine cuisine.

        1. Pffftthh, the best restaurants in New York aren’t the expensive ones. They’re the holes in the wall where you can get an awesome $4 Banh Mi on a freshly baked baguette. Or some seriously authentic Tokyo-style Ramen. Or 24-hour Korean BBQ.

          I’m such an Asian-food-o-phile. Can Houston satisfy that?

          1. Vietnamese definitely, probably best in the country. Chinese, Indian and Korean also pretty good.

          2. One of the great sadnesses in my life is that I’ve developed an intense and dangerous allergy to soy.

            Makes we want to cry.

            It’s like being addicted to heroin and then getting clean. In NA I hear they say that you can only stop–you can never quit. Once you’re an addict, the desire never completely subsides. You just learn to successfully resist it.

            That’s the way I feel about Asian food. As of a couple of years ago, I was still going in and eating it anyway–lying to myself. Oh, the doctors don’t know what they’re talking about! It’s all in my head!

            20 minutes later my eyes are swollen, I can’t breathe, and that isn’t even the worst of it. I don’t know if there’s a heaven, but if there is? I’m gonna live in Chinatown. Jesus can make me not allergic to soy anymore, right? …er, maybe one of Ron Bailey’s transhumanist buddies will bioengineer me a new immune system or somethin’.

      3. Houston has better restaurants than NYC.

        Okay, that’s funny.

    3. This is why you don’t read Gawker, Ken. The people who write for Gawker, Salon and Slate are exclusively miserable human beings with no discernible skill set who churn out hack articles to be consumed by stupid 19 year olds with no standards.

      They just can’t understand why people don’t move to left-wing enclaves of sophistication and beauty, like inner city Detroit, Cleveland, the police state of Chicago, the smog riddled hell-scape of Los Angelos or the overcrowded, smelly nanny state of New York City.

      1. I’ve seen rats teaming across a park as the sun goes down… I mean, it was a public park, and as the shadow of night started creeping across the park, this blanket of rats would roll out across the park with it–like some kind of creeping doom.

        It’s been teeming with rats like that for more than a hundred years!

        There’s a profession in New York that I’ve never heard of anywhere else; the profession is called a “sealer”. There are an unbelievable number of cockroaches and rats in the walls of, you know, standard decent apartments? And those walls have been infested with rats and cockroaches, like I said, for more than a hundred years…you don’t bother calling an exterminator–’cause those rats and cockroaches aren’t going anywhere!

        So, you call a “sealer”, and the sealer comes in, and he goes through your entire apartment and seals any kind of tiny crack in the walls floorboards, windows, wherever, to try to seal the rats and cockroaches in the walls.

        This is what these people live with–and we haven’t even started talking about things like crime and the education system.

        Certainly, don’t let ’em think about how much they’re paying in taxes. Don’t let ’em think about WHY “the rent is too damn high”. That’s right, Bloomberg! If they’re gonna vote on your fabulous future, it’s better to have them arguing about sugary sodas…

    4. The Russians have an apt saying:

      Every rat loves the swamp he grew up in.

      1. Yeah, people can get used to anything. I don’t know if everybody can, but for the people who grew up there, that’s normal. And they’d hate to do it any other way.

        It’s like that growing up with an outhouse, I’m sure.

    5. Bah, mostly untrue. The pattern in California has been one of middle class white people leaving and lower class mexicans mocving in, because there are more mexicans immigrating than white people leaving, it looks like these states are growing. Arizona’s growth in its white population is maily fueled by refugees from california.

    6. It’s better than it was in the days of Panic in Needle Park.

    7. Best museums? Eh – I’d say fair to poor compared with Europe.

  13. The libs move to your town with it’s charming country simplicity but within a short time it starts to wear of:
    -a volunteer fire department?
    -40 minutes to get a police officer?
    -how can it be legal for them to have goats and chickens and, pigs in their backyard?
    -How can it be legal for little boys to walk around with .22 rifles, and go in the woods and SHOOT them?
    -Burning leaves? What about my asthma?

    1. it must have been about 10 years ago some big-city family moved to a quiet rural area (I don’t remember exactly where). The stay-at-home-mom went wandering through the woods one day wearing a light tan jacket and white fuzzy mittens. It was deer season . . .

      1. And was she crawling around on all-fours erasing her footprints because of Leave No Trace?

      2. What did she dress out at?

    2. A while back, The Washington Post had an article on the conflict between people moving into new exurban developments and the farmers who had been there forever and who had the audacity to spread fertilizer on their fields (who’d ha’ thunk?). One person was quoted as saying that once non-farm residential development started, the zoning board should immediately change the rules in favor of the newcomers.

      Fuck off slaver. If you don’t want to live in a rural area, don’t move there.

