New Edition of "Freedom in the Fifty States"

The Cato Institute recently published the latest edition of its ranking of personal, economic, and overall freedom in the states.

(Cato Institute.)

The Cato Institute has recently published the latest edition of the excellent Freedom in the Fifty States, its ranking of state and local policies on economic and personal freedom, authored by political scientists William Ruger and Jason Sorens. Variations in state policy on these issues have major impacts on human freedom and welfare, and also on interstate migration patterns. These rankings are of obvious interest to libertarians; but they are also useful to social scientists and policy analysts with a wide range of views. The book includes a wealth of data on a variety of state policies affecting freedom, as well as overall rankings of state policy, rankings of economic and personal freedom considered separately, and rankings based on a range of subcategories.

Here are the top 10 states, ranked on the combined index of overall freedom (with personal freedom, and two components of economic freedom - fiscal and regulatory) each ranked equally as about 1/3 of the total):

1. New Hampshire 0.71
2. Florida 0.57
3. South Dakota 0.52
4. Nevada 0.51
5. Arizona 0.44
6. Tennessee 0.38
7. Michigan 0.31
8. Missouri 0.30
9. Georgia 0.28
10. Indiana 0.27

The libertarian-leaning purple state of New Hampshire has long ruled these rankings! Several other purple states (Nevada, Arizona, Michigan) also score well. But red states generally do better than blue states, in part because economic freedom variables are about two-thirds of the total score. However, five of the top ten states here voted for Biden in 2020, albeit three of them (Arizona, Michigan, and Georgia) by very small margins.

Blue states do much better on personal freedom, ranked separately:

1. Nevada 0.278
2. Arizona 0.247
3. Maine 0.231
4. New Hampshire 0.204
5. New Mexico 0.198
6. Vermont 0.187
7. Montana 0.147
8. Missouri 0.144
9. Massachusetts 0.138
10. West Virginia 0.128

The top six states here are all blue or purple. But red states Montana, Missouri, and West Virginia still score well. Seven of the top 10 states here voted for Biden in 2020. The bottom of the personal freedom ranking includes many red states, with Texas coming in dead last.

The economic freedom ranking is largely dominated by red and purple states:

1. New Hampshire 0.50
2. Florida 0.48
3. South Dakota 0.43
4. Tennessee 0.35
5. Georgia 0.24
6. Texas 0.24
7. Idaho 0.23
8. Nevada 0.23
9. Wyoming 0.23
10. Michigan 0.22

Four of the top ten states on this list voted for Biden in 2020. But they are all purple states, or perhaps light blue. The bottom of this list is dominated by deep blue states.

The 2023 edition includes a number of new policies and methodological changes, including more extensive inclusion of zoning and other land-use restrictions (an incredibly important set of issues), and state rankings on abortion policy, where great variation has arisen since the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade last year. Because abortion is an issue that divides libertarians among themselves, the authors didn't include it in their main indices. However, the appendices include adjusted rankings that give various types of weights to abortion restrictions, including a pro-life ranking that views them favorably, and two pro-choice versions that give them varying degrees of negative weight.

Not surprisingly, red states look worse and blue states better on the pro-choice ranking models. Because of the fast-moving nature of developments on this issue, the rankings don't pick up some of the most recently enacted abortion restrictions, as they only capture the state of the law as of January 1, 2023.

There is much, much more in this book, including detailed discussions of each individual state, rankings on many specific freedom issues, and more.

Given the nature of the issues at stake, there is plenty of room for disagreement about the authors' choice of policies to focus on, and the relative weights assigned to each. The distinction between "economic" and "personal" freedom is also open to question. To my mind, most economic freedoms also have a personal component (in so far as they enable people to control their lives more fully). For example, private property rights enable people to exercise autonomy, find housing in places where they need it to find professional and educational opportunity, and so on.

"Personal" freedom also often has an economic dimension. Exercising these rights often requires commercial transactions. For example, there would not be much freedom of speech if the government banned payment for its production, or much in the way of abortion rights if the state barred paying medical personnel to perform them.

Despite such caveats, I think the authors generally do a good job of capturing important policy variables, and giving them reasonable weights. Those who disagree with their approach can use the data to assign different weights, or only consider those variables they consider important (e.g. - only economic freedom and not personal freedom, or vice versa).

There are a few policies I would have added, if given the chance. Most notably, "sanctuary city" and "sanctuary state" policies provide undocumented immigrants and those who employ them valuable protection against deportation. The migrants in question could still be detained and deported by federal officials; but the latter often find it difficult to do so without the assistance of much more numerous state and local law enforcement officers. The authors give positive weight to states' willingness to issue drivers' licenses to undocumented immigrants (under their "travel freedom" subcategory of personal freedom), but overlook this even more significant state and local immigration policy.

Despite such caveats, this book is an outstanding resource for anyone interested in freedom, federalism, and the interaction between the two!

NOTE: In addition to my position as a law professor at George Mason University, I am the Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at Cato. But I have no involvement in the publication of this book.

Comments

[Enrique]

These "freedom" rankings are totally useless. Take abortion, for example: whose freedom is more worthy? that of unborn children or that of women with unwanted pregnancies? For more examples of the “reciprocal” nature of law and liberty, see here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4320056

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I was involved in GOP politics during the Tea Party movement and Nikki Haley’s position would have gotten her tagged as a “baby killer” back in 2010…which means one of her most vocal supporters would never have supported her. The “thought leaders” I was around ended up being wrong about pretty much everything. My primary issue was fracking but once it became clear that Obama wouldn’t or couldn’t do anything to stop it and fossil fuel production increased under Democratic presidents I lost interest in the movement.

[tkamenick]

Guessing you didn't read the article beyond the headline, much less the actual report.

"However, the appendices include adjusted rankings that give various types of weights to abortion restrictions, including a pro-life ranking that views them favorably, and two pro-choice versions that give them varying degrees of negative weight."

