Freedom in the 50 states An index of personal and economic freedom

William P. Ruger & Jason Sorens

FEbruary 2009 William P. Ruger

William Ruger is an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science at Texas State University. He is currently on military leave, serving in the U.S. Navy in Afghanistan. Ruger earned his PhD in politics from Brandeis University and an AB from the College of William and Mary.

Jason Sorens

Jason Sorens is an assistant professor of Political Science at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York. He received his doctorate in political science in 2003 from Yale University, and his research focuses on secessionism, ethnic politics, and comparative federalism. His work has also appeared in Regional and Federal Studies, Comparative Political Studies, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, and State Politics and Policy Quarterly. state freedom rankings change. cyindex.com, and we invite others to adopt their own weights to see how the overall The data used to create the rankings are publicly available online at www.statepoli to attract substantially higher rates of internal net migration. analysis demonstrates that states Middle Atlantic lags far behind on both economic and personal country, the Mountain and West North Central regions are the freest overall while the ner, while Maryland brings up the rear. As for freedom in the different regions of the Island, California, and Maryland. On personal freedom alone, Alaska is the clear win- New York is the least free by a considerable margin, followed by New Jersey, Rhode paternalism.and regulation of levels middling and spending government and taxes Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low We find that the freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South ticularly state fiscal policies. any variable; and (3) it uses new, more accurate measurements of key variables, par- even on economic policies alone, than prior studies, and there are no missing data on and be free from unreasonable search and seizure; (2) it includes far more variables, as peaceablecitizens’rightstoeducatetheirownchildren,ownandcarryfirearms, in three primary ways: (1) it includes measures of social and personal freedoms such This study improves on prior attempts to score economic freedom for American states does not coercively infringe on another individual’s ability to do the same. one’s own life, liberty, and justly acquired property however one sees fit, so long as one explicitly normativecriteria,definingindividualfreedomastheabilitytodisposeof ­personal spheres.Wedevelopandjustifyourratingsaggregationprocedureon and social, economic, the in freedoms individual affecting policies public their on presents paper This Summary Executiv the first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American statesAmerican the of ranking comprehensive first-ever the ­enjoying more economic and personal freedom tend ­freedom. Regression -

1 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 2 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM Figure 6: Figure 5:Figure 4: Figure 3:Figure 2: Figure 1:Figure Table VI: Table V: Table IV: Table III: Table II: Table I: T Data Index the of Construction StateConclusion Discussion and Rankings Paternalism Appendix Profiles Regulatory Fiscal Freedom Economic State-Level of Indices to Previous Comparison Intervention Government and Freedom Measuring Index the of Purpose Executive Policy Policy Summary a b a les Weights Category Issue Scores Freedom of Map State by Freedom Overall and Ideology Citizen State by Freedom Personal and Ideology Citizen State by Freedom Economic and Ideology Citizen States the in Freedom Division Census by Scores Freedom Overall and Personal, Economic, Ranking Freedom Overall Ranking Freedom Personal Ranking Freedom Economic Ranking Policy Regulatory Ranking Policy Fiscal n 20 13 d F 11 25 47 ig 11 u res 1 contents 46 22 21 21 19 19 21 17 10 10 9 9 42 17 6 5 5

3 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 4 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM 5. (Oxford: Oxford ties or “positive freedom.” On “positive” freedom, see Isaiah 4. 3. First of Them Developed (London: John Chapman, 1851). John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government ; Herbert Spencer, Social Statics or, 2. ated even by consenting adults. 1. www.statepolicyindex.com. at available is spreadsheet the rankings; freedom personal own their construct can readers ested inter- that so website our on weightings and data rawthe provide we Hence,differently. freedom of happily concedethatdifferentpeoplevalueaspects we However, variation. policy state of importance the and issue, the on preferences of intensity the policy,the by affectedpeople of number the to ing approach in this report is to weight policies accord- Policy,” “Regulatory Policy,” and “Paternalism.” Our ual freedom and on components of freedom: “Fiscal We rank all fifty states on overall respect for individ- use the data to plan a move or retirement. attract highly productive employees. Individuals can regimes and the relative openness and tolerance that can usethedatatoanalyzestatetaxandregulatory Businesses considering new investment or relocation migration. and growth economic as such areas in use the indices to model politics and policy outcomes where real improvements can be made. Scholars can their states stand relative to others and to determine in liberty can use the data and rankings to see where lators, their staff, and local policy makers interested This report can be put to a variety of uses. State legis- tion to drug policy. taxation to gun control, from homeschooling regula- across awiderangeofpublicpolicies,fromincome we examine state and local government intervention personal freedom in the American states. Specifically, developsproject This the of Purpose Nozick, 163. The “equal freedom” that persons enjoy in a free society is, for us, equality of rights and equality before the law, not equality of opportuni- Norman Robert We recognize that children and the insane must be treated differently from competent adults and also that some rights may not be alien- Nozick, Barry, “The Concept of ‘Nature’ in Liberal Political Thought,” University Press, 1969). Anarchy, State, and Utopia (New York: an index of economic andeconomic of index an Index Basic Berlin’s essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty”, in Isaiah Books, 1974); Immanuel Kant,

Journal of Libertarian Studies 8:1 (1986): 16, fn. 2. these purposes. ects, theyshouldformcommunitiesbycontractfor social ­ own hands” and require themselves to participate in do notinfringeontherightsofothers. liberties, and property as they see fit, so long as they lives, their of dispose to allowed be should viduals on an individual rights framework. In our view, indi- We explicitlygroundourconceptionoffreedom Governmnt Measuring freedom. individual equal maximum, of regime ideal this to conform policies public local and state well how is measure to attempting are we what essence, In Spencer and others. and Spencer Herbert of rule-utilitarianism rights-generating the with consistent also is it but Nozick, Robert liberal thought of John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and standing of freedom follows from the natural-rights Barry characterizes as follows: Normantheorist political that prescriptions policy state,thisphilosophy engenders normativesetofa ing adults. ing consent - between acts non-capitalist and capitalist bothprotects and permits government society free a in Nozick, paraphrase To rights. persons’ lates vio- it that is acts consensual in intervention state insurance, redistributive,orpaternalistproj- The Conditions Essential to Happiness Specified, and the sory welfare, and the power of the state. distrust of taxation, egalitarianism, compul- property, and individual rights—and a deep unhampered markets, the system of private of morality and efficiency the in belief [A] 4 For us, the fundamental problem with problem fundamental the us, For 5 Should individuals desire to “tie their “tie to desire individuals Should Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals; dom and Freedom 2 In the context of the modern the of context the In Intervntion Berlin, Four Essays on Liberty 1 Thisunder- 3

5 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 6 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM own, this policy should be excluded from an index of freedom. 7. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard bilitation, etc. is an extremely complex endeavor deserving of a lengthy treatment on its own. See Richard A. Posner, 6. of violent and property crime rates. measures of the efficacy of state police and courts or include not do we instance, For violations. rights the effectivenessofstategovernmentsinpunishing codenot do we Therefore,state. the in originating liberty individual to threats on focus we However, government punishes private aggression vigorously. fear privateassaultsanddepredations,auseful Individuals are less free the more they have reason to intervention. state overbearing by as state the of weakness the by much as threatened be can stood, We would also argue that freedom, properly under- cent individuals by mistakenly executing them. should neverrisktakingawayalltherightsofinno- state the that or forfeited be never can life to right violate abasic right to life. Others contend that the and therefore state execution of a murderer does not argue thatamurdererforfeitsherownrighttolife, Another exampleisthedeathpenalty.Somewould not included the policy in our overall index. coded the data on state abortion restrictions but have side or the other (or anywhere in between), we have of a woman’s rights. Rather than take a stand on one regulation ofabortionwouldbeanunjustviolation government case which in liberty, individual an of exercise permissible a is abortion and rights, have government. On another account, the fetus does not tion of individual rights that ought to be punished by person, and abortion is therefore an aggressive viola- example. On one account, the fetus is a rights-bearing es on some high-profile issues. Abortion is a critical Our definition of freedom presents specific challeng- dom index” does not capture all aspects of freedom. Institute, 2004), http://special.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/entrep/2004/econ_freedom/, accessed July 28, 2008. 9. B.C.: Fraser Institute, 2006). 8. Amela Karabegovic and Fred McMahon with Christy G. Of course, there are also utilitarian arguments both for and against the death penalty. Thus, even on philosophical grounds other than our Measuring the efficacy and justice of criminal penalties, arrest procedures, etc. in terms of deterrence, proportionality, retribution, reha- Ying Huang, Robert McCormick, and Lawrence J. McQuillan, University Press, 1981). 6 Thus, our “free- Black, 7 U.S. Economic Freedom Index: 2004 Economic Freedom of North America 2006 Annual Report (Vancouver, issues. freedompersonal other ignoring while regulations labor and programs, recycling licensing, pational belt laws under “Regulatory Sector” along with occu- 2004 (USEF)oddlysubsumesguncontrolandseat- Institute’s Research lations, and marijuana laws. regu- homeschooling control, gun as interventions Report Annual 2006 America North of Freedom Economic Institute’s Fraser the example, For concepts. dom free- economic within issues non-economic few a aspects of individual liberty or selectively subsumed critical other ignored have but states the in dom free economic compared have studies Previous states. fifty the in freedom personal and nomic studies current No Economic State-Lvel of Indices Previous to Comparison “Regulatory “Regulatory Policy” concepts) and personal freedom freedom (the sum of scores on our “Fiscal Policy” and report includes component scores for both this fact, In studies. prior on improves freedom of measurement our that believe also We of freedom in the American states. more robustunderstandingoftheoverallcondition than mere economic freedom, this study provides a and human flourishing encompass and require more liberty that given However, concept. that measure toonly claim studies these and itself, unto concept 9 To be fair, economic freedom may be a valid (EFNA) index omits, among others, such others, among omits, index (EFNA) Freedom U.S. Economic Freedom Index:Freedom Economic U.S. (San Francisco: Pacific Research exist that measure both eco- both measure that exist 8 Meanwhile, the Pacific The Economics of Justice economic ­economic economic -

(the “Paternalism” concept) for those who wish to policy variables to a single dimension. maintain the distinction.10 We note improvements This method of standardizing the indica- under the following five headings: tor variables throws out important infor- mation, namely the size of the difference (1) Number of variables. Our data- between states on continuous variables base includes far more variables than (such as government spending). By con- the EFNA study, which uses only ten trast, we standardize each variable by ­variables, while avoiding the pitfalls of taking, for each state on each policy vari- double counting and variable interdepen- able, the number of standard deviations dence in the USEF study, which includes better (more free) than the mean.12 This multiple variables for tobacco and alcohol approach takes into account the size of taxes, recycling requirements, total tax differences among states on raw vari- take, and various categories of govern- ables without allowing outliers to skew ment spending.11 We also have complete the standardized variables. data on every ­variable. (3) Weighting of variables. USEF aver- (2) Standardization of variables. EFNA ages standardized indicators for five com- uses a 0–10 scale standardization of every ponents of economic freedom and then variable, where “0” corresponds to “a conducts PCA on those five components, low level of economic freedom” on the extracting the first dimension as the sum- policy measure and “10” corresponds to mary measure of economic freedom. As “a high level of economic freedom,” with a check of external validity, the authors other states interpolated based on relative report that the overall economic freedom position on the raw variable. The problem variable predicts net population migra- with this approach is that it is extreme- tion, which we also find for our personal ly sensitive to outliers. If one state has and economic indices. The problem with much higher government spending than using PCA to create an index of economic other states, for instance, then 49 states freedom is that it uses correlations among will cluster around the “10” value while variables to create the components. In the big-government state will take on the essence, the procedure teases out the “0” value. USEF ranks the states 1–50 ways in which state governments tend on each indicator variable and averages to covary on public policies, a concept those indicators to create sector scores, that political scientists refer to as “policy then uses principal components analy- ideology.”13 Thus, liberal states tend to U niversity sis (PCA) to reduce the variance in their have high income taxes, low sales taxes, e Mason g e 10. We nevertheless maintain that individual liberty is a seamless concept and that a rigid conceptual division between “economic” and “per- sonal” freedoms is unsupportable. Singapore is not very free despite its pro-capitalist economic policy. Property rights are not secure when “unapproved” uses of property (or one’s own body) are punished. 11. For a similar critique, see Economic Freedom of North America 2006 Annual Report, 46. RAWVAR -RAWVAR STDVAR = – i 12. For variables for which lower raw numbers are better, the formula for the standardized variable is i stdev(RAWVAR) . Geor at enter RAWVAR -RAWVAR C For variables for which higher raw numbers are better, the formula for the standardized variable is STDVAR = i . i stdev(RAWVAR) 13. See Robert S. Erikson, Gerald C. Wright, Jr., and John P. McIver, Statehouse Democracy (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993); and Jason Sorens, Fait Muedini, and William P. Ruger, “U.S. State and Local Public Policies in 2006: A New Database,” State Politics and

Policy Quarterly 8:3 (2008): 309–26. Mercatus

7 and recognition of same-sex domestic (5) Variable relevancy. USEF includes partnerships, for instance, while conser- variables that might not bear a direct vative states take the opposite tack on relationship to freedom (e.g., number of those policies. Policies that are highly state legislators, unionization rates).15 Our ideologically charged will “load” heavily database includes only variables measur- onto the first extracted principal compo- ing public policies and their enforcement, nents.14 The USEF measure of economic rather than policy outcomes (growth, freedom is actually a measure of policy unemployment, etc.) or institutional rules conservatism on economic issues. While (size of legislature, initiative and referen- USEF problematically uses PCA to weight dum, etc.). the variables, EFNA weights its chosen policy areas equally to create the overall We started by collecting data on state and local pub- index of economic freedom. Although lic policies affecting individual freedom as defined there is no objectively correct way to above.16 All of the statutory policies are coded as of weight these variables—since every indi- December 31, 2006, and the fiscal and arrest data vidual values different aspects of freedom are coded for the entire year 2006. This lag from differently—we have weighted variables data to publication is comparable to that found in roughly according to the number of peo- all economic freedom indices, because govern- ple affected by the policy, the intensity of ment statistics on the economy, fiscal policies, and preferences on the issue, and the impor- other variables must be released to the public first. tance of state policy variation. In a few areas, such as same-sex partnerships and eminent domain reform, a few states’ policies have (4) Measurement issues. We improve changed in the interim period, and those changes will on previous attempts to measure fiscal appear in the next iteration of this index. We omit interventionism. USEF uses revenues federal territories. The database covers fiscal policy, and spending per capita, which are poor gun control, alcohol regulation, marijuana policies, measures of government intervention, tobacco and smoking laws, automobile regulations, rewarding states for having low per cap- law enforcement data, education policies, land-use ita income (because states with poorer and ­environmental laws, labor market regulations, ECONO M IC F REE D O M economies bring in less revenue for a health insurance policies, utilities deregulation,

AN D given tax rate). Mississippi has low gov- occupational licensing, asset forfeiture rules, ­eminent ernment spending per capita but high domain reform, court systems, marriage and domes- government spending as a percentage of tic partnership regulations, campaign finance laws, the state economy. We measure taxation and sundry mala prohibita. and spending as a percentage of the state economy, using a corrected estimate of In conclusion, our report not only provides a broader

IN D E X o f P ERSONA L Gross State Product (GSP) and personal framework for understanding the state of freedom

AN income. in the American states, but also more carefully mea- sures the economic components of freedom. STATES :

T H E 50 14. For instance, occupational licensing is an important threat to freedom but does not load significantly onto the first component extracted

IN from a PCA because it is not a liberal–conservative ideological issue. See Sorens, Muedini, and Ruger, “U.S. State and Local Public Policies in 2006.” 15. Especially in the context of the open shop, unionization seems to be an exercise of freedom of association.

F REE D O M 16. The following verbiage is adapted from Sorens, Muedini, and Ruger, “U.S. State and Local Public Policies in 2006.”

8 Table I: F 50. N 50. 49. Alaska Maine 48. 47. Vermont Hawaii 46. 45. N California 44. 43. N 42. Wisconsin Island 41. Rhode Ohio 40. 39. Virginia West 38. N 38. 37.Washington Kentucky 36. 35. Minnesota Carolina South 34. 33. Arkansas Pennsylvania 32. 31. Michigan Delaware 30. 29. Louisiana Kansas 28. 27. Oregon 26. Connecticut 25. Florida 24. Indiana Massachusetts 23. Mississippi 22. 21. N U 20. 19. Iowa 18. Illinois 17. Wyoming 16. Maryland 15. Arizona 14. Virginia 13. N 12. Alabama 11. Oklahoma 10. Idaho 9. Georgia Montana 8. 7. N Missouri 6. 5. Colorado Texas 4. 3. Tennessee Dakota South 2. 1. N Stat orth Dakota orth ew Hampshire ew e evada orth Carolina orth ew Mexico ew ew Jersey ew ew Yorkew tah ebraska i scal scal Pol cy icy Rank -0.44 -0.35 -0.23 -0.21 -0.21 0.19 - 0.19 - 0.17 - 0.13 - 0.10 - -0.07 -0.07 -0.07 -0.06 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.22 0.25 0.26 0.28 F i sca l fr i ng ee dom Table II: Regula 50. Maine 50. 49. N Island Rhode 48. 47. Maryland California 46. 45. Washington N 44. 43. Massachusetts 42. Connecticut 41. Arkansas Virginia West 40. 39. Vermont Oregon 38. 37. N Hawaii 36. 35. Illinois Mississippi 34. 33. N 32. Kentucky 31. Montana Minnesota 30. 29. Ohio Tennessee 28. 27. Texas N 26. Louisiana 25. 24. Alaska Wisconsin 23. Missouri 22. 21. Oklahoma Wyoming 20. 19. Florida 18. N 17. Virginia 16. Delaware 15. Alabama 14. Arizona 13. N Carolina 12. South 11. Colorado 10. Georgia 9. U Dakota South 8. 7. Iowa Idaho 6. 5. Indiana Kansas 4. 3. Pennsylvania 2. N 2. 1. Michigan Stat tah orth Dakota orth e ew Mexico ew ebraska ew Jersey ew evada ew Hampshire ew orth Carolina orth ew Yorkew t or y Pol 0.18 - 0.17 - 0.17 - 0.17 - 0.16 - 0.16 - 0.16 - 0.15 - 0.14 - 0.11 - 0.11 - 0.10 - 0.10 - 0.10 - -0.09 -0.07 -0.05 -0.05 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 0.16 Re 0.19 gu cy icy Rank l atory fr ee i ng dom

