Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 ... 15   Go Down

Author Topic: More and other criteria to weigh states with  (Read 148928 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 #120 on: March 23, 2003, 07:47:14 pm »

Vepope, I know what it is that you are referring to, however, having taken all the classes necessary for a chemistry minor except P-chem at the university level, I assure you that pure Oxygen will never flow out of an combustion engine that uses air at its intake.  
But more to your point, yes, it is ubsurd, the level of regulation in this country that stifles and destroys innovation and progress, the very stuff that gives us any hope of building a better world in the first place, an most of the most serious regulation comes at the hands of federal agencies.

I once spoke with an engineer who explained that one of the pipes in emmissions systems is simply there to dilute the concentration of exhaust so it registers better, but actually harms the net efficiency of the car.  And also that the computers in cars are set to operate at a compromise between customer expectations and efficiency.  

Oh, and by the way vepope, welcome!
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 #121 on: March 26, 2003, 11:48:15 am »

Robert tipped me off to Tim Condon's new paper,
http://www.freestateproject.org/wyoming_20feb03.htm
in which Tim cited the RLC Liberty index.
http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/index.htm

Of course the RLC never mentions David Nolan, they just swiped his idea with their "libergraph".

I looked at the rollcall votes for last year, it looks like a good libertarian index although some of the votes are hard to understand, and I had one question about a vote to fund 5 school-choice demonstration projects to the tune of $50 million - the position of the compiler of this index was in favor of this program. I have a problem with this for two reasons: not in the Constitution, and "school choice" includes such state education programs as charter schools. However most libertarian think tanks favor "school choice" as well, so the compiler is in the "think-tank mainstream" on this one (and they are all wrong if you ask me).

But generally the index appears to be a pretty reliable one, for us.

I had a problem with how to rate our states. First, how do you weigh senate vs house positions? Some of our states have two reps, some one. The states with two thus do not have everyone in the state voting for them. However I just averaged senate and house seats as if they were equivalent. The other issue is, do we want a most recent snapshot, or the whole 10 years of data he has? I opted to go the whole 10 year route, thus taking in more elected officials (some who are no longer there) and more roll call votes. This gives us more data points. The downside of course is that it may ignore recent trends, but oh, well! I have the little spreadsheet where I put this together if anyone wants to check my work.

Here are the ratings of Congresspersons elected in these states over the last 10 years, based on personal freedom. Higher numbers are better:

WY 67.4
ID 65.6
AK 64.0
NH 61.7
MT 57.0
SD 47.8
ME 47.5
VT 42.0
DE 39.3
ND 36.3

Here are the economic freedom ratings.

WY 79.2
NH 74.7
ID 72.3
AK 67.0
MT 52.4
DE 51.5
SD 50.0
ME 45.4
VT 32.7
ND 27.0

Here are both ratings combined, for a freedom rating:

WY 73.3
ID 68.9
NH 68.2
AK 65.5
MT 54.7
SD 48.9
ME 46.4
DE 45.4
VT 37.3
ND 31.6

Interesting how this confirms, via a completely different route, the earlier spreadsheet analysis (using indicators like seatbelt laws and gun laws) that WY, ID and NH are our 3 most free states. And big surprise, ME is not last place this time.  ::)  Can someone tell me how ND does such a good job of electing such a collection of authoritarian jerks? What's wrong with them, anyway?

I'm getting very confident we have a good picture of the culture of freedom in our states, lately.

I will add this rating to the big spreadsheet. Not sure whether I should break it out into two rows (economic and personal freedom) or just used the combined measure. Probably go the latter route...
« Last Edit: March 26, 2003, 12:03:07 pm by Zxcv »
Logged

craft_6

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 400
  • Constitutional Libertarian
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #122 on: March 26, 2003, 02:04:16 pm »

Here are both ratings combined, for a freedom rating:

WY 73.3
ID 68.9
NH 68.2
AK 65.5
MT 54.7
SD 48.9
ME 46.4
DE 45.4
VT 37.3
ND 31.6

Interesting how this confirms, via a completely different route, the earlier spreadsheet analysis (using indicators like seatbelt laws and gun laws) that WY, ID and NH are our 3 most free states. And big surprise, ME is not last place this time.  Can someone tell me how ND does such a good job of electing such a collection of authoritarian jerks? What's wrong with them, anyway?

I'm getting very confident we have a good picture of the culture of freedom in our states, lately.