[SimonP]

Given the nature of the issue, there is plenty of room for disagreement about the authors' choice of policies to focus on, and the relative weights assigned to each.

You can say that again! Nearly 30% of the final score is just "taxes and government spending." That's the first clue that there's not much about "freedom" actually happening here.

State policies that actually impact freedom directly, meanwhile, are weighted against one another in apparently arbitrary ways, and always designed to penalize Democratic infringements far more heavily than Republican. The single most important, most heavily-weighted factor in the methodology (outside of taxes and government spending) is rent control, which alone comprises 5.3% of the final score. Other land-use factors comprise a measly 0.23% and may positively or negatively impact the score, largely depending on whether it promotes or fights against suburban sprawl. (Strangely, having the ability to evade local land-use restrictions counts positively, while a state's preempting local land-use restrictions by mandating inclusionary zoning - i.e., mandating fewer land-use restrictions, not more - counts negatively.)

Another nugget is granting a 2.3% weight to individual health insurance mandates at the state level - despite acknowledging that such mandates exist as a matter of federal law anyway (i.e., making clear that the state-level mandates have minimal, if any, impact on freedom, as such). What purpose does that particular measure serve, if not to penalize "blue" states.

The methodology is also rife with seemingly arbitrary choices, like valuing federal constitutional "freedoms" more highly than state constitutional "freedoms", and both more highly than "freedoms" not expressly embraced by any constitution. "Occupational freedom" is included, but only for certain professions (apparently the authors viewed state licensure too be appropriate for some professions). The list of economic freedoms evaluated reads like a list of conservative gripes, not even an attempt to come up with an objective measure of economic freedoms.

Overall, maybe not something to put too much stock in, unless you agree (like the authors) that "gambling freedom" is more important to you than being arrested for buying or selling recreational drugs.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"unless you agree (like the authors) that “gambling freedom” is more important to you than being arrested for buying or selling recreational drugs."

Lol. Interesting way to frame the issue.

[Lee Moore]

State policies that actually impact freedom directly, meanwhile, are weighted against one another in apparently arbitrary ways, and always designed to penalize Democratic infringements far more heavily than Republican.

Like ? Or is this your example :

The single most important, most heavily-weighted factor in the methodology (outside of taxes and government spending) is rent control, which alone comprises 5.3% of the final score.

What Democrat favored freedom-impacting (in a good way) policy is set against Republican preference for not having the government control rents ?

Strangely, having the ability to evade local land-use restrictions counts positively,

This surprises you ? That on a scale where we’re trying to measure liberty, the abilty to escape from government land-use restrictions is a positive ?

while a state’s preempting local land-use restrictions by mandating inclusionary zoning – i.e., mandating fewer land-use restrictions, not more – counts negatively.)

I’m struggling with the “ie” here. Is that what “inclusionary zoning” is ? State nixing of local restrictions ? At vast expense I have looked up the term on wikipedia, and I am advised as follows :

Inclusionary zoning (IZ), also known as inclusionary housing, refers to municipal and county planning ordinances that require a given percentage of units in a new housing development be affordable by people with low to moderate incomes. The term inclusionary zoning indicates that these ordinances seek to counter exclusionary zoning practices, which exclude low-cost housing from a municipality through the zoning code.

I can see that the State nixing a local rule excluding low cost housing would be liberal (in the old fashioned liberty related sense.) But requiring percentages of low cost housing would simply be another restriction on the liberty of landowners to develop their land as it amuses them. So with your “inclusionary zoning” you seem to be setting dictation to landowners by the State against dictation by the municipality, so it’s hardly surprising if you score zero.

Or rather, somewhat less than zero, for your State dictation applies across the State, while the municipality's dictation applies only in the municipality. Some municipalities may have zero restrictions so that net-net your overarching State regs are necessarily a diminition of freedom.

[SimonP]

I’m struggling with the “ie” here. Is that what “inclusionary zoning” is ?

The simple response here is, "I thought I knew what inclusionary zoning is." I didn't; I looked it up myself after your comment and now understand why the index scores it the way it does.

Given that error, I'm just going to take a break.

[Lee Moore]

Nearly 30% of the final score is just “taxes and government spending.” That’s the first clue that there’s not much about “freedom” actually happening here.

I agree that "and government spending" adds little to taxes, other than reminding us that spending out of borrowing is just taxes deferred.

But I am intrigued by your idea that taxes are unrelated to freedom. What would your liberty to earn your living in the way you prefer mean, if the government confiscates your earnings ? Obviously the government has to raise money from taxes somehow, but to the extent that it must, that is a necessary imposition on your freedom. And the more it confiscates, the greater the imposition.

Is this controversial ?

[Nige]

'What would your liberty to earn your living in the way you prefer mean'

Is this included as a measure? How many people are earning ther living in a way they prefer? Taxes may be among the reasons why people aren't earning a living the way they prefer, but I doubt it'd break the top twenty in most cases.

[Lee Moore]

I don’t know if, or how, they have included the freedom to work as you wish in the measure – I am working from I hope pretty obvious first principles.

1. The requirement to work for a living is imposed by nature, not by the polity, so that that of itself is not a restriction on your liberty. You can always choose to starve instead. 2. So the question is – do you get to choose your toil or does someone else impose it on you, or prevent you from choosing yours ? 3. Hence slavery is traditionally seen as a bit of a downer on your freedom, likewise all other forms of directed labor – serfdom, villeinry, Commie job allocation etc. 4. But so, though milder, are laws that say that only this sort of person can do this sort of job – eg Catholic exclusion laws or guild requirements 5. And now there are more modern versions such as employment regulations which restrict the sort of contract you can make with your employer as to work hours, conditions etc

So broadly in most modern liberal polities you have freedom to work at whatever you choose, subject to the constraint of finding an employer to hire you (or your ability to perform as a self employed person.) Though there are still plenty of “guild” requirements.

