Interesting subject. The criteria is fairly subjective, check it out. Like I mostly support the indoor "draconian smoking bans" for Ohio, but whatever.

 

Land of the Free? New York and California come out at the bottom of individual freedoms study

 

By Mark Duell

 

Last updated at 6:51 PM on 15th June 2011

 

It might be the ‘Land of the Free’, but some states certainly aren’t living up to the words of America’s national anthem.

 

New York, New Jersey and California are the least free in the U.S., based on an index of public policies affecting your individual freedoms.

 

The rankings are based economic, social and personal freedoms of Americans - and include measures such as taxes, government spending and regulations.

 

But New Hampshire, South Dakota and Indiana are the most free states in the U.S., according to Virginia think tank the Mercatus Center.

 

New York is by far the least free state and has had ‘the most interstate emigration of any state over the last decade’, the 'Freedom in the 50 States' report said.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003910/New-York-New-Jersey-California-come-individual-freedoms-study.html#ixzz1PY6lPYBZ

 

 

Ohio Analysis

 

Ohio performs poorly in nearly every conceptual area. Spending and taxation are higher than average, with administration, education, and social-service spending especially high as a percentage of personal income.

 

On the plus side, government debt is below average. Ohio, like three other states, does not allow private workers’ compensation insurers. However,unlike North Dakota and Wyoming, it does allow employer self-insurance for workers’-compensation. The state’s occupational-licensing regime and level of health-insurance coverage mandates are decent. Ohio has improved its eminent-domain regime, but further reform is warranted. Its liability systemis only average.

 

On the other hand, Ohio’s asset forfeiture laws are quite good, with the state more than a standard deviation better than average. It could improve even further, though, by shifting the burden of proof to the government. Gun-control laws are relatively poor, though not extreme as in the case of states like Illinois or California. In fact, Ohio allows open carry without permit. The state authorizes sobriety checkpoints but does not mandate motorcycle helmets.

 

Marijuana laws are liberal overall, but cultivation and sale sentencing could be reformed. Most gambling is illegal. Homeschooling regulations are unreasonable, including teacher licensure and mandatory state approval of homeschool curricula. However, private-school regulations are lighter. Draconian smoking bans are in place and cigarette taxes are above average. Beer and wine taxes are reasonably good but the spirits tax is fairly high.

 

Policy Recommendations

 

(1) Aggressively reduce taxes, especially given that tax revenue as a percentage of personal income is almost a whole standard deviation higher than the average. We find that Ohio spends much more than

the national average on financial administration (mostly at the state level) and on judicial, legal, and “other governmental” administration (mostly at the local level); thus, we particularly recommend cuts to

these areas.

 

(2) Continue reforming eminent-domain laws.

 

(3) Look at Indiana as a model Rust Belt state and reform Ohio’s regulatory system in line with that model. For instance, consider rolling back occupational licensing and allowing competition in the utilities.

 

 

Here is the study:

http://mercatus.org/sites/all/modules/custom/mercatus_50_states/files/Freedom50States2011.pdf

(3) Look at Indiana as a model Rust Belt state

 

And you lost me...

(3) Look at Indiana as a model Rust Belt state

 

And you lost me...

 

Ha ha....Indiana....beacon of hope!

Looks pretty accurate to me.  Government definitely has too heavy a hand in this state and is a big reason why we're seeing an outmigration of people that have grown up here and overall now growing as fast as other states.

People are not leaving Ohio because they feel their freedoms are being restricted here or because they feel that the State government has "too heavy a hand". 

Looks pretty accurate to me.  Government definitely has too heavy a hand in this state and is a big reason why we're seeing an outmigration of people that have grown up here and overall now growing as fast as other states.

 

And proof (research or statistics) of that is where?  Show me something.

My parents fled NJ, very reluctantly, in the late 80's because the taxes and cost of living were utterly outrageous.

 

Ohio is nowhere near as bad imho....not sure if that's the type of thing that Cle17 is referring to though.

It's bad enough that it's causing us to fall behind other states. 