9 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 10 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM Table III: 50. N 50. 49. Maine California 48. 47. Alaska 46. N 46. 45. Vermont Hawaii 44. 43. N Island 42. Rhode 41. Washington Virginia West 40. 39. Arkansas Connecticut 38. 37. Massachusetts Oregon 36. 35. Wisconsin Maryland 34. 33. Kentucky 32. Ohio 31. Minnesota Mississippi 30. 29. Illinois Louisiana 28. 27. N N 26. 25. Florida 24. Delaware N 23. Carolina South 22. 21. Montana Wyoming 20. 19. Pennsylvania 18. Kansas 17. Oklahoma 16. Indiana 15. Michigan 14. U 13. Virginia 12. Iowa 11. Arizona 10. Alabama 9. Missouri Tennessee 8. 7. Texas Georgia 6. 5. Idaho N 4. 3. Colorado 2. N 2. Dakota 1. South Stat orth Dakota orth ew Hampshire ew e ebraska ew Mexico ew tah evada orth Carolina orth ew Yorkew ew Jersey ew E conom ic F -0.596 -0.406 -0.351 -0.343 -0.337 -0.310 -0.295 -0.288 -0.267 -0.219 0.177 - 0.148 - 0.142 - 0.133 - 0.113 - 0.111 - 0.110 - -0.086 -0.081 -0.075 -0.032 -0.025 -0.012 0.036 0.041 0.047 0.052 0.062 0.096 0.098 0.120 0.126 0.144 0.159 0.161 0.164 0.058 0.175 0.177 0.190 0.200 0.210 0.225 0.225 0.253 0.257 0.315 0.337 0.345 Economic fr 0.385 r eedom Rank ee dom i ng Table IV: Pe 50. Maryland 50. 49. Illinois 48. N 48. 47. Island Rhode Ohio 46. 45. N Massachusetts 44. 43. Alabama Georgia 42. Carolina 41. South Louisiana 40. 39. Wisconsin Connecticut 38. 37. California Delaware 36. 35. Washington N 34. 33. N 32. N 31. Minnesota 30. N 30. 29. Pennsylvania Hawaii 28. 27. Oklahoma Kentucky 26. Iowa 25. Dakota 24. South 23. Florida Mississippi 22. 21. Montana Michigan 20. 19. Indiana 18. Tennessee 17. Virginia West 16. Colorado 15. Kansas 14. U 13. N 12. Arizona 11. Vermont 10. Wyoming 9. Virginia Idaho 8. 7. Oregon Missouri 6. 5. Texas Arkansas 4. 3. N Maine 2. 1. Alaska Stat ew Mexico ew e ew Hampshire ew orth Dakota orth ew Jersey ew tah evada orth Carolina orth ebraska ew Yorkew r sonal F r eedom Rank -0.294 -0.213 0.188 - -0.022 0.163 - 0.124 - 0.109 - 0.107 - 0.106 - 0.102 - -0.098 -0.089 -0.082 -0.063 -0.060 -0.055 -0.055 -0.047 -0.045 -0.036 0.120 - -0.018 -0.009 -0.002 0.003 0.006 0.007 0.022 0.027 0.029 0.045 0.049 0.059 0.080 0.084 0.085 0.086 P 0.087 0.089 0.093 0.095 0.100 0.100 0.104 0.110 0.121 0.125 0.138 0.193 0.272 e r sona l fr ee dom i ng 729. 17. means. ensuring that local governments spend within their governments, are a prudent fiscal measure aimed at resources ratherthangrantsfromstateandfederal how muchlocalgovernmentsdependontheirown Local government budgetconstraints, ameasureof local employment in total government employment. and state of shares the by weighted earnings, vate pri- of percentage a as earnings employee ernment and (2)theweightedaverageofstatelocalgov- spending) local of percentage a as revenues source own- (local constraints budget government local We ratelowestthenarrow,technicalcategories:(1) the underlying concept. Redundancy in variables reduces error in measuring both as redundant measures of size of government. them include we interdependent; highly course of are categories These categories. issue taxation and fiscal divide We Policy Fiscal revenues that the state receives through “current through receives state the that revenues measure thatdeductsfromstate andlocalspending percent lessthanthatvariableisaslightlydifferent for one-third of the total spending weight. Worth 50 adjusted for federal grants (lower is better), accounts income, personal of and GSP corrected of centage per- a as spending local and State spending. local total) isdevotedtoaggregatemeasuresofstateand The remainder of the spending category (one-half of considered to be four times as important. percentage oftotalemployment(lowerisbetter) a as employment government local and state and variables,two these importantas as timesthree be toconsidered is better) is population—higher state for adjusted spending, local and state total of age tralization (local own-source revenues as a percent- we givethisvariablealowweighting.Fiscaldecen- order to attract talent and discourage corruption, so in well paid be should officials government some ered better lower than higher, but we recognize that Jonathan Rodden, “Reviving Leviathan: Fiscal Federalism and the Growth of Government,” 17 Local government wages are here consid- here are wages government Local policy equally into spending into equally policy Table I ranks the states on Fiscal Policy. accounts for one-sixth of the total taxation weight. rected GSP and of personal income (lower is better) a as debt outstanding local and 10.4percentthetotalfreedomof score, while state fully weight, taxation total the of five-sixths for GSP and of personal income (lower is better) account and localtaxrevenuesasapercentageof­ den here because it represents future taxation. State Taxation is a simple category. We include debt bur- tives or by enjoying a guaranteed monopoly. can impair freedom by crowding out private alterna- also recognize that fee-funded government programs ties through user fees rather than taxes, although we credit for funding some of their governmental activi- some deserve states that is thinking Our tizations. charges,” generallyuserfeesandproceedsofpriva- influence the cost and availability of private healthprivate of availability and cost the influence dramatically can governments state that realize to in the United States today, but most voters seem not insurance is one of the most important political issues Health state). by rates unionization with ­strongly cantly raise the cost of doing business (and correlate signifi- can compensation workers’ and laws, work right-to- wage, minimum the as such regulations affect the state economy quite fundamentally. Labor issue categories for this concept. Both sets of policies important most two the comprise and weighted equally are regulation insurance health and Labor placed in the “Paternalism” concept. are regulations, school private- and home- as such that seem to have a mainly paternalistic justification, environmental regulation, and utilities. Regulations ­licensing, eminent domain, the tort system, land and occupational mandates, insurance health lation, regulatory us, For Policy Regulatory International Organization 57 (2003): 695– policy includes labor regu- labor includes policy percentage of cor- of ­percentage corrected 11 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 12 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM to the 20. Super. Ct. 1998). 19. Insurance: 2007), http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/resources/pdf/MandatesInTheStates2007.pdf, accessed July 28, 2008. 18. 21. both individual and small group plans, effectively plans, group small and individual both able. Secondinimportanceiscommunityratingon vari- weighted highly most the is Appendix), Data (seeexpense on effect estimated by weighted nally health insurance coverage mandates, which is inter- health insurancecostandavailability.Ourindexof weight policies according to their impact on private to tried have we mandates, insurance health For protection laws,” in descending order. health agencies, prevailing wage laws, and “smoker state requirements, sation consider disability insurance and workers’ compen - laws would be repealed.) At much lower weights, we (In an ideal world, both the NLRA and right-to-work right-to-work laws somewhat restore that freedom. and understood, broadly rights property basic and association of freedom violates fundamentally Act favor. From the libertarian point of view, the Wagner “agency shop” to form if a majority of workers vote in orshop” “union a allows essentially which NLRA), Act, Relations Labor (National Act Wagner the of er and employee self-defense against the mechanisms right-to-work laws are justified as a means of employ- However, union. a to fees agency allowing employers to hire workers who do not pay employersandbetween reached because they override collective bargaining contracts laws are somewhat controversial among libertarians Right-to-work wages. private median for ­adjusted is which wage, minimum the and rates, ization right-to-work laws, which strongly influence union- with do to has regulation labor of share lion’s The sevenths of the overall regulatory index. or more. increase the cost of health insurance by 50 percent can regulations insurance health State insurance. Victoria Craig See Ilya Somin, “The Limits of It is not just our sense of justice that suggests a relatively high rating, given the relatively strong and quick public and legislative reactions See Kelo case. Kelo v. City of New London , 545 18 Together these categories comprise three- Bunce, J.P. Wieske, and Vlasta Prikazsky, “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2007” (Council for Affordable Health Backlash: Assessing the Political Response to occupational safety and safety ­occupational U.S. 469 (2005) and employee unions,­employee others argue thatargue ­others Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Banin, 727 A.2d 102 (N.J. the infamous nos or actually taken for economic development as in use asaparkinglotforoneofDonaldTrump’scasi- few people will ever have their homes threatened for a right-of-wayforpublicinfrastructure.Whilevery putable “publicgoods”rationale,suchasobtaining more obvious when it is done without a clear, indis- the is violation the and rights, property private on infringepropertyprivate of takings Public reform. On the second tier we have placed eminent domain add to the cost of health insurance. to expect we that regulations minor of assortment from the healthy to the unhealthy. Below these is an wealth redistributes that control price of form a tion (coding details in Data Appendix). eminent domain restrictions into the state constitu- account blight reform as well as the incorporation of ests, we have coded this index of reform to take into that could still allow public takings for private inter- eminent domain have kept a wide “blight loophole” tory index. tory regula the of five-twenty-eights highly, category overreach is so problematic that we have to rate this the overall regulatory index. Together these variables constitute two-sevenths of consumer. the to on passed are that costs business ofelement important an captures It managers. and owners business of survey a on based systems tort vices. The liability system variable is a rating of state ser- of supply limiting artificially by consumer the It captures guild-style rent-seeking aimed at fleecing tions onwhichthereissomevarianceacrossstates. licensed occupations,includingonlythoseoccupa- forwardly. Occupationallicensingisthenumberof liability system.Wemeasureeachofthesestraight- On thethirdtierareoccupationallicensingand Kelo,” Minnesota Law Review (forthcoming). 20 While most states that have reformedhave that states most While Kelo case, 19 this kind of governmental 21 - subsidize building in risky areas). topolicies insurance homeowners’ on charges levy (which pools beach or wind state and acts, species in court battles) state wetland programs, endangered regulatory takings clauses (which are still caught up are level lower much a At property. one’s of value at one-eighth, which can regulate away much of the the category, followed by wetland protection statutes ofone-sixth up make intrusive, quite be can which plans, growth” “smart Statewide basis. as-needed hoc, ad an on occurring cooperation statewide or regional with level, local very a at done be should it believe we solution, second-best a as justified is planning role.Totheextentthatland-use land-use state the of strength overall for variable a Half of this issue category’s total weight comes from pub_display.php?pub_id=2609, accessed August 4, 2008. 24. VA: Mercatus Center, 2007). 23. 22. retail and wholesale levels). While these services are the at competition maintain to attempting still are states which on information up-to-date reliable, of lackfor excluded is restructuring (electricity cable icy is utilities: natural gas, telecommunications, and The least important issue category in regulatory pol- of local people. control regulations that may not meet the real needs command-and- top-down, to solutions bargaining negatives in the index because we prefer Coase-style sidies. However, we still include these regulations as response to distorted incentives created by road sub some land-use planning could be seen as a legitimate Additionally, associations. homeowners’ as such third types with various contractual arrangements, ownerssolvecanmostproblemssecondthe and of property that argue would We uses. land creating nuisance- 3) and resources, air and water common and flora that do not respect property boundaries, 2) real public goods issues with respect to 1) wild fauna this category low because we recognize that there are weightWe score.regulation the one-fourteenthof just up make regulations environmental and Land Peter Van Doren and Jerry Taylor, “Rethinking Electricity Restructuring,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 530, http://www.cato.org/ Daniel Sutter, R. H. Coase, “The Problem of Social Cost,” Ensuring Disaster: State Insurance Regulation, Coastal Development, and Hurricanes , Mercatus Policy Series (Arlington, 22

23 Journal of Law and Economics 3 (Oct. 1960): 1–44. - for these industries. these for “deregulation”to opposed as “restructuring”term the on insist analysts many reasons, these For ket. mar- the of manipulation anticompetitive prevent petition is tightly managed by state governments to or maintain the network. In many cases, retail com- no profit incentive for the owner to expand, upgrade, transmission grid then becomes a “commons” with The price. regulated a at providers competing to owner of the transmission grid to allow open access mon carrier”regulationsthatrequiretheregulated “com- maintain governments deregulation under even infeasible), judged are connections (parallel transmission in element monopoly natural the of Becauseconsumer. the to connections physical by characterized all are utilities The freedom. vidual that “deregulation”resultsinanetincreaseindi- important for household budgets, it is not at all clear we started from the bottom up, beginning with beginning up, bottom the from started we how deciding In Paternalism index as a substitute for previous measures. and thus could be used independently of the overall freedom index should improve on previous rankings economic this above, stated reasons For ranking. a nomic freedom.Therefore,TableIIIprovidessuch contrast the states solely in terms of their overall eco- andcompare to wish may readers valuable, most is that includesbotheconomicandpersonalfreedom Although we believe that a composite freedom index regulatory policy. on states of ranking overall the presents II Table Appendix). Data the in descriptions coding (variable equally index, with natural gas, telecom, and cable weighted regulatory overall the of one-twenty-eighth just to weight personal freedoms, personal weight to 24 Utilities therefore comprise therefore Utilities 13 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 14 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM php?pid=1210. (AEI Center for Regulatory and Market Studies Working Paper, Washington, DC, 2007), http://www.aei-brookings.org/publications/abstract. 26. 25. time and cultures. across consumption alcohol of ubiquity apparent hol higher than gambling regulations due to the more lations that make it more expensive to consume alco- percent more than gaming laws. We weighted regu- sundry and lations regu alcohol categories: low-saliency fairly other two include we bottom, the from tier next the At enforced—as one-twenty-seventh of the total. facie are gaming—which social prohibiting laws and five-twenty-sevenths, as gaming Internet of legalization two-ninths, as felony a is gambling” “aggravated whether five-ninths, as permitted ing and withinthiscategory,weratedalltypesofgam- one-thirtieth foundations of the Republic. Gaming laws are worth activity among Americans, it is hardly critical to the even Nevada,andwhilegamingisapopularleisure extent, some to gaming regulate states All bottom. important. Forus,gaming/gamblinglawsfallatthe most the to up working and affected, people of ber of the works bans and prohibitions on raw milk sales. fire- are together, tenth a than less worth policies, prostitution, which only Nevada has. The other two legalized by represented is category this of third a Over permits. Oregon only which suicide, assisted has todowiththehigh-salienceissueofphysician- criminal law.Morethanhalfofthewholecategory egory is a miscellany of paternalistic additions to the making up the rest. The “sundry laws hour happy and training, server mandatory over asixth; and keg regulations (registration/ban), just worth sales, Sunday prohibit that laws” “blue third; a over just worth together are which spirits, just over a third of the total; taxes on beer, wine, and worthspirits), and wine, beer, of control retail and control of alcohol distribution (an index of wholesale saliency, constitutional implications, and num- and implications, constitutional ­saliency, Saurabh Iain Gately, freedom we saw as least important, in terms in important, least as saw we ­freedom highly intrusive but we suppose almost neveralmostsuppose we intrusivebuthighly Bhargava and Vikram Pathania, “Driving Drink: A Cultural History of Alcohol

of theoverallpersonalfreedomindex, 25 Alcohol regulations include state mala prohibita mala mala prohibita” cat- , each worth 50 worth each , (New York: Gotham Under the (Cellular) Influence: The Link prima - Books, 2008). pect that corporations and unions are often the other restrictions, for two reasons. First, we sus- of weight the half receive these but ­contributions, union and corporate on restrictions consider also donations to candidates and parties. Secondarily, we (PAC) committee action political grassroots and parties and candidates to donations individual on implications. Of primary importance are regulations high weight because of these laws’ First Amendment teenth. We gave this fairly technical area a relatively Campaign finance regulations are also worth one-fif tional wisdom). conven the (complicating negligible is rates crash research shows that any effect of cell phone usage on ian grounds as necessary for public safety, but recent cell phone theory, In bans. driving phone cell are as nuisance, native. Open-container bans are included as a minor self-insurance, which seems like a reasonable alter cost tofreedombecausesomestatespermitproofof net a as regulations insurance liability auto include we However, others. to cause they injuries of costs the cover can they that prove to drivers require to paternalistic regulation, while the latter is an attempt a is former the because coverage, liability auto ing three times more important than regulations requir- as insurance auto in coverage injury personal ing individuals in question). We rate regulations requir- wearing helmetsshouldbefullyinternalizedbythe costs (though any harm that comes to people from not helmet lawsarealsorestrictionsthatimposeundue ments on individual liberty. Bicycle and motorcycle infringe- notable as count checkpoints sobriety and late the rights of others. For that reason, seat belt laws laws thatpunishprivatebehaviordoesnotvio- oppose but others, on harm of risks imposing from of traffic and prohibit reckless and intoxicated support rulesoftheroadthatfacilitateoptimalflow generally Libertarians concept. Paternalism the of Auto and road regulations are weighted one-fifteenth ­driving bans could be justified on libertar- Between Cell Phone 26 Use and Vehicle Crashes” ­lobbying drivers ­drivers - - - there is no variance for us to work with. 27. do not consider same-sex marriage tobe a freedom because of the high salience of the issue. However, we crimes victimless for arrests and forfeiture asset Marriage and civil union laws are coded equally with after real criminals or just people engaged in vice? tures thefocusofpoliceinstate:Aretheygoing engaging in a victimless crime, while the second cap- for arrested being of likelihood the measures thus while theotherusestotalarrests.Thefirst­ denominator,the in population state uses measure One numerator. the in prostitution and gambling, arrests of adults over 18 for drug offenses, liquor laws, two ways, both weighted equally. Both variables use in crimes victimless for arrests measured have We owner involvement in criminal activity for forfeiture. the burdenofproofongovernmentandrequire of stateshavereformedassetforfeiturerulestoput minority a only Unfortunately, interpreted. rightly Amendment Fourth the opinion, our in and, rights property of violation egregious an is owner, the of conviction a without perpetrated when forfeiture, Assettotal.the one-twelfth ofworth each crimes,” riage and civil union laws, and arrests for “victimless At the next level we have asset forfeiture rules, mar- purchases round out this category. rest. RegulationsonvendingmachinesandInternet half of this category, with cigarette taxes most of the are much more onerous. Smoking bans make up over taxes are higher, and the limitations on consumption regulations because they tend to go much further: The ­fifteenth. These receive a higher weight than alcohol one- worth also are regulations and taxes Tobacco Appendix for coding details). public campaignfinancingisrathersmall(seeData most of scope the category; issue the of eleventh one- worth is index elections of financing public a Finally, more. ever for down” them “shake cannot what they can give to candidates, so that politicians Second, corporations may even prefer restrictions on way. some in freedom restricts that agenda an for We do not consider laws on possession of cocaine, heroin, and other drugs, because every state criminalizes possession of those drugs; variable medical purposes. nalizes the production and sale of marijuana for non- gang involvement). Unfortunately, every state crimi- result from drugs’ being illegal (such as incentives for that activities dangerous more and related the and reducing the harmful consequences of the drug war by also but choice their of behavior ­consensual in engage to adults allowing by only not freedom, na istheoptimalpolicychoice, whichwillenhance marijua- of sale and production the of legalization Full index. Paternalism the of tenth a over worth are and issue high-profile a are policies Marijuana senting adults. which libertarians would deem unnecessary for con- ­requirements andmarriagelicensewaitingperiods, test blood are index, the in less far worth although category, this in Also scale). that up moving for points” “extra get not do (states couples same-sex for marriage or union, civil partnership, domestic indicates whether the state recognizes some form of tionships.) Our main variable in this category simply just heterosexual and homosexual two-partner rela- contracts” to all sorts of families and households, not ing altogether and offer streamlined “life partnership licens- marriage of out government the get should states that argue could (One liberty. individual affect life or death decisions unequivocally enhance same-sex partners to make voluntary contracts that of ability the enhance to attempts state that think in the so-called “culture wars.” Nevertheless, we do concern either way. Instead, it seems to be a football mostly becauselaboratory-developed cannabinoids but general, in laws marijuana by than exception set, partly because fewer people are affected by this be theleastimportantmarijuanapolicyinourdata- way. We consider medical marijuana exceptions to do enhance freedom for some people in an important they Nevertheless, prohibition. to alternatives real understood as “humanitarian” measures rather than ria formarijuanaoffenses.Thesepoliciesshould be crite- sentencing moderated or marijuana, medical possession of small amounts of marijuana, legalized 27 Some states have decriminalized 15 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 16 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM 29. 28. bear arms. constitutions explicitly protect the right to keep and federal and state because and greater, much so is marijuana policies because variance in state policies Paternalism concept.Itisworthslightlymorethan Gun control is worth just under a seventh of the full charge)—are more important. marijuana single a for prison in life allow states sible sentences for a single marijuana offense (some for low-level cultivation or sale, and maximum pos- rather than a felony, mandatory minimum sentences felony, making low-level cultivation a misdemeanor athan rather misdemeanor a possession high-level making possession, low-level of decriminalization Alaska), in (only possession low-level of galization ies ispositive,buttheothermarijuanapolicies—le- individuals’ fundamental freedom in their own bod- increases that Anything time. over compelling less are rendering the medical argument for legalization a permit of any kind. anyone to wear a handgun openly on the hip without session of handguns altogether, while 27 states allow issue category. The reason we consider education consider we reason The category. issue of the overall index, education is the most important ing and spending, which are each worth one-eighth one-twelfth of the total freedom index. Besides tax- representsIt regulations. alcohol as much as times three than more and crimes, victimless for arrests and forfeiture, asset unions, civil and marriage as under the Paternalism concept, worth twice as much category issue important most the is Education and more. of gun owners, registration of firearms, trigger locks, ods, gun show and private sale regulations, licensing peri- waiting bans, weapons assault to regulations open-carry and concealed- from policies, of range wide a captures variable this Essentially, depth. our construction of the gun control variable in more Three additional states allow permit-free open carry unless local ordinances prohibit it. See in particular, 28 Illinois allows municipalities to ban pos- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 29 The Data Appendix describes U.S. ___ (2008). permitted and therefore is practice the and law, homeschooling no is there Idaho, In prohibited. is homeschooling ing. The lack of a law does not necessarily mean that a state has a law explicitly authorizing homeschool- whethercounting variable a to goes weight lowest the regulations, homeschool Among kindergarten. mandatory and schooling, compulsory of years of number school, private for deductions or credits tax of availability among equally divided is der worth just over a third of the category. The remain- each are regulations school private- and Home- suited to them. be leftalonetopursuetheeducationalchoicesbest be prosecuted for abuse. Otherwise, families should dren inastateofgrossignorance,thentheyshould chil- their maintain intentionally parents some if ble commission of future harms by some. Therefore, rights of all individuals in order to prevent the possi- the violates which restraint,” “prior on based laws pose a risk of harm to others; this viewpoint rules out people should be left alone unless they demonstrably checkpoints, the libertarian point of view holds that tal discretion. As with gun control laws and sobriety as infringementsonthelegitimatesphereofparen- outcomes, libertarians would generally reject them requirements, helpedtoachievebettereducational curriculum as such regulations, some if Even more high-minded purpose. administrators and teachers’ unions rather than any schoolof interests the serve to exist probably tions their own children. Politically, of course, the regula- educateto best where or how know not do parents that claim the on justified fundamentally are they becauseconcept Paternalism the within lie lations what the next generation is taught. Education regu- and how affecting by liberty of course future the regulations so critically important is that they affect ­effectively unregulated. However, we were natural rights retained by individuals. protection of individual rights was necessary even though they Bill of Rights who argued against the Federalists that a written legal 30. tend to have bigger governments. simply states liberal issues economic on while ers, to protect some personal freedoms and threaten oth- the fact that liberal and economic freedom. We take this difference to reflect of scores on personal freedom is smaller than that on the statesonpersonalfreedom.Notethatrange ofranking and scores summary the gives IV Table as much. half worth are registration school and control lum is licensure of private school teachers, while curricu- private schools. That variable is weighted highly, as newall approve must agency government other or even further.Insomestates,thelocalschoolboard go actually can regulation school Private onerous. requirements, which can be annoying but usually not lowed byindicesofnotificationandrecordkeeping trol, which is usually broad rather than detailed, fol- time consuming. Next is an index of curriculum con- andexpensive be can which requirements, testing homeschooling for some parents, and standardized our view,areteacherqualifications,whichruleout in regulations, homeschool egregious most The we update the data and rankings. Colorado, South Colorado, rankings. and data the update we time next the fall will study this in ranking its that post-2006 politicalchangesinthatstatemaymean and improvement, for room has Hampshire New paternalism. However, as with all of the states, even and regulation of levels moderate and policies cal fis- excellent its to due ranking this achieved It States. United the in state freest the as top on out index, presented in Table V. New Hampshire comes freedom overall the obtain we scores, freedom the summing By and Rankings it should provide some legal protection to parents. becausebenefit net a is law a having that think do In this case, we mirror the concerns of the supporters of the economic freedom and personal and freedom economic ­conservative states both like Discussion 30

