A 50 state review conducted by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University concludes Wyoming is one of the least “free” states in the region. Entitled “Freedom in the 50 States” the report assessed each state’s “public policies that affect individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres.” New Hampshire is said to be the most free and New York the least. Regionally, Wyoming ranked 21st, less “free” than South Dakota (2), Idaho (4), Colorado (7) and Utah (20) but more free than Montana (29) and Nebraska (23).
The authors describe the criteria. “We explicitly ground our conception of freedom on an individual-rights framework. In our view, individuals should be allowed to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.”
The study offers a unique perspective on choices our legislature makes. A reader would walk away thinking Wyoming legislators are tax and spend liberals who have created a larger than necessary bureaucracy while making the state a safe place for insurance companies, liquor dealers, drunk drivers and home schoolers.
Wyoming would have received a higher ranking if, like New Hampshire, we had a same sex civil unions law. Wyoming was also marked down because of its mandate that employers contribute to the worker’s comp fund although the study calls Wyoming’s weak labor laws “market friendly.” I guess a state can’t protect working people and be considered “free” at the same time.
Our state scored higher than most because it has the lowest beer taxes in the nation, low cigarette taxes, weak smoke-free environment laws and no sobriety check-points. It appears public policies proven to reduce tobacco related illnesses, drunk driving and underage drinking infringe on the Mercatus Center’s views of freedom.
Laws assuring children are reasonably well educated when parents choose to home school are considered “paternalistic” by the Mercatus Center. Accordingly, the authors like the fact Wyoming has few meaningful standards for home schoolers but were unimpressed with our high rates of “victimless crimes arrests” and found our “drug law-enforcement rate is average.” They liked the fact Wyoming doesn’t do much to regulate the health insurance industry.
Robert Frost famously said, “If society fits you comfortably enough, you call it freedom.” Wyoming doesn’t quite fit comfortably enough with the Mercatus understanding of freedom. But is there a more objective standard? Yes. And it may be even more troubling for some whose political and social views arise from the ash heap of talk radio, FOX News and the talking points of their favorite politician.
One of my most memorable high school teachers was Nick Breitweiser. He taught 10th graders the meaning of freedom. I can still see him pulling out his hair as we described “freedom” as the right to vote and freedom of religion and speech. Mr. Breitweiser used Eric Fromm’s classic book Escape From Freedom in a doomed effort to teach us, "The freedom to express our thoughts ... means something only if we are able to have thoughts of our own.”
Mercatus defines freedom in terms of reduced regulation of health and safety, less taxation and public spending, and other standards that would make society more comfortable for them. Their study will make headlines which will themselves become talking points. But “freedom” is something far more important, far more difficult to understand and attain. The right to vote, speak, worship…what we often call “freedom” is meaningless where so few actually have their own thoughts.
Perspective is everything!
ReplyDeleteFreedom and Liberty are different. Be it a subtle difference, indeed so subtle that the two words are used interchangeably today; it was not that long ago that Americans knew and understood the distinct difference between the two.
“Freedom is the exemption from control by some other person, or from arbitrary restriction of specific defined rights like Worship, or Speech. Liberty is the sum of the rights possessed in common by the people of a community/state/nation as they apply to its government, and/or the expectation that a nation's people have of exemption from control by a foreign power.
Freedoms are things that people EXTRACT from their government; Liberty is less derivative, more formative; a thing GRANTED by the people to the people in common. The ability to Assemble, for instance, while commonly thought of as a freedom, is really an aspect of liberty.
Freedoms end when they encounter a contrary freedom of another person. You are free to smoke, until you encounter my freedom not to inhale your smoke. Liberty lacks that distinction: my liberty never contradicts or limits yours.
Conservatives traditionally support Liberty, but they may tend to be pliant about certain freedoms, aware as they are to the potentional dissonance.” Paul V. Hartman
Which perspective do you gravitate towards?
I am not sure I accept the "dissonance." The distinction is too subtle for me. I see the real dissonance to be in the refusal of many conservatives and liberals alike to link freedom or liberty with responsibility. Whether it's freedoms or liberties, rights such as the right to privacy the Supreme Court found in Roe v. Wade or the right to bear arms some find in the 2nd Amendment, should not be viewed or excercised in a free nation separate and apart from the countervailing responsibilities that accompany them. The fact that these and other rights are indeed insisted upon by those who do not also recognize they come with responsibilities is a threat to freedom and liberty.
ReplyDeleteWhat is subtle today was not so subtle in years gone by.
ReplyDeleteLiberty assumes that there is a system of rules to maintain order. This system of rules is to hold people accountable and/or responsible to an authority.
Freedom implies to be released from oppression, bondage or slavery. Freedom was always used in relation to those who were in bondage and often denied certain liberties enjoyed by those outside bondage.
The word freedom is found twice in Scripture while liberty is used 27 times in the King James Version.
The founders and framers of this great nation were well aware of how distinctly different these terms were. That is why they fought for liberty, a form of government of laws; a government of the people for the people. They understood that freedom followed to it’s logical end would put the people right back in to bondage. That is because the pursuit of freedom apart from liberty leads to anarchy. Those who peruse their brand of freedom ignore the liberties of others thus rendering law and authority impotent.