 

The smoking ban went way too far:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/9/toledo-restaurant-touted-obama-to-close/

 

 

People are not leaving Ohio because they feel their freedoms are being restricted here or because they feel that the State government has "too heavy a hand".

 

Why are they leaving?  Why are businesses leaving?

It's bad enough that it's causing us to fall behind other states. 

 

The smoking ban went way too far:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/9/toledo-restaurant-touted-obama-to-close/

 

 

 

 

 

If you're business did not have a good business model before the ban, after the ban, your business will suffer.  That's obvious. 

 

 

We haven't seen the books, so how could he make that statement or how could you use that story as a verified and reputable source?

 

 

NEXT!

Okay, so the decrease in business from bars/restaurants around the state due to the smoking ban is imaginary.  For the first time in the history of mankind, a policy (in this case, the smoking ban) was put into place without any unintended consequences?  I guess I stand corrected.  Ay-oh, way to go Ohio!

Okay, so the decrease in business from bars/restaurants around the state due to the smoking ban is imaginary.  For the first time in the history of mankind, a policy (in this case, the smoking ban) was put into place without any unintended consequences?  I guess I stand corrected.  Ay-oh, way to go Ohio!

 

then show me research that says the ban has overall had a negative affect on restaurants and bars.

People are not leaving Ohio because they feel their freedoms are being restricted here or because they feel that the State government has "too heavy a hand".

 

Why are they leaving?  Why are businesses leaving?

 

1) weather

2) perception

3) loss of manufacturing (which affects every state, but Ohio even moreso given our roots)

 

Those are the biggest factors.  I've never heard anyone say they are moving away because they don't feel "free" here.

 

Ohio is a lot more business friendly than most debbie downers would like to potray it as.  Of course, it varies depending on how you do the analysis, but I have seen Ohio in the top 10 in some studies. 

 

http://www.ohiomeansbusiness.com/newsroom/press-releases/single-press-release.php?id=163

 

http://www.abjusa.com/features/features_april_10/spotlight_on_ohio.html (

 

If we were as unfriendly as you would like others to believe, we would not rank 5th in terms of fortune 500 companies.

Policy recommendation #1 seems to call for regionalism.  I've got no problem with that.  Not sure what they mean about reforming eminent domain, at least with regard to business friendliness... eminent domain is frequently used to get businesses the land they want, and most reforms (including Norwood) involve curtailing that.  Specifics would be nice, as to what makes Indiana so great.

It's bad enough that it's causing us to fall behind other states. 

 

The smoking ban went way too far:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/9/toledo-restaurant-touted-obama-to-close/

 

Honestly, I feel more free with the smoking ban in place.  I'm actually free to go to many places that before I could not go before.  I'm free to take my child many more places that I could not before.  Smokers are still free to smoke outside all they want.

 

All the anecdotal evidence that the smoking ban has hurt businesses (in general) I think is overblown.  I have an equal amount of anecdotal "evidence" that the smoking ban in Ohio has led to more people going to Ohio restaurants and bars.  A high level business manager I know told me a few weeks ago that they do not take clients out to restaurants in Kentucky anymore because of the smokers there.  Are there any numbers behind the claim that the smoking ban has hurt businesses.

 

Let's face it, poorly run businesses that relied entirely on smoker customers have been hurt.  However, other businesses could easily be doing better getting more business from the non-smokers who are now free to go out without risking the health of themselves and their family.

Not to mention that the roll out of the smoking ban coincided with the largest recession in 80 years. Try separating the effect of that from the effect of the smoking ban.

Okay, so the decrease in business from bars/restaurants around the state due to the smoking ban is imaginary.  For the first time in the history of mankind, a policy (in this case, the smoking ban) was put into place without any unintended consequences?  I guess I stand corrected.  Ay-oh, way to go Ohio!

 

then show me research that says the ban has overall had a negative affect on restaurants and bars.

 

Even if it has no effect on business (let's live in a fantasy world for a moment), even if the majority of people think it's right and thus voted the bill into place (sort of like Ohio's gay marriage ban) , it still restricts freedom.  And that is exactly what this study measures. 

