New York and California rank lowest for individual freedom

Minimum moderation and heated debates.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

New York and California rank lowest for individual freedom

Postby Corth » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:36 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... study.html

Not surprising that two of the most liberal states rank lowest in terms of individual freedom. One of the basic ideas behind liberalism, and I think Sarvis might agree, is that the good of the individual is superceded by the good of the whole.

It will be interesting to see over time how the states that value individual freedom fare against the states which don't. You are definitely seeing quite a bit of migration from New York and California towards other states. Imho, the beginning of a long term trend.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:46 pm

The cost of living probably has a big influence on people moving from those 2 states in particular.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby kiryan » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:38 pm

While I have no doubt you are correct Amena, taxes take away from "economic freedom" per the report so high taxes is essentially limiting your freedom. If you doubt this, imagine how much less freedom you'd have if you were taxes at 70%.

Lastly consider this.

San Francisco Mulls Goldfish Ban

First kittens, then puppies and hamsters and now goldfish?

San Francisco's Animal Control and Welfare Commission is recommending that the City ban the sale of goldfish, tropical fish and guppies in its borders, according to Matier and Ross.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics ... 23649.html

Last month, they tried to ban circumcision in San Francisco and their was an attempt to ban Shark fin soup (or a future ballot measure not sure).

Also, I think a NY school I think bans kids from bringing lunch to school...

Now I've been thinking for the last few years on whether the restriction of freedom is necessary as population denisty increases. I witnessed it in Oregon, it only makes senses in places like NY and Los Angeles. I moved to Montana with this specifically in mind... as the population of a state goes up, the rules do and almost have to get more intrusive and restrictive... a state with 6.8 inhabitants per square mile (Montana) can be more free than a state with 39 (Oregon) compared to California is 230 and NY at 411. NH is curiously the most free state with a population density of 147.

Population density is obviously not a hard and fast rule, but a the population in Oregon grew... and also no doubt from environmentalists/activists in the 80s/90s, the state increasingly closed off and restricted the public lands raised taxes and just in general became a much less free state.

In California, I went to lake Perris in California once, we had to wait like 3 hours to get in because there were too many people in the park. Imagine if they let everyone in... the amount of human filth in the water? The condition of the grass after a couple days of being trampled on by hundreds or thousands of people?

What about the restrictions on boating common in man made / no outlet bodies of water? Imagine the amount of petroleum based contaniments that leak into the water from boats... if not directly, just from the combustion and the particles that fall to the water from the smoke...

I think these are problems associated simply with density that aren't matters of freedom despite my animosity towards them in general.... often times I think its taken too far... anti smoking / drinking bans in public spaces and parks, no tents on the beach, parks you can't go to unless "accompanied by a child", seat belt laws, attempts to ban smoking in your own home or in your car if a child is present etc...
Last edited by kiryan on Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:41 pm

Wow, really Corth? This article is practically Teflor level trolling. Spending and taxation weigh in as 25% of their evaluation for personal freedom. Yes, taxes are high in these two states. But let me ask you, where would you rather live if you were gay?

Should NY enact all of their recommendations? Yes, but not in the name of personal freedom. Cutting spending is just good economic sense, and frankly our economic problems are the real reason people are fleeing the area. Places like Buffalo just never made the transition from manufacturing cities to anything else...

So yeah, take out taxes/spending and things like campaign finance law then let's see how the rankings go.

And when you get down to it, all you're shown is that NY is democratic... not liberal.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby kiryan » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:44 pm

Seriously sarvis? NY is not liberal, its just democratic? LOL.

From the state that wants to regulate the amount of salt used in restaurants?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:08 pm

kiryan wrote:While I have no doubt you are correct Amena, taxes take away from "economic freedom" per the report so high taxes is essentially limiting your freedom. If you doubt this, imagine how much less freedom you'd have if you were taxes at 70%.


So are you stating that if you have less money you have less freedom?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Corth » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:17 pm

Money is indeed freedom. If you have a billion in the bank you don't have to show up at your cubicle every day. You could do whatever it is you want. If you are earning subsistence money - just enough to make ends meet, then you have much less freedom. If you take time off from work you might get evicted. Going out to eat might get your car repo'd.

Obviously any criteria that is used for a study like this is subject to being attacked. If they weighed taxation as only 3% for instance, I might say that this is insufficient. Taxation is the ultimate reflection of the rights of the individual being superceded for the good of the many.