But since the point of working – for most people – is to earn their daily crust, the more they are taxed on their earnings, the more they are compelled to work for someone else – the government. The more they work for the government, they less free time they have for bouncing babies on their knee, baking cookies and swing dancing.

As I say, taxes are inevitable – the cost in liberty of the government’s exactions are unavoidable. Or rather some cost is unavoidable. But the more the cost rises above the minimum possible, the more of your liberty to earn your own crust as you choose, and then spend your leisure hours as you choose, is infringed.

[charliehall]

"do you get to choose your toil "

Thanks to the lousy educational systems in some of the "more free" states, the answer is often "no".

[Randal]

I feel like the vast majority of people are not doing the job they'd prefer the most... or even one they like very much.

And not because of taxes.

[Lee Moore]

If you’re not doing the job you’d prefer most, the question is, why not ?

1. top of the list is – you’re not competent to do your dream job, so no one will hire you for it. And as I mentioned, constraints imposed by reality as opposed to the government, are not infringements of your freedom
2. you have had to accommodate your personal job preference to your obligations to your family. Out goes the Life Below Zero life, in comes the postal clerk life. These are chains you have made for yourself.
3. you started out choosing path A, 10 years have passed and you now realise path B would have been better. But it’s too late to flip. 10 years up the ladder on path A is still better than restarting at the bottom rung on path B at age 30. Again, I sympathise, but you – and reality – made those chains
4. You’re 56 and you’d really like to go to France and write your novel. You’ve worked hard and saved diligently, but the spreadsheet says you can’t afford to retire yet. You’ve got to put in another 10 years. But if taxes throughout your working life had been three quarters of what they actually were, you could be retiring now. This one you can put down to the goverment.

I understand that for most people work is a largely tiresome chore. God, not Man, hath made it so. But within the constraints of reality, in a free country, you get to choose your poison, within the limits of your competence and the constraints imposed by your life outside work. This is a whole lot better than being allocated to a machining job at the Petrozavodsk Tractor Factory No.5.

I sympathise with all those college kids who postpone the advent of reality by continuing their childhood into their mid twenties and then discover, shockingly late, that they’re not going to have a fulfilling career, just a tiresome job – and angst about losing even that. We (that is to say puffers of the fairytale that reality can be blamed on capitalist oppression) should tell fewer lies to our children.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Moore, your advocacy seems predicated on a notion that capitalists get to do what they want, all the time, and all their lives. And everyone else gets to do what they want in the unlikely event that they can command resources necessary to surmount detailed and exacting tests imposed during particular narrow windows of opportunity.

You demand—as an unannounced corollary—that everything in the economic system get considered on a basis of person-by-person individualized merit, with capitalists to decide what is meritorious. Unless you can show me examples to the contrary, I will continue to expect you to oppose claims that freedom can sometimes be enhanced by exercise of collective power through politics.

None of that, by the way, has much to do with any dictates of, "reality." That's just you arguing that your preferences lie on the side of reality, while others you oppose indulge in fantasy. Looks to me like your advocacy is at least as self-indulgent as any that you criticize.

[Lee Moore]

Looks to me like you’re eager to slap new meanings on words when the current meanings aren’t working for you. “Collective liberty” is one of those neologisms like “trans woman” designed to pretend that a thing includes its opposite. It is of course true that groups of people can cooperate politically so as to increase actual liberty – by voting to get rid of illiberal laws. But they can just as well cooperate politically to reduce actual liberty – by voting to extend illiberal laws. The exercise of voting rights having effect in their aggregate is not “collective liberty” it’s political power. Which can, as measured by the yardstick of liberty, be exercised for good or ill.

In a liberal (traditional sense) society capitalists get to do what they want subject to being able to persuade other people to cooperate with them voluntarily. And ditto for unskilled labourers. Certainly the talented have more and better options – but that’s reality at work, not oppression.

[Lee Moore]

I suppose I should repeat that you’re very welcome to prefer other political values to liberty, as you obviously do.

Just don’t start redefining the concept because you can’t bear to accept that you’re authoritarian. Allow your love to speak its name.

[JasonT20]

I suppose I should repeat that you’re very welcome to prefer other political values to liberty, as you obviously do.

Sometimes, the question isn’t about valuing liberty, but whose liberty.

Do regulations restricting pollution infringe on the liberty of the factory owners to make a profit on their land, or do they protect the liberty of other people to breathe clean air?

In a liberal (traditional sense) society capitalists get to do what they want subject to being able to persuade other people to cooperate with them voluntarily. And ditto for unskilled labourers. Certainly the talented have more and better options – but that’s reality at work, not oppression.

And this is why environmental restrictions exist. The people being affected by the pollution of industry are not given a choice in the matter other than through their elected representatives that can enact laws limiting pollution.

[Lee Moore]

Not a very subtle changing of the subject, which was choosing your job.

Yes, sometimes my smoke will get in your eyes and the regulation of that externality will set our respective liberties against each other. Though it's not really my liberty against yours, is everyone's liberty to light fires versus everyone's liberty to enjoy smoke free air.

But most of the time there is no such externality - for example in the case we were actually discussing which was our liberty to seek employment of our choosing, and to employ willing laborers.

Aside from changing the subject to externalities, do you have an actual point to make ?

[Lee Moore]

And since you mention environmental regulations in the same breath that you whine about the depredations of capitalists, it’s worth noting that only capitalist economies bother with environmental regulation.

The record of the Soviet Union and other socialist economies on pollution and environmental degradation was execrable. Partly because when you own the means of production and you are also the putative environmental regulator, you are somewhat conflicted. And second if your economy is not capitalist you are too poor to afford the luxury good of environmental protection.

Capitalism is the worst economic system for protecting the environment, except for all the others.

[JasonT20]

Not a very subtle changing of the subject, which was choosing your job.

The subject became choosing your job when you replied to the OP with a question about how one can earn their living in the way they choose when the government confiscates your earnings. SimonP had many examples in his post that didn't relate to this subject.