Well, in all fairness, don't all laws restrict one's freedoms to a certain extent.

It's bad enough that it's causing us to fall behind other states. 

 

The smoking ban went way too far:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jun/9/toledo-restaurant-touted-obama-to-close/

 

Honestly, I feel more free with the smoking ban in place.  I'm actually free to go to many places that before I could not go before.  I'm free to take my child many more places that I could not before.  Smokers are still free to smoke outside all they want.

 

All the anecdotal evidence that the smoking ban has hurt businesses (in general) I think is overblown.  I have an equal amount of anecdotal "evidence" that the smoking ban in Ohio has led to more people going to Ohio restaurants and bars.  A high level business manager I know told me a few weeks ago that they do not take clients out to restaurants in Kentucky anymore because of the smokers there.  Are there any numbers behind the claim that the smoking ban has hurt businesses.

 

Let's face it, poorly run businesses that relied entirely on smoker customers have been hurt.  However, other businesses could easily be doing better getting more business from the non-smokers who are now free to go out without risking the health of themselves and their family.

 

^Exactly!

 

Considering that smokers are not the majority of the population, they should not be allowed to smoke indoors. Frankly, I think not having a smoking ban is inconsiderate to the people who do not smoke. Just a few weeks ago, I stopped at a gas station in Indiana, and the cashier was behind the counter puffing on a cigarette and the whole store reeked of cigarette smoke.

 

And on the subject of smoking, in reference to the assertion of liberal marijuana laws, that seems to be fairly true IMO; at least here in Cincinnati. When I first moved here, one of the things that surprised me is how impudent some people can in smoking weed. I remember seeing some of the homeless people sitting out in the open smoking blunts or joints and people walking in various neighborhoods (notably OTR, Evanston, Avondale, and Walnut Hills) doing the same thing. Just yesterday when I was at the bus stop, a guy was smoking some potent smelling weed, and when the bus came, he extinguished the blunt and placed the remainder of it behind his ear and boarded the bus.

 

Compared to where I used to live, Ohio doesn't really strike me as a "restrained" state, although the speed enforcement in Ohio could certainly  fit the title of the thread.

 

They mentioned the smoking ban but eliminating the smoking ban did not make the list of the top 3 recommendations.

 

Ohio has taxes significantly higher than the average. This may not seem like a big deal to the average person looking for a job in Ohio, but it IS a big deal to employers looking to locate in Ohio. Businesses in global markets are uncompetitive if subject to higher than average taxes.

 

There is a movement underway to reform Ohio's eminent domain laws, which are a mess. Eminent domain laws affect the ability to redevelop cities.

 

The recommendation specifically mentioned Indiana's licensing laws and utility regulations as a model to use.

People are not leaving Ohio because they feel their freedoms are being restricted here or because they feel that the State government has "too heavy a hand".

 

Why are they leaving?  Why are businesses leaving?

 

1) weather

2) perception

3) loss of manufacturing (which affects every state, but Ohio even moreso given our roots)

 

Those are the biggest factors.  I've never heard anyone say they are moving away because they don't feel "free" here.

 

Ohio is a lot more business friendly than most debbie downers would like to potray it as.  Of course, it varies depending on how you do the analysis, but I have seen Ohio in the top 10 in some studies. 

 

http://www.ohiomeansbusiness.com/newsroom/press-releases/single-press-release.php?id=163

 

http://www.abjusa.com/features/features_april_10/spotlight_on_ohio.html (

 

If we were as unfriendly as you would like others to believe, we would not rank 5th in terms of fortune 500 companies.

 

If weather and loss of manufacturing jobs are two of our three biggest problems, then we're completely screwed,  because our destiny is out of our hands.

 

By the way, how many Fortune 500 company HQs did we have 20 years ago?  Do we have more or less now?  Even if number of F500 companies was a key piece of the picture, which it's not, we're still losing them at a rate that should alarm you.

Honestly, I feel more free with the smoking ban in place.  I'm actually free to go to many places that before I could not go before.  I'm free to take my child many more places that I could not before.  Smokers are still free to smoke outside all they want.