Table V: 50. N 50. 49. N Island Rhode 48. 47. California Maryland 46. 45. Hawaii Washington 44. 43. Massachusetts 42. Illinois 41. Connecticut Vermont 40. 39. Maine Ohio 38. 37. Wisconsin 36. N 36. 35. Minnesota Louisiana 34. 33. Virginia West 32. Kentucky 31. Alaska Carolina South 30. 29. Arkansas N 28. 27. Oregon Delaware 26. 25. Mississippi 23. N 23. 22. Florida 21. Alabama Pennsylvania 20. 19. Montana 18. Oklahoma 17. Georgia 16. Iowa 15. Wyoming 14. Michigan 13. Indiana 12. Kansas 24. N 11. U 10. N 9. Virginia Arizona 8. 7. Tennessee Missouri 6. 5. Texas Idaho 4. Dakota 3. South 2. Colorado 1. N Stat ew Hampshire ew e tah ew Jersey ew evada orth Dakota orth orth Carolina orth ew Yorkew ew Mexico ew ebraska Ove r all F r eedom Rank -0.784 -0.457 -0.430 -0.413 -0.405 -0.304 -0.275 -0.242 -0.238 -0.225 -0.217 -0.214 -0.205 0.199 - 0.150 - 0.111 - 0.110 - -0.097 -0.082 -0.071 -0.040 -0.023 -0.009 -0.008 -0.004 0.013 -0.018 0.068 0.092 0.102 0.125 0.143 0.146 0.183 0.193 0.206 0.208 0.210 0.250 0.019 0.268 0.275 0.279 0.284 0.320 0.346 0.356 0.392 0.421 0.432 O v e ra ll

F r ee dom i ng 17 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 18 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM 31. Utah, Texas). states (Kansas, Missouri, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, on personalfreedomthanwesternandmidwestern lower score to tend Louisiana) Georgia, Alabama, Carolina, (South states southern region: by divide traditionally considered liberal). Conservative states eralism (butofcourse,onlythefirstthreestatesare to conform more to the standard paradigm of left-lib- seemAlaskaVirginia,and Arkansas,WestMexico, are moreregulated.Maine,Vermont,Oregon,New the bottom left where both economy and personal life Maryland, California) seem to cluster much more in states (New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Hawaii, chart that the truth is much different. Highly liberal but not personal freedom. It should be clear from this belong in the bottom right corner, favoring right-conservativeswhile freedom, economic little andfreedom personal extensive favoring diagram, is that left-liberals sit in the upper left corner of this libertarian conceptionaboutthepoliticalspectrum common The scores. freedom personal and nomic Figure 1 on the next page is a scatter plot of state eco- the others in between. more provide below profiles state Individual rankings. ignoble list, let alone into a creditable position in the this off move to even up make to ground siderable con have states five bottom these Moreover, tion. substantiala portiontotaltheAmericanof popula and Maryland. Unfortunately, these states make up California, Island, Rhode Jersey, New by followed Empire state. In order from the bottom, New York is able margin.Thiswillsurprisefewresidentsofthe consider- a by free least the is York New citizens. in providing a liberty-friendly environment for their On the other hand, many states perform quite poorly be pleased to live in the freest states in the Union. together, andthuscitizensofallthreestatesshould first three states in the rankings are clumped tightly Dakota, Idaho, and Texas round out the top five. The 32. For the The fitted lines represent the best polynomial fit in two degrees, and the shaded areas are the 95% confidence intervals. information about these ten states as well as well as states ten these about ­information U.S. Census divisions, see http://www.census.gov/geo/www/us_regdiv.pdf, accessed July 30, 2008. economic ­economic - - overall freedom. and personal, economic, on scores state and 2004 in Kerry John candidate presidential Democratic for vote the of percentage state between tionship On thefollowingpages,Figures2–4showrela- freedom scoresbycensusdivision. overall and personal, economic, provides VI Table less free, particularly on economic issues. be to tend do states liberal but states,conservative short, moderatestatesarenolessormorefreethan negative, butonlyamongthemostliberalstates.In between liberalism and overall freedom is modestly relationship the result a as and negative, strongly moreis freedom economic and liberalism between relationship The others. not but freedoms certain pensity of liberal and conservative states to protect ology and personal freedom is flat, reflecting the pro- previous observations, the relationship between ide- orientation toward individual freedom. To reiterate left-right ideology at the voter level and state policy charts allow us to examine the relationship between these and liberalism, opinion citizen of measure stark contrast to their neighboring states. in out stands Tennessee and Virginia, Hampshire, New of freedom relative the while region, this in state poor unusually an is Mexico New Rockies. the and Mississippi the between lying country the “heartland,” the in mostly lie to appear freedom of bastions The clearer. visually patterns regional the rendering freedom on states the maps 5 Figure personal freedom. do better the more westerly they are, particularly on but rather well on personal freedom. Southern states freedomeconomic on badly very does Hawaii) and Alaska includes (which Pacific The freedom. sonal Pennsylvania) is the worst on both economic and per- and Jersey, New York, (New Atlantic Middle The freedom. economic on first and overall second comes Central North West while freedom, sonal division isoverallthefreestandcomesfirstonper- 31 Democratic voteshareisarough 32 TheMountain F F i i gu

Economic Freedom Score gu -.2 -.6 -.4 .2 .6 .4

0 Personal Freedom Score r r -.2 -.3 e 1: F 1: e -.1 .2 .3 e 2: .1 0 -.6 Citi r .NY eedom i eedom zen Ideology and and Ideology zen 30 -.5 n t n he St he -.4 . ME . a . CA . AK t NJ es . -.3 VT . . HI NM E . conom RI Democratic Vote %, 2004 Vote %, Democratic 40 . -.2 WA .WV . i CT c F AR . MA Economic Freedom Scores . -.1 . . OR r MD WI . eedom by eedom . . KY MN OH . . MS IL . 0 LA NE . . NC . . FL . DE NV St SC 50 WY .1 . a MT t PA KS e . . OK IN UT AZ MI .2 . . IA VA AL MQ . . TN TX . GA ID .3 . ND CO . NH 60 . .4 SD .5 .6 19 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 20 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM enjoy a “libertarian streak,” while others suffer from states some that infer to inappropriate be would it some states provide freer environments than others, hope we Although Conclusion than to citizens’ most strongly held preferences. interest group pressures and politicians’ self-interest to more responding been have index our on states freedom to such a degree? Perhaps the most restrict to come states some did how it, measured have we as freedom prefer generally Americans If own sake, not just for the economic benefits. Americans in general are attracted to freedom for its then, Clearly, points. percentage 1.9 is freedom ic population, while the comparable effect for econom- increases migration by 3.0 percentage points of 2000 ic freedom. A 0.25-unit increase in personal freedom sonal freedom is actually larger than that of econom- at the 95 percent level, and the positive effect of per- personal freedom,allvariablesareagainsignificant and freedom, economic temperature, January on migration regress we When Arkansas. Rock, Little toIllinois Chicago, from instance for degrees, 17 of the effectofachangeinmeanJanuarytemperature as large as twice about is This population. 2000 of points percentage 4.2 by migration net increases freedom scale,forinstancefromHawaiitoKansas, the on points 0.5 of increase an that show results Substantively,thelevel.confidence percent 99 the variables are statistically significant and positive at independent Both them. repel states free less and people more attract to tend states freer whether determine to NOAA), (source: city largest state’s dom scores andmeanJanuary temperature ineach 2000 to 2007 (source: Census Bureau) on total free- from state by migration internal net regressed We 34. Call Voting 33. Sorens, Muedini, and Ruger, “U.S. State and Local Public Policies in 2006,” 323. Erikson, Wright, and McIver, (New York: Oxford we have demonstrated that demonstrated have we University Press, 1997). Statehouse Democracy; Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, regulated ­regulated toward logical dimension defined by sociocultural attitudes ideo- left-right single a on largely out plays States, that statepolitics,likefederalpoliticsintheUnited shown has research Other mentality.” “statist a tive position in the culture wars tends to require less servatism,butsimplythefact tothattheconserva for freedom inherent in contemporary political con- respect philosophical any to states conservative in erant. We should not attribute this relative freedom nanny states, while conservative states are more tol- are states liberal smokers, or motorists, schoolers, home owners, gun to comes it when policies, ship servative states on marijuana and same-sex partner- governments. While liberal states are freer than con- behavior than do the cultural values of conservative on balancetorequiremoreregulationofindividual that the cultural values of liberal governments seem is problem The bottom. the at are Jersey New and Mississippiand middle,thefallinwhileYork New

Jersey were the most liberal. tive states in the country, while New York and New conserva- most the were Mississippi and Alabama 2006, of as that, shown has research Previous all. of best done have states conservative moderately but states, liberal than better done generally have statesconservative index our In ideology? ertarian more thoroughly than others if not because of a lib libertyindividual protect states some do then Why and places. times particular in power of exercise arbitrary the nobles, and institutional forms) that happen to check and king state, and (church forces balancing of consequence a as but it, sought consciously have leaderspolitical because not emerged has freedom human history, throughout that argue well might one Indeed, alternative. political live a as data the The libertarian position simply does not show up in ­equality, authority, and tradition. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll- 34 In our index Alabama 33 - -

F F Table VI: i i Pacific Mountain West South Central South West East South Central South East South Atlantic South West N West East N East Middle Atlantic Middle N Ce gu -.5

Total Freedom Score gu .5

-1 Personal Freedom Score -.2 -.4 0 ew England ew .2 .4 0 n r r s e 4: e 3: u orth Central orth orth Central orth s D E Citi Citi conom ivi zen Ideology and and Ideology zen zen Ideology and Pe and Ideology zen 30 s 30 ion ic, Pe r sonal, and -0.264 0.114 0.052 0.077 0.043 0.168 0.021 -0.271 Economic F Economic 0.152 - Ov 40 40 r e Democratic Vote %, 2004 Vote %, Democratic 2004 Vote %, Democratic sonal F sonal r Ove r all all F ee r dom all F r eedom by eedom r eedom by eedom r eedom 0.050 0.072 0.037 -0.004 -0.048 0.010 -0.066 0.109 - P -0.003 er 50 St 50 St S s a cor ona t a e t e es by l

F r eedom C ensus 60 60 Divi -0.214 0.186 0.089 0.072 -0.005 0.178 -0.046 -0.380 O 0.149 - si v on era ll

F r eedom 21 Mercatus Center at George Mason University Wyoming South Dakota Wisconsin Indiana Illinois Maine Rhode Island 3 37 39 48 Figure 5: Map of Freedom Scores 15 13 42 20 8 23 5 35 50 48 17 2 42 24 18 48 41 Idaho North Dakota 24 39 New York 2 47 Washington 10 19 49 4 E 20 10 E 1 E 35 E 16 E 29 50 E 49 E 42 44 6 2 44 45 Minnesota Massachusetts 10 Colorado 7 50 37 35 Iowa Michigan Ohio 43 8 2 33 48 35 30 16 14 38 43 E 5 11 E 4 E 50 35 7 1 29 23 E 41 5 31 19 31 40 Vermont 44 16 E 31 25 20 46 40 E 37 E 3 E 12 E 15 E 32 39 Kentucky 47 Montana 32 11 Connecticut 19 32 E 45 41 31 Oregon 36 42 8 27 26 26 21 38 New Hampshire E 33 38 E 21 27 1 E 38 7 18 E 36 1 13 Nevada E 2 24 New Jersey 33 Pennsylvania 49 49 13 Utah Delaware 20 43 32 11 26 3 45 E 23 9 16 32 E 46 20 30 29 14 E 19 Virginia 36 E 14 9 E 24 17 New Mexico North Carolina 14 West Virginia 36 23 9 33 37 26 E 13 40 45 21 39 3 30 17 E 43 E 26 E 40

California South Carolina Maryland 47 30 46 46 12 47 44 34 16 37 41 50 E 48 E 22 E 34 Louisiana Mississippi 34 25 25 34 29 22 40 22 E 28 Oklahoma E 30 18 21 Arkansas Florida 11 29 22 Arizona 27 41 Tennessee 19 8 E 17 33 7 25 Missouri 4 23 14 Nebraska 28 Overall Freedom 15 28 6 E 39 3 E 25 Alaska 12 13 22 18 Regulatory Freedom 31 6 Georgia E 11 38 E 8 Fiscal Freedom 24 34 6 17 Alabama 49 E 27 E 9 10 Personal Freedom 1 Hawaii Texas Kansas 21 9 E 47 45 5 12 15 42 E Economic Freedom 36 27 4 12 E 6 46 4 28 43 28 5 15 E 10 22 most free E 44 E 7 E 18 least free Wyoming South Dakota Wisconsin Indiana Illinois Maine Rhode Island 15 3 37 13 42 39 48 20 8 23 5 35 50 48 17 2 42 24 18 48 41 Idaho North Dakota 24 39 New York 2 47 Washington 10 19 49 4 E 20 10 E 1 E 35 E 16 E 29 50 E 49 E 42 44 6 2 44 45 Minnesota Massachusetts 10 Colorado 7 50 37 35 Iowa Michigan Ohio 43 8 2 33 48 35 30 16 14 38 43 E 5 11 E 4 E 50 35 7 1 29 23 E 41 5 31 19 31 40 Vermont 44 16 E 31 25 20 46 40 E 37 E 3 E 12 E 15 E 32 39 Kentucky 47 Montana 32 11 Connecticut 19 32 E 45 41 31 Oregon 36 42 8 27 26 26 21 38 New Hampshire E 33 38 E 21 27 1 E 38 7 18 E 36 1 13 Nevada E 2 24 New Jersey 33 Pennsylvania 49 49 13 Utah Delaware 20 43 32 11 26 3 45 E 23 9 16 32 E 46 20 30 29 14 E 19 Virginia 36 E 14 9 E 24 17 New Mexico North Carolina 14 West Virginia 36 23 9 33 37 26 E 13 40 45 21 39 3 30 17 E 43 E 26 E 40