If we are to take responsibility and be held accountable we need to maintain the system handed to us by our forefathers which grants all citizens liberty within a system which establishes and maintains order.
Perspective is everything!
Marc
The "system handed to us by our forefathers" did not "grant all citizens liberty within a system which establishes and maintains order." To the extent that was achieved, if at all, it took decades of struggle by women, children, people of color, gays and lesbians, disabled persons, Native Americans and others. Our forefathers laid a framework for liberty but they did not expect it to produce the liberty we enjoy today which is yet incomplete.
ReplyDeleteYou have now shifted slightly from freedom to equality. Yet another subtle, but distinct difference when understood in the historical context of our great nation. Let me explain.
ReplyDeleteThe first slogan of the period leading up to our independence was; “Liberty, property and no stamps – referring to the stamp act. The first declarations, or resolves, of 1774 declared that the colonists were entitled to; “Life, Liberty and Property.” We know that phrase, after Thomas Jefferson re-wrote it to say; “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But when he said the pursuit of happiness everyone knew that he was referring to the ownership of property. He was referring to that essential element of preserving civil liberty.
Jefferson later said; “The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and in his property... In the American States every one, by his property, or by his satisfactory situation, is interested in the support of law and order."
What he is saying here is that if you have property then you are interested in law and order. You are interested in the prosperity of the nation. You’re interested in good policies, just and lawful things. Those who own property have a stake in society; they are concerned to maintain liberty. Therefore the order of society is something that is of great interest to them.
They would say and the cultural understanding was that Liberty was seen as dependent upon property not equality. The founders knew that liberty insured inequality. Property was the safeguard of liberty, or, as Stephen Hopkins had said in 1764, "they who have no property can have no freedom."
This is in stark opposition to the doctrine that drove the French Revolution, which seems to be working in to America today. Our founders and framers were wise enough and Biblical enough in their thinking to realize that liberty and equality were absolutely incompatible. They could not coexist. My concern is that not enough people understand this today. This is the reality, if there is going to be liberty there can not be equality because God has given different gifts to individuals, some may have the same gifts but to varying degrees. People are given different gifts and attributes, inequality is God ordained. We should be thankful for this and recognize the good derived from His design.
The only way to have equality is to destroy liberty. So if we have equality we can not have liberty. If you have liberty you will never have equality.
Again, our founders and framers understood this God ordained truth that there is simply no way that equality could coexist with liberty and they never desired equality in this country. Understand that they were addressing the civil realm as subordinate to the Gospel and grace of God.
The universal equality movement is one of the largest threats to our country. It is one of the instruments used to destroy our liberties and promote the advancement of socialism.
Universal equality ushers in a welfare mindset which undermines the importance of property ownership and personal responsibility which in turn compromises liberty as understood by the founders and framers of our nation.
Perspective is everything!
Marc
You have now shifted slightly from freedom to equality. Yet another subtle but distinct difference when understood in the historical context of our great nation. Let me explain.
ReplyDeleteThe first slogan of the period leading up to our independence was; “Liberty, property and no stamps" – referring to the stamp act. The first declarations, or resolves, of 1774 declared that the colonists were entitled to; “Life, Liberty and Property.” We know that phrase, after Thomas Jefferson re-wrote it to say; “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” But when he said the pursuit of happiness everyone knew that he was referring to the ownership of property. He was referring to that essential element of preserving civil liberty.
Jefferson later said; “The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and in his property... In the American States every one, by his property, or by his satisfactory situation, is interested in the support of law and order."
What he is saying here is that if you have property then you are interested in law and order. You are interested in the prosperity of the nation. You’re interested in good policies, just and lawful things. Those who own property have a stake in society; they are concerned to maintain liberty. Therefore the order of society is something that is of great interest to them.
They would say and the cultural understanding was that Liberty was seen as dependent upon property not equality. The founders knew that liberty insured inequality. Property was the safeguard of liberty, or, as Stephen Hopkins had said in 1764, "they who have no property can have no freedom."
This is in stark opposition to the doctrine that drove the French Revolution, which seems to be working in to America today. Our founders and framers were wise enough and Biblical enough in their thinking to realize that liberty and equality were absolutely incompatible. They could not coexist. My concern is that not enough people understand this today. This is the reality, if there is going to be liberty there can not be equality because God has given different gifts to individuals, some may have the same gifts but to varying degrees. People are given different gifts and attributes, inequality is God ordained. We should be thankful for this and recognize the good derived from His design.
The only way to have equality is to destroy liberty. So if we have equality we can not have liberty. If you have liberty you will never have equality.
Again, our founders and framers understood this God ordained truth that there is simply no way that equality could coexist with liberty and they never desired equality in this country. Understand that they were addressing the civil realm as subordinate to the Gospel and grace of God.
The universal equality movement is one of the largest threats to our country. It is one of the instruments being used to destroy our liberties and promote the advancement of socialism.
Universal equality ushers in a welfare mindset which undermines the importance of property ownership and personal responsibility which in turn compromises liberty as understood by the founders and framers of our nation.
Perspective is everything!
Marc