      1. Yeah, that’s a good one. They also love dirt roads until the BMW gets covered in mud and dust. Then it’s :
        -pave the roads
        -stop burning and shooting
        -Stop spreading fertilizer (run off harms the lake dontcha know)
        -hire firemen
        -hire cops
        -we need a zoning code cause now that I have my mcmansion I don’t want any more built. It spoils my view.

        1. Zoning codes are a prime example of their hypocrisy. They are perfectly willing to admit that they left the blue states because of high property values, but as soon as they own land, they want to artifically raise the property values.

        2. My brother is very libertarian. He bought a house in Woodland Park, Co about 20 years ago. Beautiful house. Beautiful views of Pike’s Peak. Great neighbors. Well a few years ago, some famous power-lawyer couple, who I guess do a lot of advertising on TV, built this huge sprawling chalet sort of home on the lot adjacent to my brother’s house. And while he agrees that they had every right to build it, it does fuck up his scenic views some.

      2. I have a corn field behind my house. I have no problem with the farmer spaying his field.

        But I do live in fear of hog confinement facilities.

        1. I have a corn field behind my house

          Are there children in it?

          1. Shoeless Joe Jackson.

    3. Maybe the solution is to convince them that they’re moving to a “food desert”, since the IGA probably doesn’t have fresh arugula.

      1. teh IGA….real food for real people.

      2. Park an old car on blocks in the front yard every third house. Put up some confederate flags.

        1. Georgia (?) went through a period like that back in the 80-90’s. People objecting to Robert E. Lee statues and rebel flags

      3. Gotta go to Piggly Wiggly for your cosmopolitan groceries.

        1. I miss Harris Teeter.

    4. Last year my state legalized certain fireworks, allowing for municipalities to add further restrictions. Most cities banned them totally or restricted them to a couple holidays.
      At a town meeting some lady complained that her inconsiderate neighbors were shooting them off all day long, and ignored her when she complained to them. So she asked for the town to adopt some restrictions.
      A town selectman explained to her that since the town has no police department of its own, it is limited to what ordinances it can enforce. State and sheriff only enforce state law.
      Someone in the peanut gallery suggested she get earmuffs for her “shell shocked” cat.
      I like my town.

    5. I’ve met many libs from califronia who claim they left due to “overcrowding, high “cost of living,” and crime. Then they voted for the democrats in my state. Wonderfull people.

      1. That’s a world wide phenomenon!

        I was reading the other day about some Algerian election results…many of the voters in Algerian elections actually live in France. They vote by mail-in ballot.

        Anyway, turns out that the fundamentalists won an election, and when they released the statistics, it was basically voters from Paris that put the fundamentalists over the top.

        These are voters who fled Algeria because of the problems the fundamentalists were causing, but now that they’re safe and sound in Paris–where they’ll never have to live under the fundamentalists again–and they vote for the fundamentalists as a reaction to the Western culture they’re now being exposed to…

        Sounds like the same thing you’re talking about. They fled California because of the problems the Democrats caused, but once they get up close and personal with the local Republicans (whom they may never even met in California), all of a sudden they’re supporting the same crap that caused them to flee California in the first place.

        1. Makes sense. People who don’t have to live with the consequences of their policies(yet) tend to favor those policies. For example, people who don’t have to live around minoriites are more likely to vote democrat, even when accounting for regional differences.

          http://www.vdare.com/posts/how…..ocrats-too

  14. North Dakota wins…. I remember 10-12 years ago when the FSP was considering which state to select, and North Dakota was considered too communitarian due to their Scandinavian heritage. At that time North Dakota towns had to pay people to move there, and all the young people were moving away. Funny how much an oil boom can change things.

  15. Moving from a statist blue state to a statist red state isn’t exactly an upgrade

    1. Red states are less statist than blue states, that’s the point.

      1. my sides have been leaving orbit too many times lately…don’t do it again to me, please

      2. Tons of decent people in NYC own firearms illegally.

        Where I grew up, you couldn’t buy alcohol on Sunday, but people hung their shotguns on a rack in the back windows of their pickups.

        I’d rather not have to choose between those freedoms, but if I do, it’s just a matter of taste.

        Of course, the government shouldn’t be making qualitative decisions like that–since we all come up with different answers for different reasons.

        I don’t know that red states are less statist than blue states, but when I’m forced to choose between economic freedom and civil liberties, I tend to prefer economic freedom.

        I think it’s true that red states tend to be more respectful of economic freedom–and I think that’s one of the reasons why the job growth is happening in red states.

        1. Recently there was something in the news where some guy in NYC chased off a burglar with a handgun, and then made the mistake of calling the cops. He faces several years in prison for possessing an unlicensed and unregistered firearm.