I think your index confirms what I've been thinking, based on various analyses here, and past personal experience.  I put a lot of confidence in your numbers, because the government people end up with is a reflection (albeit not a perfect one) of what the citizens want.  

I have considered Vermont as one of the top candidates, based on the ability to trade power between the left and the right, but perhaps it is simply too statist.

As for North Dakota, it must be a cultural phenomenon, with the same community-minded Scandivanian population as socialist Minnesota (just an observation, not a knock -- I'm a native Minnesotan with some Scandivanian ancestors myself.)

I wouldn't mind seeing all 5 states with ratings below 50 dropped from consideration.  Montana could also be dropped, since it has the disadvantages of Idaho and Wyoming, without the advantages of either.  Anyone else up for it?  We would still have a choice of the following:

Wyoming:  low population, pro-liberty culture
Idaho:  stronger economy, pro-liberty culuture
New Hampshire:  the Idaho of the East?
Alaska:  low population, geographical and political advantages of isolation

This should cover the low population/abundant jobs debate, the East-West debate, and the Alaska/lower 48 debate.



Logged
Lighting the fires of Liberty, one heart at a time!
http://www.badnarik.org
Badnarik for President, 2004

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 #123 on: March 26, 2003, 02:14:20 pm »

. . .
Here are the ratings of Congresspersons elected in these states over the last 10 years, based on personal freedom. Higher numbers are better:

WY 67.4
ID 65.6
AK 64.0
NH 61.7
MT 57.0
SD 47.8
ME 47.5
VT 42.0
DE 39.3
ND 36.3

Here are the economic freedom ratings.

WY 79.2
NH 74.7
ID 72.3
AK 67.0
MT 52.4
DE 51.5
SD 50.0
ME 45.4
VT 32.7
ND 27.0

Here are both ratings combined, for a freedom rating:

WY 73.3
ID 68.9
NH 68.2
AK 65.5
MT 54.7
SD 48.9
ME 46.4
DE 45.4
VT 37.3
ND 31.6


Here is a snapshot of how each state's congressperson(s) voted on key Constitutional votes last fall:
 

According to FAIR (affiliated with the famously outspoken paleoconservative group, John Birch Society)
http://www.trimonline.org/bulletin/select_state.htm

Here they are, as I broke them down according to congressional district:
ME01 . . .  5 out of 8 votes pro- constitution.
ME02 . . .  5 / 8"                                         ".
ND(1). . .  5 / 8
DE01 . . .  4 / 8
ID01. . .  4 /8
ID02 . . .  2 / 8    
AK(1) . .   3 / 8
WY(1) . .   3 / 8
MT01 . . .  3 / 8
SD(1) . . .  3 / 8
VT(1) . . .   3 / 8
NH01 . . .  2 / 8
NH02 . . .  2 / 8

Interesting to note that Bernie Sanders, the socialist sided with the constitution more than some Republicans who claim to uphold the constitution in this last round.  
Also, none of our 10 states had any of the star pro-constitution voters and our discarded Hawaii and Rhode Island fared better than most here.  But it also points out how subjective this can be on just one set of votes.
10 years of votes sure tells us a lot more about people elected into office than just one round, doesn't it?  Wow Zxcv, good find, thanks!

Here's a map of State US Senate Party Affiliation to see which of your favorite 'lesser-of-two-evil' parties is in power to compare with the above findings (hint: it's hard to find a correlation, but Republicans have the upper-  :
http://www.atr.org/maps/11.html

Of course the RLC never mentions David Nolan, they just swiped his idea with their "libergraph".
I much prefer a model that does away with all of this left- right, personal freedom vs. economic freedom distinction  and their underlying political party just looks at liberty as an indivisible condition, that's why I like one I found in my book by W. Cleon Skousen (related to Joel Skousen, who wrote Strategic Relocation), the book is called The Five Thousand Year Leap , published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, Wash. D.C., 1981 (out of print) It describes the spectrum on a linear line from 100% rule being tyranny to 0% rule being anarchy, with the ideal being a 'people's rule' right in the center, consisting of a self-governing people who balance tyrrany with lawlessness.  He describes how when there is anarchy, people will eventually form government, and when there is tyrrany, people will eventually overthrow it, but movement from that center comes about as people either collectively stop governing themselves and give power to leaders, or collectively stop governing themselves and give power to the lowest common denominator.
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 #124 on: March 26, 2003, 07:09:32 pm »

To be honest, I'm a little nervous about this index. The Republican Liberty Caucus is after all, a Republican Liberty Caucus.