 

No one was forcing you to go to those establishments before.  But now you're forcing those businesses to comply to your demands.

 

Let's face it, poorly run businesses that relied entirely on smoker customers have been hurt.  However, other businesses could easily be doing better getting more business from the non-smokers who are now free to go out without risking the health of themselves and their family.

 

True or not, the government should not be deciding such a policy for businesses.  If businesses feel like they make more money allowing smokers or not allowing smokers, either way, it should be their decision.

Well, in all fairness, don't all laws restrict one's freedoms to a certain extent.

 

Sure.  :whip:

 

^Exactly!Considering that smokers are not the majority of the population, they should not be allowed to smoke indoors. Frankly, I think not having a smoking ban is inconsiderate to the people who do not smoke. Just a few weeks ago, I stopped at a gas station in Indiana, and the cashier was behind the counter puffing on a cigarette and the whole store reeked of cigarette smoke.

 

If we're talking public places, you have an argument.  But when talking about businesses or private residences, the smoking ban overreaches.

 

I'm not sure what being the majority of the population has to do with anything.  We have a system in place to protect the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. 

 

 

They mentioned the smoking ban but eliminating the smoking ban did not make the list of the top 3 recommendations.

 

Ohio has taxes significantly higher than the average. This may not seem like a big deal to the average person looking for a job in Ohio, but it IS a big deal to employers looking to locate in Ohio. Businesses in global markets are uncompetitive if subject to higher than average taxes.

 

There is a movement underway to reform Ohio's eminent domain laws, which are a mess. Eminent domain laws affect the ability to redevelop cities.

 

The recommendation specifically mentioned Indiana's licensing laws and utility regulations as a model to use.

 

Ding, ding, ding, ding!  At the end of the day, the silly smoking ban is a bit of a red herring.  It's a great example of the heavy-handed government we have in this state, but it's really one of the smaller problems.  Why would anyone start a business here when there are states with a lower tax burden and less hoops to jump through?

If weather and loss of manufacturing jobs are two of our three biggest problems, then we're completely screwed,  because our destiny is out of our hands.

 

Not necessarily.  You can't predict the future.  50 years ago, the southeast was an undesirable swamp.  The armpit of America.  One big factor for its transformation into the 'new south' is that air conditioning hit the mainstream.  It made living there year round much more hospitable.  Anyone who was ever as dumb as me to sign a one year lease in the south on a house without central air knows what I am talking about.  Point being, is it not out of the realm of possibility that technology in the future makes living in a cold weather climate more tolerable?  We can't control the weather (and shouldn't) but we can control the effects it has on us.  We are going to see some amazing inventions in our lifetime.

 

But I do think it is hard to argue that the weather is not the #1 undesirable aspect you hear about our region.  Out of the people I know who live here but want to move, 7 or 8 of10 would say it is because of the weather.  Given, the great majority of those people will never move but will b!tch about it forever.  Most people I know who would never even consider moving here would say it is because of the weather.  It automatically eliminates us because warmer climates are what most people want at present.  Keep in mind that this is also probably the #1 factor for Chicago and Boston, perhaps NYC to a lesser extent.

 

As for the loss of manufacturing, we simply need to retool and reload.  Something along the lines of what we are doing.

I don't know much about Ohio's tax structure, but when it comes to the smoking ban, I'm all for it. There are different ways to look at freedom - "negative" freedom is the freedom to do something without interference; "positive" freedom is the freedom to not be subject to something from others. The smoking ban reflects the latter - not to be subjected to carcinogenic compounds inside of businesses that serve the public. "Private businesses" are subject to many regulations - such as non-discrimination in employment and who they serve - because they are open to the public. I don't see any problem with lightly restricting the "freedom" of tobacco users (myself included) where other people are gathered.

 

Aren't private clubs, for example, exempt from the smoking ban?

Aren't private clubs, for example, exempt from the smoking ban?