          1. Yeah, everybody that works with the general public, from cashiers on down, has a gun under the counter.

            New York’s the greatest if you get someone to pay the rent

            and it’s the furthest you can live from the government

            some proud american christians might disagree

            but new york’s the only place we’re keepin them off the street

            —North American Scum, LCD Soundsystem

            People used to get commerce delivered in New York City–you try to start a service like that in suburban anywhere else, and the government will be up your ass in no time.

            I got this from living in Mexico: there’s a difference between the law and the norm. Prostitution was illegal, but the whorehouses are across the street and next door to the police station.

            Marijuana was illegal, but if you were in the right club smoking it with your friends, nobody was going to bother you.

            What I think LCD Soundsystem was saying with that lyric is that the basic law in New York is “Do whatever you want, just don’t get caught”. There are certain things they enforce real strict, like making sure street vendors pay sales tax, but other than that, you can get away with doing just about anything–so long as you understand what the boundaries are.

            It’s only when you cross those boundaries that the law comes into play. It was like being at boarding school. Yeah, the rules were strict, but there was two deans keeping track of 150 guys and 200 chicks. There’s what the rules say, and then there’s real life.

    2. A lot of it is qualitative.

  16. Well I feel better about our plan to move to Tennessee at some point. Hopefully it stays that way.

  17. Traditional assumptions have it that conservative-leaning jurisdictions favor economic freedom, while liberal jurisdictions favor social freedom lots of sluts and none of those pesky religous freaks.

    Fixed

    1. Nah, they just want to smoke dope and keep it illegal because they know only the poor black folk ever get sent to jail for it.

      1. Another good point. By “social freedom” a lot of times what they really mean is “social acceptance for my lifestyle.” Pot is just another example. To be fair, though, most of those “poor black folk” go to jail for selling it, not using it.

        1. agreed. Social freedom is the government saying “I don’t give a damn what you do…I won’t step in until it hurts others.” What they’re doing right now is promotion of alternative lifestyles

          1. and by ‘hurting others’…I mean actually hurting someone. Not MUH FEELINGS

          2. They’re really schizoid about the matter too. Head to San Francisco or Berkeley, the progressive heartland, and start talking about drug legalization. You will get a LOT of angry pushback. And I mean angry. Freedom is for them not for other people. Many will even get all so-con on your ass and lecture you on the social dangers of marijuana. Seriously.

    2. damn those heathens….better give the government the power to stop them

  18. So are liberals still going to keep bitching about how the red states take money from the blue states (except Texas)?

    1. It’s really blue people in red states who are taking money from red people in blue states. Having lots of blue people around leads the surrounding community to swing red.

      1. This. I like when progs try to use the ‘Red States get the most food stamps!” argument. If you actually look at a map, the places getting all the food stamps and welfare are predominantly ex-union towns where the factories left 30 years ago but where the people still vote Democrat out of habit, and inner cities, which are obviously blue.

        1. and black

          OH NOES….RACISM!!!

          1. Yeah, Southern states also have much larger minority populations than northern ones. Minorities are proportionately more likely to get food stamps or be on some kind of welfare.

            Have you ever noticed that the only nice places to live that are run by progressives are the ones where they’ve driven all the low income minorities out with their high costs of living? The most segregated cities are all in blue states.

            You’ve gotta love those progressives, ensuring segregation the way they do.

            1. Remeber when gated communities were considered contravercial? Now, in california at least, they are accepted as facts of life.

            2. That plays a role, but the trend generally holds for Red States with low minority populations, and for some Blue States with high minority populations. Texas is the least white Red State, and it is one of the Red States that pays more in taxes than it gets back in spending. Things like military spending, age demographics, farm subsidies, federal lands, and cost of living are largely responsible for the trend IMO.

              1. Texas is the exception that proves the rule, due to it’s large oil wealth.

                1. Other states have oil wealth and get more in federal spending than taxes, even with large white populations

        2. And I have yet to see one that accounts for Cost of Living. I mean, of course NYCers pay more in taxes – they earn higher salaries.

          1. What do you mean? You ever payed for rent, food, or gas in New York?

            1. I think that’s his point

            2. Yes, Cali is right – that is my point.

        3. there is also the small matter of militry installations, which are all over the South. And tend to be respected by the populace.

      2. True to some extent. Not so true for things like military spending, Social Security and Medicare, farm subsidies, etc. Also, because the feds don’t have different poverty lines in different states, people in red states with a lower cost of living may be eligible for programs that a person making a comparable income in a blue state wouldn’t be.

        1. Social security doesn’t count because the people getting it payed for it, in whatever state they lived in.

          1. “Social security doesn’t count”

            It does when the numbers we’re talking about are calculated.