Say for example, you were a person of great influence in the Republican Party. Your party has borrowed the pro-freedom rhetoric from the Libertarians, but don't actually do much with it. Say you wanted to reinforce that pro-liberty image.

Wouldn't you form something like an RLC? And wouldn't you create an index like this, and let's be perfectly cynical - looking where people most care about liberty in the country, then cherry-picking the roll call votes for the index to make the R's in those places look good?

But this index did make Dick Armey look pretty awful, so maybe that's not it. And after all, a Democratic Liberty Caucus does not even exist, does it?

Still, I know games can be played by choosing the appropriate roll-call votes. Nothing in the world of politics is ever what it seems...
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 #125 on: March 26, 2003, 10:23:27 pm »



Still, I know games can be played by choosing the appropriate roll-call votes. Nothing in the world of politics is ever what it seems...

In that report from the paleoconservative TRIM group, it represents, in my opinion, those measures that any solid libertarian would support (or reject however the case may be), but surprisingly, not even Ron Paul, a Republican famous for his libertarianism got the highest marks, he scored fourth or fifth place I seem to recall.  So, nothing in the world of politics is ever what it seems. . .

And will it ever be what it seems when we start putting politicians into office in our annointed state?  Will they do those things that we support, how much confidence should we put in them?  Will they be reduced to doing back-room deals that counter stated principles to get their favorite bill onto the floor?  How much support will they receive when they fail some idealogical purity test?  Will they ever get into office?  What if someone makes a statement on the way to assured victory before an election that clashes with too many supporters and their support dwindles and they crash-and-burn and the statist rides to victory instead. . .

What it comes down to is we can't put too much trust in politicians.  I've given-up on putting too much confidence in politicians and political systems and look to educating the populace as that which will bring about a return towards liberty.  

But I would say that the Republican Liberty Caucus is the best thing going 'within' the Republican party in my estimation, its low number of membership is quite telling, but its place in educating leaders and voters on the issues is where it is making strides.  

It is a difficult task by any means to find trustworthy measures of liberty in supporting any bill in Congress today.  The 'purest' and most resolute libertarian would most likely be rejecting each and every bill that ever came onto the floor because of their many ammendments and hideous surprises that all get glommed together. . . making sausages as they always say. . .  

Just the fact that these findings support WY, ID, NH, AK as being most libertarian, independant of our own methods of finding out the same is good enough for me.
 
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

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #126 on: March 27, 2003, 02:12:06 am »

He describes how when there is anarchy, people will eventually form government, and when there is tyrrany, people will eventually overthrow it, but movement from that center comes about as people either collectively stop governing themselves and give power to leaders, or collectively stop governing themselves and give power to the lowest common denominator.

It's interesting to see that political harmony has much in common with natural processes when you consider that both seem to function at their ideal state when no one particular force can dominate; but, rather, when all forces are held in balance against one another.  In nature, it's called "equillibrium."  In politics, we might as well call it "law."

...when the law is used in proper context that is: to protect, not to exploit.

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #127 on: March 27, 2003, 07:03:14 pm »

I just noticed that this RLC stuff was already noticed back in this thread:
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=333

Oh, well. It seems there have been an awful lot of indicators looked at and forgotten even in the year-and-a-half of FSP's existence. At least now this one has a place on the big spreadsheet, so it won't be forgotten. I just have to get to work on some of the others, there are so many...
Logged

exitus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 180
  • To face freedom, turn 180º from tyranny.
    • Mercados libres y paz: El Cato Institute
Marriage laws
« Reply #128 on: March 28, 2003, 03:52:09 pm »

Marriage Laws in the States


AK

Documents, proof of Identification: Picture ID such as a driver's license. If application is mailed or faxed in, it must be witnessed by a Notary Public.
SS# No
Residency Requirement: No
Waiting Period: 3 days.
Fees: $25
Blood Tests: No
Under 18: through parental consent
Valid: for 90 days

DE

Documents, proof of Identification: Valid Driver's License or Birth Certificate
SS# requested: Yes
Application requirement: Both in person
Residency Requirement: No
Waiting Period: 1 day; or 4 days if both spouses are non-residents
Fees: $35
Blood tests: No
Under 18: No
Valid: 30 days


ID

ID Requirement: Valid Driver's License and Birth Certificate.
SS# No
Residency Requirement: No.
Application Requirement: in person  
Waiting Period: No waiting period.
Fees: $28
Blood Tests: No
Except:
• Idaho Code 32-412A requires both parties to read and sign a premarital AIDS educational pamphlet.
Under 18: Applicant under 16 years of age needs the following: A court order
16 through 17: through Parental consent
Common Law Marriages: No.
Cousin Marriages: No.
Officiants: within 30 days after the marriage.
Valid: There is no expiration on the license. It is good forever, as long as the same two parties listed use it in Idaho.


