Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: More and other criteria to weigh states with  (Read 152703 times)

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #135 on: March 30, 2003, 01:30:22 pm »

You do it, exitus. I can't get excited about it
Just staring at all of that data,  I couldn't get too excited about it either, that's why I put it up here to discuss first.

Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish from good law and good intentions!!

In my idea of an ideal world, the government would not license marriage.  The only role government would ever have is in recognizing the rights of individuals and of families, and the greatest extent necessary for recognizing marriage would be through census activites.  To elaborate on these thoughts, it might be preferrable to go to the General Libertarian message board topic, I guess.

But since we are dealing with realities as they are, and all of the states license marriages, we should consider those factors in which the state seeks to control the right of individuals to marry and voluntarily form families.

As to cousin marriages, I understand the practice is actually more common than most ever realize, among widowed seniors that is.  But as to people of child-bearing age, no matter how much of it is a taboo and how much is just good breeding,  I think any animal breeder, botanist, geneticist, whoever; will confirm that plants, birds, bees, people, and what have you, will stand a better chance of hardiness and decrease odds of amplifying problems if you breed outside of close relations.  The fact that Vermont hopes that people will get it right without trying to impose speaks well, the fact that Maine accommodates the practice but gets people to take genetic counseling first at least says they are not entirely authoritarian on the matter.

As to Vermont's same-sex "civil unions" law, further reading on the subject reveals that it is not hardly any measure of libertarianism 'open-mindedness.  Instead of trying to reform property laws and such the Vermont legislature adopted civil unions at the urgence of leftist homosexual groups who actually wanted to implace same-sex marriages.  It is an example of where a bad law is reformed through more bad laws.  And as Zxcv points-out instead of correcting enequities in the law, it merely created new ones.  I would not weigh this one all that high, if at all at this point.

As to the seemingly trivial delays in obtaining a marriage license.  It seems silly, but just as we look at waiting periods on the purchase of guns and see potential problems, and as Martin Luther King stated, "A right delayed is a right denied" I think it is a strong factor in light of 'unintended consequences' of the law.  While there are good intentions on having people wait a bit, and there is good evidence that the intention of the law is not just due to administrative functions, but an intentional waiting period.  I can think of one example of where delays may be a problem: my own grandmother and grandfather, who were married for over 60 years before death.  My grandfather had already proposed to my grandmother months before at the time he got drafted into the Korean war.  He had three days of leave before he had to go fight in Korea, somehow they got married, had a honeymoon (conceived a child), flew across the country from Kansas and said farewell in less than 72 hours.  I think a lot of events in our family's history would have been dramatically different if some waiting period had been imposed there.

As to blood tests, I think that is not only an inconveniece but insulting and might even go against some people's religious beliefs.  It is a wonderful good intention to try to stop the spread of AIDS, but it is a bad law.  Along those same lines, when I get to Idaho, when and if I ever do, I am going to make that mandatory reading of that brochure a part of my mission to tackle bad laws.  I think blood tests should be weighed heavily.

Well, just some thoughts.  These decisions of scoring the relative level of freedom within the laws are difficult, to say the least, but if we are going to do it, better to do it out in the open like this where they can be openly debated and all considerations can be made.  I hope that all the people who are going to vote for which state know how much work and consideration has gone into all of this spreadsheet work.
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #136 on: March 31, 2003, 07:41:36 am »



None of our states, except Idaho, is a community property state.  I feel that Idaho should automaticly move to the bottom of the list because of this.  . . .

. . . community poperty status is the most important thing to consider when dealing with marriages. . . .
I'm not too familiar with all of this, I haven't yet seen the specifics of anything like this discussed.

I'm guessing that community property rights are where people can form a voluntary community and share collective title to their property instead of having individuals named on the title.  How ever in the world could something like this pick your pocket?

You mean supporting the rights of people like the geolibertarians, some Amish communities, certain bands of Hutterites, certain polygamous groups, the United Order sects, and so forth goes against principles of liberty?

Somebody help me out here, marriage has certain common property rights, supported in all 50 states except for Louisiana where wives are still considered chattel under the law.  Corporations, in effect are a form of organizing common property rights.  

What exactly is it that Idaho does wrong?


Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Zoos and Aquariums in the Candidate States
« Reply #137 on: March 31, 2003, 01:43:40 pm »

Zoos and Aquariums in the Candidate States

During the last election here in Fresno, California.  The voters voted on "Measure Z" for funding the zoos.  It was narrowly defeated, no sooner than it was defeated, the organizers started a new campaign for the next elections.  The zoo is an entity that seems not to know how to run at a profit.  Anybody who opposes the zoo gets accused of being anti- animals, anti-education, what have you.  For the Free State, how much better it would be to just not have one of these boondoggles to deal with!

AK- (2) Alaska Sea Life Center in Seward, Alaska Zooin Anchorage.  Both are owned by not-for-profit corporations that receive taxpayer money.  
The center in Seward receives money from the state through the University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program and federal money through grants from NOAA among others.  The Center in Anchorage has received various subsidies from the city and through federal pork spending http://hometown.aol.com/sundiii/myhomepage/newyork.html.
 

DE- (2) Seaside Nature Center major aquarium sponsored by Delaware State Parks, located inside of Henlopen State Park.  Brandywine Zoo sponsored by Delaware State Parks
12 other taxpayer- recreation sites where found nearby each of these.

 
ID- (1) Zoo Boise  Sponsored by the City of Boise, Parks and Recreation Department

ME  (1)  
--Maine Aquarium Maine Aquarium status unknown

Gulf of Maine Aquarium From the website: "At a time when most aquariums around the country have assumed a strong conservation stance, GMA's neutrality is unique and highly effective. . . "  :)
GMA aquarium receives grants from various federal agencies including NASA, NOAA, the State of Maine, among others.  It is owned by a non-profit organization.

NH (What with MA close by?)


ND- (0)

SD- (2) Bear Country U.S.A. Family owned and operated drive-through wildlife park in the Black Hills,
Reptile Gardens® Privately owned reptile zoo and tourist attraction

VT (0)

WY (0)
Score:

WY, VT, SD, NH, ND  all earn top score

  • ME Award the state some points for having a facility that is only sponsored by taxpayers per each research project instead of the whole facility, unless there can be found proof otherwise
  • ID should receive a low score for having a taxpayer-sponsored zoo, but sponsored only by the city of Boise
  • Alaska has two, one of which regularly receives federal pork money, the other funded by the state
  • DE gets zero for having entities funded by state taxes  
How I would rank them for a spreadsheet:
WY, VT, SD, NH, ND = 10
ME = 5
ID = 4
AK = 2
DE = 0
« Last Edit: March 31, 2003, 01:44:47 pm by exitus »
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #138 on: March 31, 2003, 03:09:35 pm »

...In my idea of an ideal world, the government would not license marriage.  The only role government would ever have is in recognizing the rights of individuals and of families, and the greatest extent necessary for recognizing marriage would be through census activites.  To elaborate on these thoughts, it might be preferrable to go to the ...
As to blood tests, I think that is not only an inconveniece but insulting and might even go against some people's religious beliefs.  It is a wonderful good intention to try to stop the spread of AIDS, but it is a bad law.  Along those same lines, when I get to Idaho, when and if I ever do, I am going to make that mandatory reading of that brochure a part of my mission to tackle bad laws.  I think blood tests should be weighed heavily.

Well, just some thoughts.  These decisions of scoring the relative level of freedom within the laws are difficult, to say the least, but if we are going to do it, better to do it out in the open like this where they can be openly debated and all considerations can be made.  I hope that all the people who are going to vote for which state know how much work and consideration has gone into all of this spreadsheet work.


Exitus, before you add up all of the numbers and giving them to Paul, please think about one more issue relating to marriage.  Most state are not community property states.  However, a few states, including Idaho, are community property states.  This is the most important factor to look at when researching marriage laws.  I think this is even more important than state requiring blood tests or pre-marital therapy.  Community property is a very bad thing, very bad.  I feel that Idaho should move to the buttom of the list, as far as marriage, because of this issue.

