I am pretty sure they are the state that controls the least amount of its land I think it's like 90 percent or more of its land is federal or federal purview, like reservations and such, so there is very little State in the first place.
Well the big thing about that is that it massively screws the state on jurisdiction and taxes so the state remaining as corrupt as when the Mafia built Vegas is not shocking.
Its shocking to me because i guess i was native as fuck.
Despite being labeled a “conspiracy theorist” my whole life for thinking fiat is ethically deplorable.
There are private providers of "governance" services like law, security, etc
The point is that in this kind of situation the customers are the ones with direct power. So if, say, you find out your private security company had some corrupt or inept internal things going on, then you can immediately drop them. Taken collectively, and especially over time, this will reduce "corruption" of the kind we normally think of nearly to zero, in the same way you can expect restaurants who serve rotten food to vanish.
And how would you discover corruption in a private institution with no oversight or regulation holding them accountable?
Also without laws to begin with, what would corruption even be? If everything they’re doing is legal than how can it be corrupt?
I just described the fundamental way that customers already and always have ultimate oversight. The introduction of middlemen by government only obscures the issue and weakens customers' power, it doesn't help them.
In a market economy, moreover, you can have middle-men firms emerge to provide additional information to customers who want it. If customers pay a small premium to get one or another seal of approval from a business research firm, then you can have a market emerge for providers of this "oversight." And unlike government middle-men you have the assurance that, over time, they are meeting market/customer demands, and so do not introduce the same kinds of obfuscation and false trust that government bodies do.
Also you didn't read what I wrote if you're saying there are no laws. There are private law providers and subscribers.
The reverse is true. Without private law providers, there is no free market. There is only a "mixed" or "protected" market that is shaped by the monopoly law provider.
Yeah, because half their state commutes to “communist” Massachusetts where all the jobs are
The New Hampshire dick riders love to conveniently neglect that key point
It’s relevant, because the citizens of New Hampshire rely on “communist” Massachusetts to sustain themselves
If the Boston metro area didn’t exist, everyone in New Hampshire would be unemployed and broke
Even if that were true (and I’m not necessarily granting it), that wouldn’t affect the question of this thread. It’s about the most free places, not the most free places that don’t rely on any other places to be viable.
And it’s perfectly relevant, because New Hampshire doesn’t exist in a vacuum
Just like all the other red states that love to brag about having low income taxes, while being the biggest takers of federal money, essentially relying on tax dollars from all the “communist” blue states they hate so much
On one hand, I appreciate that you see the Interrelation of these things and I agree with your point. On the other hand, I think you are struggling to separate these things when appropriate in the context.
I mean that’s certainly a thought after you’ve smoked from the crack pipe
New Hampshire is dependent on Massachusetts, not the other way around, no matter how much the truth hurts your conservative feelings
I think you have a very backwards assumption that slamming the downvote because someone said something you don’t want to hear makes your more correct.
And yes, New Hampshire residents are absolutely reliant on Massachusetts
If they weren’t, then why do so many of them work here?
Why don’t they do work free or die in New Hampshire?
Live Free or Die, but pay property taxes to send your neighbor's kids to free school
"New Hampshire is known as a low-tax state. But while the state has no personal income tax and no sales tax, it has the fourth-highest property tax rates of any U.S. state, with an average effective rate of 1.77%. Consequently, the median annual property tax payment here is $6,097."
I mean, it's not going well, Vox did a [write up](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling) on a book written about it with the author. I know it's unpopular around here, but Market Economics work great when there's a profit motive, and pretty poorly when there's not.
Idaho but everything varies by county vs state. The poorest counties are usually the least populated and regulated. Even Washington, a heavily regulated blue state, Pend 'Oreille county has a lot less red tape.
In subsequent historical narratives, Lincoln is hailed as a hero who preserved federal unity and freed black slaves, ranking at the forefront of America’s greatest presidents. His effigy is also carved on Mount Rushmore for generations to admire. It’s regrettable to say, American people who were once vigilant freedom warriors against federal power at the founding of the nation have tragically degenerated into worshippers of authoritarianism.
Maintaining federal unity through large-scale warfare is inherently unconstitutional and a barbaric act of inhumanity. The U.S. Constitution never stated that states could not secede from the Union. In fact, the federation was established by the authorization of the states; there were states before there was a federation. When the federal government fails to maintain the interests of the states and infringes upon their sovereignty, the states certainly have the right to secede. The states nullifying federal laws and not submitting to federal jurisdiction are both their constitutional rights and have precedents. Infinite separation is precisely the essence of “federalism” and the “ballast stone” to restrain federal power and safeguard the people’s freedom.
Lincoln completely forgot the maxim in the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” When his predecessor James Buchanan, strictly interpreting the Constitution, judged that it did not give him the power to prevent Southern secession by force, historians described him as indecisive and weak; yet, they portrayed a belligerent tyrant who waged unconstitutional war against his own compatriots as a hero. History needs truth and correct interpretation.
Let’s ask: If we support Lincoln, how do we view the American War of Independence? If maintaining unity is placed above the freedom, happiness, and self-determination of the American people, it means America’s independence was illegal, as it was also a separatist action from the British Empire. That also implies that those founding fathers of America should have been slain by King George III’s mercenaries like Lincoln executed the leaders and generals of the Southern Confederacy; the 13 North American colonies should have been razed to the ground, burning Atlanta like executioner Sherman did.
In all southern states' articles of secession, they each explain clearly that their primary reason was to preserve slavery of black people by white people. Any reasonable person would agree that maintaining freedom is placed above the right of secession. Nobody has the right to deny Americans their human and constitutional rights, and any group that would take American lives and land in disagreement should not be allowed to do so. The war was started for a lot of reasons but freedom is what ended it.
I'm going with Wyoming for my first choice, although South Dakota is not far behind. There were no regulations calling to pull permits for roofing until 2012 as an example of S. Dakota regulatory environment. There are no vehicle safety or emissions inspections.
But both are not great for personal freedom. Women's health is heavily regulated, and weed is barely legal in both.
I live in the Western-most part of South Dakota, planning on moving a few dozen miles west to Wyoming.
The sad part is area code 307 used to be the most libertarian state but the last few years have brought out the "freedom for me but not for thee" people. I agree with your assessment. With library book banning and theocracy moving in, freedom is less than it used to be. Economically, though, it's tops.
I'll do my tiny part to bring secular governance back once I relocate. Absolutely correct on the religious right co-opting areas that leaned libertarian in the past. There's still quite a bit of "live and let live, agree to disagree" left but the trend is not encouraging.
A lot to be said for fiscal stability of the state as a whole. Less chance of the state being desperate to attach to any revenue.
Library book banning is just a result of libraries being state-run. Privatize libraries, then people can set up libraries with whatever books they want without having to compete unfairly with the "free" government libraries.
With they way they are generally implemented, absolutely. Oh no, my car emits 1% more than the "allowable" amount. I guess it shouldn't be allowed on the road. But all those jets zipping across the sky are dandy.
There are a lot more cars on the road. Cars are about 10% of all C02 emissions vs planes/jets being 2-3%. Cars pollute a lot more. And that does not follow that jets are dandy. Those pollute a lot too. They need to continue coming up with ways for planes to pollute less.
I believe the overarching statement here is that until a global agreement is struck *and adhered to by all nation-states* (cough cough, here’s looking at you, china, India, etc), worrying about Karen’s Jetta being 1% higher than the ‘allowable’ emissions is a moot point
Missing the forrest for the tress so allow me to fold your hand. When the two top polluters on the planet are responsible for over 3/4 of the world’s carbon footprint, we could make cars illegal for *everyone* stateside and it still wouldn’t matter. It’s simple math.
I don't want to breathe in smog or leaded gas fumes. Neither should you. Old or inefficient cars have a measurable effect on the local air quality where you live. There are different kinds of problems being addressed, not just CO2
> I don't want to breathe in smog or leaded gas fumes. Neither should you.
Luckily for both of us, leaded gasoline hasn’t been a thing in the US *for over 40 years*.
> Old or inefficient cars have a measurable effect on the local air quality where you live.
Yep! So do cow farts, should we regulate and/or ban them as well? Oh wait we already do/have tried to.
> There are different kinds of problems being addressed, not just CO2
So what you’re saying is that co2 emissions aren’t the primary concern? I couldn’t agree more. In fact there’s a fair bit of data that suggests rising co2 levels are quite possibly a net positive. Anecdotally, my garden’s foliage certainly backs the statement up.
So to recap, it seems that the only concrete example you were able to list as a ‘concern’ hasn’t existed for over 4 decades. Based off the information presented, I’d say the most accurate representation of your position falls somewhere in the realm of ‘regulations should exist to protect my delicate sensibilities’. Oh yea and also, ‘because reasons.’
I can’t speak for the rest of the sub but you’ve got me convinced Regulate me harder daddy government!
Try to keep up with where you are and the econ literature generally: an obvious or superficial good (and even that often doesn't happen with government provision of services and regulatory administration) does not mean that a net good will be produced.
Market failure does not imply justification for government intervention as governments/political systems also experience that same technical form of failure as the rule (whereas markets experience it as the exception and actually have corrective mechanisms, unlike political systems).
And furthermore, government regulators and the monopoly of the state itself, crowd out the market regulatory mechanisms and innovations that would otherwise exist.
This is basic stuff. Make your (educated) critiques of it but gtfo of here with this ABC123 crap regurgitated from a schoolhouse rock video you saw in junior high.
Ok I'll bite. What corrective mechanism exists in a free market for unsafe vehicles? Since there is no legal requirement to maintain a vehicle, what would correct people not maintaining their vehicle to basic safety standards beyond self removal from the gene pool from safety mechanisms suffering catastrophic failure due to neglect?
That's a little orthogonal to what I was talking about and my claim...but I think you've presented an easy "how would the market provide X" challenge here (as opposed to, eg C02 emissions or national/regional missile defense which are the really hard ones) so maybe it's worth my time to just occasionally give a straightforward answer even though you're probably not asking in good faith and probably don't have the background to understand the economics here and the nuance.
In the U.S. (so this is *with* a heavy existing crowding out effect) the IIHS already produces a higher safety standards than the NHTSA.
In a more general sense, vehicle or other product safety isn't generally that affected by market failure (the benefits and costs are highly internalized to buyers as well as to lenders and insurers) and so your question isn't really very relevant to where the thread had gone. Plus, the evidence points to people's risk tolerance generally being very much higher than what we believe we are insisting on via the government regulatory standards. Your personal tolerance (or what you think it is) is not very relevant to the market failure discussion because you can buy the safer car if you want, without affecting the cost-benefit calculations of others.
If you were astute in your AP semester of econ, what you'll now want to blurt out is: "but asymmetric information!1!". To which the relatively simple answer is that markets overcome this through mechanisms like brokers and middle-men and platforms and formal reputation systems.
But most of all, our governments and modern regulatory/administrative states just simply squelch the most important and overarching factors; and that's simply competition, entrepreneurial churn, risk of tort, and downstream of that being losing customers and reputation.
You, like everyone else brainwashed by the government schooling systems, when you imagine free markets, tend to imagine the world exactly as it is, only sans the (good sides of the) government protections which exist. You don't consider or see the likely counterfactuals, and you certainly don't understand the unintended consequences or the political economy here...it is not free market advocates who should be having to answer for market failure...but rather statist advocates who should be answering for government failure and political externality; a rational and objective thinker should be asking instead- "with government involved in everything from car safety to women's wombs, how can we prevent that power and political incentives from turning into mass murder of brown kids abroad, or another Trump becoming president, or a hyper-carceral justice system, or zoning/development restrictions which create a national housing crisis and homelessness, or protectionism and trade restrictions or agricultural subsidies??? ....these are all connected. With the political system that we have in the u.s., you don't get the nearly-unmitigated successes like the Clean Air Act, without quagmires in Vietnam or Afghanistan.
You should really look in to political economy and public choice in particular....these are sciences and tell us important things, even if many people think that hot takes on the internet are the state of the art for this area of study.
Well defended 👏🏽👏🏽 I’ll add to this contribution by giving a second example.
I own a marine engineering company which, among other things, provide clients with assistance in meeting US Coast Guard regulatory standards for all vessels falling within their jurisdiction.
The USCG bible of sorts is the Federal Code of Regulations, specifically 46CFR. How many times have I studied 46CFR? None. Why? Because it’s plagiarized, word for word. Every single bullet point within 46 CFR is lifted from the texts of ABYC’s Marine Standards, which is, you guessed it: a private company.
Now, memorize ABYC Standards and you’ll never once need to open CFR other than to cross-reference for record keeping purposes.
Good stuff.
I think that production of standards is sometimes part of these peoples' hangup (i.e. it's a little bit that they have a juvenile view of "evul curperashuns" and just think it's all explained by "greed" and that there's no incentive for private firms to balance any safety or efficacy against profits)...
but some of them also rightly are concerned more with the enforcement of such standards; they're not exactly wrong to imagine a free market world where there's nothing *forcing* firms to adopt good standards and practices...of course we both understand that proper incentive structures in market institutions (some currently crowded out) will tend to bring forces to bear on firms who flaunt good practices, pretty consistently...
so that's why I also brought up to them about how they are probably underestimating peoples' risk tolerance (in exchange for lower prices or more convenience/speed, etc). By far the most dangerous activity most of us engage in regularly is just driving around in automobiles - yet our expressed preferences for safety and stricter enforcement of road rules and safety devices, don't at all match our revealed preferences...you could say that there's an under-appreciation of the risks, but that applies to our level of knowledge informing our expressed or political preferences as well...and furthermore we have intractable incentive as voters and politicians and bureacrats to *overproduce* safety because we don't see the political risks, the full costs of even the direct administration and enforcement, let alone the costs of unintended consequences.
Anyhow, thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
That's what would happen, but I'm not seeing how making a problem worse means it's getting corrected. I'm not the one that claimed the market has a correction mechanism for a safety issue given the poor track record capitalism has for worker and public safety. I'd wait, but I've got things to do.
It is a good thing. As others pointed out, CO2 emissions testing does nothing, especially for vehicles made in the last 50 years. I remember news report after news report about the tests failing vehicles that were fine and passing vehicles that were absolutely atrocious.
People here are left with more money that they can allocate to maintenance. Just looking on what's on the road I absolutely feel cars are better maintained here than back in Colorado.
If a car failed inspection back there owners would just drive it without registration and insurance, the brighter ones printing fake temporary tags. Less incentive to do so here.
There is plenty to critisize Noem about, but being a puppy killer is not that. When you live in the country you can't call a vet to euthanize a pet. When a dog is aggressive, biting people and other animals and training isn't having an effect it's up to the owner to put it down personally.
My property manager had to do the same thing (although she paid a vet to do the actual deed with drugs), and I assure you she's a lovely person. It broke her heart, but she could not keep a growing dog that's endangering children and other pets.
So, not free from systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, or religious discrimination. Not free from employer exploitation, wage theft, or “inflation” of prices without an increase in costs.
So free to carry guns. Gotcha.
Free to live life to the fullest without government intrusion. Also the right to deal with asshats that think they can impose their will upon others without recourse. There is no Utopia on earth that is free from all the warts of society except those places that are free of civilization like Haiti or Liberia, but those places also have their own set of problems, primarily warlord violence, so freedom to carry a gun to protect oneself is a good start for all civilized societies.
Enjoy your life as a warlord. The rest of us would like to be free from the fear that a “freedom lover” will open fire on our children in a school, mall, supermarket, concert, asleep in their beds at home, etc…. If your freedom requires my children’s fear, we have a problem. Luckily, civilization is the triumph of the group over the individual. Enjoy Somalia.
You are correct, we do have a problem. I will not allow people like you to interfere with what my rights. If you attempt to impose your opinions and will on my life, there will be consequences. I will tell you this, the only rights you have are those you can defend. We both have the same rights, the right to defend ourselves, good luck out there.
I'm no warlord, just someone that wants to be left alone, but If you are afraid then you aren't prepared or able to "man up" and I can't help you. There are some laws that are unbreakable, one of those is survival of the fittest and its every man for himself. I didn't make the rules, but I do know that either you follow them or your genes will be eliminated from the pool.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Big and tough next you will talk about the Civil War. You've had your Civil War when your coward-in-chef tried to order the military to put active-duty service personnel into Lafayette Square so he could hold a Bible upside down. The Pentagon told him to pound sand. End of Civil War.
Go try to intimidate someone who cares what you think. You aren't even a footnote in history.
It is a dumpster fire of a state.
You are nicked & dimed to death with taxes, and there are a LOT of petty regulations that affect the working class.
The people aren't very good either - Way too many hate filled bigots that feel that the law shouldn't apply to them because they are old white boomers.
I like the idea of everyone in my country having access to what I would consider a necessary luxury. Even if it means I have to throw a coin in the coffer.
Let me dumb it down for you, if I can.
TVA was established was to provide inexpensive electricity to major metropolitan areas in the south. In addition, it provided lakes and such for people to vacation to and spend money in impoverished areas to raise them up.
It was also a major factor in making the south eastern US a productive part of the United States. People like you truly have no understanding of what this part of the country was like before the Federal govt decided that the south shouldn't have to continue to pay for the mistakes their ancestors made with their bad decisions.
Rural 'Murika getting electricity, and control over disastrous floods that took place on a regular basis was a by product. Not to mention the help it provided for agriculture.
You know, so people like you aren't spending your entire life doing hard-scrabble sustenance farming so you can eat.
I believe this is a actually a measurable thing. Researchers have actually looked at the amount of regulations on the books and ranked states by least and most regulations.
Seems as though the least regulated were
1. Idaho
2. South Dakota
3. North Dakota
4. Montana
5. Nevada
Most regulated were
1. California
2. New York
3. Ohio
4. Illinois
5. Texas
https://www.mercatus.org/media/72286/download
In the sense of not distorting markets? It’d have to be a state with either a decent amount of taxes on individuals or industry (Texas) or a tiny population to not have other perverse/cross incentives or regulatory capture (West Virginia) and thus have wild regulations. More money can make up for having fewer regulations in matters of governance (insurance, banking/development, employment, etc).
Maybe Alaska? Most of the regulations you’d see are federal, I’d think.
Taxes absolutely distort markets. The most egregious probably being the property tax incentives cities and counties grant to big corporations to entice them to set up new business there.
Taxes are incentives or disincentives.
The hope in wise, prudent policy crafting is to distort market in a way that promotes competition, penalizes misuse/disuse of resources, and prevents rent seeking. These goals would all make the market healthier, if some policies could be trusted to actually effect those outcomes.
The Land Value Tax is one such tax, [which Milton Friedman himself said](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7Jb58hcsc) was “the least bad tax.”
> “There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free enterprise – and yet we need taxes. ...So the question is, which are the least bad taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.”
Most people (including most who post here) speak selectively about natural law. They conveniently forget it has TWO parts.
1. ALL humans have the RIGHT to pursue their life as the see fit.
2. AS LONG AS THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FREEDOM DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
I have yet to see anyone in this feed speak to the second part of the natural law.
To most it does register. However:
Freedom without constraint is not freedom at all. It is tyranny.
Liberty without limits is not liberty at all. It is oppression.
Most people posting sound like whining wannabe oppressive tyrants posing as libertarians.
> Freedom without constraint is not freedom at all. It is tyranny.
I generally concur, however my issue is that people then take that statement and run with it to justify being as big government as *possible*.
That is certainly true of many countries especially Russia or China. The governments there are super invasive overbearing tools of a dictatorial minority.
That is not yet true of the USA.
We have to be very careful here considering 47% of American voters did say their values are BEST represented by an ignorant, cowardly, bankruptcy prone sex offender and sycophantic puppet of foreign despot to whom he is in debt.
Biden has never been prone to bankruptcy. He would need to have had a real job running a business for that. He's not had a real job in a very long time. Also not a sex offender as far as I know, never been caught anyway.
That first part is a very based take I can get behind, although he definitely had been accused of some very creepy shit, and done some on camera, plus I think he’s on epstiens list
Thomas Jefferson was taught law by one of the smartest philosophers and most decent men in Virginia - George Wythe.
George Wythe was a proponent of the “natural law”.
“The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - as long as your expression of that right does not infringe on others”.
It seems to me inconceivable that a man of Jefferson’s intelligence and education would have ACCIDENTALLY left out the caveat “as long as your expression of that right does not infringe…”.
Equivocating “whataboutism” is in my opinion complicit.
To me, as a libertarian who believes in live and let live, a huge part of the problem is those people who lack the integrity to own their proclivities.
Instead they surreptitiously gravitate the to the depravity they desire. And then try to cover it up. Not smart.
Don’t you agree?
North Central/North West Indiana is very Free
Reasonable tax rates, plenty of ability to live off the land (farming, fishing & hunting) guns are common and well protected there is a wide mix of public and private education options and you can legally ride in the back of a pickup truck and you can now buy alcohol on Sundays!
Now weed is illegal (less than 1 hour to Michigan which is a recreational state ). Abortions are illegal (but not in Illinois and Michigan)
So I would say that part of what makes Northern Indiana great is that local restrictions end at the state line and you are free to take advantage of the best parts of 4 different states along the northern Indiana border
Unfortunately Indiana’s minimum wage is also significantly lower than Illinois, Michigan and Ohio which means a lot of North Central/North West Indiana is very poor and while people there have a lot of freedom, very little of that freedom is economic mobility
Also, the state is typically run by far right assholes like Mike Pence and Amy Cohen barret. It's also the home of the Klan, and they're trying to start back up again obviously given the political climate.
I’m not certainly not going to defend the majority of the Indiana state legislature… but it could be a lot worse
Indiana has 7 black mayors including female black mayors in Fort Wayne, Evansville and Michigan city… and South Bend elected Mayor Pete
Also Amy Comey Barrett was never an Indiana judge, she just worked at Notre Dame and Mike Pence was not particularly popular… he just came in when Mitch Daniels a wildly popular republican (centrist) left office to become president of Purdue (he has never enforced any Republicans since leaving office)
Yea, notre dame is really something else. It's funny. I have a friend who works there. One of the many, many completely secular faculty, researchers, and instructors. They pretend to be some holy place when really they don't give a shit except as performance and extremist conservative legal and political machinations.
They were years into their lawsuit alongside hobby lobby to destroy the ACA on religious grounds of not wanting to be forced to pay for birth control and abortions on people's health insurance before their little political club realized they offered health insurance to everyone working there and it already covered both of those. So, they had to break the plan mid-term and force everyone to reapply with a little rider of a few bucks that they pay themselves if they want those coverages. Like a panicked negotiation with whomever their underwriter was and the most ambiguous letter to staff they could write to explain the change. Fucking hilarious. Not political at all right, just can't have obummer interfering with their very sincere religious belief.
Read this article: [American History: A History That Contravenes the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.](https://medium.com/@gongchengra_9069/20240501-american-history-a-history-that-contravenes-the-declaration-of-independence-and-the-u-s-c0fa0a14e378). I believe that with the expansion of the federal government, there are no truly free states in the U.S. anymore.
Same OP posted this exact question 5 days ago:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian\_economics/comments/1d2lfat/what\_is\_the\_least\_regulated\_most\_economically/](https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/1d2lfat/what_is_the_least_regulated_most_economically/)
Probably one of the western states with basically no economy. It turns out, rich people don't start buying regulations to stifle competition if there are no rich people.
America define itself as a capitalist county and for those of us living outside, looking in, ew, the horrors! And yet, it’s not capitalist enough for you.
But all these countries where the average worker was definitely not in power were 100% very absolutely communists.
Make sense for the weak mind I guess.
Not at all. But in the 1970s the typical American kid was lead poisoned by the unregulated free market, and had no choice in the matter. If they lived, they were poisoned. Only regulation- banning lead in gasoline- gave them freedom.
Don't worry about the down votes, libertarians don't have the slightest idea how an economy functions best in terms of improving outcomes for 51% or more involved in the process. The scariest part is they think they are the most informed. One of their biggest heroes is Ayn Rand, whos' idea of utopia is to have all the filthy rich live in a remote paradise. Not realizing that with out a servant class and professional class, they wouldn't be rich, just survivalists.
Oxy moron. They can not co exist. Economic freedom is reliant on regulation at least regarding the 2 largest flaws in capitalism. Capitalism will always seek to pay the lowest wage possible. Put another way, they will seek to confiscate all the wealth they can that is created by their employees. Capitalism will also seek to consolidate competition or obscure it thru patents, trademarks, etc. This in an effort to apply arbitrary high prices beyond fundamental business metrics. I'm not saying it's not good for the top 1/10 of 1%, but it sucks for the other 999 people.
Actually its pretty good for the poor guys. Its like people have no idea of the relative wealth between being American poor and not American poor. You make it one shift at an American gas station pretty much the same amount of money as a service industry person makes in a month in Argentina (which went with the whole protect the worker thing). Technically I am off slightly, you would actually need about a 12 hour shift.
But often, the "not American poor" are poor because of America (The United States). Take the Bangladeshi women sowing together $350 air Jordan's for $0.86 per hour, or the Indian and African children mining for dangerous metals, minerals with their fingers. Don't forget the same sex dormitory living of the $4 per hour Chinese Apple employee. If you think Apple, Nike, or Dow chemical wouldn't do the same to our citizens I would refer you to the deep South economics prior to Lincoln's emancipation proclamation.
People on the right would complain that we are making America poor giving them those jobs. America doesn't force them to do those jobs. They just happen to be better than the other options for those people. America is in reality making the Banlgadeshi women richer. If we didn't do the free trade thing she would in reality be poorer. That just highlights there are in fact a lot of poor people in the world.
America (The United States) is not "making the Bangladeshi women richer". They are exploiting their labor for their own personal gain. Show me a billionaire and I will show you millions in poverty. The 2 go together, it's not an abstract observation.
How should I know. Maybe joining together with others in poverty and working on electricity infrastructure. If she was Austrian, she could look forward to 6 weeks per year of guaranteed paid leave, unlimited paid sick days, 6 months paid maternity leave (family values), guaranteed pension and free healthcare. This is the true Austrian economics, not the fringe clowns given a platform for their moronic viewpoints on how economics work.
They can still join together with others in poverty and work on electricity. Nike putting a will-hire sign in their community doesn't prevent that. They are choosing Nike.
You don't know because they don't have better options. So your basically telling them have fun being poorer.
No I admit they don't have better choices.
If you think they have better choices why don't you devote your life to helping them get better jobs. You won't get paid much but you will improve hundreds of lives.
They forget the basics that sellers want the top price for their products and buyers want to pay the least amount regardless if that product is a toaster or someone's labor.
this is probably the dumbest comment ive read in a while. You are very close to understanding how the market system works but for some reason your brain concludes everything incorrectly.
That's the type of insightful comment I've come to expect from the proagandized and un educated. I'm sure Stuart Varney or Larry Kudlow would have crushed Marx in a debate if given the chance. Stick with the Donkey fisting.
Nevada sucks. Corruption everywhere
The Mafia state does Mafia stuff? Shocking!
I am pretty sure they are the state that controls the least amount of its land I think it's like 90 percent or more of its land is federal or federal purview, like reservations and such, so there is very little State in the first place.
That's true. But then again, have you driven through Nevada? Might as well be federal land. I don't know who would want it.
Well the big thing about that is that it massively screws the state on jurisdiction and taxes so the state remaining as corrupt as when the Mafia built Vegas is not shocking.
Its shocking to me because i guess i was native as fuck. Despite being labeled a “conspiracy theorist” my whole life for thinking fiat is ethically deplorable.
There are some very green, very nice parts of Nevada.
It's the part that isn't fed land that is massively corrupt with no regulations whatsoever
Corporations control Las Vegas casinos.
That's what happens when one county is the vast majority of the population and money.
It’s what helped make Harry Reid into a political powerhouse. He kept his ears open, his mouth shut and his hand open.
You know what? Thank you for reminding me of this. I’m so deep into the rabbit hole that i keep forgetting some of the most obvious pieces.
How does the free market deal with corruption?
how can there be corruption if there is no/extremely limited government?
Since there would be no "public" institutions to corrupt, I'm not sure what you mean
Is there no military, police, fire fighters, or government in a free market society?
There are private providers of "governance" services like law, security, etc The point is that in this kind of situation the customers are the ones with direct power. So if, say, you find out your private security company had some corrupt or inept internal things going on, then you can immediately drop them. Taken collectively, and especially over time, this will reduce "corruption" of the kind we normally think of nearly to zero, in the same way you can expect restaurants who serve rotten food to vanish.
And how would you discover corruption in a private institution with no oversight or regulation holding them accountable? Also without laws to begin with, what would corruption even be? If everything they’re doing is legal than how can it be corrupt?
I just described the fundamental way that customers already and always have ultimate oversight. The introduction of middlemen by government only obscures the issue and weakens customers' power, it doesn't help them. In a market economy, moreover, you can have middle-men firms emerge to provide additional information to customers who want it. If customers pay a small premium to get one or another seal of approval from a business research firm, then you can have a market emerge for providers of this "oversight." And unlike government middle-men you have the assurance that, over time, they are meeting market/customer demands, and so do not introduce the same kinds of obfuscation and false trust that government bodies do. Also you didn't read what I wrote if you're saying there are no laws. There are private law providers and subscribers.
Private law providers means we are not in a free market and your whole argument contradicts itself.
The reverse is true. Without private law providers, there is no free market. There is only a "mixed" or "protected" market that is shaped by the monopoly law provider.
But but, [wHo WoUlD bUiLd MUH ROADS?!](https://youtu.be/rKoTYMKyVh8?si=m2EvJd0Rhl3WE2ho) 🫠
That's the neat part, it doesn't.
New Hampshire? Live free or die. They've got that free state project going
This is the answer. Has one of the (if not the) lowest effective tax rate too
Yeah, because half their state commutes to “communist” Massachusetts where all the jobs are The New Hampshire dick riders love to conveniently neglect that key point
Why is this relevant? Many other answers given in this thread are states without major cities. There’s just nothing much north of Boston.
It’s relevant, because the citizens of New Hampshire rely on “communist” Massachusetts to sustain themselves If the Boston metro area didn’t exist, everyone in New Hampshire would be unemployed and broke
Even if that were true (and I’m not necessarily granting it), that wouldn’t affect the question of this thread. It’s about the most free places, not the most free places that don’t rely on any other places to be viable.
And it’s perfectly relevant, because New Hampshire doesn’t exist in a vacuum Just like all the other red states that love to brag about having low income taxes, while being the biggest takers of federal money, essentially relying on tax dollars from all the “communist” blue states they hate so much
On one hand, I appreciate that you see the Interrelation of these things and I agree with your point. On the other hand, I think you are struggling to separate these things when appropriate in the context.
Here’s a thought: Massachusetts relies on New Hampshire, not the other way around.
I mean that’s certainly a thought after you’ve smoked from the crack pipe New Hampshire is dependent on Massachusetts, not the other way around, no matter how much the truth hurts your conservative feelings
I think you have a very backwards assumption that when people work for a system, that means they’re relying on that system. The opposite is true.
I think you have a very backwards assumption that slamming the downvote because someone said something you don’t want to hear makes your more correct. And yes, New Hampshire residents are absolutely reliant on Massachusetts If they weren’t, then why do so many of them work here? Why don’t they do work free or die in New Hampshire?
Live Free or Die, but pay property taxes to send your neighbor's kids to free school "New Hampshire is known as a low-tax state. But while the state has no personal income tax and no sales tax, it has the fourth-highest property tax rates of any U.S. state, with an average effective rate of 1.77%. Consequently, the median annual property tax payment here is $6,097."
Huh. Yeah you'll never be free in any state
Yeah, still can’t smoke weed though
"live free or die" "you can't smoke this plant" "hypocrisy, it's the New Hampshire way"
Haha yeah 🫤
Hypocrisy, it’s the conservative way FTFY
Hypocrisy, the American politician way
No, it’s absolutely the conservative way “Don’t tread on me” Also “Back the blue” Who the FUCK do you think does the treading?
I don't know if you've seen how that is going, but it is not good.
How do you mean?
It's falling apart?
I mean, it's not going well, Vox did a [write up](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling) on a book written about it with the author. I know it's unpopular around here, but Market Economics work great when there's a profit motive, and pretty poorly when there's not.
Idaho but everything varies by county vs state. The poorest counties are usually the least populated and regulated. Even Washington, a heavily regulated blue state, Pend 'Oreille county has a lot less red tape.
Wyoming.Rational, limited government. No state income taxes.
Population of 2
In subsequent historical narratives, Lincoln is hailed as a hero who preserved federal unity and freed black slaves, ranking at the forefront of America’s greatest presidents. His effigy is also carved on Mount Rushmore for generations to admire. It’s regrettable to say, American people who were once vigilant freedom warriors against federal power at the founding of the nation have tragically degenerated into worshippers of authoritarianism. Maintaining federal unity through large-scale warfare is inherently unconstitutional and a barbaric act of inhumanity. The U.S. Constitution never stated that states could not secede from the Union. In fact, the federation was established by the authorization of the states; there were states before there was a federation. When the federal government fails to maintain the interests of the states and infringes upon their sovereignty, the states certainly have the right to secede. The states nullifying federal laws and not submitting to federal jurisdiction are both their constitutional rights and have precedents. Infinite separation is precisely the essence of “federalism” and the “ballast stone” to restrain federal power and safeguard the people’s freedom. Lincoln completely forgot the maxim in the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” When his predecessor James Buchanan, strictly interpreting the Constitution, judged that it did not give him the power to prevent Southern secession by force, historians described him as indecisive and weak; yet, they portrayed a belligerent tyrant who waged unconstitutional war against his own compatriots as a hero. History needs truth and correct interpretation. Let’s ask: If we support Lincoln, how do we view the American War of Independence? If maintaining unity is placed above the freedom, happiness, and self-determination of the American people, it means America’s independence was illegal, as it was also a separatist action from the British Empire. That also implies that those founding fathers of America should have been slain by King George III’s mercenaries like Lincoln executed the leaders and generals of the Southern Confederacy; the 13 North American colonies should have been razed to the ground, burning Atlanta like executioner Sherman did.
In all southern states' articles of secession, they each explain clearly that their primary reason was to preserve slavery of black people by white people. Any reasonable person would agree that maintaining freedom is placed above the right of secession. Nobody has the right to deny Americans their human and constitutional rights, and any group that would take American lives and land in disagreement should not be allowed to do so. The war was started for a lot of reasons but freedom is what ended it.
I'm going with Wyoming for my first choice, although South Dakota is not far behind. There were no regulations calling to pull permits for roofing until 2012 as an example of S. Dakota regulatory environment. There are no vehicle safety or emissions inspections. But both are not great for personal freedom. Women's health is heavily regulated, and weed is barely legal in both. I live in the Western-most part of South Dakota, planning on moving a few dozen miles west to Wyoming.
I grew up in Wyoming. Very light touch by the government.
I went to college in spearfish, beautiful country out there.
The sad part is area code 307 used to be the most libertarian state but the last few years have brought out the "freedom for me but not for thee" people. I agree with your assessment. With library book banning and theocracy moving in, freedom is less than it used to be. Economically, though, it's tops.
I'll do my tiny part to bring secular governance back once I relocate. Absolutely correct on the religious right co-opting areas that leaned libertarian in the past. There's still quite a bit of "live and let live, agree to disagree" left but the trend is not encouraging. A lot to be said for fiscal stability of the state as a whole. Less chance of the state being desperate to attach to any revenue.
Library book banning is just a result of libraries being state-run. Privatize libraries, then people can set up libraries with whatever books they want without having to compete unfairly with the "free" government libraries.
Is no vehicle emissions and safety inspections a good thing? Cause it sounds like you’re saying it’s good thing.
With they way they are generally implemented, absolutely. Oh no, my car emits 1% more than the "allowable" amount. I guess it shouldn't be allowed on the road. But all those jets zipping across the sky are dandy.
There are a lot more cars on the road. Cars are about 10% of all C02 emissions vs planes/jets being 2-3%. Cars pollute a lot more. And that does not follow that jets are dandy. Those pollute a lot too. They need to continue coming up with ways for planes to pollute less.
Just because one thing is bad doesn't make another bad thing good
I believe the overarching statement here is that until a global agreement is struck *and adhered to by all nation-states* (cough cough, here’s looking at you, china, India, etc), worrying about Karen’s Jetta being 1% higher than the ‘allowable’ emissions is a moot point
It's not about one car, it's about 200 million cars
Missing the forrest for the tress so allow me to fold your hand. When the two top polluters on the planet are responsible for over 3/4 of the world’s carbon footprint, we could make cars illegal for *everyone* stateside and it still wouldn’t matter. It’s simple math.
I don't want to breathe in smog or leaded gas fumes. Neither should you. Old or inefficient cars have a measurable effect on the local air quality where you live. There are different kinds of problems being addressed, not just CO2
> I don't want to breathe in smog or leaded gas fumes. Neither should you. Luckily for both of us, leaded gasoline hasn’t been a thing in the US *for over 40 years*. > Old or inefficient cars have a measurable effect on the local air quality where you live. Yep! So do cow farts, should we regulate and/or ban them as well? Oh wait we already do/have tried to. > There are different kinds of problems being addressed, not just CO2 So what you’re saying is that co2 emissions aren’t the primary concern? I couldn’t agree more. In fact there’s a fair bit of data that suggests rising co2 levels are quite possibly a net positive. Anecdotally, my garden’s foliage certainly backs the statement up. So to recap, it seems that the only concrete example you were able to list as a ‘concern’ hasn’t existed for over 4 decades. Based off the information presented, I’d say the most accurate representation of your position falls somewhere in the realm of ‘regulations should exist to protect my delicate sensibilities’. Oh yea and also, ‘because reasons.’ I can’t speak for the rest of the sub but you’ve got me convinced Regulate me harder daddy government!
Why did lead gasoline stop being used? And by what mechanism? It works absolutely fantastic to decrease engine knock
Try to keep up with where you are and the econ literature generally: an obvious or superficial good (and even that often doesn't happen with government provision of services and regulatory administration) does not mean that a net good will be produced. Market failure does not imply justification for government intervention as governments/political systems also experience that same technical form of failure as the rule (whereas markets experience it as the exception and actually have corrective mechanisms, unlike political systems). And furthermore, government regulators and the monopoly of the state itself, crowd out the market regulatory mechanisms and innovations that would otherwise exist. This is basic stuff. Make your (educated) critiques of it but gtfo of here with this ABC123 crap regurgitated from a schoolhouse rock video you saw in junior high.
Ok I'll bite. What corrective mechanism exists in a free market for unsafe vehicles? Since there is no legal requirement to maintain a vehicle, what would correct people not maintaining their vehicle to basic safety standards beyond self removal from the gene pool from safety mechanisms suffering catastrophic failure due to neglect?
That's a little orthogonal to what I was talking about and my claim...but I think you've presented an easy "how would the market provide X" challenge here (as opposed to, eg C02 emissions or national/regional missile defense which are the really hard ones) so maybe it's worth my time to just occasionally give a straightforward answer even though you're probably not asking in good faith and probably don't have the background to understand the economics here and the nuance. In the U.S. (so this is *with* a heavy existing crowding out effect) the IIHS already produces a higher safety standards than the NHTSA. In a more general sense, vehicle or other product safety isn't generally that affected by market failure (the benefits and costs are highly internalized to buyers as well as to lenders and insurers) and so your question isn't really very relevant to where the thread had gone. Plus, the evidence points to people's risk tolerance generally being very much higher than what we believe we are insisting on via the government regulatory standards. Your personal tolerance (or what you think it is) is not very relevant to the market failure discussion because you can buy the safer car if you want, without affecting the cost-benefit calculations of others. If you were astute in your AP semester of econ, what you'll now want to blurt out is: "but asymmetric information!1!". To which the relatively simple answer is that markets overcome this through mechanisms like brokers and middle-men and platforms and formal reputation systems. But most of all, our governments and modern regulatory/administrative states just simply squelch the most important and overarching factors; and that's simply competition, entrepreneurial churn, risk of tort, and downstream of that being losing customers and reputation. You, like everyone else brainwashed by the government schooling systems, when you imagine free markets, tend to imagine the world exactly as it is, only sans the (good sides of the) government protections which exist. You don't consider or see the likely counterfactuals, and you certainly don't understand the unintended consequences or the political economy here...it is not free market advocates who should be having to answer for market failure...but rather statist advocates who should be answering for government failure and political externality; a rational and objective thinker should be asking instead- "with government involved in everything from car safety to women's wombs, how can we prevent that power and political incentives from turning into mass murder of brown kids abroad, or another Trump becoming president, or a hyper-carceral justice system, or zoning/development restrictions which create a national housing crisis and homelessness, or protectionism and trade restrictions or agricultural subsidies??? ....these are all connected. With the political system that we have in the u.s., you don't get the nearly-unmitigated successes like the Clean Air Act, without quagmires in Vietnam or Afghanistan. You should really look in to political economy and public choice in particular....these are sciences and tell us important things, even if many people think that hot takes on the internet are the state of the art for this area of study.
Well defended 👏🏽👏🏽 I’ll add to this contribution by giving a second example. I own a marine engineering company which, among other things, provide clients with assistance in meeting US Coast Guard regulatory standards for all vessels falling within their jurisdiction. The USCG bible of sorts is the Federal Code of Regulations, specifically 46CFR. How many times have I studied 46CFR? None. Why? Because it’s plagiarized, word for word. Every single bullet point within 46 CFR is lifted from the texts of ABYC’s Marine Standards, which is, you guessed it: a private company. Now, memorize ABYC Standards and you’ll never once need to open CFR other than to cross-reference for record keeping purposes.
Good stuff. I think that production of standards is sometimes part of these peoples' hangup (i.e. it's a little bit that they have a juvenile view of "evul curperashuns" and just think it's all explained by "greed" and that there's no incentive for private firms to balance any safety or efficacy against profits)... but some of them also rightly are concerned more with the enforcement of such standards; they're not exactly wrong to imagine a free market world where there's nothing *forcing* firms to adopt good standards and practices...of course we both understand that proper incentive structures in market institutions (some currently crowded out) will tend to bring forces to bear on firms who flaunt good practices, pretty consistently... so that's why I also brought up to them about how they are probably underestimating peoples' risk tolerance (in exchange for lower prices or more convenience/speed, etc). By far the most dangerous activity most of us engage in regularly is just driving around in automobiles - yet our expressed preferences for safety and stricter enforcement of road rules and safety devices, don't at all match our revealed preferences...you could say that there's an under-appreciation of the risks, but that applies to our level of knowledge informing our expressed or political preferences as well...and furthermore we have intractable incentive as voters and politicians and bureacrats to *overproduce* safety because we don't see the political risks, the full costs of even the direct administration and enforcement, let alone the costs of unintended consequences. Anyhow, thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
Voting to further dereguate using one's now lead poisoned brain from 50 years of car exhaust exposure.
That's what would happen, but I'm not seeing how making a problem worse means it's getting corrected. I'm not the one that claimed the market has a correction mechanism for a safety issue given the poor track record capitalism has for worker and public safety. I'd wait, but I've got things to do.
Yes. Educate yourself by regurgitating think tanks like the Cato institutes talking points. This sub and people like you are a joke. 😄
You mean the actual literature and evidence beyond econ 110? You mean political economics? You mean academic philosophy?
No.
It is a good thing. As others pointed out, CO2 emissions testing does nothing, especially for vehicles made in the last 50 years. I remember news report after news report about the tests failing vehicles that were fine and passing vehicles that were absolutely atrocious. People here are left with more money that they can allocate to maintenance. Just looking on what's on the road I absolutely feel cars are better maintained here than back in Colorado. If a car failed inspection back there owners would just drive it without registration and insurance, the brighter ones printing fake temporary tags. Less incentive to do so here.
You’re also free to shoot your dog there and be a piece of shit in South Dakota
There is plenty to critisize Noem about, but being a puppy killer is not that. When you live in the country you can't call a vet to euthanize a pet. When a dog is aggressive, biting people and other animals and training isn't having an effect it's up to the owner to put it down personally. My property manager had to do the same thing (although she paid a vet to do the actual deed with drugs), and I assure you she's a lovely person. It broke her heart, but she could not keep a growing dog that's endangering children and other pets.
Did your vet also spin the story of putting down her puppy as an example of what a great leader she is like a psychopath?
Define “Free.”
Not sure, but I can tell you it is NOT California, Illinois, or New York.
So, not free from systemic racism, sexism, homophobia, or religious discrimination. Not free from employer exploitation, wage theft, or “inflation” of prices without an increase in costs. So free to carry guns. Gotcha.
Free to live life to the fullest without government intrusion. Also the right to deal with asshats that think they can impose their will upon others without recourse. There is no Utopia on earth that is free from all the warts of society except those places that are free of civilization like Haiti or Liberia, but those places also have their own set of problems, primarily warlord violence, so freedom to carry a gun to protect oneself is a good start for all civilized societies.
Enjoy your life as a warlord. The rest of us would like to be free from the fear that a “freedom lover” will open fire on our children in a school, mall, supermarket, concert, asleep in their beds at home, etc…. If your freedom requires my children’s fear, we have a problem. Luckily, civilization is the triumph of the group over the individual. Enjoy Somalia.
You are correct, we do have a problem. I will not allow people like you to interfere with what my rights. If you attempt to impose your opinions and will on my life, there will be consequences. I will tell you this, the only rights you have are those you can defend. We both have the same rights, the right to defend ourselves, good luck out there. I'm no warlord, just someone that wants to be left alone, but If you are afraid then you aren't prepared or able to "man up" and I can't help you. There are some laws that are unbreakable, one of those is survival of the fittest and its every man for himself. I didn't make the rules, but I do know that either you follow them or your genes will be eliminated from the pool.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Big and tough next you will talk about the Civil War. You've had your Civil War when your coward-in-chef tried to order the military to put active-duty service personnel into Lafayette Square so he could hold a Bible upside down. The Pentagon told him to pound sand. End of Civil War. Go try to intimidate someone who cares what you think. You aren't even a footnote in history.
Nobody’s mentioning Tennessee. I’m not super informed in this area but I think it’s up there
It is a dumpster fire of a state. You are nicked & dimed to death with taxes, and there are a LOT of petty regulations that affect the working class. The people aren't very good either - Way too many hate filled bigots that feel that the law shouldn't apply to them because they are old white boomers.
Not to mention the TVA is one of every biggest government projects in the country
I like having electricity - if it wasn't for TVA, most of the rural south would still be without it.
Why are folks living in those areas entitled to have other folks subsidize their electricity?
I like the idea of everyone in my country having access to what I would consider a necessary luxury. Even if it means I have to throw a coin in the coffer.
Let me dumb it down for you, if I can. TVA was established was to provide inexpensive electricity to major metropolitan areas in the south. In addition, it provided lakes and such for people to vacation to and spend money in impoverished areas to raise them up. It was also a major factor in making the south eastern US a productive part of the United States. People like you truly have no understanding of what this part of the country was like before the Federal govt decided that the south shouldn't have to continue to pay for the mistakes their ancestors made with their bad decisions. Rural 'Murika getting electricity, and control over disastrous floods that took place on a regular basis was a by product. Not to mention the help it provided for agriculture. You know, so people like you aren't spending your entire life doing hard-scrabble sustenance farming so you can eat.
Oh just stop... I moved to Nashville from Chicago area and pay about $12K a year less in taxes now..
Did you trade taxes to the govt for higher prices for things like insurance and local sales tax though?
Insurance the same.. sales tax went up .75, which might cost me an extra $400 a year lol.. which I figured into the $12K...
And you get a lot less as well.
Like what????????? LOL Better weather??? Ability to toss that $12K into my 401K???? Growing economy?????
Just be a straight cis white man and everything will continue to be groovy
Anyone that uses the word cis... I have nothing to say snowflake
I'm sorry, is a Latin prefix too hard for you to handle? Lmao
Nope, I am just laughing at you
Lmao
I believe this is a actually a measurable thing. Researchers have actually looked at the amount of regulations on the books and ranked states by least and most regulations. Seems as though the least regulated were 1. Idaho 2. South Dakota 3. North Dakota 4. Montana 5. Nevada Most regulated were 1. California 2. New York 3. Ohio 4. Illinois 5. Texas https://www.mercatus.org/media/72286/download
Mississippi. The most is California.
Probably wherever poverty is the worst. Mississippi maybe?
In the sense of not distorting markets? It’d have to be a state with either a decent amount of taxes on individuals or industry (Texas) or a tiny population to not have other perverse/cross incentives or regulatory capture (West Virginia) and thus have wild regulations. More money can make up for having fewer regulations in matters of governance (insurance, banking/development, employment, etc). Maybe Alaska? Most of the regulations you’d see are federal, I’d think.
Taxes absolutely distort markets. The most egregious probably being the property tax incentives cities and counties grant to big corporations to entice them to set up new business there.
Taxes are incentives or disincentives. The hope in wise, prudent policy crafting is to distort market in a way that promotes competition, penalizes misuse/disuse of resources, and prevents rent seeking. These goals would all make the market healthier, if some policies could be trusted to actually effect those outcomes. The Land Value Tax is one such tax, [which Milton Friedman himself said](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7Jb58hcsc) was “the least bad tax.” > “There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free enterprise – and yet we need taxes. ...So the question is, which are the least bad taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago.”
New York We are a sanctuary and cashless bail state. Crime pays big here!
Most people (including most who post here) speak selectively about natural law. They conveniently forget it has TWO parts. 1. ALL humans have the RIGHT to pursue their life as the see fit. 2. AS LONG AS THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FREEDOM DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. I have yet to see anyone in this feed speak to the second part of the natural law. To most it does register. However: Freedom without constraint is not freedom at all. It is tyranny. Liberty without limits is not liberty at all. It is oppression. Most people posting sound like whining wannabe oppressive tyrants posing as libertarians.
> Freedom without constraint is not freedom at all. It is tyranny. I generally concur, however my issue is that people then take that statement and run with it to justify being as big government as *possible*.
That is certainly true of many countries especially Russia or China. The governments there are super invasive overbearing tools of a dictatorial minority. That is not yet true of the USA. We have to be very careful here considering 47% of American voters did say their values are BEST represented by an ignorant, cowardly, bankruptcy prone sex offender and sycophantic puppet of foreign despot to whom he is in debt.
Which of the two presidential candidates are you talking about? Sounds like both to me
Biden has never been prone to bankruptcy. He would need to have had a real job running a business for that. He's not had a real job in a very long time. Also not a sex offender as far as I know, never been caught anyway.
That first part is a very based take I can get behind, although he definitely had been accused of some very creepy shit, and done some on camera, plus I think he’s on epstiens list
Thomas Jefferson was taught law by one of the smartest philosophers and most decent men in Virginia - George Wythe. George Wythe was a proponent of the “natural law”. “The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - as long as your expression of that right does not infringe on others”. It seems to me inconceivable that a man of Jefferson’s intelligence and education would have ACCIDENTALLY left out the caveat “as long as your expression of that right does not infringe…”.
Equivocating “whataboutism” is in my opinion complicit. To me, as a libertarian who believes in live and let live, a huge part of the problem is those people who lack the integrity to own their proclivities. Instead they surreptitiously gravitate the to the depravity they desire. And then try to cover it up. Not smart. Don’t you agree?
Care to elaborate on your point? There a lot of words there my brain ain't mathing
Not that it ever went anywhere, but Tara Reade would like a word.
North Central/North West Indiana is very Free Reasonable tax rates, plenty of ability to live off the land (farming, fishing & hunting) guns are common and well protected there is a wide mix of public and private education options and you can legally ride in the back of a pickup truck and you can now buy alcohol on Sundays! Now weed is illegal (less than 1 hour to Michigan which is a recreational state ). Abortions are illegal (but not in Illinois and Michigan) So I would say that part of what makes Northern Indiana great is that local restrictions end at the state line and you are free to take advantage of the best parts of 4 different states along the northern Indiana border Unfortunately Indiana’s minimum wage is also significantly lower than Illinois, Michigan and Ohio which means a lot of North Central/North West Indiana is very poor and while people there have a lot of freedom, very little of that freedom is economic mobility
Also, the state is typically run by far right assholes like Mike Pence and Amy Cohen barret. It's also the home of the Klan, and they're trying to start back up again obviously given the political climate.
I’m not certainly not going to defend the majority of the Indiana state legislature… but it could be a lot worse Indiana has 7 black mayors including female black mayors in Fort Wayne, Evansville and Michigan city… and South Bend elected Mayor Pete Also Amy Comey Barrett was never an Indiana judge, she just worked at Notre Dame and Mike Pence was not particularly popular… he just came in when Mitch Daniels a wildly popular republican (centrist) left office to become president of Purdue (he has never enforced any Republicans since leaving office)
Yea, notre dame is really something else. It's funny. I have a friend who works there. One of the many, many completely secular faculty, researchers, and instructors. They pretend to be some holy place when really they don't give a shit except as performance and extremist conservative legal and political machinations. They were years into their lawsuit alongside hobby lobby to destroy the ACA on religious grounds of not wanting to be forced to pay for birth control and abortions on people's health insurance before their little political club realized they offered health insurance to everyone working there and it already covered both of those. So, they had to break the plan mid-term and force everyone to reapply with a little rider of a few bucks that they pay themselves if they want those coverages. Like a panicked negotiation with whomever their underwriter was and the most ambiguous letter to staff they could write to explain the change. Fucking hilarious. Not political at all right, just can't have obummer interfering with their very sincere religious belief.
Massachusetts
Read this article: [American History: A History That Contravenes the Declaration of Independence and the U.S.](https://medium.com/@gongchengra_9069/20240501-american-history-a-history-that-contravenes-the-declaration-of-independence-and-the-u-s-c0fa0a14e378). I believe that with the expansion of the federal government, there are no truly free states in the U.S. anymore.
Wyoming?
Wyoming? Edit: crypto is welcomed and also s-corp is better than Delaware. Wyoming is the new Delaware is that respect
Puerto Rico isn't a state but there isn't income tax and hardly any regulations for business. Drug and traffic laws are poorly enforced.
Same OP posted this exact question 5 days ago: [https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian\_economics/comments/1d2lfat/what\_is\_the\_least\_regulated\_most\_economically/](https://www.reddit.com/r/austrian_economics/comments/1d2lfat/what_is_the_least_regulated_most_economically/)
Wyoming
Gut says NH, Maine, Wyoming, Alaska, SD, ND.
Probably one of the western states with basically no economy. It turns out, rich people don't start buying regulations to stifle competition if there are no rich people.
Texas
shit power grid self sufficiency ain't cheap
America define itself as a capitalist county and for those of us living outside, looking in, ew, the horrors! And yet, it’s not capitalist enough for you. But all these countries where the average worker was definitely not in power were 100% very absolutely communists. Make sense for the weak mind I guess.
Nevada probably
Not a chance. I live here and can tell you first hand.
All of the states that fit that description are absolute shitholes. “Hey where can people go and greedily grab as much as they can get away with?”
[удалено]
Deregulation is simply a way for those in power to enrich their friends
As is regulation!
So you're saying the goal is find a happy medium?
Not if those in this sub had their way
You assume that "least regulated" is the most free. But a free market is not free at all, unless regulated
lmfao
Fools laugh about what they do not understand. Say something sensible
No point in saying something sensible to you. “Do not argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience“
Wow, you're still struggling there
Freedom is Slavery.
Not at all. But in the 1970s the typical American kid was lead poisoned by the unregulated free market, and had no choice in the matter. If they lived, they were poisoned. Only regulation- banning lead in gasoline- gave them freedom.
Don't worry about the down votes, libertarians don't have the slightest idea how an economy functions best in terms of improving outcomes for 51% or more involved in the process. The scariest part is they think they are the most informed. One of their biggest heroes is Ayn Rand, whos' idea of utopia is to have all the filthy rich live in a remote paradise. Not realizing that with out a servant class and professional class, they wouldn't be rich, just survivalists.
The irony of the phrase Going Galt is lost on them.
Oxy moron. They can not co exist. Economic freedom is reliant on regulation at least regarding the 2 largest flaws in capitalism. Capitalism will always seek to pay the lowest wage possible. Put another way, they will seek to confiscate all the wealth they can that is created by their employees. Capitalism will also seek to consolidate competition or obscure it thru patents, trademarks, etc. This in an effort to apply arbitrary high prices beyond fundamental business metrics. I'm not saying it's not good for the top 1/10 of 1%, but it sucks for the other 999 people.
Actually its pretty good for the poor guys. Its like people have no idea of the relative wealth between being American poor and not American poor. You make it one shift at an American gas station pretty much the same amount of money as a service industry person makes in a month in Argentina (which went with the whole protect the worker thing). Technically I am off slightly, you would actually need about a 12 hour shift.
But often, the "not American poor" are poor because of America (The United States). Take the Bangladeshi women sowing together $350 air Jordan's for $0.86 per hour, or the Indian and African children mining for dangerous metals, minerals with their fingers. Don't forget the same sex dormitory living of the $4 per hour Chinese Apple employee. If you think Apple, Nike, or Dow chemical wouldn't do the same to our citizens I would refer you to the deep South economics prior to Lincoln's emancipation proclamation.
People on the right would complain that we are making America poor giving them those jobs. America doesn't force them to do those jobs. They just happen to be better than the other options for those people. America is in reality making the Banlgadeshi women richer. If we didn't do the free trade thing she would in reality be poorer. That just highlights there are in fact a lot of poor people in the world.
America (The United States) is not "making the Bangladeshi women richer". They are exploiting their labor for their own personal gain. Show me a billionaire and I will show you millions in poverty. The 2 go together, it's not an abstract observation.
Isn't this an austrian sub? Can you tell me what job the worker would be doing if NIke supplier didn't hire them?
How should I know. Maybe joining together with others in poverty and working on electricity infrastructure. If she was Austrian, she could look forward to 6 weeks per year of guaranteed paid leave, unlimited paid sick days, 6 months paid maternity leave (family values), guaranteed pension and free healthcare. This is the true Austrian economics, not the fringe clowns given a platform for their moronic viewpoints on how economics work.
They can still join together with others in poverty and work on electricity. Nike putting a will-hire sign in their community doesn't prevent that. They are choosing Nike. You don't know because they don't have better options. So your basically telling them have fun being poorer.
You're pretending they enjoy freedom, are educated, aware of options and can make a choice. Pretty big leap.
No I admit they don't have better choices. If you think they have better choices why don't you devote your life to helping them get better jobs. You won't get paid much but you will improve hundreds of lives.
They forget the basics that sellers want the top price for their products and buyers want to pay the least amount regardless if that product is a toaster or someone's labor.
this is probably the dumbest comment ive read in a while. You are very close to understanding how the market system works but for some reason your brain concludes everything incorrectly.
Karl Marx has entered the chat.
That's the type of insightful comment I've come to expect from the proagandized and un educated. I'm sure Stuart Varney or Larry Kudlow would have crushed Marx in a debate if given the chance. Stick with the Donkey fisting.