The Mercatus Center, a libertarian think-tank, released its analysis of the 50 states and where they rank in personal and economic freedom.
The freest state in the union, surprisingly enough, was North Dakota, which scored exceptionally well on fiscal and regulatory policy with low taxes and government debt--it's high government spending none withstanding.
While the freest state may come as a shocker, the two least freest states should come as no surprise.
The least freest state? New York.
No! Really?! The state where Michael "Big Brother" Bloomberg is mayor over an anti-soft drink, anti-gun, anti-smoking, anti-formula feeding, screw-the-homeless, nanny/police state complex is the least freest state in the union? Color me surprised!
And the second least freest state? California.
No! Really?! The state whose insane government spending has driven it so far into the ground with debt that one of its cities has become the largest in the U.S. to declare bankruptcy comes in second place as the least freest state? Again, shock and awe!
These rankings are a reassurance to liberty lovers across the country. To government-loving libtards? Not so much.
As soon as these rankings were released, libtards across the blogosphere began flinging their poo at it like rabid chimpanzees. (Scratch that. That was an unfair comparison. Rabid chimpanzees are nowhere near as insane as libtards.)
Here's a rundown of some of their criticisms (and why they are so face-palmingly libtarded):
1) The Koch Brothers funded it!
Ah yes, those evil Koches! Those evil brothers notorious for such underhanded deeds as supporting gay marriage and stem cell research, opposing corporate welfare and warrantless wiretaps, and funding education, art, and medical research.
Those two heartless bastards who are trying to overthrow the government by corrupting our democracy--even though they only rank 85th in overall political donations, as opposed to the labor unions who rank as the top 10 political donors.
Sorry, but saying "Koch Brothers funded it: Your study is invalid!" is not an argument. It's a non-argument. It's an ad hominem attack, and thus, a logical fallacy. So let's skip this and move on to the others.
2) This only covers what libertarians consider "freedom."
Apparently, this study is invalid because it only defines freedom by how libertarians define it. And how exactly do we libertarians define "freedom"? According to Salon contributor Alex Pareene: "the right of people with money to keep it all, and for everyone else to f*** off."
This is simply disingenuous!
We libertarians realize that "freedom" is a completely subjective term, which is why we want it defined by individuals rather than government. We libertarians believe that everyone should be allowed to live freely provided they harm no one. So long as no one is killing, assaulting, raping, defrauding, or stealing from anyone else, they should be free to do whatever they want.
So yes, freedom is what we libertarians want, but it's also what everyone else wants. That's the very nature of freedom.
3) North Dakota isn't free because it bans abortion.
The biggest critique of this study is how North Dakota ranks as the freest state despite having the strictest restrictions against abortions. As the blurb to the Salon article sarcastically remarks: "Sorry, women! Your "freedoms" aren't as important as freedom from excessive taxation."
To be fair, libertarians are split when it comes to abortion. Some believe a woman's "bodily autonomy" includes her "right" to have an abortion, while other like myself rightfully believe that a woman's "right" to her body does not include the "right" to take the life of her unborn child. Some believe this is a federal issue, while others believe it should be left to the states. Despite this schism, most libertarians agree that abortions should not be government-funded.
But even if this wasn't a divisive issue among libertarians, and they all believed that "reproductive rights" do not cover abortion, so what? As I said before, a woman's "right" to her body ends where the life of another human being begins.
Sorry, but feminazis complaining about being denied their "right" to have an abortion is as heart-wrenching as slave owners whining about being denied their "right" to own slaves.
4) More people live in "least free" states than "most free" states.
I kid you not. This is a real argument!
The ever notorious anti-libertarian "skeptic" PZ Myers put it thusly: "The Libertarian version of freedom is embraced in the empty, underpopulated states like the Dakotas; the antithesis of the Libertarian version of freedom is found in California and New York, where the most people live." Therefore, these two states should set the standard for "freedom" rather than the Dakotas.
In other words, "freedom" should be defined by the geographic region inhabited by the most people. By that standard, Communist China is the global standard for freedom and liberty. But of course, no one is stupid enough to suggest we emulate China in terms of freedom. Oh wait!
But apparently, California and New York ought to set the American standard for "freedom" because more people choose to live in those two states. As Pareene argues, "most Americans have 'voted with their feet' and chosen to live primarily in our least free states."
That is an outright lie!
Americans are not moving to "least free" states. The opposite is true. More Americans are moving from "less free" blue states to "more free" red states. That's not an opinion of a right-wing think tank. That's a fact backed-up by our own government through census statistics.
Even if freedom were defined by where Americans are choosing to live, which it isn't, the message is clear: they prefer the economic freedom of red states over the economic bankruptcy of the blues.
5) Freedom equals free stuff.
This is the crux of all critiques against this study, if not libertarianism in general. It's similar to the second one in that it suggests "freedom" should not be defined by how libertarians define it, but how everyone else defines it--and by everyone else, they mean libtards.
And how do libtards define freedom?
Do they believe they should be free to own guns? No!
Do they believe they should be free to eat what they want? No!
Do they believe they should be free to send their children to whatever school they think is best for them? No!
Do they believe they should be free to have a job without having to join a union? No!
Do they believe they should be free from excessive taxation? No!
So how do they define freedom? With free stuff!
To libtards, "freedom" means free healthcare, free education, free housing, free food and water, and free everything else--and of course, by "free," they really mean paid for by everyone else, especially those evil rich people.
In other words, the libtard definition of "freedom" entails freedom from paying for anything or making their decisions. I'm sorry. That's not "freedom." That's "paternalism." That's the type of "freedom" little children have when mommy and daddy pay for everything and make all the big decisions.
How ironic then that libertarians like myself are described by libtards as "selfish children." We don't want to be children. We want to be adults. We want the "freedom" that comes with being an adult.
We want to make our own decisions. We want to pay for our own stuff. And we want everyone else to have that same freedom.
But of course, that means everyone else has to stop acting like children and grow the freak up. And sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon with the libtards.