Report: New York "the least free" state. Again.
New York once again ranked as the least "free" state in the nation, in the Mercatus Center's new "Freedom in the 50 States" report (Mercatus is a "market-oriented" think tank at George Mason University). The Empire State was last in 2011. And 2007. And 2001.
New York is "by far the least free state in the Union," according to the report. The state gets dinged for, well, pretty much everything: taxes, spending, regulation. Among the rare positives identified by the report: "better than average" marijuana laws, low alcohol taxes, and eventually same-sex marriage (the report only covers policy to the end of 2010).
Oh, and NYS ranks #32 in the "bachelor party" category, which "combines a variety of laws including those on alcohol, marijuana, prostitution, and fireworks" (sadly, there's no indication the category covers laws regarding coke-snorting donkeys).
Freedom is, to some degree, in the eye of beholder. And here is how the Mercatus Center beholds it. Slate's Matthew Yglesias offers a rather different view, arguing that the concept of freedom needs to be salvaged "from the wreckage of Mercatus."
The top five states for freedom, according to Mercatus, are (from the top): North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma. The least free (descending): Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Jersey, California, New York.
map: Mercatus Center
Hi there. Comments have been closed for this item. Still have something to say? Contact us.
Comments
It's interesting that reproductive freedom isn't taken into account AT ALL in those findings. I'd wager that is certainly important to the definition of freedom to a good percentage of the population.
They also have this policy recommendation for NYS:
Cut spending on police and fire protection, hospitals, housing and community development, libraries, public welfare, sanitation and sewerage, miscellaneous commercial activities, public transit, and employee retirement.
I couldn't disagree more. Glad you link to a nice counterpoint perspective.
... said Valerae on Apr 1, 2013 at 3:15 PM | link
From the Mercatus Center's website:
"A grant from philanthropist and entrepreneur Charles Koch made the program possible and started an important tradition for the Center...."
I think I'll take the Mercatus Center ranking of NYS as a badge of honor.
... said Bob on Apr 1, 2013 at 5:05 PM | link
North Dakota??? As in the state that just took a way a woman's freedom of reproductive choice pretty much entirely? That's a laugh.
... said KB @ Home-Baked Happiness on Apr 1, 2013 at 5:19 PM | link
Aren't California and New York the most populous states? People must really hate "freedom".
... said Rebecca on Apr 1, 2013 at 7:45 PM | link
I see so many upstaters moving out of New York as an issue. The people who could move, have indeed moved. The people who are too poor to move, typically have not left. This has left a drain on the state. Is it terrible? You make the call.
... said mike on Apr 1, 2013 at 8:56 PM | link
Sure, it is more important for me to own fireworks than have reproductive freedoms. FFS.
SN: My SIL lives in an expensive housing development on the Atlantic coast of Central Florida, and had to have someone install special filters in her showers and sinks so that the water was actually potable. Because, you know, the municipal water is not. She also had to pay for an expensive private school for her daughter because the public school was atrocious. YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR.
... said irisira on Apr 2, 2013 at 6:18 AM | link
Hmff. Told ya.
... said Jon (was) in Michigan on Apr 2, 2013 at 7:42 AM | link
@mike -- I'm retiring soon and can afford to move. I'm not moving. There are enough quality of life trade offs (better services, better cultural institutions in NYS) for me to put up with the taxes and regulations. And I know lots of people who haven't moved for the same reason.
... said chrisck on Apr 2, 2013 at 8:08 AM | link
I do find these studies comical sometimes, because they often discount one thing over another. In this case, many of the “social†freedoms one finds, for lack of a better label, in blue states gets discounted against some of the “fiscal†freedoms (or lack of) typically found in red states. This is the beautiful thing about America, in that we’ve fostered a federalist, de-centralized form of government, allowing folks to move to states that cater to their specific needs. I for one don’t mind paying an extra $4,000 or $6,000 a year to live in a state that gives me all kinds of “social†freedoms, access to cultural and heritage not found in many parts of the country, and just plain basic amenities that get skimped on to save a dollar or two. I have friends who’ve had to move to Texas (against their will, in order to maintain a job) and abhor the poor condition of public schools, unpaved roads, and limited governmental services (like fire and libraries). They are saving a few thousand a year in taxes, but find they are paying more, for example, to send their kids to private school. Again, the beautiful thing about America is you can weigh the pros and cons for yourself and make the choice that best suits you. However, the bluing of the country seems to indicate to me that most folks tend to like the freedoms the New York’s and California’s of the world offer, over a Texas’ or Montana’s.
... said Bill on Apr 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM | link
@Bill: Hear, hear! There are some things that are more important than money. While "free states" like Texas and the Dakotas may be nice to visit, you couldn't pay me to live there.
... said lucy on Apr 3, 2013 at 11:43 AM | link
You should also not discount the weather as reason why California is so populated. I'm from there and even though I disagree with much of their politics, I'm moving back soon because: 1) it's cheaper to live there (really); 2) my family is there, and 3) for some SUNSHINE.
... said Skipjack on Apr 4, 2013 at 9:20 AM | link