California South Carolina Maryland 47 30 46 46 12 47 44 34 16 37 41 50 E 48 E 22 E 34 Louisiana Mississippi 34 25 25 34 29 22 40 22 E 28 Oklahoma E 30 18 21 Arkansas Florida 11 29 22 Arizona 27 41 Tennessee 19 8 E 17 33 7 25 Missouri 4 23 14 Nebraska 28 Overall Freedom 15 28 6 E 39 3 E 25 Alaska 12 13 22 18 Regulatory Freedom 31 6 Georgia E 11 38 E 8 Fiscal Freedom 24 34 6 17 Alabama 49 E 27 E 9 10 Personal Freedom 1 Hawaii Texas Kansas 21 9 E 47 45 5 12 15 42 E Economic Freedom 36 27 4 12 E 6 46 4 28 43 28 5 15 E 10 most free E 44 E 7 E 18 least free 23 24 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM 38. 2005). Available at http://www.reason.com/news/show/36485.html, accessed July 30, 2008. 37. States,” 36. 35. tutions ongovernmentspendingacrosscountries, There has been much research on the effects of insti- some places and falter in others is institutional design. in prosper to tends freedom why reason Another overall than do moderate, centrist governments. ernments do not appear to afford any more freedom gov- conservative extremely However, regulation. for nothing else to do”? to else nothing for Reason, that “economic freedom’s just another word in report Institute Research Pacific the of review say, to correct be it Would of policy change in pro- and anti-liberty directions. sible to do interesting research on the determinants pos- become will it emerges, series time a As com. www.statepolicyindex. at policies public local and we plantomaintainandupdateourdatasetofstate connect all of Florida’s five major cities. In the future, requiring construction of a high-speed rail system to initiative2000 and state the throughout offered be initiative requiringthatuniversalpre-kindergarten 2002 Florida’s as such law, become to increases spending massive allowed also have but (TABOR) tion rules such as Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights popular initiatives have helped pass strict tax limita- in some areas and negatively in others. For instance, likely that most institutions affect freedom positively ual liberty in one direction or the other, but it is more institutions could have consistent effects on individ tralization, and initiative and referendum. In theory, decen- fiscal legislature, the of professionalization include size of the legislature, gubernatorial power, change in the American states. as well as on institutions and the dynamics of policy Nick Gillespie, “Rant: Live Free and Die of See for instance Charles R. Shipan and Craig Volden, “Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from Charles Tiebout, “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures,” See for instance Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini, American Journal of Political Science 50, 4 (2006): 825–43. 37 It is true that so-called that true is It Nick Gillespie’s Nick pace 36 Variables of interest Boredom: Is ‘economic freedom’ just another word for nothing left to do?” The Economic Effects of Constitutions (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2003). Journal of Political Economy 64 (1956): 416–24. 35 -

friendly to individual liberty. more environment an seeking those to deal great a information on state legal environments will matter of the kind Charles Tiebout foresaw. result, weshouldexpectmoreideological“sorting” decent employment will decline by comparison. As a more to residence decisions, while the imperative of grow richer in future years, quality of life will matter ratory offederalismisaliveandwell.AsAmericans labo- policy The areas. important of range a in cies federal system allows states to pursue different poli- among the American states. Still, we do find that our ity of countries. There are no Burmas or Zimbabwes freer environment for the individual than the major- the global context. Even New York provides a much at the state level in the United States is quite small in Finally, wewouldstressthatthevariancein­ where to live. about decisions people’s for difference tangible a as our analysis of migration patterns shows, it makes minant of personal satisfaction and fulfillment, but states atthebottom.Freedomisnotonlydeter- private initiative and personal freedom than have the can at least claim to have gone to less effort to squelch dom index, but those states scoring high on our index “­ flyover country”generallyscoreshighonourfree- Reason (February 38 High-quality U.S. Cities to liberty local government, and that figure does not include not does figure that and government, local orstate by employed is workforce state’s the of ter Alaska’s bigproblemisfiscalpolicy.Overaquar - 39. help in this regard. vey. Moving from elected to country according to the Chamber of Commerce sur- the in worst the of one is system court Alabama’s single cultivationorsaleconvictionislifeinprison. est inthecountry,andmaximumsentencefora juana cultivation or sale convictions, by far the high- mari- all for exists sentence minimum mandatory marijuana laws are unusually punitive: A three-year Alabama’s country. the in taxes spirits highest and alcohol regime,withthesecond-highestbeertaxes and gun control. Alabama has a strangely restrictive sonal freedoms, such as smoking bans, cigarette taxes state. Nevertheless, Alabama does well on some per- one might expect from a highly socially conservative much better on economic than personal freedom, as Alabama scores as show up in our data. will have been changes since that time that do not yet There 2006. 31, December of as accurate was files caution that the information used for these state pro- carefully for details of particular states’ policies. We spreadsheets policy the examine to researchers encourage We freedom. individual affect they as policies public state’s each of aspects interesting profiles state These Profiles State E. Helland and A. Tabarrok, “The Effect of Electoral Institutions on Tort Awards,” 39 Alabama #21 #21 on overall freedom and does Alaska highlight some of the most the of some highlight ­appointed judges should does extremely well on personal freedom, scoring 1 AlaskaHowever,governmentratio.spendinglocal ratio in the country and the second highest state and federal employees. Alaska has the third highest debt does surprisingly well on fiscal policy for a poor, a for policy fiscal on well surprisingly does Arkansasfreedom. economic than personal on ter #29 is Arkansas general revenues. lic Arizona and Maine are the only two states with pub- one of the highest cigarette tax rates in the country. and limits contribution campaign low strikingly include improvement for areas Other possession. low-level decriminalizing by and misdemeanor a could be improved by making high-level possession average, about are which laws, marijuana Its bans. lations, labor laws, the liability system, and smoking ulations andtaxes,private-home-schoolregu- state does particularly well on gun laws, alcohol reg- The overall. #8 at up ending freedom, (#12) sonal solid is Arizona regulation and occupational licensing. Alaska hasdonerelativelywellonhealthinsurance reform. domain eminent with further much going federal minimum wage, adopting right-to-work, and regulation, Alaska could do better by reverting to the best homeschooling laws in the country. On the possibly and partnerships, domestic same-sex of recognition country, the in laws gun restrictive) (accomplished through a court ruling), the best (least legalized possessionofsmallamountsmarijuana fully include: score its for Reasons ranking. our on ­financing available for all elections, funded out of American Law and Economics Review 4, 2 (2002): 341–70. on both economic (#11) and per- and (#11) economic both on in our index, doing much bet- much doing index, our in Ar Ari kansas zona economic ­economic st

25 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 26 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM half of their revenue in state grants, and almost two- centralized, with local governments receiving about fairlyalso is it state, large a For services. social and ally does not spend more than average on education and environment, and administration. The state actu- rest of the country are public safety, natural thewith line of out most categories budgetary The California simply needs to cut government spending. on economic freedom and #37 on personal freedom. the personal lives of its citizens. California ranks #48 in interferes aggressively also it states, other most than more economy its regulates and taxes only popular to Contrary use planning is virtually nonexistent. reforms of note. On the other hand, state-level land- end of 2006, the state had made no eminent domain we track, tied for first (worst) with Maine. As of the 40. premiums. of cost the to percent 53 estimated an add which mandates, insurance health its repealing by ment environ- regulatory its improve significantly could jumped onto the smoking ban bandwagon. The state onerous (annual, extensive materials). Arkansas has although parentalnotificationrequirementscanbe average, than better are laws homeschooling the and schools, private of regulation no virtually has no personal injury insurance requirement. Arkansas andlaw, open-container no adults, for laws helmet doms, with only secondary seat-belt enforcement, no be reduced.Arkansasscoreshighonmotoristfree- sources and state grants to local governments should Local governments should be allowed more revenue counties.strong with state a for constraints budget ter on fiscal decentralization and local government bet- much do to stand could state the However, grants. federal for adjusts one once state, smallish Bunce, Wieske, and Prikazsky, “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2007.” 40 The state licenses 30 of the occupations C al if perception, California not California perception, o rn ia resources ­resources Colorado is1of6statestolegalize for-profitcasino have decriminalized low-level marijuana possession. tostates 12 of 1 is Colorado workplaces. than other with noexceptionsorlocaloptionforanylocations ing bans are among the most extreme in the country, and cigarettes. On the other hand, Colorado’s smok - spirits,wine, beer, on rates low with taxes,” “sin of Tennessee and Texas. It has resisted the temptation lowest taxburdeninthecountry,surpassedonlyby By percentage of adjusted GSP, Colorado has the third fully 44.5 percent of all state and local expenditures. decentralized inthecountry,withlocalitiesraising Colorado’s fiscal sanity. The state is the most fiscally of some for responsible surely is writing, this of as lation andpaternalism.TABOR,thoughsuspended fiscal numbers and above-average numbers on regu- Our #2 state activity required). proof on government, owner knowledge of criminal of(burden regime forfeiture asset reasonable a has itly permitting homeschooling. Fortunately, the state are about average, but the state has no statute explic- in the country. Effective homeschooling regulations arrests beingforvictimlesscrimes,thefifthhighest crimes are surprisingly high, with 21.6 percent of all motorists, andsmokingbans.Arrestsforvictimless in the country, a highly restrictive policy regime for laws gun restrictive most the has also it but juana, mari- and partnerships same-sex on course of well Deep South. On personal freedoms, California does the of quality abysmal the reaches almost system liability state’s the and cosmetic, been has reform domainEminent state. the in premiums of cost the Health insurance mandates add about 60 percent to insurance. disability short-term mandate to states five only of one is California instance, for strict; ly extreme- course of are laws Labor Sacramento. by controlledrevenues tax local and state all of thirds achieved its ranking through excellent C olor ado restricted (#36). On fiscal policy, the one area where ­highly urbanized states, personal freedoms are more many in as However, policy. regulatory on #16 and policy fiscal on #30 at in coming state,” “blue relatively is Delaware systems in the country. tort best the of one enjoys and rates, arrest crime victimless low fairly has legislatively, unions civil Connecticut is one of the few states to have enacted regulations, and smoking bans. On the positive side, licensing, eminent domain reform, campaign finance occupational mandates, insurance health ments, require- recordkeeping and testing standardized attend, tied for longest in the country), home school to required are 18 to 5 ages (currently years school mandatorylaws, blue rights, gun are improvement futurefor areas prime The average. above bit a are employment government and taxes but spending, government low and debt average with healthy, fiscally is It overall. #41 and freedom, personal in #38 is Connecticut we track. It enjoys a well-rated liability system. has the fewest licensed occupations (11) of those that high, butonthepositivesideofledgerstate growth” plan. Health insurance mandates are rather “smart state-mandated a have to three only of one ments particularly onerous. As of 2006, the state was are only about average, with recordkeeping require- laws school home Its homeschoolers. of required curriculum requirements, more extensive than those has a light touch but falls short with its fairly detailed relatively low. On private school regulation, the state gambling statewide. Arrests for victimless crimes are C onnec D elawa in economic freedom, #38 freedom, economic in ticu economically free for a for free economically r e t room for local flexibility in development plans is plans development in flexibility local for room use planning has gone very far in Florida, and greater lated apart from recordkeeping requirements. Land- regu- lightly also are schools home and minimal, is registration, Florida’sregulation ofprivateschools mandatorythan Other plans. insurance auto in age of thefewstatestomandatepersonalinjurycover- one is Florida restrictive. quite generally are laws Marijuana Delaware). and Maryland (excluding gun laws are about average but the worst in the South Florida’s environment. and resources natural and most afford to cut are transportation, public safety, could state the categories spending The average. than higher are taxes sales general and property While Floridadoesnothaveapersonalincometax, decentralizationgovernmentemployment.caland below average on all our fiscal indicators except fis- economic, (#25 Florida the few states with legal betting on horse races. has betterthanaveragegamblinglawsandisoneof strictest smoking bans in the United States. The state all personal fireworks and has adopted one of the very Delaware is one of five states with a statewide ban on felonies). are sale and cultivation low-level and sion to improveitsmarijuanaregime(high-levelposses- stand easily could it but urbanization, and ideology its considering control, gun overall light prisingly sur- has Delaware area. this in control its relax to it may be unreasonable to expect a high-density state improve markedly is land-use restrictions. However, try. The one area of regulation where Delaware could coun- the in system liability best the has Delaware state. coastal left-leaning a for expected be can as ance, and its labor laws are about as market-oriented stands out for a relatively light hand on health insur- dependent on grants. On regulatory policy, Delaware cally centralized,andlocalgovernmentsareheavily government finance. Even for its size, Delaware is fis- Delaware could stand to improve a great deal is local Flo ri da 2 proa) scores personal) #23 27 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 28 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM bars are exempt. systems in the South. Smoking bans have arrived, but eminent domain. It also enjoys one of the best court reforming in far gone has state the and good, are arrests. On the economic regulation side, labor laws all of fifth a about high, very are crimes ­victimless for Arrests back). property his get to activity nal crimi- about known” have reasonably not “could he that prove to has who claimant, the on is proof of (burden improvements significant require rules teacher qualification requirements. Asset forfeiture its home school regulations are quite strict, including ments. Georgia barely regulates private schools, but require- insurance liability auto and checkpoints, bicycle helmet laws, an open-container law, sobriety with primary seat-belt enforcement, motorcycle and users, road on laws restrictive fairly has Georgia but not as punitive as those of Alabama or Missouri. ing states except Tennessee. Marijuana laws are bad Georgia has less gun control than all of its neighbor- decentralized. fiscally relatively is state the and than average (once federal grants are corrected for), lowest in the country. Taxes and spending are lower freedom. Thestateandlocaldebtratioisoneofthe ing in at #42 on personal freedom but #6 on Georgia isaquintessentialDeepSouthstate,com- public places. exist, butthereissomelocalflexibilityforbarsand sarily restrictive for such a large state. Smoking bans Contribution limits on grassroots PACs are unneces- domain.eminent reforming in state other any than right-to-work. To its credit, Florida has gone further ably high for a low-wage state, but the state does have probably warranted. The minimum wage is remark- G eo r g i a economic ­economic states in the country (#4 overall, #8 personal, #5 personal, #8 overall, (#4 country the in states its to True also much better than average. is licensing Occupational average. than mandates fewer and rating community no with laissez-faire, average. On health insurance the state is surprisingly belowwell is system liability state the and domain, and health agency. Hawaii has not reformed eminent disability insurance, and a state occupational safety compensation requirements, mandatory short-term workers’ strict law, wage prevailing wage, mum mini- above-federal an with interventionist, highly isgovernment state the law labor On arrests. all of nized, andvictimlesscrimesmakeupjust7percent sonable, same-sex domestic partnerships are recog - side oftheledger,assetforfeitureregimeisrea- public placeswithoutanyexceptions.Ontheother and workplaces, bars, restaurants, in universal are attendance mandated through age 18. Smoking bans relatively heavy home school regulations, and school operate, to approval state obtain to having schools private with excessive, is regulation Educational social. is permitted gaming of type only The Utah: second strictestgamblinglawsinthecountry,after marijuana regime is fairly restrictive. Hawaii has the Gun laws are among the worst in the country, and the high. are taxes license vehicle motor and income, government debt is reasonably low. Sales, individual figure inthecountry.Perhapsforthatreason,local highest the taxes, own-source through funds their of percent 80 over raise to have governments local time same the at but centralized, fiscally highly is state the side, spending the On improve. to room economic, (#44 Hawaii reputation, Idaho is among the freest the among is Idaho reputation, Hawaii Idaho #28 personal) has much has personal) #28 41. to thecostofpremiums. and healthinsurancemandatesaddonly21percent solid, generally are laws Labor Georgia. as regime samethe has state the forfeiture; asset is reform to needs Idaho freedom personal One requirements. curriculum than other schooling home or private years ofmandatedschoolingandnoregulationson nine only with shines, really Idaho policies tional educa- On checkpoints. sobriety ­privacy-invading for being one of the few states to refuse to authorize credit deserves It insurance). liability auto tainer, open-con enforcement, seat-belt (secondary ity trin- usual the than other motorists on restrictions few has state The substantially. laws marijuana its improve could it but regime, control gun relaxed very a has Idaho high. rather actually are taxes income Individual payroll. government cutting in could presumably improve its record here, especially and spending are a bit lower than average, but Idaho Taxes States. United the in ratio debt government lowest the has Idaho Wyoming, After economic). as far as it should. rare. However, eminent domain reform has not gone of 2006, smoking bans had not made much headway. were effectively as minimal as Idaho’s. As of the end regulationsschool home Illinois’ side, plus the On crimes.victimless for were arrests all of one-third Nearly under-18s). count not does figure that (and state’s population was arrested for a theof percent 2 than more 2006, In unfathomable: the state’svictimlesscrimesarrestratesarealmost andYork, New and Maryland, California, after try, has the fourth harshest gun control laws in the coun- freedom it is in the middle of the pack (#29). Illinois a personal freedom perspective (#49). On economic one is Illinois Bunce, Wieske, and Prikazsky, “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2007.” of the worst states to live in from in live to states worst the of Ill i 41 no Occupationallicensingis i s ­victimless crime - but they all have meaningful exceptions. tributions. There are smoking bans across the board, paign financeregulation,exceptforcorporatecon- known about the crime. Indiana has very little cam - have could or knew owner the whether not crime, a in used was property the that prove to have only The burdenofproofisonthegovernment,butthey regime is one of the most draconian in the country: forfeiture asset The schools. private and home of regulationlight very with country, the in laws tion be evenbetter.Indianahaspossiblythebesteduca- would decriminalization although regime, tencing aged to construct a relatively humane marijuana sen- natural gas,telecom,andcable.Thestatehasman- deregulated has Indiana substantially. taxes hiked thatreformtax property a ofeffects the remedy to understand that the state government is attempting We out. standing particularly taxes property with our next index. Taxes are a little higher than average, expect thestatetodeclineabitonfiscalfreedomin 2008 after that revenue windfall passed, and thus we and 2007 in declined spending state that however, doubt, We measure. second our on spending from deduction a as counted was that privatization way high- large a of because 2006 in spending ernment #19 personal).Indianaisscoredabitoddlyongov- northeastern quadrant of the country (#16 economic, Indiana is one domain reforms. laws, improve the court system, and expand eminent issues, butitcouldcertainlystandtorelaxitslabor Illinois is in the middle of the pack on most economic of the rare outposts of freedom in the i Ind ana 29 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 30 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM iesn i lw ad mkn bn hv many have bans smoking and low, is licensing deregulated, been has cable light, are home schoolingisvirtuallyunregulated, laborlaws (#15). Marijuana sentencing laws are quite humane, freedom personal and (#4) regulation economic on well very does state the contrast, By taxes. erty priority for cutting are individual income and prop- be cut is education, while the taxes that should have to stand most could that spending of area The try. indus- private to compared poorly paid be to seem workers government although large, is payroll lic (#12), the state is mediocre on fiscal issues. The pub- scores Kansas While checkpoints are banned. Sobriety bars. exempt and areas smoking ignated des- permit bans Smoking altogether. banned are contributions corporate but unregulated, are tions contribu- political PAC grassroots and Individual prohibited). is gaming social (oddly, option local a as least at permitted, are gaming of forms most However,reform.forfeitureneeds Assetdensome. bur- are requirements notification and testing ized standard- school home and regulated, highly are sentencing definitelyneedsreform.Privateschools personal freedoms,thepictureismixed.Marijuana mandates are low. The court system is very good. On insurance Health regime. compensation workers’ mum or prevailing wage laws, and a lightly regulated mini- no right-to-work, with friendly, business are light touchonland-useplanning.Laborregulations larly standsoutoneconomicregulation.Iowahasa nomic, #25 personal, #16 overall). The state particu- Iowa’s policies are fairly freedom friendly (#12 eco- do notseemveryinterestedinpreservingfreedom, electing frequently Despite K Iowa ansas highly on freedom overall freedom on highly politicians who politicians ­occupational bling, ithasenactedaprohibition onInternetgam- a felony. While the state allows many forms of gam- offense being 80 years and even low-level cultivation single a for sentence maximum the with subpar, is of corrected GSP). The marijuana sentencing regime taxes are the highest in the country (as a percentage Sales (#40). freedom personal than (#28) nomic eco- on better is It South. the in state free least the Besides West Virginia private workplaces. or bars, restaurants, for bans smoking no has state The high. are taxes wine but low, are taxes spirits regulations are extremely strict. Cigarette, beer, and are arrestsforvictimlesscrimes.Campaignfinance plans. Occupationallicensingisonthehighside,as insurance health individual for rating community banded and law wage prevailing a have does state neighboring states like Indiana and Tennessee. The ofthose to reduced be could requirements keeping record- school home but liberal, fairly are laws school private and Home regime). incorporation and system liability desirable its of because rates high have to afford can Delaware (and Delaware’s high (1.2 percent of corrected GSP), exceeding even strikingly are Kentucky’s but taxes, income porate highly fiscally centralized. Most states have low cor- also is Kentucky issues. bond for rules the tighten to stand probably could state the and high, very is freedom (#26)thaneconomic(#33).Thedebtratio up ends Kentucky timless crimes arrest rates. a bit: particularly health insurance mandates and vic exemptions. Insomeareas,thestatecouldimprove L t Ken ou being a bit higher on personal on higher bit a being i and Maryland, Louisiana is si ucky ana - 43. 42. mandates add 53 percent to the cost of private plans. home schools are lightly regulated. Health insurance bling (those two facts are surely related). Private and eminent domain further. Maine and Arizona are the the are Arizona and Maine further. domain eminent reform to stand could it but system, liability good a boast does state The Arkansas). with (tied country the in worst is licensingOccupationalstate). of out margins close to zero and thus drive private insurers trols andheavyregulationsarelikelytodriveprofit many mandates (a bad combination, since price con- nity rating for health insurance and has also legislated low-wage state. The state has adopted strict commu- places. The minimum wage is astonishingly high for a smoking bansareairtighteverywhereexceptwork- domestic partnerships. Cigarette taxes are high, and same-sex allows and regime forfeiture asset good a only once (or never) rather than annually. Maine has notification parental requiring and homeschoolers here by ending standardized testing requirements for about average;thestatecouldimprovesubstantially not casinos)arepermitted.Educationalpolicies juana offense is 10 years. Several kinds of gaming (but tions, andthemaximumsentenceforasinglemari- meanor. The state also has medical marijuana - excep ries onlyafine,andlow-levelcultivationismisde- car- possession marijuana low-level of offense first sales andindividualincometaxesarealsohigh.The York. Propertytaxesarehighestinthecountry,and New after country, the in taxes overall highest ond relatively free firearms regime, but it also has the sec its preserved has character rural Its overall. #39 to dom and second best on personal freedom, summing in comes Maine rates for victimless crimes are extremely high. system is among the very worst in the liability The domain. eminent reform to way long Asset forfeitureneedsreform.Thestatehasgonea Ibid. Bunce, Wieske, and Prikazsky, “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2007.” second worst on economic free- economic on worst second M ai ne ­country. Arrest 42 -