            “people getting it payed for it”

            A lot of people get more than they ever paid in. The program has always consisted of current workers supporting retirees. The taxes people pay don’t go to an account that’s saved for them until they retire

        2. There is also a certain group of red states that have large populations of blue-voting poor people who are heavily reliant on federal welfare.

          I’m sure that this skews the statistics some. And the existence of these populations doesn’t have much to do with the economic policies theoretically associated with “redness”.

  19. Other than a few states that have regulated abortion, if you consider human life worthless,(and most of those regulations are not any worse than than regulations imposed on dentists) I really can’t see any major issue where blue states have more freedom than red states.

    1. More blue states allow gay marriage. That’s…that’s basically all I’ve got.

      1. Yeah, like Cahlifornia…

    2. Medical MJ Food Trucks

    3. You’re still not allowed to by alcohol on Sundays (when you’re supposed to be in church) in a lot of places.

      It’s harder to get an abortion in some places rather than others. You may run into public prayer in some places, where you’d never see it all in others.

      Once again, we’re talking about personal preferences here. It may be that the laws wherever you are just don’t go against your personal preferences–so you hardly notice them.

      And you can say, “Well, how often do I really need an abortion”, but the bluest of blue state voters say the same about the last time they needed to shoot someone with an AR-15.

      The freedoms we care about the most are personal preference. That’s one of the biggest reasons I’m a libertarian rather than something else–because our personal preferences don’t show up on any legislator’s spreadsheet, so we should all be free to make such choices for ourselves.

      1. I guess one could say the bans on Alchohol on sunday is one, though they have that in a lot of blue states as well. I oppose abortion. I don’t see creating, and then murding, an unborn child as a matter of personal liberty.

        1. I think it’s ethically wrong, but I don’t think that means it isn’t a matter of personal liberty.

          Some people, for various reasons, think infringing on the mother’s personal liberty is worse than infringing on the baby’s personal liberty.

          Just because I think something is morally wrong doesn’t mean I think it should be illegal either–I think cheating on your spouse is immoral, but then that doesn’t mean I think you should go to jail if you cheat.

          So, anyway, I know you’ve got your reasons for thinking that abortion should be illegal (or legal), and whatever they are, they’re different from other people who disagree with you. And there are people who disagree with you on that point, who really do see it as an imposition on their personal liberty.

          1. One copuld make an argument that chaeting on your spouse should land you in jail, that it is a form of contract fraud. Marriage is the most important contract you’ll ever make(and I’ll never make, for obvious reasons) and if you break it, nothing happens. In contrast, if you lie about the worth of a stock you can go to jail for years.

            1. “One copuld make an argument that chaeting on your spouse should land you in jail, that it is a form of contract fraud.”

              One could make an argument that breaking a promise to come to Grandma’s house for Christmas should land you in jail.

              But that would be ridiculous.

              Point remains that even if something is immoral, that doesn’t mean it should land you in jail.

            2. Re: Conservative,

              One copuld make an argument that cheating on your spouse should land you in jail, that it is a form of contract fraud.

              In reality, cheating on the wife would constitute breach of contract, not necessarily fraud. Any compensation required by the wife would depend on what was stipulated in the contract regarding such contingencies, but it defies credulity that anyone would agree to a contract with a compensation clause (in case of breach) that would include jail time.

              Marriage is the most important contract you’ll ever make(and I’ll never make, for obvious reasons) and if you break it, nothing happens.

              Many a divorc? would vehemently and even violently disagree with your assertion that “nothing happens.”

      2. You can now buy likker on The Lord’s Day in GA , but not in Yankee Connecticut

        1. I still don’t think you can in Prince George’s County.

          And that’s basically the suburbs of DC.

        2. Or in Blue Minnesota.

    4. The problem I have is that these regulations are drafted to shut down as many clinics as possible, just because the ruling government doesn’t agree with what they do.

      These regulations are NOT for safety reasons

      1. Many of them are for safety reasons, many of them aren’t, but most aren’t any worse than what is imposed on dentists, not to mention what Obamacare does. As I said, I am opposed to abortion.

        1. the government forcing abortion clinic to pay tens of thousand of dollars for building remodeling, just for compliance with general hospital services what they never offered to begin with….is not a “reasonable” regulation. This was not a knee-jerk reaction to an epidemic of patient deaths….politicians planned this from the get-go in order to restrict what they hate.

          And if you oppose abortion, then that’s fine. However, I don’t believe the government has any business in moral decisions

          1. “However, I don’t believe the government has any business in moral decisions”

            What about murder? Is that a moral decision? Or a matter of “individual rights?” Isn’t morality what justifies those things? Do humans not have indiviudal rights until they are born? Why? And what gives one human the right tio create and then murder another?

