Most free states run by Republicans. Least free states run by Democrats.

[Shadow Wolf]

No one's arguing that one must do non-decent things.
But liberty is about the freedom to do things....some of which
you might find undesirable. It's like freedom of speech....you
lack the right to be free from offensive speech. You lack the
right to a platform (that someone else provides) for your speech.

I sense that the definition of "liberty" is being muddied with
morality...the personal flavor. If something is seen as immoral,
then it's not "liberty". If something is moral, then it's "liberty",
even if it's a government imposition upon someone.

Your freedoms end where your neighbor's nose begins, and sudden termination is violating that nose space. Metaphorically, but it still causes harm.

 

[epronovost]

Not pc but, sane and credible. Esp as that's how i see things.

Unfortunately for you Audie it would imply you would be living at the service of a man and would live a "domestic life". Everybody likes strength... especially when they get to be the strong ones.

 

[anna.]

Before taking these results too seriously, I suggest looking at how they're calculated. Some of the factors are wild.

https://www.freedominthe50states.org/how-its-calculated

Yeah I noted that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your freedoms end where your neighbor's nose begins, and sudden termination is violating that nose space. Metaphorically, but it still causes harm.

This implies that employers have an obligation to
employ workers, & that government should enforce
this. That's not liberty. That's government enforced
employee security at the expense of the employer.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is a modern N Ameristanian liberal view of liberty,
which includes security & largess. Cato, which leans
libertarian has the perspective of liberty being about
having the freedom (from government restriction) to do
things....not necessarily the government provided ability
to do things
To call security & largess "liberty" is a stretch.

When the law imposes such requirements, there is less
liberty. Sure, you like the lessened liberty because it
benefits terminated employees. But it's not more liberty.

"As long as the boot on your neck belongs to a corporation and not government, you're free. If a government forces that corporation to take the boot off, it's 'largesse.'"

 

[Kooky]

But liberty is about the freedom to do things....some of which
you might find undesirable.

For example, the freedom to form a union and engage in collective bargaining.

 

[Revoltingest]

"As long as the boot on your neck belongs to a corporation and not government, you're free. If a government forces that corporation to take the boot off, it's 'largesse.'"

Companies can't put boots on neck with anywhere
near the power government can. But your assumption
is false. Employees can quit & work elsewhere.
What you want is the opposite of liberty...it's government
with greater power over companies to compel employment.

 

[Revoltingest]

For example, the freedom to form a union and engage in collective bargaining.

That they can do.
But companies have some liberty to resist.
More so in right-to-work states.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your freedoms end where your neighbor's nose begins, and sudden termination is violating that nose space.

No, that is not the meaning behind the phrase.
Employer & employee....each should have the right
to terminate the relationship...per contractual agreement.
That is if one wants liberty for both.

If you would deny employers the right to terminate
employees, then would you deny employees the
right to quit? After all, it could very well be harm
in exactly the same sense.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No, that is not the meaning behind the phrase.
Employer & employee....each should have the right
to terminate the relationship...per contractual agreement.
That is if one wants liberty for both.

If you would deny employers the right to terminate
employees, then would you deny employees the
right to quit? After all, it could very well be harm
in exactly the same sense.

They should be able to. Just not without notification. We shouldn't be the Western nation where it happens. Like my own personal examples. That should be illegal for an employer to do.

 

[Revoltingest]

They should be able to. Just not without notification. We shouldn't be the Western nation where it happens.

I say to let employers & employees define their relationship.
That is greater liberty that having government impose it.

I sense that some here are confusing liberty with morality.
And this leads them to believe that which is more moral,
has greater liberty. Not so. Tis better to recognize that
sometimes restricting liberty is useful, eg, licensing of
professions such as doctors, lawyers, CPAs.
We'll have no total liberty in any government. I favor
balancing liberty & limitations more on the side of liberty.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I say to let employers & employees define their relationship.
That is greater liberty that having government impose it.

There isn't much negotiating in an at will employment state. Doesn't even seem to be much negotiating anything with employers.

 

[Revoltingest]

There isn't much negotiating in an at will employment state. Doesn't even seem to be much negotiating anything with employers.

That's weakness talking.
Power is there for the taking.
Don't take it...then don't expect much.

See my edited post for clarification.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Companies can't put boots on neck with anywhere
near the power government can.

Not any more, anyhow... thanks to government regulation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not any more, anyhow... thanks to government regulation.

You underestimate the power of government, eg,
draft, murder, prison, beating, arrest, civil forfeiture.
If you think businesses can be worse, then you're
not considering the government's many capabilities.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You underestimate the power of government, eg,
draft, murder, prison, beating, arrest, civil forfeiture.
If you think businesses can be worse, then you're
not considering the government's many capabilities.

Businesses have done all of those things. Didn't you know?

 

[Revoltingest]

Businesses have done all of those things. Didn't you know?

This reminds me of anti-vaxers who say vaccines make
no difference because one can still catch Covid 19.
There are degrees of magnitude.
I sense that our difference is that you see government
as good, & not misusing its power, but business is the
opposite. I look at results. Government can murder
millions, imprison millions, start world wars, detain
you & assassinate you with impunity in the courts
that it runs.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Your freedoms end where your neighbor's nose begins, and sudden termination is violating that nose space. Metaphorically, but it still causes harm.

There is some truth to that, but there is also that line where it's simply none of your business what others choose to do or say.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's weakness talking.
Power is there for the taking.
Don't take it...then don't expect much.

See my edited post for clarification.

I have to yet to work for anyone who was interested in or willing to hear my input. They told me upfront what it's going to be.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have to yet to work for anyone who was interested in or willing to hear my input. They told me upfront what it's going to be.

If one takes low level jobs, then one's
power is selecting whom to work for.
It seems that you don't want liberty.
You want government enforced security.