For more information see:
http://family-law.freeadvice.com/divorce_law/1community_property.htm
and
http://www.itslegal.com/infonet/family/community.html
Logged

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #139 on: March 31, 2003, 04:20:55 pm »

. . .Most state are not community property states.  However, a few states, including Idaho, are community property states.  This is the most important factor to look at when researching marriage laws. . . .
No,
this is an important factor when considering divorce laws, not marriage laws.  If you have property you do not want to be a part of the conjugal relationship, you simply enter into a pre-nuptial agreement beforehand.  But in marriage, all states recognize the existance of common property in marriage, all except for a few of the old wives=chattel ideas found in the old French system in Louisiana, so this should not make a difference.  The advice given on that link provided, FreedomRoad, said the following,
"However, in most states a judge may modify this "50/50" approach and divide the property unequally after taking into consideration all of the circumstances, including the ability of each spouse to earn future income.  Because judges in common law states usually divide property fairly between divorcing spouses, the differences between community property states and common law states are no longer as great as they were in the past. "
Due to the special nature of marriage as an intended covenant contract for life, I have little sympathy for people who decide to break that contract and want the state to restore all their property for them, or who enter marriage on a trial basis, holding property they might regret conjoining, who did not enter into a pre-nup.

But fine, if you want to research divorce laws be my guest.  I'll just keep finding more info on some other subjects . .
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #140 on: April 01, 2003, 12:23:38 am »

exitus, with that aquarium stuff, is the information out there so you can fold tax-funded football/baseball/whateverball stadiums into it? I rip my hair out when I hear for-profit sports teams going to the taxpayers for their stadiums.  >:(
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #141 on: April 01, 2003, 01:24:51 am »

exitus, with that aquarium stuff, is the information out there so you can fold tax-funded football/baseball/whateverball stadiums into it? I rip my hair out when I hear for-profit sports teams going to the taxpayers for their stadiums.  >:(

I do not know about any of the other states but Casper, WY has a pro football team.
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #142 on: April 01, 2003, 07:58:35 pm »

I wish you wouldn't do this, Joe. I find the disjointed discussions caused by moved/deleted posts more trouble than working through the original long thread.

All that should be moved or deleted are off-topic or silly comments. Even that is not worth it because it still causes a disjointed look to things.

Another problem is that the spreadsheets reference the thread discussions. If you pull out the relevant data, then those spreadsheet references are broken.  :(

Go have a beer, relax, and read a good book, Joe. These are better uses of your time.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #143 on: April 01, 2003, 10:36:44 pm »

Below is a duplicate of the first post of this thread.

I started this thread to be a catch-all for criteria which may not warrant an entire thread or which may not intuitively go under another topic.
....................
If anyone has a better idea on how to organize the wealth of information on this forum, please suggest it to the FSP leaders and moderators of this forum.
Joe, please do not do that.  This forum is only read by part of the FSP members and most of them rarely post to (and maybe read) this forum.  I feel that this forum is very useful as a reference point and research tool.  I have refered to the forum, and so have other peoples, in some of the things I have written.
Logged

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #144 on: April 02, 2003, 09:48:34 am »

Get more of this stuff that is buried in these forum threads
up on the web pages.
Quote
Thus I'm back to the questions of:
How do we find this stuff, even if we know it is in here somewhere?
How do we know it is in here?

To organize and locate everything is our first obstacle.

How about we create a thread called data only, where posts can only have various rankings of the states or concise data for comparisons with links to where the factual data can be obtained in threads or out on the net,  and have it well moderated; any poster who tries to comment on it will receive a polite private message to move it elsewhere.  Once the data accumulated becomes impressive in its size, we get the whole thing up on the state data main page?

Then we could have a thread entitled "Comments on the 'data only' thread" for all of those necessary comments and questions the 'data only ' thread brings about.
 
Quote
Given that, then perhaps the ability to load an entire thread would facilitate a text search.
We actually DO have that option - yes!! --it's so nice:
notice that little button that's over on my upper-left side of the page, it says, "Print"  I can load this thread clear back to August and it cuts-out most quotes and extraneous member data all in a boring black-and-white format!

« Last Edit: April 02, 2003, 09:55:01 am by exitus »
Logged
". . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue” -- U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Kelton Baker

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Freedom is Free, it's tyranny that costs us dearly
    • Kelton Baker
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #145 on: April 09, 2003, 01:50:17 am »

http://www.onlinedemocracy.com/vote/statesno.cfm

"The following states do not accept the Federal Voter Registration form: Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Wyoming. Please contact your local voter registration office."