Amena - you are absolutely right that cost of living is the largest factor in people leaving NY and CA. However, the high cost of living is due in large part to high taxation. I live on Long Island and pay $12,000 per year in RE taxes on my 2300 square foot house in a solidly middle class neighborhood. That is in addition to state income tax, and federal income tax. If I lived within the 5 boroughs of NYC I would be paying city income tax as well. I also pay 8.65% sales tax on all purchases except groceries.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth



Goddamned slippery mage.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby kiryan » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:36 pm

Yes Sarvis for the reasons Corth stated also from the constitution: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

When you have the fruits of your own labor, you are able to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When your fruits are taken from you in the form of taxes, regualtory fees, license applications, your ability to pursue happiness is greatly diminshed.

and you will probably bring up someplace like Somlia with no effective government and claim freedom lovers should move there. While it may be more free or America may be more "free" in real terms, that doesn't change the principles outlined in the constitution. You're supposed to be free to pursue these things, not have your freedom taken away so politicians can make life better for everyone. Taxes are a necessary evil, but there is a difference between the necessary taxes and Democrats desire to build a managed social utopia with high taxes. One is constitutional, the other is clearly not in lines with the ideals of the constitution.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:54 pm

kiryan wrote:Yes Sarvis for the reasons Corth stated also from the constitution: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"


So the question I asked was "does having less money mean less freedom." Your answer is yes.

In that case, I contend that conservative economic policy and our current corporate culture of greed are what is truly sapping the freedom of the average American.

As you can see in this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookou ... record-low) American workers are taking home less money while already wealthy people are taking home far, far more. One of the cited reasons is the "cracking down" on organized labor, by conservatives of course, which has helped to reduce the amount of money we bring home and, according to you, lessened our individual freedom. The other factor is, of course, outsourced labor and manufacturing... AGAIN something supported by conservatives that is hurting our individual freedom.

Meanwhile profits are soaring, wages and job growth are stagnating... and conservatives are putting out crappy articles that say unions/business legislation are hurting freedom. Guess what, THOSE things increase personal freedom by ensuring that workers earn more money and have time off to do the things they'd like to.

The ideal corporate culture can be seen in the countries we outsource labor to:

1) Pay as little as possible
2) Require long hours
3) Sometimes brutal enforcement of policies (including beatings and sexual assaults in some cases)

So yes, I'll take a little corporate legislation in favor of having ACTUAL personal freedom. Mandated vacation time means I am free to take a day off.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby kiryan » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:43 pm

Sarvis, nice try. Transparent, but surely worth a go.

The constitution isa bout protecting individual liberties... not formulating a utalitarian utopia where perhaps net "liberty" is achieved. Individual vs the common good. You can't take my land just because it would serve the public good (well actually you can, but you shouldn't be able to).

The only counter to your argument necessary is depriving the rich of their money is an affront to everyone's liberty and especially the rich. You have the right to pursue life liberty and happiness, not a promise you'll achieve them. Not a promise that you'll get paid exactly what your worth relative to someone else (unless you're a protected class!)

So yes, I'll take a little corporate legislation in favor of having ACTUAL personal freedom. Mandated vacation time means I am free to take a day off.


Good thing we have a constitution so I don't have to worry about whether you'd rather live in a socialist country or have to pay for it. Now I just wish we had politicians who had read the consitution.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:44 pm

amena wolfsnarl wrote:The cost of living probably has a big influence on people moving from those 2 states in particular.

The cost of living has a lot to do with how individuals and those providing services to individuals are taxed and centrally controlled. If you have to pay off six unions, city, county, and state governments just to start a business, the costs ultimately get passed on to the consumer.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:55 pm

Kiryan, let's go back a few hundred years to the days of feudalism. I'd like to think you'd agree that there wasn't much freedom, but do you understand why? It was because everything was owned by the wealthy. You could never have your own land unless you were noble, but "noble" was basically a very nice way of saying "born into wealth."

Now let's fast forward to today. In my area, most of the rental properties available are owned by MJ Peterson. There are a couple smaller competitors, and a bunch of individual landlords. Now imagine they bought ALL the property available in my area. What would be the difference between them and a feudal lord? They could even say you have to work for them in order to live here, right?

So what prevents that? Anti-trust legislation. You consider that an attack on personal freedom, but the reality is it's one of the things that PRESERVES our freedom.

You just don't like it because at some point someone told you "Everything good for business is good for everybody!" Then they told you that's what real freedom was.

But sorry, real freedom actually means doing what you want to do. That NEEDS to be curtailed a bit though, because if I want to do things that curtail the freedoms of others I shouldn't be allowed to. Corporations want to curtail your freedoms. If a corporation could, they would ensure you could only buy their products and only purchase those products with credits you received from that company. This actually happens in some mining towns, where the mining corporation pays the workers and runs every store they could buy something from.

You might say the internet fixes all that, and it actually does help. Those miners can order from Amazon now, for instance. So what happens? Corporations want to turn the internet into something they control utterly. Verizon, AT&T, and others want to have control over what kinds of packets go through the internet. This would allow them to do things like prevent those miners from reaching Amazon's website. It would allow companies to prevent users in a Democratic district from accessing any information about Republicans. It would allow corporations to control what you can access and what you can learn.