has highly restrictive gun laws, bicycle and motor- and bicycle laws, gun restrictive highly has state the freedoms personal on Meanwhile, GSP. Massachusetts is debt: almost a quarter of corrected ment payroll is small. The biggest fiscal problem for rates are actually lower than average, and the govern- Tax (#44). freedom personal than (#37) freedom to discoverthatthestaterankshigheroneconomic surprisingbemight thereforeit excellence parand , Massachusetts hasareputationasliberalstate country (they add 67 percent to the cost). theininsurancemandatessecond-most health the center failings on labor law, but more strikingly it has economic regulation,thestatehasusualleft-of- state has not enacted complete smoking bans yet. On hol control systems in the country. Surprisingly, the overall Maryland has one of the least restrictive alco- and low, fairly are spirits and wine, beer, on taxes and civil unions are not recognized. On the plus side, unreformed, victimless crimes arrest rates are high, totally is abuse domain eminent advanced, very is planningland-use centralized government), the by approved be must (curricula burdensome are laws restricted, gamblinglawsaretight,homeschooling highly are freedoms motorists’ law), marijuana cal session is a misdemeanor, and there is a weak medi- harsh (except that the first offense of high-level pos- fairly are laws marijuana and country, the in laws gun second-strictest the include freedom personal 50th in personal freedom. Maryland’s impositions on The stateis34thineconomicfreedombutadistant Maryland is the elections, funded out of general only two states with public M assachuse fifth least free state in the country. M ar yland ­financing available for all ­revenues. tt s 43 31 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 32 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM economic regulation. It ends up a very solid 14 solid very a up ends It regulation. economic us shocked Michigan many mandates). sive community rating, guaranteed issue regulations, (exten- extreme are regulations insurance Health allowed). is (self-insurance funding compensation enacted. Laborlawsaresubpar,exceptonworkers’ hol taxes arelow. Same-sex marriage was judicially percentageaas thepopulationof (0.4%), andalco low are crimes victimless for arrests side, positive the On laws. marijuana good particularly not and the strictest statewidesmokingbans in the country, taxes, cigarette high laws, finance campaign strict requirements, poor asset forfeiture rules, extremely works ban, extremely strict private and home school mandate, fairly restrictive gambling laws, a total fire- cycle helmetlaws,apersonalinjuryautoinsurance average, with the most striking flaw the dependence freedom fiscal On checkpoints are not authorized. Sobriety exceptions. many offer bans smoking but domain nent good asset forfeiture regime, and has reformed emi- a has occupations, licensed fewest for country the deregulated natural gas and telecom, is third best in ter thanaverageonhealthinsurancemandates,has little communityratingforhealthinsurance,isbet- veryhas altogether, system the from workers tural compensationagriculexemptsself-insuranceand workers’ permits wage, minimum a lacks state the ernments dependheavilyonstategrants.However, ticular, itisafairlycentralizedstate,andlocalgov- fiscal freedom the state does not do very well; in par On personal). #20 economic, (#15 freedom overall extensively. Cigarette taxes are high, are taxes Cigarette ­extensively. Mi ch Mi nneso Minnesota is actually about actually is Minnesota when it came in first on first in came it when igan t a th on on - - - freedom but 30 in the Union, Mississippi comes out 22 the Deep South. Perhaps the most conservative state some defies Mississippi criminal activity; and cigarette taxes are high. of knowledge owner require not does forfeiture asset country; the in costly most the are mandates coverage; labor laws are extensive; health insurance auto injury personal requires but points state lacks helmet laws and prohibits sobriety check- low-level marijuana possession is decriminalized; the spirits are not; the state still has blue laws for alcohol; heavily ($4.85 per gallon effective rate) but beer and Minnesota include the following: Wine is taxed quite freedom, and35 gotten nowhere. Cigarette taxes are very low, and smoking bans have ity system is of course one of the worst in the country. abuse has not been curtailed at all. The state’s liabil- not requireownerknowledge,andeminentdomain does forfeiture asset However, average. than ter good, andhealthinsuranceregulationsarealsobet- arelawsLabor minimal. regulationis school home that have banned pari-mutuel wagering. Private and slots gaming is legal, but the state is one of only seven car passengers.Therearelocal-optioncasinos,and for prohibition open-container an without states are particularly high. Mississippi is one of only a few very well, with higher taxes than average. Sales taxes tivation or sale. On fiscal policy the state does not do life in prison for a single conviction of high-level cul- a misdemeanor rather than a felony, but you can get session is decriminalized, and low-level cultivation is policies are a study in contradictions. Low-level pos- ends up 31 up ends for abouthalfoftheirrevenues.However,thestate governments higher-level on governments local of st on economic freedom, 31 freedom, economic on th on economic freedom. Its marijuana th overall.Somestrikingfactsabout Mi ss i ss of the stereotypes about stereotypes the of ippi st nd on personal on on personal ­insurance has not. Cigarette taxes are low. ture hasbeenreformed,buteminentdomainreally licensing is less extensive than average. Asset forfei- would improve Missouri’s score here. Occupational self-insurance compensation workers’ allowing and right-to-work but market-friendly, generally Land-use planningisdecentralized.Laborlawsare unregulated. almost are schools home and private exception. Other than recordkeeping requirements, gambling social no is there oddly but allowed, are gambling of types Several harsh. extremely is ing very is control Gun average. below well taxes and laws blue no with States, United the in restrictive least the of one is regime alcohol The average. national thebelow deviation standard full a nearly both are revenues tax and spending government Adjusted nomic freedom and sixth best on personal freedom. ably not rank so highly! Missouri is ninth best on eco- prob- would state the otherwise, Missouri; run not do politicians Louis St. Apparently, extensively. so Louis St. in misdeeds political covered have media Missouri’s ranking in this dataset, given the way the be might One times justified, sometimes not (21 not sometimes justified, times free place.Asweshallsee,thatreputationissome- a has Montana personal, 19 ­personal, tion is highly state-controlled at both the wholesale distribu - alcohol However, Alaska. and Wyoming age. Itsgunlawsarethirdbest inthecountry,after aver- below deviation standard a over is spending Adjusted small. fairly actually is government state its abundance, in receives Montana which grants, limited. Unfortunately, marijuana sentenc marijuana Unfortunately, ­limited. th overall). Once we control for federal for control we Once overall). forgiven for expressing surprise at surprise expressing for forgiven reputation for being a relatively a being for reputation Mon Mi ssou t ana ri st economic, 21 economic, st -

