It has become a well known fact that in recent elections the wealthiest states have tended to vote for the Democrats and the poorest states have tended to vote for the Democrats. Of the states that vote for the Republicans, those which are the poorest support the party by the greatest margin and likewise those which are the richest are the most likely to be flip states.
Libertarians can be found in both major parties, but arguably their values are most strongly defended by the Republican party. This reveals to us an interesting question: how does the wealth of a state affect its propensity to support libertarianism. To give a crude, preliminary answer to this question, I will use per capita donations to the Ron Paul campaign as a proxy for support for libertarianism. It is possible that this statistic is skewed by wealthier states having more spare money to donate, but the following map allows us to see that donations for the Republican party are strongest in areas that tend to vote Republican, and vice versa, leading some credibility to the use of donations as a proxy. It's possible that campaign donations are not really an elastic type of spending, but something which people view as an essential part of their budget. Also, my data says how many people donate per capita instead of how much they donate, which also helps to control for this relationship.
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/mapda ta/city/usa_cities.gif
Another issue is that Ron Paul does not encompass all libertarian beliefs, and likewise he has many beliefs that go beyond what is traditionally considered libertarian. Nonetheless, he is the most well known candidate that follows anything close to a purely libertarian platform. I could use a survey question about the size of government to measure libertarian attitudes, but I think that such an approach would introduce some bias in that the role of government is understood differently across the country (i.e., a more liberal person might think that smaller government means less military and a more conservative person might think of the question in terms of taxes).
My data comes from the following map of Ron Paul Donations, and my per capita GDP data is from the NationMaster site.
http://ronpaulgraphs.com/donors.html
My graph can be seen below. I get a correlation coefficient of 24% with a parabolic regression showing high donation levels in middle income states and low donation levels in low and high income states. This relationship, however, is weak. While the purpose of this post is not to try to explain this result, I think that libertarianism vs. statism is more of a west vs. east divide rather than a poor vs. rich divide. I might later post a graph with the states colored by whether or not they are eastern or western states.
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
You got an R^2 of 6%? I have to agree with your conclusion: the explanatory power of your GDP-based regression model is indeed very weak. Maybe I'm biased because I studied econometrics - maybe models with determination coefficients of under 70% were just not used as examples often enough and maybe values in the 5-10% range are common among political scientists. However, my intuition tells me that your model doesn't explain anything at all. Maybr your location-based model will be more powerful.
At 7/18/10 06:13 PM, lapis wrote: You got an R^2 of 6%? I have to agree with your conclusion: the explanatory power of your GDP-based regression model is indeed very weak. Maybe I'm biased because I studied econometrics - maybe models with determination coefficients of under 70% were just not used as examples often enough and maybe values in the 5-10% range are common among political scientists. However, my intuition tells me that your model doesn't explain anything at all. Maybr your location-based model will be more powerful.
That there is no strong relationship is itself an interesting result, when one considers that there is a very strong linear relationship in presidential elections. I think that all of the states which had the heaviest lean for Obama were near the top of the economic distribution.
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
Looks like liberals love Ron Paul. I wouldn't blame them. I am a Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian(notice no capital "L") myself.
Oh I feel a tingle up my leg everytime that man speaks.
lolz at Chris Matthews
Sega and Nintendo fan group on FacebooklBe Billy's Followerl Wii U name: Billy_Martin l PSN: Opackersfan
pff like it mattered that job shouldn't even bother running he got less than 1% of votes in his 80s run and only 5% in his run for 2008. his ideas of flat taxes and getting rid of the IRS and Federal Reserve is ABSURD.
At 7/19/10 02:14 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: pff like it mattered that job shouldn't even bother running he got less than 1% of votes in his 80s run and only 5% in his run for 2008. his ideas of flat taxes and getting rid of the IRS and Federal Reserve is ABSURD.
I disagree. I think we should abolish the IRS because a government doesn't have the right to act as if it owns someone's property.
Also, he doesn't support the flat tax. He said he would prefer no tax, which makes sense. It would be cheaper than tax heavy government programs if you went and bought them privately. If your wallet wasn't raped every week or two by the government you could afford paying for these.
Sega and Nintendo fan group on FacebooklBe Billy's Followerl Wii U name: Billy_Martin l PSN: Opackersfan
At 7/19/10 03:13 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote:At 7/19/10 02:14 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: pff like it mattered that job shouldn't even bother running he got less than 1% of votes in his 80s run and only 5% in his run for 2008. his ideas of flat taxes and getting rid of the IRS and Federal Reserve is ABSURD.I disagree. I think we should abolish the IRS because a government doesn't have the right to act as if it owns someone's property.
oh really then who will take care of the taxes of all the US citizens?