 

Only if they have no employees, which means no not really.  The ban was portrayed as having significant exemptions, even in its ballot language, but that portrayal was not accurate.  This bait & switch probably got a lot of people to vote for it who otherwise wouldn't have.  And contrary to what a lot of signs claim, the statute contains no "20 foot rule" or any distance rule at all.  It just says that smoke can't come indoors.

Aren't private clubs, for example, exempt from the smoking ban?

 

Only if they have no employees, which means no not really.  The ban was portrayed as having significant exemptions, even in its ballot language, but that portrayal was not accurate.  This bait & switch probably got a lot of people to vote for it who otherwise wouldn't have.  And contrary to what a lot of signs claim, the statute contains no "20 foot rule" or any distance rule at all.  It just says that smoke can't come indoors.

 

Well, frankly, I'm fine with that. An employee should have the freedom to have a job that does not subject them to cigarette smoke. I don't buy the argument that "they can just get another job" - if you want to smoke, just go outside. Don't like it? Go live in Indiana! According to these folks, people are flocking there for their outstanding public service and smoke-filled pubs, and perhaps, their billboards.

Well, Indiana grew four times as fast as Ohio in the past decade.  Must be the nice weather.

 

If the citizens in this state want to restrict the freedom of others through things like silly smoking bans, I guess the majority rules.  But don't be shocked when we keep losing ground to other states and studies like these correctly point out our lack of freedoms.  In some places there is a culture of personal choice and responsibility, and in others there is a culture of the nanny telling you what to do.  We clearly live in the latter and as such suffer the consequences.

We're losing people for a number of reasons; smoking bans have nothing to do with it

We're losing people for a number of reasons; smoking bans have nothing to do with it

Agreed...I would say that it does come down to taxes. Indiana has been able to snag a large number of firms and plants in recent years in large part because it has been willing to subsidize them and not tax them very much. My sense is that outside of Indianapolis, not many places are gunning for top-flight firms and white-collar jobs, and that the physical infrastructure and culture of the state makes it difficult to recruit people for those kinds of jobs. Ohio, on the other hand, has historically been a higher-tax, higher-service state, which may make the business environment more challenging, but I would venture also makes it easier to keep white-collar jobs.

 

 

What I think is interesting is that the environment for same-sex couples is not mentioned for Ohio. This is (another?) area where Indiana 'outperforms' Ohio, since the former does not (yet) have a Constitutional Amendment Banning Same-Sex Unions. To give credit to the authors, they do mention this throughout the study as an component of freedom, they just ignored it in Ohio's blurb.

 

The problems with the rankings are that "free market analysts" were surveyed to determine the relative importance of each factor, so that economic freedom ranks more highly than personal freedom. As the authors note, "It is worth noting that our respondents skewed heavily conservative" (p. 24). Hence, Indiana is ranked 4th, while Massachusetts (where non-straights can marry) is its mirror opposite, and 47th. It would be the opposite for someone in my situation.

 

Similarly, the source of the study should also be considered. From the Mercatus website: "For over 25 years, the Mercatus Center at George Mason University has been the world’s premier university source for market-oriented ideas—bridging the gap between academic ideas and real world problems." http://mercatus.org/about

 

A graduate of the George Mason Univ economics department also told me last weekend that his department focused almost exclusively on Chicago-school Milton-Friedmanny economics.

 

As with anything, read the methodology and the source to determine what's really being "evaluated".

During the two years I lived in West Virginia, when I would visit Ohio I did feel like Ohio was over-regulated. I always feel like I'm being watched here, whereas I didn't in WV. With one exception: Portsmouth. Nobody cares what you do there as long as you don't start a meth lab or get in a lot of bar fights. Also, in Appalachian Ohio and West Virginia I didn't feel a lot of pressure to "make something out of myself" like I do in other parts of the state.

Well, Indiana grew four times as fast as Ohio in the past decade.  Must be the nice weather.

 

Or.... you could say that Indiana gained 400,000 over 10 years and Ohio gained 200,000:  it sounds sexier the way you said it, but the fact remains that neither state grew by leaps and bounds.  I would also guess that the parts of Indiana which have comparable weather to NEO, such as South Bend and Gary, were not hotbeds of growth.  Are you really tryying to say that the smoking ban is a bigger factor than the weather for our population trends?