Besides, I was replying to a specific statement you had made that was not about choosing a job, but about valuing things other than liberty. I even quoted it to make that clear.

But, to bring it back to that subject, if you insist...

Government regulations around labor infringe on our liberty to negotiate with employers in a lot of ways. We can't agree to work for less than the minimum wage. We can't agree to work more than 40 hours a week without overtime pay if our job will fall under non-exempt categories. We can't agree to work in unsafe conditions. We can't agree to allow our children to work in violation of child labor laws.

Those laws are impositions on our liberty and the liberty of employers because some employers were exploiting workers that only had the liberty to make those choices in the sense that they could have chosen to go without food or shelter instead. So yes, liberty isn't the only value that matters in our society. But you told Stephen, "Just don’t start redefining the concept because you can’t bear to accept that you’re authoritarian."

You continue to set up a false dichotomy between a laissez faire version of capitalism and authoritarianism/socialism/communism. You also refuse to acknowledge that the accumulation of massive wealth by a very small portion of society has shown itself to be contrary to liberty. That is because wealth is power, and concentrating power in the hands of the few is always detrimental to the liberty of the many.

[JasonT20]

The record of the Soviet Union and other socialist economies on pollution and environmental degradation was execrable. Partly because when you own the means of production and you are also the putative environmental regulator, you are somewhat conflicted. And second if your economy is not capitalist you are too poor to afford the luxury good of environmental protection.

Another false dichotomy. Environmental protection is not a luxury good. It is not about hugging trees or saving spotted owls that only the tree-huggers would miss if they went extinct. We live in the environment. We get all of our resources from the environment. The choice to make isn't gain wealth and fuck up the environment or protect the environment and be poor. The choice is between some of the moneyed interests gaining higher profits now and protecting the long term health of the population and our natural resources.

A particular environmental regulation doesn't even have to be a net loss to some measure of economic activity like GDP. It could be a net gain, but only a particular business owner might lose profits. Factor in lower health care costs, higher labor productivity from fewer ill workers, less destruction of valuable property from rising sea levels or natural disasters, erosion of fertile soil, etc., and perhaps the benefits of protecting the environment will be a net positive no matter how you measure it.

When authoritarian/totalitarian governments have a poor environmental record, it is because the few people in power don't care about anything but their power. They certainly don't care about the little people most harmed by the pollution or other degradation, nor do they care about future generations being deprived of those destroyed resources. The super rich and corporate magnates may not be evil the way Mao and Stalin were, but they are hardly altruistic. People get that rich either by inheriting it, or by having the right ideas in the right place and time and then being ruthless in their business dealings. (Its an old and cliche story where someone had the right idea in the right place at the right time, but someone more ruthless than them took it and gained the reward.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Lee Moore, you mention reinvention. You reprove me for it.

Go back and take another look at Federalist 10. Madison mentions, "liberty," 6 times, giving the word a different inflection each time, some subtler than others. About the only reasonable interpretation of, "liberty," Madison did not include is the one you insist upon.

Madison did not mention what you call, "classical liberal," thinking, nor did he demonstrate your kind of use for, "liberty." Both were unknown to the founding era. Those notions had just barely begun to be invented, and had not yet achieved widespread currency, even among the elite cohort of America's founders.

You are in the grip of Libertarian ideology, which has encouraged you to believe that you can begin with ideological axioms, and reason on that basis to discover facts. Reason lacks power to do so much.

By an analogous process, you have brought yourself to believe you espouse historically-founded ideals, to which the nation should return. On that you are also mistaken.

Were you to invest time to read original founding era documents of all kinds, you would discover yourself a stranger to that era. Time and again, you would encounter discussions which seemed to you on the brink of expressing libertarian ideals as you understand them. And time and again, every time, the discussion would frustrate you. It would turn instead in some other direction.

That would happen because libertarianism as you understand it is a more-recently minted ideology, not an experience in itself, and not founded on American historical experience either. It is a mostly-modern ideology, created long after all the founders were dead. They knew nothing of it, and never referred to it.

When founding era figures used the word,"liberty," in political discussions it might have any of several inflections, such as those paraded by Madison in Federalist 10. But most commonly, in the context of the founders' political philosophy, "liberty," referred to a power of people to participate in politics, and to govern themselves at their collective pleasure. The founders mostly supposed that power of self-government to be the practical basis to create and vindicate individual rights, including the rights to own and use property—but also including many other rights which might conflict with property rights. None of those rights were prized as highly as protecting the power of the people collectively to choose among them. Madison developed that theme too in Federalist 10.

Because you have not reflected on that, you carelessly reprove me as a dishonest authoritarian, when all I have attempted is to channel founding era ideology. Of course I do not ask for any apology. But I do suggest you do yourself the favor of easing up on attempts to get others to endorse and rely upon your preferred ideological axioms.

Pay more attention instead to what you can learn by experience. Do not too much discount what others have learned by forthright attempts to discover what happened in the past.

Too much rationalism in politics is unwise. Again and again, experience has proved a more reliable guide than ideology.

[Lee Moore]

Locke for example antedated the founding of the American Republic by a century.

Feel free to cite Madison’s reference to “collective liberty” 🙂

[Stephen Lathrop]

Locke for example antedated the founding of the American Republic by a century.

Feel free to cite Madison’s reference to “collective liberty”

Madison during the Constitutional Convention advocated for a Senate chosen by popular vote. Madison at the time of the founding was outspoken on behalf of American majoritarianism. The political legacy of the Articles of Confederation doomed that part of Madison’s advocacy. Too many delegates from small states had become accustomed to outsized political influence minoritarian government afforded them.

Federalist 10 is about majority factions, minority factions, and the means the Constitution supplied to benefit from their advantages, while suppressing their disadvantages.

What do you think a faction is, if not a collective political manifestation? In that context a correct understanding of this famous language from Federalist 10 reads it as an approving reference to collective liberty:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

Note also this from Madison, in the same essay father down:

But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

NOTE: ” the permanent and aggregate interests of the community”

NOTE ALSO: “But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction.”