ME
 
Documents, proof of Identification: Picture ID, Birth Certificate, vital stats and geneological info
SS#: Yes
Fee: $20
Blood Test: No
Cousin Marriage: First cousins can marry with a physician's certificate of genetic counseling
Waiting Period: 3 business days (can be waived by a judge)
Application Requirement: In person
Under 18: through parental consent.
Under 16: parental consent and the written consent of a judge.
Expiration: 90 days
Residency Requirement:
• If both are residents of the state of Maine, then each registers in their town of residence.
• If one is from out of state, then they both register in the town where one holds residency.
• If neither one is a resident of the state of Maine, then both must register in the town where the ceremony is to take place.
Fees: $20
Valid: for 90 days

MT
 
Documents, proof of Identification: Picture id and certified copy of birth certificate.
SS#: No
Residency Requirement: No
Waiting Period: No waiting period unless under the age of 18.
Fees: $30.25
Blood Tests: Yes, the bride is required to take a blood test for rubella.

Under 18: If 16 or 17 years old, must obtain consent of both parents unless only one parent has legal custody. Both must attend at least two counseling sessions that are at least 10 days apart. This has to be done with a designated counselor who will then have to provide a letter that states the names of the couple, their ages, the dates of the counseling sessions, and what the counselor thinks about their possible marriage. Then judicial consent signed by a district court judge must be given for the Clerk of court's office to issue a marriage license.

• No one 15 years of age or younger may marry in Montana.

Valid: for 180 days

NH

Documents, proof of Identification: Picture ID
SS#: Yes
Fee: $45
Blood Test: No blood test
Cousin Marriage: No
Waiting Period: 3 days (can be waived by a judge)
Application Requirement: In person
Under 18:  A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver.
A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions.  "good and special cause" may allow for waiver of requirements.
 When either of the applicants is not yet 18 years of age but meets the minimum age requirements  whether a resident or marrying a resident of this state, when joined in the request by their parents or guardian, he/she may request and obtain permission to marry by applying to a justice of the superior court or to the judge of probate where one of the parties resides within N.H.
Residency: If non-residents, must be filed with same city or town as marriage. If both parties under 18 and non-residents, cannot marry.
Expiration: 90 days.

ND

Documents, proof of Identification: Picture ID
SS requested #: No
Fee: $35
Blood Test: No
Cousin Marriage:
Waiting Period: No
Application Requirement: In person
Under 18: If a person is between sixteen and eighteen years of age, a marriage license may not be issued without the consent of the parents or guardian. This requires a notarized statement. (This form available at the office that issues Marriage License).  
Under 16: No
Expiration: 60 days
Residency: no



SD

Documents, proof of Identification: Drivers License or a certified copy of a Birth Certificate.
SS#: No
Fee: $40
Blood Test: None
Cousin Marriage: No
Waiting Period: none
Application Requirement: Both parties in person at county office
Under 18: Applicants 16 and 17 must have parental consent. South Dakota law does not permit marriage of those under 16.
Expiration: 20 days
Residency: No


 

VT

Documents, proof of Identification: Picture id and Birth Certificate, know vital statistical and geneological info
SS#: No
Fee: $20
Blood Test: None
Waiting Period: none
Application Requirement: In person at location of residency
Age requirement: At least 16, minors must get consent of parent or guardian
Expiration: 60 days
Residency: Some limitations: Must get license in same county where marriage takes place and provide birth certificate if not resident, must also prove that you are not evading laws of resident state
Cousin Marriage: Yes.
Same Sex Marriage: No. Vermont registers and recognizes civil unions.