We're losing people for a number of reasons; smoking bans have nothing to do with it

 

Well, Indiana grew four times as fast as Ohio in the past decade.  Must be the nice weather.

 

Or.... you could say that Indiana gained 400,000 over 10 years and Ohio gained 200,000:  it sounds sexier the way you said it, but the fact remains that neither state grew by leaps and bounds.  I would also guess that the parts of Indiana which have comparable weather to NEO, such as South Bend and Gary, were not hotbeds of growth.  Are you really tryying to say that the smoking ban is a bigger factor than the weather for our population trends?

 

The smoking ban, as I stated earlier, has little to with our slower population growth.  My point, especially as it relates to the theme of the thread, is that the smoking ban is typical of the type of nannying that occurs in Ohio by the government.  Although I think it is damaging in its own right, it is far from the most important government overreach.  Other examples would indeed be the gay marriage ban and the strict abortion laws.  For fun, I was thinking that if I were to try to spin the latter restriction in the manner that some on this thread have tried to spin the smoking bans, I would say that Ohio's strict abortion laws give miniature human beings held captive in the womb of their mothers the freedom to escape those shackles.  :drunk:

During the two years I lived in West Virginia, when I would visit Ohio I did feel like Ohio was over-regulated. I always feel like I'm being watched here, whereas I didn't in WV. With one exception: Portsmouth. Nobody cares what you do there as long as you don't start a meth lab or get in a lot of bar fights. Also, in Appalachian Ohio and West Virginia I didn't feel a lot of pressure to "make something out of myself" like I do in other parts of the state.

 

It wasn't just your imagination:

 

 

I think that the smoking laws will become more commonplace in the future, and the states that were slow to adopt them will be looked at as being backwards.  Sure, they "restrict freedom", but so do laws which say you can't blast music that wakes your neighbors up at 4 am, laws which say you can't enjoy a beer or six while driving, laws that say you can't go beat someone down with a baseball bat because you don't like them, laws that say you can't shoot up heroin, etc.

I think that the smoking laws will become more commonplace in the future, and the states that were slow to adopt them will be looked at as being backwards.  Sure, they "restrict freedom", but so do laws which say you can't blast music that wakes your neighbors up at 4 am, laws which say you can't enjoy a beer or six while driving, laws that say you can't go beat someone down with a baseball bat because you don't like them, laws that say you can't shoot up heroin, etc.

 

I'll bring my polka music and my amp. Clevelander17, what's your address? I'll see you at 4am. Don't tread on me.

Thanks to the smoking ban, I have the 'freedom' to choose to enjoy my dinner and/or drinks on a multitude of new, very nice patios which restaurants and bars have been wise to construct since the ban went into effect.  My wool garments also feel a bit more 'free' since the smoking ban started.

I think that the smoking laws will become more commonplace in the future, and the states that were slow to adopt them will be looked at as being backwards.  Sure, they "restrict freedom", but so do laws which say you can't blast music that wakes your neighbors up at 4 am, laws which say you can't enjoy a beer or six while driving, laws that say you can't go beat someone down with a baseball bat because you don't like them, laws that say you can't shoot up heroin, etc.

 

Bad examples, IMO (except for the last one, which I'll get to in a moment).  In all but one of those situations, the victim cannot avoid being victimized.  In the case of the smoking ban, if you, as a patron or employee don't like it, take your business/talents elsewhere.

 

As for shooting up heroin, although it's not at all analogous with smoking, I do think very good arguments could be made (and have been made) that it should be legal.

Thanks to the smoking ban, I have the 'freedom' to choose to enjoy my dinner and/or drinks on a multitude of new, very nice patios which restaurants and bars have been wise to construct since the ban went into effect.  My wool garments also feel a bit more 'free' since the smoking ban started.