It would be nonsense to pretend those words from Madison portray a libertarian-oriented individualist understanding of government. It is exactly the opposite. No doubt you agree with Madison that factions have their disadvantages. That does nothing to turn Madison into an individualist libertarian in today’s mold.

Of course I have been expecting Locke to come up. Misunderstanding Locke has been a cottage industry among modern libertarians. What they do not notice, or just ignore, is that Locke’s work was not a leading indicator of political trends later adopted by the founders, but instead was a dying remnant of pre-enlightenment political philosophy the pro-federalist founders were about to reject. Note that in Locke everything goes back to God, just as it did for everyone connected with government prior to the Enlightenment. Note that in Locke’s notion of social contract this from the Declaration of Independence does not fit:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Read Locke and you discover that first bit about social contract and just powers is all about some vague previous state, which ordinary people today are stuck with. Present arrangements are sanctified by social contract; future changes are proscribed. Under Locke, the second part, about changing government at pleasure, becomes a violation of social contract.

America’s founders rejected the opportunity to continue Locke’s God-reliance as a cornerstone of American constitutionalism. It had been a slightly earlier figure, Hobbes, who broke with that line of thought, and thus put an initial blaze on the trail which American constitutionalism eventually followed.

It is also helpful to note as an aside that Locke’s past popularity in America came mostly from anti-federalists. Just as Locke’s present popularity tends to reflect sympathy with extreme individualism mobilized to justify personal tyrannies—such as those which now underpin libertarianism, but which previously supported the South’s pretensions to justify aristocratic rule by a slaveholding class. To them, American liberty was for them, and nobody else. They said so in so many words. Not infrequently, with words similar to Locke’s words.

Note when you see historical citations to Locke, how often they are attributed to anti-federalists, and how seldom you find any mention of Locke among the men who actually drafted and signed the Constitution. Locke is not associated with that southern view by coincidence, but instead by his own agency, and by his backing of the successful project to import Barbadian-style Caribbean plantation slavery into the Deep South, beginning in South Carolina. Locke wrote a model government charter for that project. He himself was an investor in the slave trade.

Most of that part of Locke’s history has been underplayed with avoidance and mumbling by his boosters. They have been wary, lest accurate insight into Locke’s history embarrass the Lost Cause glorification of Southern legacy which it has been their usual intention to promote.

One striking thing you can notice about mentions of Locke in American historical references, is how many of them don’t actually cite Locke at all. Instead, a great many such references speak in general terms about language similarities between Locke’s works and some other text, often some other southern text. Perhaps libertarians plumping for Locke ought to be reminded that the definitive movie romance about the South was titled, “Gone with the Wind.”

Rereading what I just posted, I am reminded of a rule I set for myself years ago: try to cite Madison, and everything gets too long. Sorry about that, but we can't do entirely without Madison.

[Lee Moore]

As usual, Mr Lathrop grasps the wrong end of the stick with ferocious determination.

Federalist 10 is Madison's argument for how the government should be organised to minimise the effects of "faction" and the tendency of faction to take bites out of other people's property, liberty and rights. Since he's talking about goverment structure how could be not be talking about politics in the public sphere ?

But when he refers to "public and private liberty" he is referring to individual liberty. "Private" liberty being the individual liberty to act without interference in the private sphere, and "public" liberty being the individual liberty to act without interference in the public sphere - ie to participate in politics.

"Public liberty" does not consists in any collective right of the majority to eat the rich. That's precisely the mischief that he is deploring. He is proposing his solution to that mischief - ie a large Union with liberties protected from the mob by a mixture of the size tending - he hopes - to reduce each faction to minority status - and constitutional guarantees of liberty.

But I'm pleased to see that he has his own contribution to today's debate :

The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice [faction]. ... The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations.

[JasonT20]

You’re 56 and you’d really like to go to France and write your novel. You’ve worked hard and saved diligently, but the spreadsheet says you can’t afford to retire yet. You’ve got to put in another 10 years. But if taxes throughout your working life had been three quarters of what they actually were, you could be retiring now. This one you can put down to the gover[n]ment.

If taxes had been 3/4 of what they had been throughout his working life, then he surely wouldn't be able to include Social Security or Medicare among his post-65 retirement assets. Who knows what other problems local, state, and national economics would see in an alternate reality where taxes, and thus government services, in the U.S. were that much lower than they have been over the last 35 years.

Your 1-3 were at least somewhat reasonable. 4 jumped into Fantasyland.

I understand that for most people work is a largely tiresome chore. God, not Man, hath made it so. But within the constraints of reality, in a free country, you get to choose your poison, within the limits of your competence and the constraints imposed by your life outside work. This is a whole lot better than being allocated to a machining job at the Petrozavodsk Tractor Factory No.5.

A fully capitalist "free country" where you can't find a job you like because you weren't born with enough money to do whatever you felt like vs. a Communist state that tells you what your job is going to be? Man. If only there were choices in between those two things!

[Lee Moore]

Like Mr Lathrop, you seem to be unable to distinguish the idea of liberty from the idea of a good thing. You may well feel that liberty in employment is a bad thing and direction of labor is a good thing, or you may favor some undefined middle path between the two.

But the liberal (traditional sense) option is the liberty in employment thing. If you don't like it, fine, just admit your love of authority. Don't be ashamed of it.

[JasonT20]

But the liberal (traditional sense) option is the liberty in employment thing. If you don’t like it, fine, just admit your love of authority. Don’t be ashamed of it.

Doubling down on your false dichotomy between pure liberty and pure authoritarianism doesn't make it more true than it was the first time you expressed it. Nor does your inability to explain what your concept of liberty means in practice as opposed to the kind of "middle ground" that every developed country has.

[Lee Moore]

I am describing what "chocolate" is, in contradiction of folk who insist that coffee is chocolate, because they prefer coffee cake to chocolate cake, but prefer not to say so in terms.