WY

Documents, proof of Identification: Drivers license, Birth Certificate, geneological info
SS#: No
Fee: $25
Blood Test: No
Cousin Marriage: No
Waiting Period: No
Application Requirement: bride & groom & personally known witness apply in person.
Age requirement: 18 years old or 17 with parental consent or 16 with court order
Expiration: none
Residency: None

___________
None of our states recognize the initiation of common-law marriages.

No state allows same-sex marriage but Vermont does have a registration for civil unions.

No info is presented here on requirements of who may perform marriages, as differences are almost indistinguishable, --all except for Montana which noticeably has the least restrictions on who may marry.

Montana also apparently allows proxy marriages, or in other words, you can have someone else say your vows for you if you can't make it on your wedding day!   ::)

So, if we are going to assign points to all of the above, Some consideration ought to be given to MT and VT for these.

VT and ME allow cousin marriages

For id requirements, AK, ND, and NH are the least restrictive while WY may be the most restrictive, followed by Maine.  All of the other states fall somewhere in between.

For requsting/requiring a SS# to get married: DE, ME, NH require them, but unknown whether a license may be denied for not providing one.

For blood tests: MT is only that requires one.  ID requires reading an AIDS brochure.

For residency requirements: The Northeastern states of ME,NH,VT have limited restrictions and DE requires 3 extra days to process out-of-state applications.

For waiting periods: ME and NH have 3 day-long waiting periods, waivable by a judge (NH recommends applying 3 weeks in advance),DE=1, AK=3 days, all other states have no waiting periods.

For fees: ME=$20, VT=$20, AK=$25, WY=$25, ID=$28, MT=$30.25, DE=$35, ND=$35, SD=$40, NH=$45

For application requirements, AK is least restrictive followed by all the other states and WY requirement for a witness makes it the most restrictive.
 
For age requirements, NH allows most leeway for minors while DE allows only 18+ to be married. Not enough info to analyze other states to make an accurate comparison , though much info is posted above.

Much of this info came from the state websites and http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml

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

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Marriage laws
« Reply #129 on: March 29, 2003, 01:10:54 am »

• Idaho Code 32-412A requires both parties to read and sign a premarital AIDS educational pamphlet.

That's the sort of blatant nannyish behavior that really gets under my skin.   ::)

In a similar example, a few years ago, Florida was considering a measure that would have required expectant parents (maybe only first-timer's, I'm not certain) to take a state-approved child-rearing class.  This was in response to increasing cases of child abuse.

I never heard what came of this, and I suppose that's a good thing because it probably means that it died a quick death.

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 #130 on: March 29, 2003, 02:03:03 am »

Reading a pamphlet is one thing, but taking a blood test in MT, now that is something that will literally get under your skin -ouch!

I can see how there must have been some political pressure in Idaho to pass a blood-test law at one time and the legislators responded, in part, by crafting a brochure for the betrothed to assuage fears about AIDS and avoid the outrage that would have occurred in Idaho with the passage of something so outlandish as a blood test. But at any rate, it is nannyish and kind-of subtracts from all the good feelings about all else where Idaho shines concerning marriage laws.
_______________________________________________
One other thing I forgot to account for the expiration period of licenses:  (After all, you'd hate to go through all that bother of getting a license, and if you should postpone your wedding date, have to go and apply for another).

Idaho, Wyoming = No expiration, good for the life of the intended.
MT = 180 days
AK,NH ME = 90 days
ND, VT = 60 days
SD = 20 days
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 #131 on: March 29, 2003, 03:12:16 am »

In summary,
Each criteria discussed above, in trying to establish some numerical value for each:

  • VT gets a top ranking for allowing adult cousins to marry, while ME gets something close to that for the same, but more restricted.
  • VT alone receives highest score for recognizing that same-sex couple desire legal recognition.
  • MT gets a zero for blood test, ID is punished but not entirely pummeled for requiring adults to read an 'AIDS awareness' brochure All other states take highest score.
  • DE, ME, NH should all get zeroes for demanding a social security # to get married with.
  • MT alone should receive one high score for having limited requirements about who may perform the marriage.
  • expiration of license (see above)
  • MT should also receive one high score for being the only state to allow proxy marriages
  • Maine and Vermont get the best score for lowest application fee ($20) >AK,WY ($25) >ID ($28) >MT ($30.25) >DE, ND ($35) > SD ($40) > NH ($45)
  • For waiting periods: AK=3 days(zero) < ME and NH have 3 day-long waiting periods, waivable by a judge (NH recommends applying 3 weeks in advance) < DE=1 < all other states have no waiting periods (highest score).
  • For residency requirements: ME,NH,VT have limited restrictions and DE requires 3 extra days to process out-of-state applications. All other states receive top score, DE lesser, ME,NH,VT = 0.
  • For application hassle: AK gets top, WY gets 0
  • AK, ND, and NH get top points for requiring the least hassle in documents to present when applying, ME gets next-best score and WY receives last place for saying it is required --Note: I could not verify that these states, in practice are any different in this area, as they all require a form, some states may simply be doing more to make aware-- This gets a very low weighting.
  • Marriage for minors, this is highly controversial, yet all states do explicitly require parental consent, which everyone should agree here should be the parent's right, in which case,  NH gets top score, Delaware gets lowest score, all other states are similar.