 

Likewise, thanks to the gay marriage ban, I have the "freedom" to enjoy my heterosexual relationships without __________. (Fill in the blank)  :laugh:

There are no negative externalities with gay marriage; there are with smoking.

 

Your analogy is flawed.

 

 

Actually...I can't tell if you're being sarcastic

The smoking ban is more akin to lawn cutting ordinances than a civil rights issue despite what addicts will imply otherwise.

Thanks to the smoking ban, I have the 'freedom' to choose to enjoy my dinner and/or drinks on a multitude of new, very nice patios which restaurants and bars have been wise to construct since the ban went into effect.  My wool garments also feel a bit more 'free' since the smoking ban started.

 

Likewise, thanks to the gay marriage ban, I have the "freedom" to enjoy my heterosexual relationships without __________. (Fill in the blank)  :laugh:

 

That sets the bar pretty high as far as bad analogies.  I don't think I can beat that.  I suppose it does make sense to those that argued a vote in favor of gay marriage = a vote against the freedom to have a heterosexual relationship.

There are no negative externalities with gay marriage; there are with smoking.

 

Your analogy is flawed.

 

 

Actually...I can't tell if you're being sarcastic

 

No, you're right, I'm being entirely serious.  There are indeed negative externalities to gay marriage and we need the government to protect us all from them.  It doesn't matter if I can avoid these externalities on a daily basis to the point where they don't effect me.  Just the fact that these externalities exist, and despite some even choosing to expose themselves to it, means that it's best that we have established a nanny to keep everyone safe, even from themselves.

 

The smoking ban is more akin to lawn cutting ordinances than a civil rights issue despite what addicts will imply otherwise.

 

:laugh:

 

I hope you're not implying that I'm an addict.  I'm not a smoker, and even if I were, this is not about smokers' rights, it's about the rights of private business owners to make their own decisions.

 

That sets the bar pretty high as far as bad analogies.  I don't think I can beat that.  I suppose it does make sense to those that argued a vote in favor of gay marriage = a vote against the freedom to have a heterosexual relationship.

 

It's all in how you spin it.  The bar was already set pretty low by others on this thread, I'm just playing along...

Joking aside, my overall point is this, and then I'll stop: Whether or not you're in favor the smoking ban, whether or not you think it has unintended consequences, it IS a restriction of freedom that we, as Ohio citizens, have empowered the government to enforce.  To claim otherwise is simply spin.

Joking aside, my overall point is this, and then I'll stop: Whether or not you're in favor the smoking ban, whether or not you think it has unintended consequences, it IS a restriction of freedom that we, as Ohio citizens, have empowered the government to enforce.  To claim otherwise is simply spin.

 

Right.  But no moreso than the law restricting me from taking a crap on the sidewalk and any argument which claims that law does not restrict my 'freedom'.  Analogizing it to the gay marriage ban, jokingly or not, is a offensive to common sense.

I was implying that people who are addicted to smoking are addicts and at the time I was writing that down was thinking of my mother, stepfather, and best friend's brother.  No intent to make assumptions about you at the time but I can see how it came across like that.

 

 

As with anything, read the methodology and the source to determine what's really being "evaluated".

 

Agree. Just like the lists for "most livable cities" and the like, the criteria used are going to be subjective to an extent.

This is all meaningless. More freedoms do not necessarily equal an ever-greater quality of life. At the extreme, anarchy does not produce the ultimate quality of life anymore than totalitarianism does.

 

Like everything else, the answer is somewhere in the middle -- which is as far from the extremes as possible. Of course, the absolute middle is never found, but always worth pursuing.

Good point, as the most freedom will not always (or ever?) afford one the most opportunity.

 

But I wouldn't say it's meaningless.

 

This is all meaningless. More freedoms do not necessarily equal an ever-greater quality of life. At the extreme, anarchy does not produce the ultimate quality of life anymore than totalitarianism does.

 

Like everything else, the answer is somewhere in the middle -- which is as far from the extremes as possible. Of course, the absolute middle is never found, but always worth pursuing.

Also keep in mind that the more homogeneous a given state is, the more likely its residents will be able to agree on "freedoms"