  20. This article spins it as an example of more economic freedom in red States. That is certanly a facotr, but there are other factors as well. Crime, high property values, non-white populations, high prices, and overpopulation are also factors in why people leave. The rpoblem is that libertarianism wouldn’t solve these problems, it would just make them worse.

    1. With exceptions to non-white population and “overpopulation” (even though plenty of people are moving to Texas and Florida, which are two of the four biggest states, and have large minority populations. And the South in general has the largest black population), I’m not really seeing how libertarianism would amplify those other things. In fact, I think it quite clearly would improve things in those areas

      1. Crime would increase as immigration will increase, as immigrants(the ones we have now) commit more crime than natives, as do their children and their children’s children. Property values would increase as the population increases, supply and demand would dictate. It is possible that libertarianism would promote cheaper housing, but this is highly speculative. Prices always increase as demand increases, which would increase with the growing population, which would add little to the remaining productive capcity of the nation that has not been shipped to China.

        1. Than why has crime decreased since the 1980s despite huge Hispanic immigration over that time.

          Also, prices don’t increase as demand increases. They increase or decrease based on a complex interplay of supply AND demand. With lower cost labor, the supply of products would increase since more could be produced at the same price.

          There’d probably actually be lower prices.

          1. Crime has decreased because we put the savages, mostly blacks and mexicans but also some whites, in prison. There are more factors to the cost of products than the cost of labor, like the cost of resources.

            1. Did we not put criminals in prison before? Do children not grow up and become potential criminals? Do new people moving to an area not provide a new source of criminals? And outside of the Northeast, adjusted for age and gender demographics, the incarceration rate of whites and Latinos is very similar

              1. Did we not put criminals in prison before

                Look at the rate of imprisonment in the last thirty years.

                Do new people moving to an area not provide a new source of criminals?

                My entire point is that mexicans moving into America will provide a new source of criminals. I thought you were the one with the vodoo criminology.

                And outside of the Northeast, adjusted for age and gender demographics, the incarceration rate of whites and Latinos is very similar

                Citation needed.

                1. “Look at the rate of imprisonment in the last thirty years.”

                  How much of that is from locking up people for drug-related offenses?

                  “My entire point is that mexicans moving into America will provide a new source of criminals. I thought you were the one with the vodoo criminology.”

                  Well in any large group there will be criminals, so you’re technically correct. But rapid growth in the Hispanic population in recent years, crime rates have fallen during that time period. That’s my entire point.

                  “Citation needed.”

                  Here you go. And most Hispanics in the northeastern states where there is a significant difference are not Mexican. And northeastern whites also have a significantly lower incarceration rate than whites in other parts, which further expands the differences in that region.

                  http://www.theamericanconserva…..his-panic/

                  BTW, American, it’s good to see that you’ve finally admitted you’re not a libertarian

            2. please don’t use the word savages in the same paragraph as minorities.

              1. Why not?

                1. Because it makes us look stupid.

        2. “Crime would increase as immigration will increase, as immigrants(the ones we have now) commit more crime than natives,”

          This is demonstrably false. I know what your parenthesis comment is supposed to mean, but Asian immigrants have actually outnumbered Latino immigrants since 2011. Libertarians would also end the drug war, which would reduce crime. Also, crime doesn’t even make sense as a reason for current migration trends, as crime has been falling, and isn’t necessarily lower in Red States.

          “It is possible that libertarianism would promote cheaper housing, but this is highly speculative.”

          Not really

          “Prices always increase as demand increases”

          Price increases are primarily caused by inflation, which is certainly not the result of libertarian economic policy.

          “which would add little to the remaining productive capcity of the nation”

          Citation needed

          “that has not been shipped to China.”

          Tiresome economic myth is tiresome

          1. Asian immigrants have actually outnumbered Latino immigrants since 2011

            Not if you count illegal aliens.

            Libertarians would also end the drug war, which would reduce crime.

            Because all of these drug dealers would just become produictive citizens wif their buisness was legalized?

            Crime….isn’t necessarily lower in Red States.

            It is as a function of housing cost. A house in a California gated community is just as safe as a house in Suburban Texas, but a house in Suburban Texas is cheaper.

            Not really

            You know the immigrants will produce more in terms of supply to offset the greater deamnd? How?

            Tiresome economic myth is tiresome

            All the lost jobs and all the facotiries shipped to China is a myth?

            1. Re: Conservative,

              Because all of these drug dealers would just become productive citizens if their [business] was legalized?

              Yes. All those wine and spirits producers that were illegally trading in alcohol during Prohibition became legal and productive wine and spirits producers once Prohibition was lifted. Why would you think this would not be so?