3092
« Last Edit: April 09, 2003, 11:36:36 am by Quest.on »
Logged
Give me some men who are stout-hearted men Who will fight for the right they adore. Start me with ten, who are stout-hearted men And I'll soon give you ten thousand more...--O. Hammerstein

Kelton Baker

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Freedom is Free, it's tyranny that costs us dearly
    • Kelton Baker
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #146 on: April 16, 2003, 01:39:14 pm »

"Clean Elections"
(Leftist-speak for tax-payer funded election campaigns)
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/wnt000709_maine_politics_feature.html

Maine = Full funding All state offices, was approved through ballot inititive
Vermont = Governorship Only (full funding), Strict spending limits, all races, was approved by legislature

New Hampshire = Had a bill go before the legislature in 2000, issue was killed


Any other states besides Vermont and Maine?  (this was all that I could find, searching each state as I can't seem to find this info gathered anyhwere in a central location).
3126
Logged
Give me some men who are stout-hearted men Who will fight for the right they adore. Start me with ten, who are stout-hearted men And I'll soon give you ten thousand more...--O. Hammerstein

Kelton Baker

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Freedom is Free, it's tyranny that costs us dearly
    • Kelton Baker
FYI: Healthiest Cities
« Reply #147 on: April 16, 2003, 04:04:15 pm »

Men's Health ranked 101 cities across the country based on 20 statistical parameters of long life in the categories of health, environment and fitness (such things as heart disease and prostate cancer rates, body-mass index, motor vehicle accidents, percentage who exercise, number of physicians per person, and air quality). The category results were weighted, totaled, and averaged for a final ranking. Statistical sources included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database; CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System date compiled and calculated by BestPlaces.net; the U.S. Census Bureau; Health and Healthcare in the United States, County and Metro Area Data, Second Edition, 2000, published by NationsHealth Corporation; and the American Lung Association's State of the Air: 2002.


Anchorage, AK --The only city among our candidate states to make the list came in at #18 most healthy city.  It also has another distinguishing feature as having the lowest impotence in the country.
   
The fair city of Boston came in at #9 over-all near to our New Hampshire.  Boston ranked #1 in the country for skinniest city.

The two Colorado cities of Denver and Colorado Springs, which are situated right south of Cheyenne, WY came in at #6 and #7.

#16 Spokane, WA is situated near the panhandle of Idaho.

On the low-end of the scale,  let's just say that we hope that cities inside Delaware are much better off than the cities approximate to Delaware like Baltimore and Washington D.C.

3137
Logged
Give me some men who are stout-hearted men Who will fight for the right they adore. Start me with ten, who are stout-hearted men And I'll soon give you ten thousand more...--O. Hammerstein

stpeter

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
  • If you want justice, work for freedom.
    • stpeter
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #148 on: April 30, 2003, 08:24:55 pm »

Eminent Domain.

The Institute for Justice has published a report on eminent domain abuses among the several states. At first blush it looks like most or all of the candidate states come out looking good on this measure compared to the other 40 states. Details here:

http://www.ij.org/publications/castle/
Logged

Kelton Baker

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 757
  • Freedom is Free, it's tyranny that costs us dearly
    • Kelton Baker
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #149 on: May 01, 2003, 11:00:39 am »

Zxcv found this quote that would support that ID,MT,SD,WY are the best states in this category for lack of even potential to do so, with AK,DE, and NH having no record of participating in this type of abuse,
meaning that among our candidate states, only VT, ME, and ND leave us with much concern on the issue of eminent domain .  

Further in, there was this comment:

From a legal standpoint, New York, Missouri and Kansas are the worst states to live in for owners who hope to avoid condemnation for private parties, while Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming appear to be the best. Those states, as well as Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. have no reported uses of eminent domain for private parties.

At least, 7 of our candidates have no problems.

I don't know how to quantify this information for the spreadsheet. If anyone wants to take a whack at it, be my guest. It would be nice to have this in the big spreadsheet somehow.

3173
Logged
Give me some men who are stout-hearted men Who will fight for the right they adore. Start me with ten, who are stout-hearted men And I'll soon give you ten thousand more...--O. Hammerstein
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 ... 15   Go Up