Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really? I consider being stopped by the police for not wearing my seat belt to be a "down side". I consider the loss of freedom in the first place to be a "down side". You can claim otherwise, but then you're not refuting the idea that NJ has less freedom than elsewhere; you're just arguing against freedom.
Utilitarianism isn't everything.
Corruption and lack of liberty are well-correlated; the more things the state can do, the more opportunities for state actors to extract a cut in exchange for doing (or not doing) them.
I'm not arguing from the philosophical standpoint that others are taking, I'm arguing from reality. The fact is that ANY law restricts your freedom. However, my argument is against those who ride on the philosophical statement and try to derive that they are "less" free to do things here in NJ compared to other states. Reality is that while you can stat rank all the states and put NJ at bottom, the difference between number 1 and number 49 is very thin indeed.
If the best we can come up with are restrictive gun laws and having to wear seatbelts, what exactly are we complaining about? The plain truth is that the vast majority of people don't even notice the restrictions these laws place on them.
What is your definition of corruption? Nepotism, embezzlement or something else? That was my point, actual corruption and lack of freedom are not necessarily tied together. I'm sure the freest people in the land up in New Hampshire can share stories of corruption.
The stronger correlation that actually applies to the United States is the one I pointed out earlier. The larger and more dense the population, the more laws and rules that are required. Look at the "freedom index" that started the thread, all of the low ranked states have the highest populations or areas of high density.
If you want to standby the assertion that the innocuous rules necessary to manage a densely populated area result in less freedom than so be it. However, I don't see these rules as eroding my personal freedom and interfering in my ability to live my life.
I'm not arguing from the philosophical standpoint that others are taking, I'm arguing from reality. The fact is that ANY law restricts your freedom. However, my argument is against those who ride on the philosophical statement and try to derive that they are "less" free to do things here in NJ compared to other states. Reality is that while you can stat rank all the states and put NJ at bottom, the difference between number 1 and number 49 is very thin indeed.
If the best we can come up with are restrictive gun laws and having to wear seatbelts, what exactly are we complaining about? The plain truth is that the vast majority of people don't even notice the restrictions these laws place on them.
...
The stronger correlation that actually applies to the United States is the one I pointed out earlier. The larger and more dense the population, the more laws and rules that are required. Look at the "freedom index" that started the thread, all of the low ranked states have the highest populations or areas of high density.
If you want to standby the assertion that the innocuous rules necessary to manage a densely populated area result in less freedom than so be it. However, I don't see these rules as eroding my personal freedom and interfering in my ability to live my life.
All states have laws restricting freedom to some extent, but as that study points out, NJ takes it to an extreme level:
"New Jersey is a highly regulated state all around, near the bottom in both personal and economic freedom, and it deteriorated further in 2007–2008. Taxes are high, and spending is about average. Spending on education is particularly high. Property taxes are among the highest in the country, and individual income taxes are also high. Gun control is extensive and worsening. Marijuana laws are subpar, although a medical-marijuana law was enacted in 2010. New Jersey has primary seatbelt enforcement, motorcycle- and bicycle-helmet laws, a cell-phone driving ban, an open-container law, sobriety checkpoints, and mandatory underinsured-motorist and personal-injury coverage for drivers. Fireworks are prohibited. Asset forfeiture is largely unreformed"
I regard the anti-gun laws as a serious and unnecessary restriction on my freedom. NJ has primary seatbelt enforcement, meaning you can be ticketed and fined just for not wearing a seatbelt. The extremely high taxes result in a considerable loss of freedom, and that's not just a local issue. Because of NJ court rulings, towns are forced to spend more than is necessary on education. And the huge amounts we must pay for the benefits of cops and teachers adds to it, as does the rampant corruption in NJ government. If you seek help for a mental illness like depression, you can be involuntarily committed to a hospital for a couple of weeks before a judge hears your case if you're considered a danger to yourself. And you have to pay the hospital bills, which are tens of thousands of dollars for that length of stay. That sounds incredible, but it's true--look up the law; it's happened to people I know. I don't see where all these restrictions and loss of individual freedom have any relation to population density. Most states do have laws of this type, but the point is that NJ takes them to the extreme.
And that's not arguing from just a philosophical standpoint, this affects us in reality.
All states have laws restricting freedom to some extent, but as that study points out, NJ takes it to an extreme level:
"New Jersey is a highly regulated state all around, near the bottom in both personal and economic freedom, and it deteriorated further in 2007–2008. Taxes are high, and spending is about average. Spending on education is particularly high. Property taxes are among the highest in the country, and individual income taxes are also high. Gun control is extensive and worsening. Marijuana laws are subpar, although a medical-marijuana law was enacted in 2010. New Jersey has primary seatbelt enforcement, motorcycle- and bicycle-helmet laws, a cell-phone driving ban, an open-container law, sobriety checkpoints, and mandatory underinsured-motorist and personal-injury coverage for drivers. Fireworks are prohibited. Asset forfeiture is largely unreformed"
I regard the anti-gun laws as a serious and unnecessary restriction on my freedom. NJ has primary seatbelt enforcement, meaning you can be ticketed and fined just for not wearing a seatbelt. The extremely high taxes result in a considerable loss of freedom, and that's not just a local issue. Because of NJ court rulings, towns are forced to spend more than is necessary on education. And the huge amounts we must pay for the benefits of cops and teachers adds to it, as does the rampant corruption in NJ government. If you seek help for a mental illness like depression, you can be involuntarily committed to a hospital for a couple of weeks before a judge hears your case if you're considered a danger to yourself. And you have to pay the hospital bills, which are tens of thousands of dollars for that length of stay. That sounds incredible, but it's true--look up the law; it's happened to people I know. I don't see where all these restrictions and loss of individual freedom have any relation to population density. Most states do have laws of this type, but the point is that NJ takes them to the extreme.