              It [crime] is as a function of housing cost.

              That makes no sense. If that were true, places of high population density like Japan would be veritable hellholes of crime and debauchery, precisely because housing there ain’t cheap. Since this is not so, then the reasons behind criminality must come from something else.

              You know the immigrants will produce more in terms of supply to offset the greater deamnd? How?

              To take advantage of the profit margins available by the temporary increase in demand (i.e. higher prices); this and the subsequent competition from others will make prices come down through higher production and cost-cutting.

              Next question?

              1. Yes. All those wine and spirits producers that were illegally trading in alcohol during Prohibition became legal and productive wine and spirits producers once Prohibition was lifted. Why would you think this would not be so?

                Not exactly the same idea. For one, most of the “wine and spirits producers” were carreer criminals before prohibition. Some managed to legitamize themselves, but most went back to regular crime. Criminals tend to be stupid, violent people who are incapable of normal life. You think the avergae drug dealer could open up a legal drug buisness, with all the math and treating your customers with respect that that entails? Get real.

                You misunderstand my point about crime. People’s consideration about where to live is about crime and housing costs. A person could either live in a california gated community and or a texan suburb, but, not being able to afford the house in the gated community, would move to the taxan suburb.

                Your last point is more vodoo econiomics that doesn’t account for either natural resources or the low IQ of Mexicans.

                1. Re: Conservative,

                  Not exactly the same idea. For one, most of the “wine and spirits producers” were carreer criminals before prohibition.

                  That cannot be true, C. For one, people have been making wine and spirits for thousands of years and it wasn’t as if in America NO ONE was making wine and spirits until the criminals entered the picture during prohibition. Either you’re making things up just to win the argument or you have a serious lack of knowledge about American history and even economics.

                  Criminals tend to be stupid, violent people who are incapable of normal life.

                  You can certainly argue that many criminals are violent and evil people, but that does not mean they’re stupid.

                  You think the avergae drug dealer could open up a legal drug buisness,

                  I don’t know what they would do. I just know that once drugs are legal, the incentive to pursue a career as a pusher becomes much less profitable. Even drug dealers are sensitive to mariginal utility, C.

                  People’s consideration about where to live is about crime and housing costs.

                  Maybe. Or they go where the jobs are, even if criminality is greater.

                  1. Re: Conservative,

                    Your last point is more vodoo econiomics that doesn’t account for either natural resources or the low IQ of Mexicans.

                    I don’t get what do natural resources or this canard about the “low I.Q.” of Mexicans have to do with what I argued. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Mexicans have lower IQs compared to the average American. That would only mean they would not be very productive accountants or lawyers or computer programmers, but that they would be much more productive in those areas where high IQs are not needed, like bussing tables, or painting houses, or bricklaying, or landscaping, compared to accountants or lawyers or computer programmers attempting to do those things themselves. That concept is called Comparative Advantage, hardly “voodoo” economics as you called it.

                2. “You misunderstand my point about crime. People’s consideration about where to live is about crime and housing costs.”

                  Really? That’s it?

                  “A person could either live in a california gated community and or a texan suburb, but, not being able to afford the house in the gated community, would move to the taxan suburb.”

                  The crime rate in California is similar to the crime rate in Texas. Why are you acting under the impression that you have to live in a gated community to be safe in California, but simply living in a suburb in Texas is sufficient? Whether we compared high crime areas in CA to high crime areas in TX, or low crime areas in each state, housing in Texas is going to be cheaper, as is the general Cost of Living.

            2. “Not if you count illegal aliens.”

              No, they’re included. And it’s actually since 2009. Net immigration with Mexico has been negative the last few years

              “Because all of these drug dealers would just become produictive citizens wif their buisness was legalized?”

              Not necessarily, but their biggest source of potential revenue, all the violence associated with the drug trade, etc. disappears. Not all drug dealers are lowlife scum. Some are fairly normal people trying to earn some money on the side.

              “You know the immigrants will produce more in terms of supply to offset the greater deamnd? How?”

              Markets. Learn how they work.

              “All the lost jobs and all the facotiries shipped to China is a myth?”

              I don’t know what “facotiries” are, but the fact is that China has lost massive numbers of manufacturing jobs in recent years, and the US’s overall manufacturing capacity has reached an all-time high. Automation is a bigger source of job loss than the Yellow Peril. Nor does trade have a negative effect on the economy

              1. Citation for that first point.

                I’ve said it many times and I’ll say it again THE EXEPTION PROVES THE RULE.

                Natural resources. Human intelligence. Learn how they work

                China has not lost massive numbers of manufactering jobs. Trade has a negative effect on the economy for white working Americans.