So again people are asking for laws to enforce "Net Neutrality," which simply means that corporations can't treat different data differently.

To you, that is an affront to the freedom of Verizon to run their business the way they see fit. To the rest of us, it means we will still have personal liberty.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby kiryan » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:16 pm

The difference between feudal England and today is where the lords got the land. In monarchies of the past, the king owned all the land and granted land to his lords. Even if there was some sort of hereditary purchase and acquisition, the king could take the land if he wanted to and it happened generally when you pissed the king off, charges of treason were trumped up, your lands seized and the king installed a new lord.

What we have today is a system where individuals can own the means of production and have it protected from the government. Yes because thigns are personally owned, some people who win the lottery or just work hard or have a brilliant idea have more than others. This personal property, the fruit of your labors, must be protected from government intrusion. Furthermore, the union position is that the "work" of the American worker is responsible for the creation of wealth in this country. Thats how they lay claim to corporate profits. I don't necessarily disagree with the principle, despite disagreeing with the legal blackmail they engage in. We need to protect personal property... wealth creation... ie the fruits of your labor from the government. You should own it so you can provide for yourself and not have to worry about the king taking it to redistribute to his favored lord or in the name of the "poor".

Sarvis you need to realize how much money government siphons out of the economy. We have a 4 trillion a year budget and a 14.7 trillion GDP. That is what 25%? Where does that money come from? Only 1 trillion comes from income taxes... and this is JUST federal. How much more comes out of state and local?

Maybe the poor wouldn't be so poor if they actually got the money they made instead of being nickle and dimed at the gas pump, on the water bill, on their cell phone bill, on their candy bar, taxi ride, hotel tax etc... seriously. How much more money should government take.. and where does it come from... private citizens (one way or another even if it goes first through a corporation to you in terms of stock)?

And no lower taxes will not make everyone rich or even middle class. The poor will always be with us... whether its a relative designation or applies to the individuals who make foolish choices (or suffer unfortunate circumstances). However, the market is fair in ways a benevolent dictator could never anticipate.

--

Sigh Sarvis, your notion of freedom is depressing. I just sighed deeply. To illustrate, I'll just use a throwback from 200 years ago when women and african americans were "free" from the concerns of the worries of life that white land owners worried about. Why did they ever want real actual freedom.

You don't believe in freedom. You believe in a comfortable life where you are taken care of and don't have to worry about your life choices like grades in school or buying health insurance. You want to be free to pursue a career in music without accepting any economic risk for pursuing your idealistic dreams or suffer any consequence for being a lazy video game player.

You want to be taken care of like a child of the US government. Its pathetic.... and short sighted as it leads eventually and inevitably to life like in China... or what Greece is facing.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Sarvis » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:55 pm

kiryan wrote:The difference between feudal England and today is where the lords got the land. In monarchies of the past, the king owned all the land and granted land to his lords. Even if there was some sort of hereditary purchase and acquisition, the king could take the land if he wanted to and it happened generally when you pissed the king off, charges of treason were trumped up, your lands seized and the king installed a new lord.


That's a difference? We still have eminent domain you know.

You should own it so you can provide for yourself and not have to worry about the king taking it to redistribute to his favored lord or in the name of the "poor".


Sure, you just need to worry about a corporation asking a politician to use Eminent Domain to put up a new corporate headquarters because it will "benefit the public."

Sarvis you need to realize how much money government siphons out of the economy. We have a 4 trillion a year budget and a 14.7 trillion GDP. That is what 25%? Where does that money come from? Only 1 trillion comes from income taxes... and this is JUST federal. How much more comes out of state and local?


Right, and that money just disappears forever. It certainly doesn't go to pay government workers or anything. Or to research projects, or construction workers to improve infrastructure that corporations use to increase their profits. The money isn't siphoned off, it just moves... which, after all, is what causes the economy to grow.

Maybe the poor wouldn't be so poor if they actually got the money they made instead of being nickle and dimed at the gas pump, on the water bill, on their cell phone bill, on their candy bar, taxi ride, hotel tax etc... seriously.


Or every corporation would just realize that everyone has an extra 25% of their money and raise all their prices 25%.

And no lower taxes will not make everyone rich or even middle class. The poor will always be with us... whether its a relative designation or applies to the individuals who make foolish choices (or suffer unfortunate circumstances). However, the market is fair in ways a benevolent dictator could never anticipate.


Yet when there were higher tax rates on the top 1% of the population the entire country was wealthier.


Sigh Sarvis, your notion of freedom is depressing. I just sighed deeply. To illustrate, I'll just use a throwback from 200 years ago when women and african americans were "free" from the concerns of the worries of life that white land owners worried about. Why did they ever want real actual freedom.


My notion of freedom? Do tell. I think being free means actually being able to do what you want. Women were NOT free 200 years ago, they were restricted to being housewives.