Also, he doesn't support the flat tax. He said he would prefer no tax, which makes sense. It would be cheaper than tax heavy government programs if you went and bought them privately. If your wallet wasn't raped every week or two by the government you could afford paying for these.
yeah then how will highways and public parks and and fill the treasurey? plus I highly doubt that old kook could get rid of it since its constitutional.
At 7/19/10 02:14 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: pff like it mattered that job shouldn't even bother running he got less than 1% of votes in his 80s run and only 5% in his run for 2008. his ideas of flat taxes and getting rid of the IRS and Federal Reserve is ABSURD.
A lot of people have moderate libertarian tendencies but end up voting for mainstream Republican or Democratic candidates. I'm just using Ron Paul as a "litmus test" of strong libertarian support. I think its likely that states with lots of strong libertarians have the most moderate libertarians, so it is a useful piece of information. It's possible that Ron Paul has positions that don't reflect libertarianism: opposition to the IRS and the federal reserve as you mention. I think that these are not position against libertarianism, but rather extreme versions of beliefs that are commonly held by the mainstream of the movement.
Anywho, here is the map with states colored by what side of the country they are on. I coded it manually, so it might contain a few errors.
"The mountain is a quarry of rock, the trees are a forest of timber, the rivers are water in the dam, the wind is wind-in-the-sails"
-Martin Heidegger
Well firstly, Liberal states have a higher income then Conservative ones, so I don't know how'd you classify whose poorer and richer.
That Libertians tend to act like a reasonable Glenn Beck IMO, sure they make crap studies so they can bash liberals saying "60% of liberals are uninformed!" (with questions like "Are foreign workers being taken advantage of" which there's no clear right or wrong answer, you can say they're not because the US dollar is worth more in their country i.e. a single dollar could buy something thats worth 20$ in the US, you can say they are because they're put in shit conditions, they're expendable and are overworked, but if you said yes you put in the "unenlightened category"), sure there's little reasonable about devoting half your political knowledge to how liberals suck (and there were websites like LIBERALS MUST DIE or CRUSH LIBERALISM, liberalsmustdie.com has ceased to exist and all there are references) but they still make good arguments half the time.
At 7/19/10 03:13 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote:At 7/19/10 02:14 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: pff like it mattered that job shouldn't even bother running he got less than 1% of votes in his 80s run and only 5% in his run for 2008. his ideas of flat taxes and getting rid of the IRS and Federal Reserve is ABSURD.I disagree. I think we should abolish the IRS because a government doesn't have the right to act as if it owns someone's property.
Yah the government shouldn't have the right to enforce its tax's and punish those who don't pay them, thats just Communism.
At 7/19/10 03:13 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote: Also, he doesn't support the flat tax. He said he would prefer no tax, which makes sense. It would be cheaper than tax heavy government programs if you went and bought them privately. If your wallet wasn't raped every week or two by the government you could afford paying for these.
Yah, when it comes to the Western world the US seems to have the highest taxes, and spending is amazing too, especially when the US spends more on healthcare per capita then other nations like France, Germany or Switzerland (who is probably the country in the most debt in the world) and we don't even have a single payer system.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
At 7/19/10 08:04 PM, Warforger wrote: Well firstly, Liberal states have a higher income then Conservative ones, so I don't know how'd you classify whose poorer and richer.
They also probably have higher tax rates and higher costs of living. I live in Nassau County and my father earns well over six digits and an income most would consider that of a 'rich man' but We know for a fact that there are people in other states that earn half of what he does and are capable of living equally 'wealthy' lives in the material rather than nominal sense.
That Libertians tend to act like a reasonable Glenn Beck IMO, sure they make crap studies so they can bash liberals saying "60% of liberals are uninformed!" (with questions like "Are foreign workers being taken advantage of" which there's no clear right or wrong answer, you can say they're not because the US dollar is worth more in their country i.e. a single dollar could buy something thats worth 20$ in the US, you can say they are because they're put in shit conditions, they're expendable and are overworked, but if you said yes you put in the "unenlightened category"), sure there's little reasonable about devoting half your political knowledge to how liberals suck (and there were websites like LIBERALS MUST DIE or CRUSH LIBERALISM, liberalsmustdie.com has ceased to exist and all there are references) but they still make good arguments half the time.