requirements areburdensome. Laborlawsarevery notification but overall, liberal are laws schooling vate schools, but there are broad exemptions. Home requires state approval and teacher licensure for pri- Nebraska penalty. maximum 50-year the and sale tory minimumsentenceforlow-levelcultivationor manda- one-year the for except liberal, relatively are laws Marijuana on. so and handguns, license firearms, register shows, gun and sales private for checks background require dealers, gun license to powers broad have also governments Local carry. firearms on limitations local pre-empt not does fairly rural state. For instance, the state government ais Nebraska that considering liberal, very not ally actu- is regime firearms The “hard.” relatively are constraintsbudget local and decentralized, fiscally be picking up. On the positive side, the state is highly might category that expenditures what to as guess a hazard not will we high; particularly is category dard deviation above average. The “other spending” Government spending is very high, more than a stan- overall). #28 personal, #34 economic, (#27 states a falls Nebraska candidates and parties are prohibited. actually enforced strictly. Corporate contributions to crimes, implying that some of its harsher laws are not is much better than average on arrests for victimless ­universal smokingbansoutsidethehome.Thestate ant. Cigarette taxes are rather high, and the state has use a little work; the burden of proof is on the claim- could forfeiture Asset average. than prevalent less access to specialists. Occupational licensing is much direct mandatory including excessive, somewhat are mandates insurance Health cities. the outside nonexistent almost is planning Land-use so. less slightlyonly schools home and unregulated, almost are schools Private motorists. to friendly relatively otherwise is but issue, open-container the on ment harsh. The state finally caved in to the federal govern- and retail ­levels. Marijuana sentencing is extremely N bit behind other Great Plains Great other behind bit ebr aska 33 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 34 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM 24 broad exceptions. have bans Smoking arrests). all of 22% ­population, for victimless crimes are extremely high (1.3% of the system is one of the best in the country. Arrest rates liabilitystate’s The reformed. sufficiently been not has domain Eminent reasonable. relatively whole the on are regulations insurance health and good, domain, but they have since done so. eminentreformed not had Nevada 2006, of As age. are more than a standard deviation worse than aver- the prevailing wage law. Health insurance mandates exempted). Labor laws are relatively good, except for public places, restaurants, and workplaces (bars are in complete virtually are bans Smoking crime. a in ant, who must prove that the property was not used in the country. The burden of proof is on the claim Additionally, the asset forfeiture regime is the worst states. other to relative onerous somewhat still are are far less restrictive, but notification requirements and detailedcurriculumcontrol.Homeschoollaws all schools, mandatory state licensure of all teachers, ofapproval state mandatory country: the in lations regu- school private strictest the imposing in ever, how- down, falls state The conviction. single a for imprisonment life of possibility the for except age, aver- than better are laws marijuana and relaxed, fairly are laws alcohol and Gun industry). private than more percent 18 make (they wages employee dard deviationsworsethanaverageongovernment government employment,andmorethantwostan- tion, onestandarddeviationbetterthanaverageon deviations better than average on fiscal decentraliza- standard two about is state the However, average. a disappointing32 but perception does not meet reality. Nevada scores gambling, and prostitution legal of because mostly a has Nevada th overall. On fiscal policy the state is overall about reputation as a “libertarian state,” “libertarian a as reputation nd placeonpersonalfreedomand N e vada - Labor laws are generally market-friendly, but it is not ing requirements are more onerous than most states. whole, but the standardized testing and recordkeep- school. Homeschoollawsare aboutaverageonthe private a open to required is approval State felony. ais gambling aggravated and prohibited, is gaming social license, charitable a under place take must gamingMost controlled: relatively is Gambling ity. three states that permit self-insurance for auto liabil- rizes sobriety checkpoints. New Hampshire is one of autho- and law helmet bicycle a have does but law seat-belt law for adults. It lacks a motorcycle helmet no with country the in state only the is Hampshire a misdemeanor like both Maine and Vermont. New made be could cultivation low-level while Maine, like decriminalized be could possession low-level middling; are laws Marijuana Foundation. Tax the to according zero, are products these on rates tax effective the spirits, and wine of distribution retail of control state Despite free. relatively is regime alcohol Its permit). carry concealed a requires car “peaceable journey”regime(carryingafirearmin most liberalinthecountry,butstatehasaweak spend with their own taxes. Gun laws are among the governments also must raise two-thirds of what they Local country. the in states decentralized fiscally is controlled for, New Hampshire is one of the most states spendmoreonroads).Oncestatepopulation for federal grants and population density (less dense tion, which is higher than average once one controls transporta- is cutting for suspect likeliest the side, should be high priorities for cutting. On the spending corporate incometaxesintheUnitedStates.These New Hampshire has the third highest property and in thecountry,buttaxregimeishighlyskewed. dom (#13). Taxes and spending are among the lowest free- personal than (#2) economic on better much does Hampshire New Dakota. South and Colorado with slots third and second first, the shares really it however, weights, on Depending country. the in is Hampshire New N ew by our count the freest state freest the count our by Ham psh ir e has since passed (not captured by our index). allowed many exemptions, but a thoroughgoing ban regulations are quite strict. As of 2006, smoking bans bility system is one of the best, but campaign finance ture have been thoroughly reformed. The state’s lia- than average. Both eminent domain and asset forfei- a right-to-work state. Occupational licensing is worse New Jersey is about average. private healthinsurance.Onotherissues,however, in force, and there is extensive community rating for ly, statewideland-useplanning(“smartgrowth”)is economic regulation, labor laws are predictably cost- Onrecognized. also are unions Civil requirements. prisingly light,extendingonlytobroadcurriculum tantly, private and home school regulations are sur- and slots gambling are legal statewide. More impor- casinoNevada, like and, reasonably,fairly taxed is alcohol side, positive the On country. the in any as draconian as are bans smoking and stratospheric, forfeiture is largely unreformed. Cigarette taxes are Asset prohibited. are Fireworks automobiles. for coverage injury personal and liability mandatory and checkpoints, sobriety law, open-container an ban, driving phone cell a laws, helmet bicycle and motorcycle enforcement, seat-belt primary has Jersey New subpar. are laws Marijuana extensive. is control Gun high. also are taxes income vidual taxes are among the highest in the country, and indi- Spending on education is particularly high. Property dom, and #49 overall. Taxes and spending are high. free- personal on #45 freedom, economic on #46 is Jersey New and taxes are high, and a quarter of the state’s work- Spending West. Mountain the of laggard the is all) New Mexico (#43 a highly regulated state all around, all state regulated highly a N N economic, economic, #3 personal, #36 over ew ew Je M icoex r sey - the state strictly limits what grassroots PACs may PACs grassroots what limits strictly state the Perversely,unreformed. totally is domain Eminent regulations. Mandated coverages are also very high. has the strictest health insurance community rating has been reformed. Along with Vermont, New York forfeiture asset but burdensome, are regulations (not casinos, except on reservations). Home school but several kinds of gambling are allowed statewide regulated, highly are Motorists strict). extremely are laws tobacco (while average than better are laws marijuana but restrictive, extremely are laws gun freedoms, personal On average. than higher is employmentGovernment economy. the of centage Massachusetts has more government debt as a per vices and “other” is well above national norms. Only ser- social on Spending high. particularly are taxes tive sales,individualincome,andcorporateincome selec- Property, country. the in taxes highest the thing can be done about the situation. New York has any- that believe to seem Yorkers New few equally Yorkers would be surprised by such a finding. Sadly, New few that fact the to attest can and York New in lives us of One personal). #48 economic, (#50 New YorkisbyfartheleastfreestateinUnion state should improve in our next ranking. tem. Eminentdomainwasreformedin2007,sothe insurance mandates and improving the liability sys- health back rolling by most improve could Mexico definitely be improved. In economic regulation, New could laws marijuana However, crimes. victimless vate property,andonly12percentofarrestsarefor pri- on bans smoking no are there reformed, been has forfeiture asset tougher), is regulation school allowed, private school regulation is light (but home are gambling of kinds several light, is control gun becausefreedoms personal on well does state The percentage). that to more even add workers eral (fed- payrolls government local or state on is force N ew Y ew o r k - 35 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 36 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM private and self-insurance is banned, and employ- and banned, is self-insurance and private All policy: funding compensation workers’ strange a Wyoming with shares Dakota North regulated. oversight required.Homeschoolers arealsotightly approval, teacher licensing, and detailed curriculum date. Private schools are heavily regulated, with state man- coverage injury personal the notably) (most for except freedom, relative in operate Motorists poor. are laws Marijuana punitive. strangely are wine and beer on rates Tax relaxed. fairly are laws the governmentpayrollislargerthanaverage.Gun very lowgovernmentspending,debt,andtaxes,but has Dakota North overall). (#10 freedom personal on #33 to falls it but Union, the in state free ically North Dakota is enough to be effective. far gone not has reform domain eminent and back, rolled be to needs licensing occupational but lent, and regulation.Onregulation,laborlawsareexcel- the statealreadydoesverywellontobaccotaxation reforming asset forfeiture further. Not surprisingly, reducing the standardized testing requirement, and and qualifications teacher school home repealing state), “decrim” a already is (it sentencing juana mari- reforming spirits, and beer on taxes punitive lowering licensing), handgun ending (particularly control gun reducing by improve could state the and individualincometaxes.Onpersonalfreedom, readily improvebycuttingsocialservicesspending of our concepts. On fiscal policy, the state could most overall) is right in the middle of the pack on all three North Carolina (#26 tions and unions may give. give to candidates and parties, but not what - corpora N N ort ort perhaps the fourth most econom- h h economic, #30 personal, #23 C D ar ako ol i t na a complete except for a bars exemption. are bans Smoking arrests). of 22.7% population, of timless crime arrest rates are disproportionate (1.1% Asset forfeiture rules are proper. Unfortunately, vic- country. the in regime domain eminent reformed with Florida, North Dakota has the most thoroughly Along average. than lower are mandates insurance ers are required to contribute to a state fund. Health ally gener- are laws insurance health and Labor mal. mini- is planning Land-use unregulated. virtually are legal (not casinos). Private and home schools are sentencing is unreformed. Several types of gambling marijuana but limited, fairly is control Gun made. be could cuts some Surely workforce. the of 22.5% fully is payroll government the but average, than lower deviation standard a about all are debt and all) has an odd fiscal profile. State spending, taxation, Oklahoma (#17 economic, enough. Draconian smoking bans are in place. ate. Eminent domain reform has not gone nearly far school curricula. Asset forfeiture rules are appropri- er licensureandmandatorystateapprovalofhome school regulations are unreasonable, reformed. Most gambling is illegal. Private and home overall, but cultivation and sale sentencing could be New Jersey,andothers.Marijuanalawsareliberal Illinois, with class a in not though poor, relatively are laws control Gun transportation. except egory cat- spending every in average than higher is Ohio ing is over a standard deviation higher than average. has muchtoimprove.Adjustedgovernmentspend- economic, (#32 Ohio ­market-friendly. Eminent domain reform needs Oklahoma Oh #46 personal, #38 overall) #38 personal, #46 i o #27 personal, #18 over- ­including teach- liberal gamblinglawsinour dataset,beingtheonly crude measures, Pennsylvania actually has the most admittedly our By awful. not are laws control gun its state, northeastern a For spending. government on fiscal policy, however, with a high debt ratio and neighboring states. The state is not particularly good Pennsylvania #20, At tions for bars and workplaces. exemp- some still are there but extensive, are bans are surprisingly high (22.2% of all arrests). Smoking licensing ispervasive.Arrestsforvictimlesscrimes wages. Labor laws are generally poor. Occupational the highest in the country when adjusted for average use planning is far advanced. The minimum wage is school regulationsarequitereasonable.Stateland- permit physician-assisted suicide. Private and home rize sobriety checkpoints. Oregon is the only state to autho- to refuse to states few the of one is Oregon marijuana (cultivation and sale are felonies, though). medical is there and level, certain a below nalized decrimi- is possession Marijuana average. about are laws control Gun cutting. for ripe particularly look administration and safety Public debt. state ing is high but taxes are low, resulting in rather high is the freest Pacific state. Oddly, government spend- economic, (#36 Oregon ber of exemptions. quite strict. Smoking bans generally offer a fair num- much more work. Campaign finance regulations are 44. Bunce, Wieske, and Prikazsky, “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2007.” Pennsyl Or egon is freer than all six of its of six all than freer is #7 personal, #27 overall)#27 personal, #7 v an i a 46%. raising the price of health insurance policies at least the other two). However, mandates are rather high, are Virginia and (Hawaii insurance health vidual indi- and group small in rating community of form nohave to states three only of one isPennsylvania fication, and record-keeping requirements reduced. need toberepealed,andstandardizedtesting,noti- licensing and qualifications Teacher better. much draconian, and its private school regulations are not are laws school home Pennsylvania’s gambling. of forms these of each regulates tightly presumably government the and exception, gambling social a have not does law the However, slots. and table, chari- pari-mutuel, casino, track, Internet, track: state to legalize statewide all forms of gambling we forfeiture and eminent domain need reform. On the insurance. Occupational licensing is extensive. Asset disabilityshort-term provide to employers require is high, and Rhode Island is one of the few states to Land-use planning is extensive. The minimum wage ers have to get their curricula approved by the state. obtain government approval to open. Home school- authorize sobriety checkpoints. Private schools must not does Island Rhode states; northeastern other Auto androadfreedomsareextensivecomparedto state (life imprisonment is the maximum sentence). The marijuana regime is extremely poor for a liberal but not quite at Massachusetts or Connecticut levels. vate sector workers in the state. Gun control is strict, government employees are paid 26% more than pri- ment is second lowest in the country (12.7%), while all very high. Oddly, however, government employ- Fiscal policy is a mess, with spending, taxes, and debt countrythestatein(#42economic, personal).#47 Rhode Island is bans have not gone far at all. 44 Occupational licensing is quite rare. Smoking Rhode Island by our measure the third least free 37 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 38 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM doms, SouthDakotascoreswell onguncontroland the state’s low population density. On personal free - little higher than expected, even when ever, ratherhigh.Transportation spendingisalsoa states fortaxesandspending. Salestaxesare,how- cally decentralized for its size, and it is among the best personal (#24) freedoms. South Dakota is highly fis- nation, although it does better on economic (#1) than South Dakota rates smoking bans of any kind on private property. taxes are the lowest in the country, and there are no has done much to reform eminent domain. Cigarette statethe and however, good, generally are ulations tion requirements. Labor and health insurance reg notifica- and recordkeeping, testing, standardized burdensome and qualifications teacher with try, has some of the worst home school laws in the coun- Marijuana laws are unreconstructed. South Carolina imposed. been have handguns for standards ­safety design and banned, completely is carry open age, but among the worst in the South. For instance, are controlledfor.Guncontrollawsaboutaver- Carolina perhaps receives more than its fair share— average, evenwhenfederalgrants—ofwhichSouth above far far, are spending social and Education high. are debt therefore and spending government lem. While taxes are a bit below the national average, South, after Louisiana. Fiscal policy is a major prob- Deep the in state free least second the is overall) South Carolina (#22 bans and cigarette taxes are extreme. Smoking arrests). all of 12% population, of (0.5% upside,victimless crimesarrestquiteratesarelow S S ou ou t t h as the third freest state in the h economic, #41 personal, #30 C D ar ako ol i t na a ­corrected for - no smoking bans on private property. been reformed. The state has low cigarette taxes and has gone way too far. Eminent domain has not really insurance laws are mediocre. Occupational licensing schoolers. Labor laws are above average, but health and burdensome notification requirements for home dergarten, mandatory registration of private schools, somewhat shortoneducation,withmandatorykin- prohibit even charitable gaming. The state also falls to states three just of one is Tennessee controlled; highly is Gambling bicyclists. and motor- for laws helmet and enforcement, seat-belt primary points, check sobriety has it but instead), self-insurance (permitting insurance liability auto require to not fairly harsh marijuana laws. The state is one of three is always a misdemeanor, but otherwise the state has quite high. The first offense of marijuana possession wine—arealcohol—particularly on taxes However, South. the in laws control gun best the has also extremely low. Along with West Virginia, Tennessee also is ratio debt government The GSP). corrected of (6.8% country the in lowest the is burden tax all over- Tennessee’s measures, our of one By South. is, along with Virginia, one of the freest states in the Tennessee (#8 economic, yet been written into the constitution. been reformed extensively, but the reforms have not has domain Eminent local. largely is planning use The state’sliabilitysystemisamongthebest.Land- good.very generally are laws insurance health and On economic regulation the state scores well. Labor relaxed. be also could procedures, notification and testing standardized on particularly requirements, school Home oversight. curricular detailed or cess having tochoosebetweenastateaccreditationpro- schools with controlled, highly are schools Private are two standard deviations above the norm (24.8%). victimless crimes arrests as a percentage of all arrests Unfortunately, gambling. Internet prohibited has laws. The state allows several kinds of gambling but marijuana on poorly relatively but forfeiture asset Tennessee #18 personal, #7 overall) - 45. vate property. pri- on bans smoking no are There here. help may judges of election the ending average; than worse sively reformed. The state’s liability system is much Unfortunately, eminent domain has not been exten- “deregulation.”cable and telecom in leaders the of cost ofpremiumsbymorethan63%. dated coveragesonhealthinsuranceincreasingthe man- imposed has it rating, community light only hasTexas While coverage. compensation workers’ only statenottorequireemployerscontribute good, exceptforaprevailingwagelaw.Texasisthe generally are laws Labor unregulated. completely almost are schools home and Private checkpoints. sobriety authorize not does Texas harsh. very are laws marijuana otherwise but misdemeanor, a is and taxes are low. Low-level marijuana cultivation states,other most in thanregulated less is Alcohol licensing. dealer and rules, purchase for age imum short on open-carry laws, stricter-than-federal min- Gun control is better than average, but the state falls standard deviation higher than the national average. a is employment government However, spending. government grants-adjusted lowest third the and country the in burden tax lowest second the has is needed.AsapercentageofcorrectedGSP,Texas testify, there are plenty of areas where improvement try. Nevertheless, as one of us who lives in Texas can coun- the in governments state smallest the of one economic, (#7 Texas Bunce, Wieske, and Prikazsky, “Health Insurance Mandates in the States 2007.” Texas #5 personal, #5 overall) has overall) #5 personal, #5 45 Texasisone in theUnion,unlessalloneisinterestedareguns states free least the of one considered be must all) Vermont (#45economic,#11personal,#40over- because fewer people engage in these activities). (perhapslowfairly actually are ratesarrest crimes mandates are much lower than average. Victimless insurance Health requirements. basic few a under freely operate schools home and private and light, fairly are restrictions motorist light, is control gun Mountain state.Taxesareabitlowerthanaverage, these threeareas,however,UtahisatypicalRocky taxes areonlyabithigherthanaverage.Other plete smokingbansoutsidethehome,butcigarette com- with strict, fairly also are laws Tobacco lots!) of Utah-registered cars in the border casino parking gambling” afelony.(Thisprobablyexplainsthesea “aggravated makes Utah and gambling, social ing only state to proscribe all forms of gambling, includ- Effective tax rates on alcohol are also high. Utah is the tory server training, blue laws, and happy hour laws. have allthreeofthefollowingrestrictions:manda- only statetobanallbeerkegs,andthe the distribution, alcohol of control state total with states two only of one is Utah country. the in bling has by far the tightest regulation of alcohol and gam- sies that come out in our data. For instance, the state many wouldexpect,certainlyhassomeidiosyncra- Utah (#14 economic, Ve ah Ut #14 personal, #11 overall), as r mon t 39 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 40 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM mandatory schooling, including kindergarten atten- is schizophreniconeducation, requiring13yearsof age. Marijuana laws are largely unreformed. Virginia above the national average. Gun laws are about aver- well is employment government local and state and debt are all below national averages. However, spending,government burden, tax The Tennessee. with tie statistical a less or more in is it although state, Southern freest second the count our by is economic, (#13 Virginia the country. civil unions and some of the best overall gun laws in rette taxes are high. On the positive side, the state has ciga- and pervasive, are bans Smoking strict. quite effectively reformed yet. Campaign finance limits are beennot has domain Eminent states. other most as at least has not piled on as many coverage mandates has pure community rating for health insurance, but wage whenadjustedformedianearnings.Vermont minimum high very a with average, than worse are laws Labor burdensome. are homeschoolers for requirements testing standardized and fication noti- and schools, private all for approval requires are much better than the national average. Vermont criminalized. However, arrests for victimless crimes still is possession low-level and not, is possession high-level misdemeanor, a is cultivation low-level bution. Marijuana laws could be much better; while has full state control of beer, wine, and spirits distri- est figureintheUnitedStates.LikeUtah,Vermont state grants for over 70 % of their revenue, the high- expenditures. Localgovernmentsaredependenton governments raising just 11.5% of total state and local the mostfiscallycentralizedstatebyfar,withlocal is Vermont Nevada. except state other any in than economy the of percentage a as more in bring ists, lem, and selective sales taxes, largely aimed at tour- corrected GSP). Property taxes are a particular prob- of (10.6% country the in highest third the measure one by is burden tax overall The unions. civil and V ir g in #9 personal, #9 overall) #9 personal, #9 i a smoking bans are extensive. and high, are taxes Cigarette not. has domain nent emi- but reformed, been has forfeiture Asset poor. are laws insurance health and Labor centralized. requirements. Land-use planning is becoming more and extensive recordkeeping rules, along with other teacher qualifications,annualstandardizedtesting, meet to needing schoolers home and licensing, state approval and under certain conditions needingschools private with tight, absurdly is tion authorize sobriety checkpoints. Educational regula- not does Washington further. help would offense vation misdemeanors and low-level possession a civil but making high-level possession and low-level culti- gallon). Marijuana laws are a bit better than average, per$21.15 (effectively far by country the in highest thespirits on taxes with controlled, tightly fairly is a liberal state, gun laws are quite reasonable. Alcohol government payroll is much larger than average. For and accordingly government debt is quite high. The taxes are fairly low, spending is higher than average, While overall. #44 and freedoms, personal on #35 #41 scores Washington has since passed new reforms. reformed eminent domain as of the end of 2006, but not had state The country. the in systems liability lated” to the consumer. The state has one of the best insurance. Natural gas and cable have been “deregu- are extensive,addingover64percenttothecostof nity rating for health insurance. However, mandates commu- of form no has VirginiaPennsylvania, and Hawaii Like solid. are laws Labor alone. schools home and private both leaving otherwise but ers, ing and notification requirements on homeschool- test- standardized significant imposing and dance, W ash i ng on economic freedoms, economic on t on ­teacher Labor lawsarenotverygood. Wisconsinhasoneof regulated. lightly very are schools home However, private schools and extensive curriculum oversight. auto insurance. The state has mandatory approval of checkpoints and is one of three states not to require sobriety authorize not does Wisconsin board. the among the best in the country, with taxes low across vices is well above national norms. Alcohol laws are Government spendingoneducationandsocialser- Property and individual income taxes are both high. Illinois). Governmentspendingandtaxesarehigh. and (Minnesota south and northwest the to bors (Iowa andMichigan)alittlelesslikeitsneigh- northeast and southwest the to neighbors its like more little a become to stand could overall) economic, (#35 Wisconsin bans on private property. smoking no are there and low, are taxes Cigarette country. the in worst the of one is system liability state’s The compensation. workers’ for insurance private permitting and right-to-work, adopting its laborlawsbyrepealingtheprevailingwagelaw, improve could Virginia West nil. virtually is ning notification requirements. Statewide land-use plan- as well as annual standardized testing and extensive schoolers, home on qualifications teacher imposes Virginia West moderate. fairly are laws marijuana try. On the other hand, gun laws are quite liberal, and particular problem,thesecondhighestincoun- is fiscallycentralized.Corporateincometaxesarea state the and high, rather are Taxes Maryland. ing exclud- South, the in state free least the is overall) (#40 Virginia West W Wi es t sconsi economic, #17 personal, #33 personal, #17 economic, V ir g i n n 3 proa, #37 personal, #39 ia and there are no smoking bans on private property. ulation are quite high (1.2%). Cigarette taxes are low, Victimless crimes arrests as a percentage of the pop- the state should rise in our next version of this index. so direction, that in efforts substantial made since had notbeenreformedasof2006,butthestatehas domainEminent country. the in intrusive least the compensation. Health insurance regulation is among workers’ for fund monopoly state a to contribute must employers that requirement odd Wyoming’s forexcept friendly, market are laws Labor not. are schools home requirements, notification heavy fromapart but regulated, fairly are schools Private Wyoming doesnotauthorizesobrietycheckpoints. also verylow.Motorists’freedomsarefairlybroad. are taxes spirits and wine effective and states, the among lowest the are taxes Beer control. gun little tions above the national average. Wyoming has very payroll is much too large, almost two standard devia is provide a large part of the state’s revenue. Wyoming taxesarerather high,even though severance taxes is alsothelowestincountry.Propertyandsales are only about average. As a result, government debt as a percentage of corrected GSP, even though taxes country the in lowest the is spending government east, South Dakota, on economic matters. Adjusted still learn a few things from its neighbor to the north- all) is one of the freest states in the country but could Wyoming (#20economic,#10personal,#15over- Smoking bans allow numerous exceptions. crime. Eminent domain reform has not gone very far. a in used was property the that prove to need only The burdenofproofisonthegovernment,butthey country: the in regimes forfeiture asset worst the highly fiscally decentralized. The government The decentralized. fiscally ­highly W yom i ng - 41 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 42 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM mous), and owner liability standard (trichotomous). (dichoto- government or owner proof, of burden asset forfeiture from two variables: incidence of the of difficulty of index an of creation our is example Another have). none if “0” and have, some only if “0.5” enshrined, thus been have restrictions tional domain (simple ordinal variable, coded “1” if all addi- tution enshrinesadditionalrestrictionsoneminent raised, and “0”otherwise); and whether the consti- but the standard of proof for proving blight has been “0.5” if a vague definition of blight has been retained has been implemented either implicitly or explicitly, nal variable, coded “1” if a stricter definition of blight eminent domain use); blight definitions (simple ordi of type this on restrictions effective no are there if private-to-private transfersareprohibited,and“0” certain only if “0.5” prohibited, are use private for ings (simple ordinal variable, coded “1” if all takings tak- private for standards variable); yes/no (binary enacted been has reform any whether reform: of dimensions four account into taking by reform For instance, we create an index of eminent domain scales. own their create to researchers for website ed data are available in separate spreadsheets on our ated from the simpler variables, but the disaggregat- In some cases, more complex ordinal scales are cre- National Academy of Social Insurance, and so on. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and ket regulationsdatafromtheDepartmentofLabor, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, labor mar from data policy insurance health FBI, the from data enforcement law (BEA), Analysis Economic of Bureau and Bureau Census the from data fiscal collectedalso we states), 50 all for online available sion dataformanyofourvariables(whicharenow ses- legislative 2005–6 and statutes the to directly rates forvictimlesscrimes,etc.).Althoughwewent istered (e.g.,expenditureandrevenuelevels,arrest admin- are policies legislated which in manner the capture boththerelevantstatutoryframeworkand thatvariables statistical continuous code we cases, some In variables. ordinal simple or dichotomous cases, many In the of Construction we directly code statutes with statutes code directly we Index - - We did not think it worth the effort to code for all for code to effort the worth it think not did We sales. toy adult on bans unenforceable and loons bal- helium releasing on regulations as such dom, free- for import minor have to seem policies Some while Delaware scores first. Louisiana, andMississippicomeout atthebottom, ture theconceptwewantquitewell:WestVirginia, cap- to seems variable continuous This system. ity survey indicating satisfaction with that state’s liabil- respondents in the 2006 U.S. Chamber of Commerce the qualityofstates’tortsystems:percentage instead chosen to present a single variable capturing find ways to circumvent these problems, but we have possible that more talented researchers than we will isIt reforms. most the implemented have spective, per- business a from systems, tort flawed most the with states the that fact the be would reform tort fundamental problemwiththisapproachtocoding a Furthermore, impossible. virtually reform tort of makingus,constructiontheto summary aindex of relative importance of these features was also unclear reforms are not strictly comparable across states. The idiosyncraticfrequently and technical highly these to counteract abuse of the tort system, and many of States have implemented a wide variety of measures example. important most the is reform Tort issue. theilluminate to unlikely measures abstruse in ing have been an exceedingly complex endeavor result- cases we found that coding state law directly would comprehensive in terms of policy coverage. In a few fully is database our that claim to wish not do We up with their own state freedom rankings. also apply different weights to each variable to come mayReaders area. policy each for spreadsheets ual ables, interested readers can also download individ- find thesourcesandformulasforconstructedvari- To www.statepolicyindex.com. at format 97–2003 Excel Microsoft in available is index freedom our in included variables the all with spreadsheet The treated independently. be not should thus and other each on dependent fied policyconceptswhoseindividualelementsare uni- capture to variables ordinal these employ We 48. 54–55. Economic Performance in Greece: Evidence at Regional and Prefecture Level,” Development Directorate, Territorial Development Policy Committee); 47. 46. economic activity. This bias is particularly evident in inflated GSP figures compared to those states’ actual that are attractive locations for incorporation will see in which the business is headquartered. Thus, states GSP, the BEA attributes business income to the state BEA calculatesGSP.Forthepurposeofcalculating approach suffers from a problem in the way that the ntr nta o population. of instead inator EFNA uses gross state product (GSP) in the denom- from the private sector via taxation or debt. resources removing requires area particular a in inherent in fiscal policy: New government spending this approach is that it does not capture the tradeoffs spending or tax revenue per capita, the problem with the literature. While one common approach is to use in ways different several in measured are policies Fiscal error. measurement reduce to order in icies We introduce new ways to measure certain state pol- measure of occupational and professional licensing. licensing of medical doctors was not included in the example, because all states license medical doctors, for which there was no state variation in 2006. For policies any include not does database the Finally, administrative codes for this single issue. statethe all over pore to notdecided we andtions, regula these for sources secondary no are There statutes. than rather codes administrative through these policiesareidiosyncraticandtypicallyset and use of data from those recordings. Unfortunately, fic surveillance, including regulations on the storage availability. That area was the use of cameras for traf- data of reasons for not could but include to hoped There was one area of state and local policy we had freedom scores in any case. finalthe affect much not would that laws states 50 Sorens, Muedini, and Ruger, “U.S. State and Local Public Policies in 2006,” 315. Karabegovic and McMahon, “Economic Freedom in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2007), 46 oee, this However, North America 2008 Annual Report,” 81–83. - Nikos Regions at a Glance 2007 (Public Governance and Territorial from the BEA. ously usedis“stateearningsbyplaceofwork,”also A measure of state economy size that we have previ- account both kinds of taxable economic activity. into take can that measures need we that so taxed, live in the state but work in another state can both be businesses located in a state and by commuters who economy across most states. Only in resource-rich in Only states. most across economy the of percentage a as constant less or more be to ignores income to capital and land, which we expect with the actual size of a state’s economy. However, it within a state. This variable should correlate strongly and salaries,bothprivatepublicsector,earned weaknesses of the other. income measures, as each variable makes up for the personal and product gross both using ommend rec- data economic regional with work who mists econo- Accordingly, used. is only income personal total when economies large overly have to appear Hampshire New and Virginia, Maryland, as such statesCommuter state. another in income an earn site problem, namely, that residents of one state may fiscal policymeasures,butitsuffersfromtheoppo- income is another candidate for the denominator of people wholivethere.Ontheotherhand,personal ple whoworkthereisfarlargerthanthenumberof gross product per capita because the number of peo- the DistrictofColumbiaappearstohaveenormous by peoplewholiveelsewhere.IntheUnitedStates, according to where it occurs, even if it is being done activity economic counts It denominator. the in GSP with problem conceptual another, is There New Hampshire. par with states such as New Jersey, Connecticut, and fact that its per capita personal income is roughly on est GSPpercapitaamongthe50states,despite larg- the far by enjoys which Delaware, of case the Benos and Stelios Karagiannis (2008), “Convergence and Review of Urban and Regional Development Studies 48 This variable measures gross wages 47 In theory, income made by 20 (1): . 43 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 44 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM ment for particular programs legislated by Congress. would not be fully satisfactory, because federal grants to the states often require, and thus incentivize, matching funds from the state govern- 49. 51. 11, 4 (1997): 83–92; Rodden, “Reviving Leviathan.” 50. all tax revenues except motor fuel taxes, and we and taxes, fuel motor except revenues tax all the state tax and spending ratios. For taxes, we count We have also carefully calculated the numerators of R The income. resource natural for proxy a as use we which taxes, severance mineral from revenues state total and earnings in-state total on GSP total regressing by variable GSP” “corrected a create We economy. state the of size the underestimate significantly to appear variable earnings ­in-state the does Wyoming, and Alaska particularly states, upon them like manna from Washington. ing money that, from their perspective, is showered spend- for governments state “blame” cannot We that mayoccurthroughinter-governmentalgrants. freedomof diminishment the for responsibility pal princi bearsgovernment federal jurisdiction:The not directlydiminishindividualfreedomwithinits does grants federal of usage government’s state a that is adjustments these perform we reason The given the amount of federal grants. state each for fore representstateandlocalgovernmentspending there- variables adjusted The residuals. the taking a percentage of corrected GSP/personal income and asstate the to grants federal on them regressing by we adjustgovernmentspending(andemployment) ables by corrected GSP and by personal income. Then ing, taxation, and debt, we divide each of these vari- Thus, to measure state and local government spend- bias” factored out. “corrected GSP,”withthe“corporateheadquarters our as equation regression the from GSP of values predictedthe take then We well. extremely GSP in these twovariablesexplainthecross-statevariance that indicating percent, 99 is regression this from Yingyi Qian and An alternative approach would be to subtract federal grants from the numerator, rather than using a regression technique. This approach Tiebout, “Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” above Barry Weingast, “Federalism as a Commitment to Preserving Market Incentives,” what we would expect simplyexpect would we what 49 - 2

ferred mix of public goods. to chooseliveinjurisdictionsthatprovideapre- individuals allows it that is decentralization fiscal preserving federalism”). preserving eliminate rents in order to keep taxes low (“market- to seek should authority taxing with governments local businesses, and taxpayers mobile attract to tion of taxing powers to local governments. In order ment spending).Thisvariablecapturesthedevolu- govern- local and state total by divided revenues formed on fiscal decentralization (local own-source per- that is mentioning worth adjustment final A below). fee approach into account (see weighting discussion also want to take the possible advantages of the user- states with high current charges excessively, but we reward to wish not do we Thus, monopoly. legal a by guaranteed when especially fees, user through funded when even alternatives, private out crowd highway revenue), and (2) government spending can 2006 Indiana’s example, (for dramatically jump to public services, causing their current charges figures of contracting-out from revenues windfall receive may States (1) measure: second the with problems centraltwo are There taxes. general than fees user better for government spending to be paid for out of is it that theory the on expenditures from charges expenditures. The second variable subtracts current more heavily, includes all state and local government ly include two variables. The first variable, and insurance trust revenue. For spending, we actual- eral revenue”), utility revenue, liquor store revenue, special assessments, sale of property, and “other gen- “miscellaneous general revenue” (interest earnings, sity tuition, highway tolls, airport fees, and the like), exclude “current charges” (mostly user fees: univer- understood, can thus promote individual freedom. individual promote thus can understood, The Journal of Economic Perspectives 51 50 Fiscal federalism, Another advantage of advantage Another ­weighted rightly ­rightly 53. lished by Kessinger Publishing, n.d.), 7. The Usurpations and Crimes of Lawmakers and Judges and the Consequent Poverty, Ignorance, and Servitude of the People 52. have erred on the side of placing regulations that are we general, In instance? for count, laws schooling nalist” regulation is often unclear; how should home- “pater- and “economic” between line dividing The alleged interestsoftheindividualor“thepublic.” the in choice individual of regulation be to seems justification whose policies regulatory on focuses system. The personal freedom/paternalism concept tortthe of quality the as such system economic the of externalities, as well as miscellaneous features of redistribution amonginterestgroups,orresolution productivity, higher as such outcomes, economic particular effect to intended regulations ernment gov- include policies Regulatory wages. and ment employ- government and spending, taxing, with doto have policies Fiscal score. freedom economic the create to equally weighted are policies latory regu- and Fiscal score. freedom” “overall an create to equally freedom personal and economic weight to decided We science. and art both of elements all measures of economic and personal freedom has Weighting the standardized variables to create over cal decentralization). log is controlled, raw population has no effect on fis- population and taking the residuals (once the natural ing fiscal decentralization on the natural log of state of Vermont. We perform the adjustment by regress- towns the among than states England New among more perhaps occurs competition tax relevant the tions that citizens enjoy in a state. In Vermont’s case, to capturethetruerangeofchoiceamongjurisdic- fiscal decentralizationforstatepopulationinorder than the entire state of Vermont! We decide to adjust populationin larger are that jurisdictions local has ized than Texas, as the data indicate? After all, Texas Texas to Vermont: Is Vermont really less decentral- populations that enjoy economies of scale. Compare large with jurisdictions local some have typically more likely to be fiscally decentralized because they are populations larger have that states However, United States v. Lopez For a critique of the term “the public” and its uses, see Lysander Spooner, , 514 U.S. 549 (1995). 52 52 - aspect of commerce. specifica not are commerce, on impact indirect an that policieslikeguncontrol,whileperhapshaving the Supreme Court decision in nalist category. In some ways, we follow the logic of not directlyrelatedtoeconomicissuesinthepater- weights, consult the following Data Appendix. variables’ individual the For categories. issue and The below figure gives the weights for the concepts overall freedom scores. skepticism very small differences between states on We recommendthatreviewersthereforetreatwith robust. quite be to results the found have and tors but we have tried a number of different weights vec- Our choices of weights may certainly be challenged, as level state it ­ people affected by it. We use the existence of explic- of number the and variation) policy state of tance impor- substantive the (i.e., issue the of salience the is issues particular weight to use we thumb of rule Paternalism—the and Policy, Regulatory Policy, concepts—Fiscal three these Within constitutional protectionsateitherthefederalor A Letter to Grover Cleveland On His False Inaugural Address; evidence of high salience.high of evidence facie prima 53 United United States v. Lopez (1886; repub-

45 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 46 Auto & road regulations, 1/30 regulations, &road Auto Tobacco regulations, 1/30 Tobacco regulations,

FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM 1/40 regulations, Alcohol Sundry mala prohibita Sundry Marriage & civil union laws, 1/24 laws, union &civil Marriage Gambling laws, 1/60 laws, Gambling F i Arrests for victimless victimless for Arrests gu r e 6: Issue ca Issue 6: e Arrests forfeiture forfeiture Arrests Marijuana laws, 7/120 laws, Marijuana crimes, 1/24 crimes, # !   rules, 1/24 rules, !   , 1/40   ! t ego Education, 1/12 Education, $   !  ! r y we y
  i gh
Gun control, 1/15 control, Gun Campaign finance t regulation, 1/30 s
    

 
 
   p at e



rna "

l i s m (1/2)
   U "# tility deregulation, 1/112 deregulation, tility Land and environmental regulation, 1/56 regulation, environmental and Land  % Liability system, 1/28 system, Liability    



% Spending, 1/8 R Eminent domain, 5/112 domain, Eminent Egu l atory p " Occupational licensing, 1/28 licensing, Occupational fi
s o ca  % l icy (1/4)icy Taxation 1/8 Taxation Health insurance, 3/56 insurance, Health l p Labor regulation, 3/56 regulation, Labor  
  o % l  icy (1/4)icy "#

  "#


Occupational licensing, 1/28 licensing, Occupational Taxation 1/8 Taxation Health insurance, 3/56 insurance, Health Labor regulation, 3/56 regulation, Labor statepolicyindex.com. has two tabs, one for “Data” and one for “Sources.” For more information, please consult the codebook at www. The sources for Va sheets on the website, as well as a hierarchical summary of concept, issue category, and variable weights. This Data Appendix Data Atax Astatwgr Aspendb Aspenda Asldebt Asevt Apop Api Alocwgr Algbc Agspa Agsp Agrants Agovwagw Agovempr Afgrant Afdeca Afdec Adebt Aadjspdb Aadjspda Aadjgovemp name Variable riable Appendix D escripti atott/agspa wages industry private by divided wages government State atotsptb/agspa atotspt/agspa Dollars of Millions in Debt, Outstanding Government Local and State Dollars of Millions in Taxes, Severance from Revenues Local and State Population estimate Dollars of Millions in Work, of Place by Earnings State wages industry private by divided wages government Local revenues general government local total by rev divided enues general own-source government local constraints: budget government Local asevt and api on agsp of regression OLS from GSP Predicted Dollars of Millions in Product, State Gross afgrant/agspa shares) employment by (weighted alocwgr and astatwgr of average Weighted employment private by divided employment government local and State Dollars of Millions in Transfers, Government Federal from Revenues Local and State ln(apop) on afdec of regression OLS of Residuals revenues general local and state total by divided revenues general own-source government local decentralization: Fiscal asldebt/agspa agrants on aspendb residuals: agrants on aspenda residuals: agspa on agovempr residuals: Variable description our variables may be found in each of the individual policy area spreadsheets, each of which contains a description of each variable used in the study and its location in our spread- ons - A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls Spreadsheet 47 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 48 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM Calcdist B Bshows Brifle B B B B B B B B B B B B B Bguns2 B B B B B B B Atott Atotsptb Atotspt gunban wait retent regis purge priv npg mult minage oci mags ipt ipc asslt locks licens ballist design dealer const cci Sum of 6 alcohol distribution variables distribution 6alcohol of Sum Waiting period on firearms purchases? (1=all firearms, 0.5=some firearms, 0=no) firearms, 0.5=some firearms, (1=all purchases? firearms on period Waiting multiplied by 0.5 if locally only) locally if 0.5 by multiplied – requirement seller, by 0=no 0.5=kept state, by (1=kept records? sales of Retention Gun shows regulated? (1=yes, 0.5=locally, 0=no) 0.5=locally, (1=yes, regulated? shows Gun 0=no) 0.5=regulated, (1=banned, regulated? or banned rifles caliber 50 Registration of firearms? (1=all firearms, 0.5=some firearms, 0=no – multiplied by only) multiplied – locally if 0.5 0=no firearms, 0.5=some firearms, (1=all firearms? of Registration State government required to purge background check records? (1=yes, 0=no) (1=yes, records? check background to purge required government State 0=no) B Open carry index (see “Sources” page for construction) for page “Sources” (see index carry Open N Restrictions on multiple purchases or sales of firearms? (1=yes, 0.5=locally, 0=no) 0.5=locally, (1=yes, firearms? of sales or purchases multiple on Restrictions 0=no) (1=yes, standard? federal than firearms possess or to purchase age minimum Stricter Large capacity ammunition magazines ban? (1=yes, 0.5=locally, 0=no) 0.5=locally, ban? (1=yes, magazines ammunition capacity Large Locking devices required? (1=yes, 0=no) (1=yes, required? devices Locking locally only) locally if 0.5 by multiplied only, 0=no; 0.5=handguns guns, (1=all owners? gun of Licensing Local gun ban in place? (1=yes, 0=no) (1=yes, place? in ban gun Local 0=no) (1=yes, handguns? for standards safety Design 0=no) 0.5=locally, (1=yes, dealers? gun of regulation or Licensing 0=no) (1=yes, arms? bear and to keep right individual contains constitution State construction) for page “Sources” (see index carry Concealed Initial permit term (0 if no permits issued, 100 if permits not required) not permits if 100 issued, permits no (0 if term permit Initial required) not permits 0if issued, permits no if state other any in cost maximum the (twice dollars in cost permit Initial bconst bpurge, bretent, bballist, blocks, bdesign, bregis, blicens, bshows, bpriv, bdealer, bmult, bwait, bminage, bnpg, bgunban, brifle, bmags, basslt, bcci, boci, bipt, bipc, component: principal unrotated First, B Assault weapons ban? (1=yes, 0.5=locally, 0=no) 0.5=locally, ban? (1=yes, weapons Assault Millions of Dollars of Millions in Taxes, Gas or Charges Current not Taxes but All from Revenues Local and State Dollars of Millions in Charges, Current Minus Spending, Government Local and Total State Dollars of Millions in Spending, Government Local and Total State ackground checks required at private sales or gun shows? (1=yes, 0.5=locally, 0.5=locally, (1=yes, shows? gun or sales private at required checks ackground allistic identification requirements? (1=yes, 0=no) (1=yes, requirements? identification allistic on powder guns’ use or possession regulated? (1=yes, 0.5=locally, 0=no) 0.5=locally, (1=yes, regulated? possession or use guns’ powder on C_drugs.xls B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls A_fiscal.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls _guns.xls Cbwhol Cbret Cmmaxpen Cwret Dchargam Dcell Dcasino Dcamera Dbike Dbeltlaw Dbeltenf Dbelt Dautopip Cbluelaw Cblue2 Cblue Cbeert Cmedmj Cmcmisd Ckeg Chappy Cwinet Ctrain Cswhol Csret Cspirt Cmpmisd Cmpleg Cmpdecr Cmmms Cwwhol Exclusive state control of wholesale sales of some types of beer (1=yes, 0=no) (1=yes, beer of types some of sales wholesale of control state Exclusive 0=no) (1=yes, beer of types some of sales retail of control state Exclusive Maximum possible prison term for any single marijuana offense, in years offense, marijuana single any for term prison possible Maximum Exclusive state control of retail sales of some types of wine (1=yes, 0=no) (1=yes, wine of types some of sales retail of control state Exclusive Charitable gaming permitted? (=1 if yes, =0 if no) if (=1 =0 yes, if permitted? gaming Charitable 0=no) (1=yes, phones? cell handheld on ban Statewide tribes) Indian to sovereign that applicable law note not coded, is law none: state if only =0 option, local if =0.5 statewide, (=1if legalized? gambling Casino no) if (=1 =0 yes, if 1party least at of consent without prohibited surveillance Video B 0=no) (1=yes, adults? for law belt Seat (1=yes,0=no) adults? for use belt of enforcement Standard Dbeltlaw+dbeltenf 0=no) (1=yes, required? (autoinsurance) protection injury Personal Cblue-0.5*Cblue2 B B gallon) per B Medical marijuana exception? (1=yes, 0.5=partial, 0=no) 0.5=partial, (1=yes, exception? marijuana Medical 0=no) (1=yes, amisdemeanor? cultivation “Low-level” banned) kegs 2=all 0=no, (1=yes, banned kegs or requirement, keg registration beer Statewide 0=no) 0.5=locally, law? (1=yes, hour Happy lorem rates added under assumption of 50 per gallon) per 50 of assumption under added rates lorem va ad volume, by 14% alcohol than less wine, of gallon per (dollars rate tax Wine 0=no) (1=yes, law training server beverage alcoholic Mandatory 0=no) (1=yes, spirits of types some of sale wholesale of control state Exclusive 0=no) (1=yes, spirits of types some of sale retail of control state Exclusive gallon) per 50 of tion assump under added rates valorem ad spirits, of gallon per (dollars rate tax Spirits 0=no) (1=yes, misdemeanor? a possession marijuana “high-level” of offense First 0=no) (1=yes, legal? possession marijuana “Low-level” legal) 2=fully 0=misdemeanor, (1=yes, decriminalized? possession marijuana “low-level” of offense First no) 0if years, of number yes, (if sales)? minor for penalties special (not including sale or cultivation marijuana “low-level” for minimums Mandatory Exclusive state control of wholesale sale of some types of wine (1=yes, 0=no) (1=yes, wine of types some of sale wholesale of control state Exclusive icycle helmet law exists? (1=yes, 0=no) (1=yes, exists? law helmet icycle ans on off-premises Sunday sales of alcohol, with local option local with alcohol, of sales Sunday off-premises on ans alcohol of sales Sunday off-premises on ans eer tax rates (dollars per gallon, ad valorem rates added under assumption of 10 of assumption under added rates valorem ad gallon, per (dollars rates tax eer - - C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls C_drugs.xls 49 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 50 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM emlpst emaps ekind ehstq ehsst ehsrkr Ehsnoti ehsnotf ehsnote ehslaw ehscurr ecsaub ecsalb Dtrack Dsocgam Dsobchk Dslots Drawmilk Dprost Dpas Dparimut Docont Dliab Dintgam Dhelmall Dgamfel Dfwks2 Dfwks1 Dfirewks broad exemptions, =0 if no) if =0 exemptions, broad with yes if (=1 =0.5 yes, teachers? if school private of licensure state Mandatory no) if =0 exemptions, broad with yes if (=1 =0.5 schools? yes, if private of accreditation or approval state Mandatory no) if (=1 =0 yes, if required? attendance Kindergarten qualifications) teaching require not do options homeschooling some if =0 options, meschooling ho all under required qualifications (=1some if required? qualifications Teacher none) if =0 odic, peri if annual, =1 if (=2 required? evaluation official other or testing Standardized none) if =0 =1 attendance, if instruction, of materials/record (=2 teaching if requirements recordkeeping homeschool of Extent Homeschooling notification index (ehsnotf*ehsnote) never) if =0 =1 (=2 once, annually, if if required notice homeschooling of Frequency none) if =0 submitted, be must info attendance or identifying basic =1 only once, if only submitted be must info similar and curriculum =1.5 if submitted, be other must or info qualifications, curriculum, if (=2 required notice homeschooling of Extent tive options) alterna use no, must if (=1 =0 yes, if statute? by permitted explicitly Homeschooling none) if =0 required, =1 subjects proved, if ap be must (=2 curriculum if homeschoolers? for subjects/curriculum Required bound upper age, school Compulsory bound lower age, school Compulsory no) if =0 B 0=no) (1=yes, allowed? gambling Social 0=no) (1=yes, authorized? checkpoints Sobriety no) if (=1 =0 yes, if legal? games Slot 0=no) (1=yes, consumption? human for legal sales milk Raw 0=no) (1=yes, option? local legalization Prostitution no) if (=1 =0 yes, if legalized? suicide Physician-assisted no) if (=1 =0 yes, if legalized? wagering Pari-mutuel 0=no) (1=yes, passengers? or drivers automobile for law Open-container 0=no) (1=yes, required? insurance liability Auto 0=no) (1=yes, gambling? Internet on prohibition Express 0=no) (1=yes, drivers? all covering law helmet Motorcycle 0=no) (1=yes, afelony is gambling Aggravated N 0=no) (1=yes, legal fireworks Most Dfwks1+Dfwks2 etting on greyhound or horse racing legalized? (=1 if statewide, =0.5 if local option, option, local if =0.5 (=1 statewide, if legalized? racing horse or greyhound on etting ovelty fireworks legal (1=yes, 0=no) (1=yes, legal fireworks ovelty - - - - E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls D_mala.xls Hcsf Hbfip Gsfund Gselfins Gsbexem Grtw Gprivins Gprev Gosh Gminwag Gminraw Gearnpc Gdisab Gcompman Gcompfnd Gcompcov Gagexem Fwtldrps Fswp fswbip Fsspr Fsmgrwth Frtp Fesasap etcd Epscurr emrps Hgccsf CO no) B 0=no 1=yes, insurance? compensation workers’ offer funds State 0=no 1=yes, permitted? compensation workers’ for self-insurance Employer 0=no 1=yes, businesses? small certain for optional compensation Workers’ 0=no law? 1=yes, right-to-work General 0=no 1=yes, permitted? insurers compensation workers’ Private 0=no law? 1=yes, wage Prevailing only, 0=no) employees public 0.5=for (1=yes, agency? health and safety occupational own its have state Does otherwise ‘0’ (Gminraw/Gearnpc)*10; wage: minimum federal than higher with states For 31, 2006 ($5.15 December rate federal), wage as Minimum same or none if (2004) dollars of thousands in capita, per work of place by earnings private Annual 0=no 1=yes, required? insurance disability Short-term 0=no 1=yes, mandated? compensation workers’ Employer-provided 1+gprivins+gselfins-gsfund ‘0’) Texas: (except Gcompman-0.1*Gsbexem-0.1*Gagexem 0=no 1=yes, workers? agricultural certain for optional compensation Workers’ (=1 yes) if Statutes Protection Regulatory Wetland State (=1 yes) if Program Wetland State 0=no) (1=yes, pool insurance beach or wind state-mandated of Existence substantial) if =3 =2 significant, (=1 if Role weak, if Planning State of Strength (=1 Plan yes) if Growth Smart (=1 yes) if Prohibitions Takings Regulatory plants) and animals to both regard in statute or =2 act if or to animals, regard act in only =1if but statute, statute, or act no if (=0 Plants Animals Statutes Act Species Endangered none) if only, =0 funds to scholarship =1 donations for if law? (=2 parents, for if Tax credit/deduction none) if =0 =1 general, if (=2 detailed, if control curriculum school private of Extent no) if =0 tions, exemp broad with yes if (=1 =0.5 schools? yes, if private of registration Mandatory (=1 if yes, =0.5 if employers have option of continuation or conversion, =0 if no) if =0 conversion, or continuation of option have employers if (=1 =0.5 yes, if coverage must be offered, =0 if no)if =0 offered, be must coverage conversion or continuation either if =0.5 limits, rating no =1 and yes if limits, rating and (=2if employees? yes firm small for coverage conversion group Mandatory ans on financial incentives to providers to withhold covered care? (=1 if yes, =0 if =0 care? (=1 if yes, covered withhold to providers to incentives financial on ans B RA continuation coverage expanded to firms with less than twenty employees? employees? twenty than less with to firms expanded coverage continuation RA - H_health.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls G_labor.xls F_land.xls F_land.xls F_land.xls F_land.xls F_land.xls F_land.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls E_educ.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls 51 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 52 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM ismplaw inetpurc icigtax ibanwork ibanrest ibanpub ibanbar Hsrp Hsgrate hmspec hmpindex hmindex Hmer hmdindex hmbindex Hlhpmd Hirate hindgii Hierb Hhrhip Hgiself Hgii smoking allowed, =0 if no) if =0 allowed, smoking to stop incentives or discrimination insurance but yes if =0.5 banned, crimination dis insurance (=1 and yes if employment? in protection” “smoker for Regulations minimal) or no if (=1 =0 yes, if purchases? Internet on Regulations dollars in taxes, local maximum including 20, of pack per tax Cigarette no regulation) if =0 regulation, minimal if =0.25 option, areas/local exceptions/designated merous Smoking B Smoking capacity) 75-person least at with restaurants for only required areas smoking PA: for non =0.25 capacity, 50-person least at with restaurants in allowed areas VA: smoking for no =0.75 regulations, few or no if =0 option, local or required times B Smoking none) or few if =0 option, areas/local designated B Smoking capacity) 75+ with bars in allowed are areas ing VA: smok for no =0.75 banned, not generally if =0 exempt, only bars standalone or Smoking Smoking no) if (=1 =0 yes, if mandated? to specialists referrals Standing restrictions) rating 0=no bands, 1=rate rating, community 2=adjusted rating, community (3=pure restrictions rate market insurance health group Small no) if (=1 =0 yes, to providers? if access direct Mandates Insurance) Health Affordable for to Council according costs, insurance to health contribution to its according weighted variable (each index providers mandated insurance Health (hmdindex+hmpindex+hmbindex) index mandates insurance Health no) if (=1 =0 yes, if grievances? of types certain for review external Mandated Affordable Healthfor Insurance) Coalition to according costs, insurance health to contribution its by weighted variable (each index coverage dependent mandated insurance Health Insurance) Health Affordable for to Coalition according insurance, cost to health added by weighted mandate (each index benefits mandated insurance Health no) if (=1 =0 yes, if Directors Medical Plan Health of Licensing 0=none) bands, rating 0.5=other bands, rating health or 1=age rating, community rating 2=adjusted plans, some for exceptions with 2.5=community rating, community (3=pure restrictions rate market Individual hgiself+hgii 0=no) (1=yes, banned? riders elimination insurance: health Individual no)if =0 HIPAA-qualified, for only if (=1 =0.5 yes, pool? if insurance health High-risk 0=no) one? of (1=yes, groups or self-employed for plans health of issue Guaranteed 0=no) resort), last of (insurer companies products/individuals/ 1=some products, issue? (2=all guaranteed market Individual B an - Private Workplaces (=1 if total, =0.75 if few exceptions, =0.5 if nu if =0.5 exceptions, few if =0.75 (=1 total, if Workplaces -Private an some areas segregated if =0.5 near-total, or (=1 total if -Restaurants an exceptions/ numerous if =0.5 near-total, or (=1 total if Places -Public an - an B ars (=1 if total or near-total, =0.5 if designated areas or local option option local or areas designated if =0.5 near-total, or total (=1if ars - - - - - I_smoking.xls I_smoking.xls I_smoking.xls I_smoking.xls I_smoking.xls I_smoking.xls I_smoking.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls H_health.xls Jdrsng Jcpbsr Jclsifc Jcdi Jccr ivend Koptcian Kocthast Koccther Knrsprac Kmassthr Klicind Klandscp Kinsur Khomepth Khazmrw Kgeol Kfuneral Kforest Kespt Kembalm Kdiet Kdentur Kdentast Kconsuba Kconspro Kconpast Kconald Kauct Kagrinsp Kacup Jtdereg Deregulation Retail Sales of N of Sales Retail Deregulation free) for buildings public to service nies B Public Cable providers”) service cable among competition effective to promote legislation “enacted has state yes, if Companies(=1 Franchise Issued State for Legislation Cable (1-0.5*jccr)*(jclsifc-0.1*jcpbsr) Index Deregulation Cable franchise incumbent (or more) than channels of amount same the supply to companies new requires state if Requirement(=1 Channel Cable only) age restrictions if =0 restrictions, location if =0.5 (=1 banned, if machines vending on Regulations Optician Occupational Therapy Assistant Occupational Therapist N Massage Therapist variables) all of (sum Index Licensing Architect Landscape B Insurance Homeopath Worker Removal Materials Hazardous Geologist Funeral Director Forester Technician &Protection Science Environmental Embalmer Dietitian Denturist Assistant Dental Abuse Substance Counselor, Counselor, professional Counselor, Pastoral &Drug Alchohol Counselor, Auctioneer inspector Agriculture Acupuncturist signed) and passed legislation (=1 deregulation if Deregulation Telecommunication =2 unbundling) if dling, urse, practitioner urse, roker uilding Services Requirement (=1 if state law requires cable compa cable requires law (=1 state if Requirement Services uilding atural Gas(=0 if no unbundling, =1 if partial unbun =1 partial if unbundling, no if Gas(=0 atural - - J_util.xls J_util.xls J_util.xls J_util.xls I_smoking.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls J_util.xls J_util.xls 53 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 54 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM Slwp2 Slwp Sbldtest Rviol Rvcarrst Rprop Rpolicer Rpolice Rincarcr Rincarc Rarrests Oliabrk Mreform Mprivate mindex Mconst Mblight Lforf Kwlwtpso Kvettech Kthrmfam Kspclpth Ksocwrkr Ksanit Krtt Krespth Kradther Kpolygph Kphysast Kphthast Waiting period between receipt of license and ability to marry ability and license of receipt between period Waiting days in license, receiving and for applying between period Waiting B residents 100,000 per rate crime Violent over 18 age and population, 100,000 per crimes victimless for Arrests residents 100,000 per rate crime Property 9.0) (Stata rviol on rpolice of regression OLS of Residuals N 9.0) (Stata rprop and rviol on rincarc of regression OLS of Residuals 2005 N arrests all of ratio (age over) as 18 and crimes victimless for Arrests less systems) tortious indicate scores higher source; (see “SCORE” Systems: Liability State of Ranking 0otherwise) yes, (=1 if action judicial or legislative either through reform, domain eminent enacted use) domain eminent of type this on restrictions effective no if =0 transfers, private-to-private some only prohibits if =0.5 benefit, public alleged of less regard use, private any for taking property private (=1 prohibits if property private ((mreform+mprivate+mblight)*(1+(0.5*mconst))) index reform domain Eminent constitutionally) codified been have ED on restrictions some only if no, =0.5 if (=1 yes,=0 if domain eminent on restrictions additional all enshrines Constitution otherwise) if =0 proof, of standard higher required but definition vague retained if =0.5 implicitly, or explicitly either definition stricter (=1 implemented blight if &lliable=0 lproof=1 if =0 lliable=0; & =1 =2 &lliable=1; lproof=1 if lproof=0 if &lliable=2; lproof=1 if =3 lliable=1; & lproof=0 if =4 lliable=2; & Lproof=0 if =5 index: forfeiture asset of Difficulty Operator Systems Plant Treatment Waste &Liquid Water TechnicianVeterinary Therapist, Marriage & Family Pathologist Language Speech Worker Social Sanitarian Radiologic Technologist Technician Respiratory Therapist Radiation Therapist Polygraph Examiner Assistant Physician Physical Therapy Assistant lood Test Required (=1 no) 0if Test yes, Required if lood umber of full-time law enforcement officers per 100,000 residents, October 2006 October residents, 100,000 per officers enforcement law full-time of umber 30, June residents, 100,000 per jails local and prisons state in inmates of umber - S_marr.xls S_marr.xls S_marr.xls R_enfor.xls R_enfor.xls R_enfor.xls R_enfor.xls R_enfor.xls R_enfor.xls R_enfor.xls R_enfor.xls O_courts.xls M_ed.xls M_ed.xls M_ed.xls M_ed.xls M_ed.xls L_forf.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls K_lic.xls Ssame Ttaxadd Tpubfin Tpfpps Tpartpub Tpacconp Tpacconc Tindpac Tindconp Tindconc Tgprp Tgprc Tfullpub Tcprp Tcprc Tcorpac Swait Sstmrrge Same-sex civil union, marriage, or domestic partnership (=1 sstmrrge>0) if partnership domestic or marriage, union, civil Same-sex Is the source of public funds a voluntary tax add-on only? (1=yes, 0=no) only? (1=yes, add-on tax avoluntary funds public of source the Is Public financing index=(tfullpub+(0.5*tpartpub)+(0.5*tpfpps))/(1+ttaxadd) 0=no) (1=yes, available? parties political for financing public Some 0=none) basis, trial on or fices of offices, 0.1=some (1=all available? campaigns election for financing public Some limit) no if ($50,000 year, dollars in election per parties, to political PAC on contributions Limits limit) no if ($50,000 year, dollars in election per to candidates, PAC on contributions Limits unlimited) if ($200,000 year, dollars in election to PACs, per contributions individual on Limits limit) no if (200,000 year, dollars in election per parties, to political contributions individual on Limits limit) no if (50,000 lars year, dol in election per candidates, to legislative contributions individual on Limits contributions=tindpac*tpacconp*.00001 party PAC regulation, grassroots of Index 001 contributions=tindpac*tpacconc*.00 candidate PAC regulation, grassroots of Index 0=none) offices, afew or basis 0.1=trial elections, (1=all available? campaigns election for financing public Full contributions=tcorpac*tpacconp*.00001 party PAC regulation, corporate of Index 01 contributions=tcorpac*tpacconc*.000 candidate PAC regulation, corporate of Index unlimited) if ($200,000 year, dollars in election to PACs, per contributions corporate on Limits (slwp+slwp2) period Total waiting marriage same-sex if equivalent,=3 or unions only, =2 civil if partnerships sex domestic limited same if or marriage,=1 unions, civil partnerships, domestic (0=no Laws Marriage State - - N T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls T_elec.xls S_marr.xls S_marr.xls ormative.xls 55 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 56 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM C once CO -1/4, Policy which: of Fiscal

-1/4, Policy which: of Regulatory

N CEPT pt , Issue

Spending ISS Taxation -3/14, which: of regulation Labor Health insurance C a U t egor E CATEGORY -1/2, which: of -1/2, which: of y, and Vari

-1/18 wages &state local of average Weighted Adjusted government employment -1/18 constraints budget government Local -1/6 decentralization fiscal Adjusted -1/12 income pers. charges, minus spending Adj. -1/12 GSP charges, minus spending Adjusted -1/6 measure income pers. spending, gov’t total Adj. -1/6 measure GSP spending, gov’t total Adjusted P Adjusted state & local tax revenues, PI -5/12 PI revenues, tax &local state Adjusted -5/12 GSP revenues, tax &local state Adjusted -1/12 measure income personal debt, &local State -1/12 measure GSP debt, &local State Disability insurance -7/19 to work Right Minimum wage Individual policies: elimination riders banned riders elimination policies: Individual rating: individuals Community -2/13 groups small rating: Community -1/13 issue guaranteed Individual -1/76 laws protection Smoker -1/19 regs funding compensation Workers’ -1/19 regs coverage compensation Workers’ -3/76 law wage Prevailing -1/19 OSHA State -1/52 firms small coverage, conversion group Mandatory CO V olicy -3/14, which: of B -1/52 firms small continuation, RA able aria W b -6/19 VARIA le e igh -2/19 t s -2/13 -2/9 -1/52

======

2.8% 0.7% 0.7% 2.1% 1.0% 1.0% 2.1% 2.1%

5.2% 5.2% 1.0% 1.0%

2.0% 1.7% 0.8% 0.6% 0.8% 0.4% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% B LE WEIGHT LE

Paternalism

- 1/2, which: of Occupational licensingOccupational -1/7, system which: of Liability domain Eminent -1/14, regulation which: of &environment Land U -2/15, which: of control Gun Marijuana laws -1/12, rules which: of forfeiture Asset tility deregulation tility Standing referrals mandated -1/52 pool insurance health High-risk -1/26 mandated to specialists access Direct -1/26 banned to providers incentives Financial -1/52 review grievance external Mandated -5/13 index mandates insurance Health -1/52 directors medical plan health of Licensing Occupational licensing Occupational -1 index reform domain Eminent -1 ranking system Liability -1/12 clause takings Regulatory -1/6 growth Smart -1/8 statutes protection wetland State -1/24 program wetland State -1/24 acts species Endangered -1/24 pool beach or wind State -1/2 role planning state of Strength N Telecom Cable -1 index control Gun High-level High-level possession misdemeanor Decriminalized possession -4/25 possession marijuana Legal -4/25 sentence possible Maximum Medical marijuana exception minimums,cultivation/sale low-level Mandatory misdemeanor cultivation Low-level -7/60, which: of -1/3 gas atural - 5/28, of which: of -5/28, - 1/28, of which: of -1/28, -1/3 -1/3 - 1/7, which: of -1 -4/25 -1/26 -1/25 -4/25 -4/25 -4/25 ======0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 2.1% 0.1% 0.2%

4.5% 3.6%

3.6%

0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.9%

0.3%

0.3% 0.3%

6.7%

0.9% 0.9% 0.2% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9%

57 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 58 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM

-1/12, crimes which: of victimless for Arrests -1/15,Tobacco regs which: of - 1/20, of which: -1/20, of regs Alcohol -1/15, regs road and which: of Auto Gambling laws Gambling -1 index forfeiture Asset -1/2 arrests all %of crimes, victimless for Arrests -1/2 100,000 per crimes victimless for Arrests Regulations, Regulations, vending machines -3/20 workplaces ban, Smoking -3/20 bars ban, Smoking -3/20 restaurants ban, Smoking -3/40 places public ban, Smoking -9/20 pack per tax Cigarette Regulations, Internet purchases Regulations, Internet B -2/51 training Server -2/51 Keg regs Alcohol index distribution -2/51 laws hour Happy B -2/17 taxes Spirits -2/17 taxes Wine B -1/12 laws helmet Motorcycle -1/3 enforcement belt Seat Open-container law Open-container -1/18 ban driving phone Cell -1/12 required insurance injury personal Auto -1/36 required insurance liability Auto -1/3 authorized checkpoints Sobriety -1/9 permitted gaming Casino -1/9 permitted Track gaming -5/27 prohibition gaming Internet -2/9 felony Gambling -1/27 exception gaming Social - 1/30, of which: -1/30,of -1/18 laws helmet icycle -3/17 laws lue -2/17 taxes eer -1/36 -6/17 -1/80 -1/80 ======4.2% 2.1% 2.1%

0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0%

0.1% 0.1% 0.9% 0.3% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

0.3% 1.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.3% 0.1% 1.1% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1%

N ote: Due to rounding, percentages listed do not sum to exactly 100.0%. to exactly sum not do listed percentages to rounding, Due ote: - 1/20, of which: -1/20, of prohibita mala Sundry -1/12, laws union which: of &civil Marriage Education -1/15,regulation which: of finance Campaign

-1/6, which: of Charitable gaming permitted Pari-mutuel wagering permitted -1/9 permitted gaming Slots Physician-assisted suicide legal suicide Physician-assisted legal Prostitution -3/55 ban Fireworks -2/55 legal sales milk Raw -1/42 period Total waiting B -20/21 recognized partnerships Same-sex Mandatory kindergarten Mandatory -1/11 years schooling Compulsory Tax credit/deduction -1/22 reqs. recordkeeping Homeschooling -1/22 reqs. notification Homeschooling -1/11 testing standardized Homeschooling -1/11 licensure teacher Homeschooling -2/33 control curriculum Homeschooling law Homeschooling -2/33 control curriculum school Private -4/33 licensure teacher school Private -4/33 req. approval school Private -2/33 registration school Private -1/11 to candidates contributions Corporate -2/11 to parties PAC contributions Grassroots -2/11 to candidates PAC contributions Grassroots -2/11 to parties contributions Individual -2/11 to candidates contributions Individual -1/11 financing Public -1/11 to parties contributions Corporate -1/42 requirement test lood -4/11 -1/33 -1/11 -1/11 -1/9 -6/11 -1/9 ======

= 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

0.9% 0.1% 0.1% 1.4%

0.1% 0.1% 4.0%

0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% 0.8% 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5%

0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3%

0.3% 59 Mercatus Center at George Mason University 60 FREEDOM IN THE 50 STATES: AN INDEX of PERSONAL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM About the Mercatus Center at George Mason University

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University is a 501(c)(3) education, research, and outreach organization that works with scholars, policy experts, and government officials to bridge academic learning and real-world practice.

Our mission is to generate knowledge and understanding of how institutions affect the freedom to prosper and hold organizations accountable for their impact on that freedom. The aim of our work is to enable indi- viduals to live free, prosperous, and peaceful lives.

The Mercatus Center is located on George Mason University’s Arlington Campus, along with the George Mason University School of Law, the Law and Economics Center, and our sister organization, the Institute for Humane Studies.

About the Social Change Project

The Social Change Project of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University supports a global network of interdisciplinary scholars whose research advances an understanding of social change. Scholars work to devel- op a more practical understanding of how social change occurs, particularly the “institutional choice” approach to the study of social change, and how to create a freer society.

In pursuit of this, we have organized our research agenda in order to make progress toward answering what we have identified as crucial questions of social change, such as:

• Which institutions (social, economic, and legal arrangements) underpin a free society? • How do people make decisions about institutions? • How do values and belief systems affect institutions and vice versa? • How are institutions modified and/or sustained? • How do individuals interact with institutions to affect change that persists?

Through the Social Change Project we aim to provide social entrepreneurs with the necessary tools to shep- herd a social innovation through the structure of production, from the idea stage to the implementation stage, in order to further the conditions necessary for human flourishing. 3301 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 450 Arlington, Virginia 22201 Tel: 703-993-4930 Fax: 703-993-4935 www.mercatus.org