Anybody want to try make this fit into the spreadsheet?
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 #132 on: March 29, 2003, 10:25:55 am »

You do it, exitus. I can't get excited about it (but I'll put in what you figure out). To me, people getting married are probably more concerned about whether or not they want to spend their life with this other person, than with any piddling one-time state requirement!   :P

I don't agree with a couple of your items:
Quote
VT gets a top ranking for allowing adult cousins to marry, while ME gets something close to that for the same, but more restricted.

VT alone receives highest score for recognizing that same-sex couple desire legal recognition.
I'm very nervous about the cousin marriage. That's a law that mirrors a pretty strong taboo, which we have for a good reason (I think). Maybe I'm outside the libertarian mainstream on this one, but I can't see down-rating a state that has this prohibition. Maybe better to just take it off your list.

And the deal with same-sex marriages, that is probably a bad idea too. The answer is not to give them equal recognition, but to get the states out of the marriage recognition business. Going down this path just raises hell with a lot of folks, and gets states involved in religious issues, too.

BTW, I went ahead and added all the state health care mandates you found on the Kaiser site earlier in this thread. There are a lot of them!   >:(  I did not weigh any of them, but just added them together as if they were equal weight (really they are not, but who knows how to figure the relative burden?) Here is what I got (lower numbers are better):

ID 4
ND 6
SD, WY 7
AK 9
VT 11
NH, MT 13
DE 15
ME 17

This is a heavy, unfunded mandate to place on insurance companies and health care providers, and so is passed on to their clients, and is from the "money (or health care) grows on trees" school of thought. Also very in line with fascism, it would seem. I would weigh it rather heavily. I have put this row in the big spreadsheet, along with the calculation for it.
Logged

vepope

  • Guest
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #133 on: March 29, 2003, 10:57:31 am »

As far as the whole "cousin marriage" thing is concerned, there is a school of thought dating back quite a ways which says that inbreeding is genetically bad, resulting in birth defects or mental deficiencies.  It would seem that the taboo dates back to Noah in the Bible (if you read the account of his daughter's actions after the destruction of Soddom and Gamorah).

However, I read a published article several years ago (and wish that I'd kept it, as I don't even remember where it was) which related the results of an exhaustive search through many different nation's birth records, interviews with parents to determine relationship, and evaluation of European Royalty (who have been inbreeding for over a thousand years to keep the wealth "in the family").  The researcher concluded that there was no scientific reason for the prohibition against inbreeding (including incest) on the basis of physical or mental defects.  The existence of the taboo is perpetuated almost entirely by gut reaction rather than reason.

That said, I would also like to see mandated anything done away with - like mandated health care or retirement programs.  It's a nanny mentality that we would be better off without.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2003, 11:01:16 am by vepope »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
« Reply #134 on: March 30, 2003, 04:22:29 am »

I would agree that it is a good idea not to take things like civil unions to be all that demonstrative of a state's liberty-orientation because it basically equates to the state tapping someone on the shoulder with its scepter and saying: "Okay, you are now acceptable."  The state may permit thus and such to a greater extent than other states, but it is still a matter of what the state permits.

As for minors and cousin-marriages...

Really, when you get down to the core issue, what we're talking about here is state recognition of a union between two people.  That union may already exist, sexually speaking, thus marriage laws are not really applicable in preventing things like inbreeding (or the spreading of AIDS) unless you are also willing to enforce adultery or "lewd behavior" statutes to prevent sexual activity between unmarried persons.

Even then, those statutes only provide penalties for actions that have already occurred, and result in even more state involvement and restriction.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2003, 04:23:28 am by RobertH »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 ... 15   Go Up