You don't believe in freedom. You believe in a comfortable life where you are taken care of and don't have to worry about your life choices like grades in school or buying health insurance. You want to be free to pursue a career in music without accepting any economic risk for pursuing your idealistic dreams or suffer any consequence for being a lazy video game player.


Bullshit. But I do think a person should be able to pursue a career in music, not be forced to work at the kwik-e-mart because they don't happen to know a record label executive.


You want to be taken care of like a child of the US government. Its pathetic.... and short sighted as it leads eventually and inevitably to life like in China... or what Greece is facing.


No, you want to color it that way. A safety net is a safety net, and it should be there to help you rebound... not take care of you forever. You just can't think in anything but false dichotomies. To you, if a safety net exists is MUST be a babysitter that takes care of you for your entire life.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby kiryan » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:45 pm

The UN or WHO or somebody recently published a report declaring 15% of the world's population as "disabled". 15% of the people in the world need someone else to pay for their care.

Maybe you should go watch Braveheart. The Irish were free to farm as long as they paid their taxes and submitted their virgin wives to the government intrusion of "prima nocta" (lord's right to pork your new wife on your wedding night). Today we call it unemployment taxes, gas taxes, driver license fees etc... and its "safety and security" when a TSA agent very literally touches your 6 year olds private parts through their underwear with their gloved hands. Its not a safety net. Its government managing its herd of sheep. FREEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

I really have nothing further to add. You don't know what freedom is. No wonder you're a socialist.
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Ragorn » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:57 pm

Glad to see you guys haven't changed since I stopped reading. I agree with kiryan, former President George W. Bush did take away a lot of our freedoms when he instituted the Patriot Act and the TSA. I agree that if we didn't have eight years of authoritarian, nigh-fascist government intrustion in our lives, we'd all feel a lot more free today.

Very insightful observation, kiryan.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby kiryan » Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:05 pm

I agree with you Ragorn, Bush did a lot of damage to individual liberty with the patriot act and forming the TSA. What has the messiah done after promising us hope and change?

Very insighful Ragorn, thank you.
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Fri Jun 17, 2011 12:52 am

The TSA and the Patriot act are true intrusions upon individual freedoms.

The best thing going for the Patriot act is that it had sunset provisions - it was supposed to be temporary - until the Democrats voted to keep it going. At best, it's a bi-partisan intrusion that appears to have the public's support. I wish the public would be more interested in peeling this back.

As for the TSA, the agency should probably live, but only with severe restrictions on how much they constantly overreach into our freedoms.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:17 am

One thing I can say in defense of Sarvis' perspective is that he's not entirely alone. Adam Smith, the author of an inquiry into the natures and causes of the weath of nations (the wealth of nations), posed the idea that people were more similar than dissimilar: that habit, customs, and education (situation, perhaps) is more to blame than nature.


Of course, that was in a time where education wasn't abundant, information wasn't literally free, and opportunity was a closed family loop. (read as: I think Adam Smith would have changed his mind had he lived to see modern times)


Money is not freedom, nor are those with more money more free. Freedom is too amorphous to allow something like money define it. Money represents a grotesque type of restrained power - one restrained by those who print the money in the first place. Freedom has nothing to do with that - it often can only be paid for in blood (extracted by the muskets purchased by money loaned on bond).
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
amena wolfsnarl
Sojourner
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:14 pm
Location: grande prairie alberta canada

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby amena wolfsnarl » Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:16 am

Its funny cause if you ask people in the gay community they would probably say New York and California rank highest in individual freedoms.
Dugmaren tells you 'Welcome to Canada, don't blame us if you're stupid enough to get eaten by the wild life'
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Tue Jun 21, 2011 12:32 pm

amena wolfsnarl wrote:Its funny cause if you ask people in the gay community they would probably say New York and California rank highest in individual freedoms.

They are in it for themselves. Residents of Baghdad proper circa 1988 probably felt very free while Kurds in Iraq's north were being gassed the same government.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Ragorn » Fri Jul 01, 2011 11:14 pm

How does New York rank for individual freedom now, mother fuckers?

:D
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Sarvis » Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:44 am

Ragorn wrote:How does New York rank for individual freedom now, mother fuckers?

:D


In addition, I can now get growlers of craft beer filled up at gas stations. Texas has got nothin on us!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Teflor Lyorian
Sojourner
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 9:39 pm

Re: New York and California rank lowest for individual freed

Postby Teflor Lyorian » Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:22 pm

Ragorn wrote:How does New York rank for individual freedom now, mother fuckers?

:D

Marriage isn't an individual freedom, its more like a cruel arcane regulation that should be abolished to establish the equality of women.
"You see, the devil haunts a hungry man.
If you don’t wanna join him, you got to beat him."
- Kris Kristofferson (To Beat the Devil)

Return to “Current Events & Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest