Freedom in South Dakota

Frequent commenters Donald Pay and Larry Kurtz have drawn my attention to this Rapid City Journal article, which claims that South Dakota “registers No. 2 in freedom” in a study by The Mercatus Center.

According to the study, South Dakota scores particularly high on measures of “economic freedom.” Here’s why:

South Dakota rates as the second-freest state in the nation, although it does better on economic (#1) than personal (#34) freedom. South Dakota is top among the states in terms of fiscal policy, owing to its high fiscal decentralization for its size and its low levels of taxation (7.6 percent adjusted revenues as a percentage of personal income) and spending. It might be hard to improve on South Dakota’s performance in this area.

But, says the study, South Dakota scores badly when it comes to personal freedom. Why? Are political dissenters kept from speaking?  Are protesters being tossed into prison cells and sent into isolation? No, nothing like that. According to the study:

South Dakota scores well on gun control but relatively poorly on marijuana laws and asset forfeiture (where it is a standard deviation below the average). Cigarette taxes are above average and smoking is banned in private workplaces. The state allows several kinds of gambling but has prohibited Internet gambling and social gambling. Unfortunately, victimless-crimes arrests as a percentage of all arrests are more than two standard deviations above the norm. However, South Dakota has actually improved since the last edition of the index and its drug law-enforcement rate is below the national average. Homeschool requirements, particularly on standardized testing and notification procedures, could also be relaxed.

Apparently, South Dakota isn’t free enough because it has tough laws regarding marijuana laws and asset forfeiture, prohibits two forms of gambling (while allowing others), and has somewhat strict homeschool requirements.

While Larry seems to suggest that South Dakota’s low scores on personal freedom have to do with Neoconservatism (correct me if I’m wrong, Larry!), it is interesting to note that the ban had bipartisan support, as well as bipartisan opposition (http://www.capjournal.com/articles/2009/03/06/news/doc49af1a67d7c9f241176714.txt) and that voters approved it in a referendum.  I agree that the law restricts personal freedom, and I am opposed to it. But I think that the fact that South Dakota allowed voters to have a say says something about freedom in the state as well.

Comments

[larry kurtz]

There is plenty of evidence that this study is punishment to the blue states for not conforming to the wishes of the neocons that authored it. http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2011/06/freedom-studyright-to-pollute.html

[Jimi]

Larry,

You just went on in another thread about how you advocate of a "One World Government," and then you want to turn around and complain that South Dakota is not free enough for you?

It's Pathetic!

[larry kurtz]

So, how are those two things mutually exclusive? Apparently, i have more respect for the US Constitution than you do. If representative democracy is good enough for a (former) slave-holding nation, it should be good enough for all humans.

Listening to Michele Bachmann rail against abandonment of the Tenth Amendment is pure propaganda since states have to sign on to a central federal government in their enabling acts to be admitted in the first place. Let's admit Mexico next.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1889

[Stan Gibilisco]

Glad to see that South Dakota ranks high in "economic freedom." I wonder about that other stat though. I never felt like my personal freedoms were particularly restricted here. Maybe it's because I don't do drugs, smoke, drive drunk (or for that matter drink anymore at all), carry around huge wads of cash ... or maybe I've just been lucky.

How do we quantify things like "freedom" or "happiness," anyway? I'm always a little skeptical of studies that try to do those things.

A few years ago I recall something called the "Free State Project." This bunch of Liberarians wanted to get a certain number of people to move to a certain state and push for economic and personal freedoms. The winner: New Hampshire! I see that they rank No. 1 on the freedom list now. The main contender was Wyoming. I think New Hampshire won because they have access to the sea.

New Hampshire has a rather oppressive business tax of 10 percent that amounts to an income tax, even on sole proprietors. Or it did, the last time I checked. Good thing I didn't pick up and move there! They also have terrible property taxes, or they did, the last time I checked.

Anyway, I also recall that the locals in New Hampshire were puzzled and irritated
(puzzitated? irrizled?) when these Libertarians started trying to dictate to the folks exactly how they ought to go about enhancing their freedoms.

Like I said, pretty hard to quantify these things.

[Miranda]

Thanks for your comments!

Larry: I'm not sure that releasing a study really constitutes punishment. But I do think that political biases do play a role here. As Stan points out, how free we find a state largely depends on how we define freedom. The authors here seem to be using Libertarian definitions, therefore, freedoms libertarians value (especially property) seem to have been the primary focus.

Stan: I hadn't heard of the Free State Project. Thanks for the story. "I also recall that the locals in New Hampshire were puzzled and irritated (puzzitated? irrizled?) when these Libertarians started trying to dictate to the folks exactly how they ought to go about enhancing their freedoms."

This reminds me a little bit of the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/), where seemingly normal Stanford College students became sadistic after being placed in charge of other students who were "prisoners."

(I vote for irrizled!)

[David B]

Others deciding whether if I can own a gun, have marijuana (I do Not smoke it), how i can build MY house, or what "approved vitamins or medications" I can Take - in a referendom --- This is NOT freedom. people who are in to referendums and majority rule forget that:

1. we are a republic, not a democracy (17th amendment is the worst thing we ever did beginning of the end of states rights)

2. Democracies have short lives and ultimatly lead to oligarchys - look at the world map , cauntries with the word "democratic" in their titles ARN'T

3. democracy is 3 foxes and 2 hens voting on dinner and others deciding on how YOU will live YOUR life.