And that's not arguing from just a philosophical standpoint, this affects us in reality.
Again, look at what they suggest to make us freer and see how reasonable it is or whether you would actually support it here in NJ. Then compare the write up on the freest state NH to NJ and see what the actual differences are.
I draw a line between inefficient government and taxation and the limitation of personal freedom. NJ certainly has its issues, but I don't see the majority of issues that are being pointed out as significantly infringing on my personal freedoms compared to what I would experience in another state. I would also venture that some of the small sacrifices we make in terms of taxation and dealing with annoyance regulations is made up for by the positives of the state.
I suppose the point I am trying to make is that people represent the difference like this:
Best States............................................ NJ
When it is really like this:
Best States.NJ
This argument can go on and on and we obviously don't see eye-to-eye on what constitutes actual infringement of personal liberty.
As for freedom being tied to density, look at the map they provide, there is a strong correlation. Not to mention that the Mercatus Center itself is a Libertarian think tank, opposed to pretty much anything the government would do. Heck these are the people who argued against limiting arsenic in drinking water as it would restrict the freedom of companies to operate and argued against hours of operation limitations on truck drivers.
Number one is amusingly one of the few issues they take with number one NH as well. Basically the police shouldn't be allowed to seize the assets of criminals without more proof.
Number two, well they obviously understand NJ really well to suggest that. Drop all state school funding (would require changing the constitution) to cut income, property and cigarette taxes. However, they fail to realize the property taxes are local, not state based and if we cut all state funding to schools they would most certainly go up.
Number three sounds like a real winner too. Let's not license all of those professionals and ensure they are actually capable of performing the job and have the necessary skills and insurance.
A fairly large number. For example, I can get a ticket if I forget to buckle my car seat belt. Now I think it's a good idea to put your seat belt on and almost always do, but it's an infringement on my freedom if I'm forced to and can get fined if I don't. Another, I happen to do some target shooting. I had to pay about $100 to get a firearms ID; when I moved, I again had to pay $100 and go through the process since apparently it goes by city. Another, the city charged me $100 to get a "certificate of occupancy" when I sold my house. To get this, a guy just came over and checked that the smoke alarms were working. The town also charged the realtor $100 just for putting a "For Sale" sign on my property. Another, the city sent me a letter saying the grass was too long in my BACK yard, and I'd have to cut it or get fined. Another, I have to pay a huge property tax bill for services I don't even want or get. In the 3 or 4 times I was the victim of a crime, the police were no help at all, and in fact data show that only about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police have no effect on the crime rate. I could extend the list at some length, but the message is obvious.
the reason why you are forced to wear a seat belt is because we all share the cost of insurance. if i hit you in your car, and you become a vegetable because you didn't have your seatbelt on, you then get to sue the pants off of me. so you forgetting to buckle up is infringing on others' right to less expensive car insurance that we would have if there were less idiots driving on the roads.
the rest of your post is just dribble not even worth addressing.
Again, look at what they suggest to make us freer and see how reasonable it is or whether you would actually support it here in NJ. Then compare the write up on the freest state NH to NJ and see what the actual differences are.
I draw a line between inefficient government and taxation and the limitation of personal freedom. NJ certainly has its issues, but I don't see the majority of issues that are being pointed out as significantly infringing on my personal freedoms compared to what I would experience in another state. I would also venture that some of the small sacrifices we make in terms of taxation and dealing with annoyance regulations is made up for by the positives of the state.
I suppose the point I am trying to make is that people represent the difference like this:
Best States............................................ NJ
When it is really like this:
Best States.NJ
This argument can go on and on and we obviously don't see eye-to-eye on what constitutes actual infringement of personal liberty.
As for freedom being tied to density, look at the map they provide, there is a strong correlation. Not to mention that the Mercatus Center itself is a Libertarian think tank, opposed to pretty much anything the government would do. Heck these are the people who argued against limiting arsenic in drinking water as it would restrict the freedom of companies to operate and argued against hours of operation limitations on truck drivers.
You need to go to a state store to buy liquor in NH! Government controlling liquor......how come that's not in the study?
Really? I consider being stopped by the police for not wearing my seat belt to be a "down side". I consider the loss of freedom in the first place to be a "down side". You can claim otherwise, but then you're not refuting the idea that NJ has less freedom than elsewhere; you're just arguing against freedom.
Utilitarianism isn't everything.
Corruption and lack of liberty are well-correlated; the more things the state can do, the more opportunities for state actors to extract a cut in exchange for doing (or not doing) them.
there's nowhere in the country where i have the freedom to shoot you. that makes me very unhappy.
not everything is a "freedom". freedom to not wear a seat belt, resulting in higher mortality rates and higher insurance for your neighbors infringes on your neighbors' freedom. so the seatbelt law may infringe on your freedom to be a bafoon, but it's allowing others to enjoy more freedoms.
if you'd wave the right to collect a dime from insurance if you were in an accident and didn't have your seatbelt on, i'd be happy to get rid of the law.
If you pump your own you dont have to check the receipt
better take out a calculator and make sure the owner didn't rig the pump to add extra money to each gallon.
see...you can be cheated either way. i'm all for pumping my own....but not because i'm stupid enough to not look at the total i owe before i pay for something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