Thus I am not attempting to describe just how much chocolate should be mixed into the cake. I am simply pointing out that "chocolate" is a useful descriptive word in ts own right and that it should be confined in its uses to ..... chocolate.

If you want less chocolate and more coffee in your cake - fine. Just don't insist that the spoonfuls of coffee that you are putting in are chocolate. They're not. And if you're putting coffee in by the ladleful, I'm entitled to call you out as a coffee lover.

[JasonT20]

Switching to a poor metaphor didn't help your argument. Which, by the way, I've completely lost track of due to your insistence on vague principle instead of anything concrete.

[Lee Moore]

So sorry.

Chocolate = liberty
Coffee = a good thing (in your opinion)

The two are different ideas. Sometimes, in some people's opinions, restricting liberty may be a good thing (as you have yourself acknowleged.)

I am objecting to the folk who are unable to accept that liberty and good things may sometimes be in conflict, and so insist that whenever a good thing is thought sufficiently good to justify restricting liberty, that good thing is actually just another kind of liberty. Which it obviously isn't.

So my concept of liberty is allowing people to get on with what they choose to do, subject of course to respecting other people's equal liberty - like not murdering them etc. How much liberty to stir into the pot and how much "good thing that restricts liberty" to stir in, is a different question, on which opinions will differ.

[JasonT20]

How much liberty to stir into the pot and how much “good thing that restricts liberty” to stir in, is a different question, on which opinions will differ.

But you aren't presenting it like it's a different question. You've been consistently referring to Stephen and my arguments in favor of some labor regulation as being authoritarian. When you use this language, you are clearly stating your belief that restricting your idea of economic liberty is inherently bad and thus should not be done. You are mixing in your definition of liberty and desire to protect it with the question of how to regulate labor markets.

To use your analogy, I read your arguments as you seeing coffee as inherently anti-chocolate, thus coffee is bad in any amount in a chocolate cake.

My thinking has to do with the power that comes with wealth. Power that is derived from wealth can be abused just like the power of government. Monopolies are bad for consumers, causing harm to them, I think we all agree. But there is no bright line that distinguishes harmful monopolies from normal business dealings. The monopoly might not being doing anything illegal or be playing by different rules than other businesses. It just has the power to leverage those rules in ways that cause harm to consumers and other businesses that try to compete with it. Making agreements and contracts that would have been considered within a business's liberty when it had competition are now harming others. The government is then expected to limit the monopoly's power and "liberty" to act in a way that harms others.

Anyone's liberty can be infringed by those with more power than they have. It isn't just government itself that can do that. I think that is where my opinions differ from most libertarians. I see government regulation as necessary to counter the tendency of the private accumulation of wealth to allow individuals or groups to infringe on the liberty and quality of life of those without wealth. Libertarians seem to view such regulation as always much more likely to limit ordinary people from increasing their wealth and the overall wealth of society.

It is good for political debates to entertain both points of view in the hopes that the evidence favors the argument that will lead to the best outcome for all. That can't happen when "corporations are evil" is butting heads with "government is evil" arguments.

[Randal]

Lathrop mostly covered this (bravo and very interesting), so to pile on...

There are policies that would allow people to do what they want that are much more effective than lowering taxes. Most actually require raising taxes.

The minimum wage, for example, ensures that a whole category of easy jobs avoid falling into your constraint #2. UBI would help with all 4. Laws against ageism help with #3. Subsidized education and training programs help with #1.

So if you're really truly optimizing for people being able to choose the job they love, there are lots and lots of things to do before lowering taxes... probably such that lowering taxes is actually counterproductive since it would restrict gov't's ability to do those other things.

[Lee Moore]

Stepping cautiously through the looking glass, may I ask :

Laws against ageism help with #3

how laws against ageism confer ten years training, development and experience on you, the instant you decide to change jobs; refresh the youthful enthusiasm for learning new things, and reset the nimbleness of your mind (and hands if it's a manual job) to that of a 20 year old, when you're 30; and add ten years to your lifespan so you can retire ten years later having climbed your new ladder ?

These are powerful laws indeed, kemosabe.

[Randal]

I said help, not solve. You're never going to become a nuclear physicist on your deathbed. But there are lots of policies -- anti-ageism being one -- that can make it easier for some people to switch careers.

[charliehall]

New Hampshire does well largely because it has no state income tax or state sales tax. But it has whoppingly high property taxes. Before you move there be sure you have plenty of savings because if you lose your job you probably lose your home to the town tax collector.

Oh and its state run liquor monopoly prohibits private sector competition. Socialism in the allegedly most free state!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Note also that those high property taxes encourage surprisingly high rents across a state with a notably weaker employment and wage picture than most other states with comparable housing costs. Prior to a recent change of housing my wife and I briefly considered renting in New Hampshire. Exploration led to one disappointment after another. Value-per-rental-dollar was uniformly terrible. In the end we found more economically favorable conditions in Massachusetts!

[John F. Carr]

The "personal freedom" list.

INCARCERATION AND ARRESTS 6.7%
GAMBLING FREEDOM 4.0%
GUN RIGHTS 3.6%
TOBACCO FREEDOM 3.3%
MARRIAGE FREEDOM 3.1%
EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM 3.1%
CANNABIS & SALVIA FREEDOM 2.8%
ALCOHOL FREEDOM 2.5%
ASSET FORFEITURE 2.1%
MALA PROHIBITA 1.4%
TRAVEL FREEDOM 1.1%
CAMPAIGN FINANCE FREEDOM 0.1%

What does "marriage freedom" even mean now that marriage policy has been federalized? Are traffic stops included in arrests?

I want to know something harder to quantify. When a man in Wuhan coughs, do my local leaders say "shut down everything"? (Everything for other people, but they can still go out dining and partying and getting their hair done.)

[Sarcastr0]

Local leaders flaunted the lockdown? Or do you have a few anecdotes and think that’s the rule?