                1. Oh look American is back again.

                2. Re: Conservative,

                  China has not lost massive numbers of manufact[u]ring jobs. Trade has a negative effect on the economy for white working Americans.

                  Actually, the contrary is true, Conservative. Trade improves the economy for all Americans, not just white. By outsourcing the more menial jobs, the more productive Americans are released to be employed on more productive efforts.

                  Now, if you want to point out that many white Americans are out of work, you’re placing the blame on the wrong culprit. The reasons why there’s high unemployment for white Americans are: a high cost of hiring; high cost of regulations and compliance; licensing laws; zoning laws and an onerous tax system. None of those things can be blamed on trade or immigration.

                  Trade actually reduces the impact of those burdens on the overall economy by making available cheaper goods for consumers, thus allowing them more disposable income for those goods and services produced locally. Otherwise, people and families would find themselves hardpressed to afford such things as appliances, TVs or computers which improve their lives enormously.

                3. “Citation for that first point.”

                  http://latino.foxnews.com/lati…..mmigrants/

                  Notice how it gives estimates for percentage of illegal immigrants and never says it is strictly referring to legal immigration.

                  “I’ve said it many times and I’ll say it again THE EXEPTION PROVES THE RULE.”

                  What is this even in response to? And you really need to brush up on the meaning of that phrase. It does not mean what you think it does.

                  “China has not lost massive numbers of manufactering jobs.”

                  Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

                  “China lost 16 million manufacturing jobs, a decline of 15 percent, between 1995 and 2002, according to a study of manufacturing jobs in the 20 largest economies by Joe Carson, director of economic research at Alliance Capital Management. In that same time, U.S. factory employment shrank by 2 million, or 11 percent.”

                  http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti…..-to-china/

                  “Trade has a negative effect on the economy for white working Americans.”

                  Economics fail.

            3. “It is as a function of housing cost. A house in a California gated community is just as safe as a house in Suburban Texas, but a house in Suburban Texas is cheaper.”

              Housing in general is cheaper in Texas than California. It has nothing to do with crime

        3. “Crime would increase as immigration will increase, as immigrants(the ones we have now) commit more crime than natives,”

          This is demonstrably false. I know what your parenthesis comment is supposed to mean, but Asian immigrants have actually outnumbered Latino immigrants since 2011. Libertarians would also end the drug war, which would reduce crime. Also, crime doesn’t even make sense as a reason for current migration trends, as crime has been falling, and isn’t necessarily lower in Red States.

          “It is possible that libertarianism would promote cheaper housing, but this is highly speculative.”

          Not really

          “Prices always increase as demand increases”

          Price increases are primarily caused by inflation, which is certainly not the result of libertarian economic policy.

          “which would add little to the remaining productive capcity of the nation”

          Citation needed

          “that has not been shipped to China.”

          Tiresome economic myth is tiresome

        4. Re: Conservative,

          […] as immigrants(the ones we have now) commit more crime than natives,

          There’s no conclusive evidence that immigrants commit more crimes than any other group in the U.S.A.

          Property values would increase as the population increases,

          Possibly, but the effect would be temporary as demand stimulates businesses and entrepreneurs to cater to the added demand, by building houses or developing rental property. I don’t see the root of your worry here.

          It is possible that libertarianism would promote cheaper housing, but this is highly speculative.

          Very speculative indeed! Especially since libertarianism does not promote cheaper housing – the market does.

          Prices always increase as demand increases, which would increase with the growing population, which would add little to the remaining productive capcity [sic] of the nation that has not been shipped to China.

          Non sequitir. What does the first thing have to do with the other?

          When demand increases due to increased population, you will veyr quickly see entrepreneurs ready to shift resources to those areas of higher demand, a process that will make prices go down.

        5. I don’t buy that prices necessarily go up as the population increases.

          That would assume a fixed amount of food and goods being produced, but presumably a larger population can also be employed producing more goods.

          What really drives it (IMO) is productivity and efficiency. Blue states tend to have larger public sectors (unproductive) and also pursue policies that lower econbomic efficiency in favor of “job creation”. So effectively what you end up with is a larger demand relative to the amount of “stuff” getting produced, so prices go up.

          Keynesian theory would suggest that production should automatically rise to supply the extra demand, thus creating more jobs, which create more demand, and so multiplier! But obviously that hasn’t happened. High aggregate demand in New York and California hasn’t spurred increased production at least not in a way that ha brought down prices.

    2. Re: Conservative,

      Crime, high property values, non-white populations, high prices, and overpopulation are also factors in why people leave. The rpoblem is that libertarianism wouldn’t solve these problems, it would just make them worse.

      What an interesting conclusion. Would you care to elaborate on how you reached it?

