Slashdot Mirror

wrote that 22 states permit direct sales of automobiles by Tesla to retail buyers, and of those the majority--14 of them-- voted for President Obama

There is a much fresher data-point for the political leanings of those states — we had elections a month ago. That this non-biased and bi-partisan article — the kind we've come to expect from the Newspaper of Record — chose to use the two year old data instead to illustrate its point, means, the point probably is not supported by the more recent poll...

He suggested that Democratic California, Illinois, and New York "have freer markets in auto retailing than Texas," which is presently Republican.

Is it "freer markets" for everyone, or just for the "green" technology — which got a major government loan (on very sweet terms) to survive and ought to be helped to avoid embarrassing the Democratic administration? Would those Democratic bastions of free markets be as supporting of freedom, if it were about sale of, say, high-capacity toilets?

If you really care for free markets, you'll vote Libertarian — with anybody else you still need a bloody permit to do (or sell) almost anything. Splitting hairs about who is more likely to permit this vs. that is stupid — you have your right to pursue happiness. Selling cars the way you want certainly ought to be covered by that.

Is the small bit of evidence enough to make a case?

No, it is not. To show, which party supports freer markets, one would need to study the market-freedom across different goods and services. Cherry-picking one item, that is so dear to one party's heart, in an industry, that is heavily-regulated by all states (as well as Federal government) is meaningless and reveals nothing but bare partisanship.

Yes, indeed we have the Bill of Rights and Article 10, for instance, and few places have those things enumerated therein in such fashion, given elsewhere in their constitutions, or specified at all, especially to the degree given.

However, the question before us is not so much what is written but what is observed; of what is observed, to what is protected. Please see:

http://www.freeexistence.org/freedom.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Meta-Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indices_of_Freedom

Btw, your assertion of "completely absent" is not necessarily well-supported by fact. (For whatever odd reason I ended up reading the bulk of Sweden's constitution a few days ago; it was interesting, some bits relevant here.) Anyway, a perusal of privacies delineated and protected as spelled out and as observed, particularly parts of Europe, Scandinavia, and Iceland is illuminating.

Along those lines, you may find this interesting:

http://www.freeexistence.org/freedom.shtml

It gives an interactive tool for ordering freedoms that you choose and presents the results.

You seem to be making the classic mistake in political arguments of assuming that everyone has the same goals/values that you do and judging their policies on how well they achieve those goals.

In my previous post I've stated what I believe motivates some people: political power, "free lunch", axiomatic liberty-worship, religion, Luddism, etc. What motivates me is the pursuit of objective truth, including a rational basis of ethics and law. Over the years this pursuit has led me many places I didn't intend to go, and would have been much happier avoiding... But it is what it is.

Sorry if I am misrepresenting you, but you seem to consider maximizing Economic Freedom as one of the primary goals, if not the only goal, of the US government.

The "Economic Freedom Index" is a crude measurement that tries to flatten many qualitative dimensions into a single linear scale. That said, it is fairly effective at capturing the fundamentals of how a country should be judged: individual Rights, freedom of contract, reliable rule of law, and not having more institutionalized violence than is necessary.

There are indexes that explore other dimensions of freedom, but they are secondary. A clean-slate voluntary corporation-state like Singapore can limit guns, drugs, and even speech without being tyrannical - those are the rules that people agree to when they choose to come there.

Needless to say, this belief is not universal. Many people believe that civil rights or social welfare, for example, are higher priority. A stronger economy may lead to some of those goals in the long-term, but that is not the same as addressing them directly sooner. Worse, the goals of any political party are likely a compromise representing none of their members exactly.

Economic laws are as universal as the laws of physics. No matter what you* "believe" or how many votes you have or what deliberative rituals you perform, you simply cannot legislate that Pi == 3.0 or that murder is a-OK - those facts of reality exist outside of human influence. (*Note that rhetorical "you" is being used throughout my rant.)

You can either recognize them or fail to recognize them, and failing to recognize them has consequences, akin to trying to build something with an inaccurate understanding of mathematics. A society that fails to recognize Natural Laws will find itself dysfunctional and at a competitive disadvantage compared to a society that comes closer to recognizing those Laws.

Evolution, whether biological or economic, doesn't care for your wishful thinking.

"Nature, to be commanded, needs to be obeyed."

Of course, a particular group's policies may not be the best way to achieve their goals but it is disingenuous to claim a group's policies are "wrong" because they do not achieve your goals.

People should be free to work toward whatever goals they wish, but conflicts between people's desires can only be solved objectively. "You are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts." I cannot have a "right to have sex with a pretty girl" if she has a right to say no. You cannot have a "right to a free pony" if people who are to pay for it have a right to property. Full recognition of all Rights has never been possible before in human history, but there is a positive progression toward a rational ideal.

You can set up a voluntary commune on private land and Heil Marx till your heads grow together - as long as everyone (or at least all adults) are there by choice. The Right of the people outside your commune not to be taxed by it, the Right of the children to be emancipated upon reaching adulthood and have the option of leaving, etc are not matters of arbitrary opinion - they are the rational answers to these fundamental questions, as can be shown through rational philosophy, and any other answer is wrong.

Most people in prison are not there because of murder or serious crimes, and neither because of drugs.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons would disagree with that statement:

Drug offenders make up 47.4% of the Federal prison population, the single largest category of offenses in the system.

By comparison, violent criminals make up ~13% of the federal prison population, using this guideline for classifying violent crime: "The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) counts five categories of crime as violent crimes: murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault." (source)

The AC is right - reform drug laws & sentencing, and the largest single category of offenders in the federal prison population - comprising nearly 50% of federal prisoners - go free. This would ALSO cut our incarceration rate roughly in half.

A lot of countries have even more restrictive drug laws.

Such as? According to the Drug Freedom Index, the USA scores a "1.5/10" rating at the federal level (some individual states fare better, but not buy much) - which means that most drugs are illegal, and there are prison terms for possession/use, along with mandatory sentencing guidelines in at least some areas.

You know what countries have scores lower than 1.5 on that list? It's actually a fair short list, and not exactly a "who's who" of progressive first world nations:
Algeria, Bhutan, China, Dem. Republic of Congo, Indonesia, North Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Oman, Singapore, Syria, Taiwan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen.

And here's the list of countries that ALSO scored "1.5" (tied with the US' Federal rating) - again, not a lot of forward-thinking liberal first-world nations in this list: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Burma/Myanmar, Cuba, Egypt, Guyana, India, Iran, Jordan, South Korea, Laos, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Vietnam.

So let's review the key points:
1) The US has some of the most draconian drug laws (and drug-related mandatory sentencing regimes) in the world, and certainly among the strictest in the "affluent western country" category
2) The US has spent enormous amounts of time and money prosecuting these crimes zealously - War on Drugs, remember?
3) People IN the US are generally a lot more affluent than people in the other countries with similarly strict drug laws - meaning that if you're going to engage in drug trafficking, the US is a great place to smuggle it to, because you've got a lot of people who can afford your product. I doubt the colombian cartels are searching desperately for new ways to expand their markets into North Korea or Somalia, where the average person is dirt poor by US standards. Spare me the "hurr durr I am the 99%" responses, the simple fact is that even the poorest people in the USA (with very few exceptions), have a far better standard of living than the poor in just about any other country on the two lists above.
3) Nearly 50% of the inmates in federal prison are there for drug offenses

In summary - the largest single group of criminals in prison are drug offenders. Decriminalize most of these drugs, and you've just about reduced the US' incarceration rate by nearly 50%.

in a world full of war for the purpose of promoting democracy where thousands of civilians die from the fighting or aftermath? Oh yah we don't directly see it so its ok.... Out of sight out of mind.

Aren't you a little old to believe in "promoting democracy"? Those words are used to explain things to children (and, sadly, the child-like geopolitically-retarded economically-retarded masses), similar to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Democracy is mob rule, and any popular dictator (a dictator cannot stay in power for long without being popular) can call "their land" a "democracy", like in North Korea.

USA's wars are fought for greater Economic Freedom - that's what "American Way" is all about! That's why USA fought a Revolution, and what made it different from any other New World or Old World nation. Only a handful of tiny nations come close to USA in Economic Freedom (and other aspects of freedom), and mostly thanks to USA's influence. Any war where a rabid socialist government (no matter if they wave the flags of Communism, National Socialism / Fascism, Islamic Socialism / Ba'athism, Peronismo, Somali WarlordXism, etc) is replaced with a less socialist one is, under the circumstances, a just war.

Now, back to the story at hand. USA isn't perfect, and has its parasitic infirmities / socialistic aspects, including government licensing and regulation of mainstream media. It's a constant struggle for freedom - fighting Saddams abroad, as well as our own little Saddam-wannabes in Washington DC... The sole rational purpose of government is violence, and the sole rational target of this violence is socialism large and small (including petty street thugs trying to "tax" your wallet).

In a pure free economy, a media institution is subject only to contractual agreements with its customers / partners / sponsors, if any, with no prior restraints to showing you whatever the hell it wants. Competition (including from everyman with a camera-phone and a Web-site) ultimately encourages an information-rich society where an individual can see whatever the hell s\he wants to see.

--libman

1) Really American's don't think they are special? How about whenever people get into chants like USA USA USA. Naaa nothing special at all.

Europeans have a long tradition of destructive and irrational nationalism. (You've even invented some thought-terminating cliches to thinkstop anyone from bringing them up.) USA, on the other hand, is a nation based more on the philosophical ideas of its founders rather than an accident of birth. (Or at least it would be if all Dems were deported to France...) It's not perfect, but it ranks near the top by most benchmarks of freedom - especially in how much of your labor you actually own!

I am an American by choice and conviction, and I have an extensive decision-support matrix to tell me when it will be time to become a Singaporean (etc) "by choice and conviction" instead. That time has not (yet?) come. USA, and particularly New Hampshire, is the best place for me to be. (And I wonder how NH would compare to the handpicked Potemkin Villages that Europeans like to select as their champions for each specific statistical comparison, forgetting the drastic difference of population and circumstance...)

2) Really have more wealth?

Yes, USA'ians have more wealth than the Europeans (with the possible exception of Norwaystan, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Vatican, and other tiny nations that could make money in particularly easy ways), and, most importantly, more opportunity to create wealth based on hard work and merit.

Compare USA's rankings in per-capita disposable income, median household income, etc. Then adjust them by purchasing power and fertility rates, and you'll see just how far ahead USA really is.

Without adjusting for fertility, all income statistics are meaningless! A family where the wife reduces her working hours and has 2-3 children has much lower income (particularly "per capita") than a family of DINKs, but children do have a great value, and a collapsing population eventually leads to an economic crisis.

3) Oh give me an effen break. European's hate success. Yes that's right because nobody drives any European cars, or buys any European products. No Europeans don't hate success. What Europeans hate is the difference in wealth between the poorest and the richest. If you think giving rich people privileges is right, then let me introduce you to King Louie XVI.

Of course Europe manufactures some cars (which are generally unreliable, overhyped, and overpriced). It has cheaper labor than the USA (particularly in Spain, Poland, etc), which gives it some advantage. Japan, SK, and soon China have an advantage over both. Europe's main export appeal is in luxury products that are a relic of its glorious past. But far fewer Europeans can afford to drive them...

You have confirmed the stereotype of Europeans hating success by comparing success to a despotic monarch - something that USA'ians weren't historically very fond of. As a country approaches sufficient economic freedom, over time, wealth flows out of the hands of the incompetent and is created in t

While you make some good points in your post, "grabbing foreign citizens in other countries against local laws and extradition treaties" is allowed by U.S. courts. See http://www.freeexistence.org/us_extradition.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ker%E2%80%93Frisbie_Doctrine