[Kazinski]

When a large state like Michigan lets Home Depot stay open because some home repairs won’t wait, but makes them close off the gardening section for some stupid reason that’s hardly an anecdote.

Same with Nevada opening casinos but keeping churches closed.

[Krayt]

I ran into the do not cross tapes, learning about this, when I went to get ant pellets that spring.

It immediately reminded me of running out of food on a Sunday in the Netherlands, and stopping in a gas station to get an ice cream sandwich. The guy sold it to me but told me he wasn't supposed to because that part of the business was supposed to shut down like all the others.

[Sarcastr0]

The OP: "Everything for other people, but they can still go out dining and partying and getting their hair done."

Home Depo was a policy decision.

No new goalposts.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

I’m sure you would have opposed the Bible Thumpers’ blue laws back in the day. You are such a pathetic whiner…all of you halfwits are.

[TwelveInchPianist]

How many examples does it take?

[Armchair]

One plus.

However many examples you have, it take one plus that.

[Randal]

This is right, because it takes more than examples. It takes a percentage.

One easy, rough way to get a percentage is to estimate how many people’s own local officials were flaunting the rules. It seems extremely small, since no one ever cited to their own experience, just to anecdotal hearsay.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Agreed -- I can't believe that Massachusetts is 13th in personal freedom -- it's more like 13th from the bottom.

[Armchair]

Massachusetts is odd, in a few ways.

In many ways, liberals define themselves by opposition to "Republicans". They do their best when there's a consistent, solid, Republican opposition to define themselves as against.

But since "Republicans" have been absent for so long, in such a way, in MA (in any real power structure), liberals there have "lost their way" So, you get common sense reforms ("i.e., Republican reforms") occurring from within.

Expect Rhode Island to flip first, followed by MA, as the working class shift for Republicans continues.

[BrotherMovesOn]

You funny. Word.

[charliehall]

The working class has almost completely disappeared from those two states as industries fled to lower wage states. This in the states where the industrial revolution began in the US. Biden won MA by 33 points and RI by 21.

[SRG2]

Such indices are fun but - as with inflation indices - each person experiences their own, and what matters to them as far as freedom goes may not matter so much to someone else. If you don't care about abortion or drug legalisation, you're not going to think that you're less free in a state that permits neither.

[bernard11]

Like most ranking reports based on weightings, this report is a waste of time, money, and paper.

First the weights are assigned arbitrarily.

Second the way ratings are determined for each for each item is silly.

Third, I see no explanation of why some things are infringements.

Finally, within the categories, the variables are often going to be highly correlated. This is especially true of health and fiscal policy, but is a problem with the others as well.

[Lee Moore]

In short, indistinguishable from a standard Breyer balancing test 🙂

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This probably rakes in donations from the clingers it flatters.

[fafalone]

"[...] because economic freedom variables are about two-thirds of the total score."

This about sums up the problems with libertarianism for me. Economic freedom and personal freedom are increasingly at odds as private corporations control more and more of the essentials of modern life, on top of the perpetual issue of indirect control via compensation. And nearly all (L)s seek to maximize economic freedom with zero regard for its impact on the personal freedom, resulting in a world, ending in a world where your personal freedom is determined by your wealth. Privatization of public services only pours gasoline on this. Being under the boot of corporate boards/owners is no better than being under the boot of government, and quickly devolves into worse as the latter is weakened.

The heavy weighting of rent control illustrates this. Placing a limit on profiting off a basic requirement for life is considered a massive infringement on 'economic freedom', while the freedom to not be held hostage to choosing between a lack of shelter, extortionate prices, or being confined to LCOL areas with undesirable lifestyles, isn't even considered as a freedom at all.

Wage slavery isn't freedom. It's also a very warped view of freedom to hold that minimizing costs for yourself at the expense of raising them for everyone else, based on a bet you won't have a major emergency, is 'economic freedom' severely penalizing the 'freedom ranking' where it's less tolerated.

And unrelated to the above but why on earth are only alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and salvia of all things included? Just to avoid giving deep blue states credit and penalizing red states for the worst of the worst policies like whether small amounts of hard drugs are felonies, misdemeanors, or decriminalized (Oregon), and legalization of psychedelics?

[Lee Moore]

The heavy weighting of rent control illustrates this. Placing a limit on profiting off a basic requirement for life is considered a massive infringement on ‘economic freedom’

Which it is. That's not to say that rent control is bad thing - though it is - it's just that whether it's a good thing or not, it's obviously a substantial bite out of the landlord's freedom to do as he pleases with his property. And your liberty, as a newcomer in town, to rent his apartment rather than the person who's grandfathered in at the rent control rent. (Rent control always brings construction of property to rent to a screeching halt, and over time, leads to rented property deteriorating (why maintain a lossmaker) and being taken off the rental market (better to sell to an owner occupier.) It's the same deal as putting a maximum on the price farmers can charge for potatoes. After a while you'll notice that potatoes have disappeared from the shelves. Better an expensive potato than none at all.)

while the freedom to not be held hostage to choosing between a lack of shelter, extortionate prices, or being confined to LCOL areas with undesirable lifestyles, isn’t even considered as a freedom at all.

Cos it isn't. That's whining about reality. HCOL areas are expensive because they're in high demand not because of some fiendish plot to oppress you. (OK zoning to exclude property owners from building low cost housing is indeed a fiendish plot to oppress you (and them) but I'd expect that sort of thing is scored as a minus in the ratings, as it should be.)

Freedom connotes the absence of control or coercion imposed on the citizen by other people. It has nothing to do with the impositions of nature. That you have to find a way of satisfying your need to eat and drink, shelter from the elements and induldge your reproductive urges has diddley squat to do with "freedom" - except to the extent that some human is, by force or coercion, interfering with your endeavors to satisfy these needs.

[ObviouslyNotSpam]

The distinction between "freedom from" and "freedom to" seems to have been lost.

[Lee Moore]

The distinction is fairly feeble sophistry.

“Freedom to” – eg the freedom to plant potatoes in your yard, is no different from the “freedom from” any interference by others when you plant potatoes in your yard. These are the same things.

Cue lefty sophists. But what if you don’t have a yard ? What if you don’t have any seed potatoes ? For you to have “freedom to” plant potatoes in a “meaningful sense” you must be provided with a yard and some seed potatoes. And in order for that to happen, we’re gonna need to confiscate half of Peter’s yard, and half of Peter’s seed potatoes, to give to you. Only then do you have “freedom to” plant potatoes in your yard.

Therefore robbing Peter to pay Paul is FREEDOM – yay !

But this is obvious nonsense. All the while you didn’t have a yard or any seed potatoes, you still had “freedom to” plant potatoes in the genuine sense of freedom, ie no one was allowed to interfere with any attempt you might make to plant potatoes. The fact that you were unable or unwilling to make any such attempt doesn’t mean you lacked the freedom to do so.

So “freedom to” and”freedom from” are the same thing, when sophstry is not at work.

And there’s an easy way to spot when it is at work. Any alleged “freedom to” that cannot be rephrased as “freedom from” is not freedom. It’s a right to confiscate or coerce granted to you which has to be provided by taking away someone else’s freedom.

Cue lefties – but externalities !

[Randal]

You just entirely confirmed fafalone’s premise: as a libertarian, you value the liberty of property owners over every other kind.

That you also have the temerity to call your policy preferences “reality” and “nature” is just kind of sad and delusional… in a mean way. It’s an easy way out of taking responsibility for oppression. “Sorry you’re a slave, it’s just the reality of the situation given the nature of property rights.” See?

As Lathrop pointed out, the proper American way to analyze the liberty interest is to applaud the liberty of the New York citizenry to impose rent controls on property owners.

[Lee Moore]

as a libertarian,

I'm not.

you value the liberty of property owners over every other kind

No other kind has been postulated in this discussion so far.

That you also have the temerity to call your policy preferences “reality” and “nature” is just kind of sad and delusional… in a mean way. It’s an easy way out of taking responsibility for oppression. “Sorry you’re a slave, it’s just the reality of the situation given the nature of property rights.” See?

We seem to have moved on to "freedom is slavery."

Things that are in high demand cost more. Sorry if you think that's mean, but that's the way it is.

As Lathrop pointed out, the proper American way to analyze the liberty interest is to applaud the liberty of the New York citizenry to impose rent controls on property owners.

Yup, it's liberty is government imposition time.

Which is really my point. Where you place liberty in your scale of values is up to you. But liberty is different from government imposition. They're different ideas. Opposites actually. The fact that you require Newspeak to express your argument is a demonstration that it's not an argument at all.

[Randal]

I’m using Madison’s definition of liberty. That’s hardly Newspeak.

But liberty is different from government imposition. They’re different ideas. Opposites actually.

Freedom connotes the absence of control or coercion imposed on the citizen by other people.

I’m not [a libertarian].

Whether or not you identify as a libertarian, these are libertarian ideas.

I’ve noticed that you — like many naive right-wing types — tend to confuse liberty with freedom. They’re different concepts.

Freedom largely revolves around guaranteed individual rights. It’s true that guaranteed individual rights are intrinsically in tension with government impositions.

Liberty, though, is about democratic republics… including their ability to impose on people’s freedoms. In that sense, it’s liberty and freedom that are the opposites.

It’s your liberty to impose on my freedom.

[Lee Moore]

No, I'm afraid this is drivel. Which is what you get, I'm afraid, for paying attention to Mr Lathrop.

Freedom and liberty are the same thing. Mr Lathrop's confusion stems from his bizarre imagining that "public liberty" means the actions of the collective mass of voters in directing the actions of government (which actions might of course involve imposing on the freedom (or liberties) of the citizen.)

But that's not what "public liberty" means, or ever meant. It means the individual liberty to participate in the public realm - which includes what we're doing now. Arguing politics and in due course getting to vote.

You - as a citizen - require "public liberty" to participate in political life. But "public liberty" does not mean "whatever the government elected by the public chooses to do, however tyrannical."

This is made abundantly clear by Madison's argument that destroying liberty to destroy faction is worse than the disease. For he says that liberty is essential to faction. It is the exercise of liberty by individual people with common interests which is essential to create a working faction.

This can't possibly mean that the collective action of the demos is essential to create a working faction - the whole notion of factions is that they are a part not the whole. It means that the individual liberty of citizens to engage in public politicking is essential to faction - you and Lathrop making common cause to try to get the government to force me to reduce your rent.

Liberty, though, is about democratic republics… including their ability to impose on people’s freedoms. In that sense, it’s liberty and freedom that are the opposites.

Really, if you were paying attention, you would appreciate just by rereading your own stuff that you've wandered into 1984. Best to wander out again.

[charliehall]

Libertarians are Useful Idiots for the most powerful oligarchs in the world. Their policies would allow them to control us in a way that no government would ever imagine.

[charliehall]

"The heavy weighting of rent control illustrates this."

Eliminating rent control in New York City would result in about a million additional homeless people. But they would be "free" to choose which subway cars to sleep in overnight.

[Toranth]

And here you have it:

Wage slavery isn’t freedom.

Anyone using the term "wage slavery" is, to put it politely, a fucking idiot. The rest of his rant can be accurately evaluated from this one statement - an almost incoherent collection of "But I want it!" complaints from someone with little thought but a lazy authoritarian streak a thousand miles wide.

[PMBug]

While not perfect, at least rankings like these get people talking about liberty issues. It's better than clickbait lists like top 100 best rock bands of all time.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Would you applaud more talk about collective liberties—such as a power for voters to decide at pleasure what kind of economic system they wanted?

[JasonT20]

These rankings are great for telling us how well each state lines up with Cato's policy preferences. Liberty issues? Not so much.