      Besides this, it is clear you are committing a contradiction. If people are migrating towards more conservative states because of economic freedom, then it follows that the states they’re leaving do not allow for more economic freedom. At the same time, it follows that if such states suffer from crime and overpopulation, it must be because it suffers from a lack of economic freedom and not because of MORE economic freedom, all other things being equal. Considering that libertarianism is the political philosophy of economic and personal freedom, then your conclusion does not follow, i.e. it could not possible “make things worse” as you state.

      Your conclusion, therefore, contradicts the very reasons you posit or concede are those in the minds of the people who migrate out of the less free states towards the more free states.

      1. Is this obvious logical fallacy satire? Correlation proves causation? The reason there is overpopulation in blue states must be because of “economic freedom?” The real reasons are both historical facotrs(more faciotries in the north) and, more recently, mass immigration, mostly from the third world.

        1. Re: Conservative,

          Is this obvious logical fallacy satire?

          Why the outrage? You YOURSELF insinuated it so: “Crime, high property values, non-white populations, high prices, and overpopulation are also factors in why people leave. The rpoblem is that libertarianism wouldn’t solve these problems, it would just make them worse.”

          What else can any reasonable person conclude from that except that more economic freedom (which libertarianism advocates) must exacerbate those very problems? Or just what the heck do you believe is libertarianism?

          The reason there is overpopulation in blue states must be because of “economic freedom?”

          Why are you asking me? I am asking YOU to explain your conclusion, because the way it is expressed it looks like you’re arguing that very thing.

          The real reasons are both historical facotrs(more faciotries in the north) and, more recently, mass immigration, mostly from the third world.

          I don’t understand what this red herring has to do with the incapability of libertarianism to solve those problems to which you alluded prevously.

          I’m beginning to believe you’re engaging in obfuscation.

      2. I’m confused as to how libertarianism causes crime, raises prices or results in overpopulation. More crime occurs when more things are illegal, which wouldn’t be true in a libertarian state, high prices are generally caused by overregulation and there’d be less overpopulation if we had fewer zoning restrictions and allowed people to build more.

        I’m not sure what his point is.

  21. The study also compared its measures of economic and personal freedom to population shifts and income growth, and found that freer states tend to do better on both scores than those less free.

    Obviously, for some, “personal freedom” will always and forever be equated to “abortion rights” instead of the true rights: Liberty, Property and Life, something that will make them equivocate when thinking which state is freer.

    1. Liberty = the government not telling you what you can and can’t do.

      The government telling you that you can’t buy alcohol on Sunday or can’t make the personal decision of abortion with your family, is not liberty

      1. You’re eliding the fact that some people believe abortion is the killing of another, which for most of us is a place where government has business telling people what to do (that is, don’t kill other people).

        1. even if you believe it is murder, do you think you have the right to decide for complete strangers who want no business with you?

          1. Uh, yeah, I do. You don’t get to choose for yourself when something is a murder or when it isn’t. Otherwise I could just murder homeless people and claim they aren’t really people in my philosophical/religious tradition.

            1. Uh, yeah, I do. You don’t get to choose for yourself when something is a murder or when it isn’t

              I hope you oppose the death penalty, then

              1. I certainly do. Now what?

      2. Re: Kubster,

        The government telling you that you can’t buy alcohol on Sunday or can’t make the personal decision of abortion with your family, is not liberty.

        K, the government telling you that you cannot buy alcohol on Sunday is a transgression on your right to liberty (as a buyer) and your right to property (as a seller).

        HOWEVER, abortion involves the termination of a human life, that is an unwilling party on any decision people may make as a “family” regarding the unwilling participant’s life. That in itself is immoral. It is an evil act, the taking of life that is not yours.

        Just so you are warned, I did not arrive at my views on abortion through religious beliefs of any kind but from the strictest of readings of the Non Aggression Principle and the Self-Ownership Axiom.

        1. why do you believe the government should protect you from your own immoral and evil decisions?

          1. Re: Kurbster,

            why do you believe the government should protect you from your own immoral and evil decisions?

            I never argued such a thing. Read my post again and see that I am talking about the evil of deciding on the life of a person that is made to participate, unwillingly, to a decision that will end up in the termination of that person’s life – i.e. abortion. Whatever a person decides to do to his or her body is his or her decision, but don’t conflate two different things to then argue they’re the same.

  22. From the Land of Dreams, to an Awakening Nightmare, in five short decades.
    Thanks Jerry!

  23. Tennessee “free”? Give me a break. The Republican party which controls the states believes in freedom for straight white men. They have been pushing a “Don’t say Gay” agenda in the legislature, they ban marriage equality for same sex couples, they want to interfere with a woman’s right to choose, need I go on?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.