Most libertarians I know, even the constitutionalist types, are not fact spewers. Facts mean nothing without analysis and That is why logically sound arguments are always preferable to facts, unfortunately most people, in general, cannot make analytical arguments since analysis is not something you are taught very often. Generally speaking when i think of a fact spewer i think of political partisans, people who follow the rank and file of a political party which centralizes what you might call the 'ideological reasoning', and thus can furnish relatively uniform sets of 'facts' for the partisans proper to bash people over the head with. a good example of this is your signature, Warforger.
There is an answer as to whether or not foreign workers are being taken advantage of, or at least a way of determining it. Find out what sort of alternative job opportunities are available given the capitalization of a country, find out what the actual productivity of a worker is and compare that with the wages the worker earns. But as a general rule, employing third world workers in under capitalized countries occurs precisely because the countries are undercapitalized, high profit margins bring entrepreneurs, or capitalists, or exploiters or however you want to call them, into a country who will pay workers slightly more than what they could earn on a farm or as a prostitute, wages go up as more entrepreneurs enter a country and compete with one another.
Yah the government shouldn't have the right to enforce its tax's and punish those who don't pay them, thats just Communism.
If "The Government" wants to claim the power to enforce it's taxes** and punish those who don't pay them, i feel inclined to say that I'm entitled to do the same thing. Hell, why shouldn't everyone be allowed to lay duties on eachother and enforce those duties? Of course the answer is obvious, when civil society engages in that sort of behavior it's called 'theft', or in other instances, 'extortion', but when you put on a particular uniform, go around with fancy titles, appeals to sacred texts, and all manner of song and dance, suddenly the nature of the act is transformed into something magical is it not?
By the way, your name is very suited to you.
At 7/19/10 03:13 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote: Also, he doesn't support the flat tax. He said he would prefer no tax, which makes sense. It would be cheaper than tax heavy government programs if you went and bought them privately. If your wallet wasn't raped every week or two by the government you could afford paying for these.Yah, when it comes to the Western world the US seems to have the highest taxes, and spending is amazing too, especially when the US spends more on healthcare per capita then other nations like France, Germany or Switzerland (who is probably the country in the most debt in the world) and we don't even have a single payer system.
A mixed State-private health care system where the role of the state is to keep the supply of medical goods artificially restricted for the sake of certain private interests is going to cost both the taxpayer and society as a whole more than a single payer system, of course this is not a case for purely state run system per-say. A purely state run system will have it's own shortfalls since state agents under a purely state regime are no more accountable, but it comes with the benefit of the state simply being able to deny and restrict certain coverage and discriminate in ways that private entities are simply not legally permitted to do. Depending on who you know, how healthy you are, and your income level, you may benefit more or less under one system or another.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 7/19/10 04:04 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
oh really then who will take care of the taxes of all the US citizens?
If there is no income tax, there will be no need for an IRS, don't you think?
yeah then how will highways and public parks and and fill the treasurey? plus I highly doubt that old kook could get rid of it since its constitutional.
That amendment was added in the 20th century and wasn't part of the original plan of this country. It also says congress has the authority, but doesn't say that it has to do it.
Now, Ron Paul supports certain taxes, just not income taxes. He supports payroll taxes for example.
Sega and Nintendo fan group on FacebooklBe Billy's Followerl Wii U name: Billy_Martin l PSN: Opackersfan
At 7/20/10 05:51 PM, vannila-guerilla wrote:At 7/19/10 04:04 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:oh really then who will take care of the taxes of all the US citizens?If there is no income tax, there will be no need for an IRS, don't you think?
yeah then how will highways and public parks and and fill the treasurey? plus I highly doubt that old kook could get rid of it since its constitutional.That amendment was added in the 20th century and wasn't part of the original plan of this country. It also says congress has the authority, but doesn't say that it has to do it.
Now, Ron Paul supports certain taxes, just not income taxes. He supports payroll taxes for example.
I'll reveal my fiscal ignorance on this issue right here and now, I've looked at Income and payroll taxes and, aside from the manner in which the taxes are collected, i fail to see a principled difference between the payroll and income taxes, aside from the fact that income taxes tend to be more progressive than payroll. It still seems like a tax on labor.
And from a practical perspective, would it not be in a libertarian's interest to remove as many fiscal illusions from the tax code as possible? I would rather people be forced to pay every tax 'owed' themselfs, and in a way that revealed just how much of a person's labor product was going to the government.
Of course no libertarian is going to agree with Dr. Paul on all of his opinions, I just hope you oppose certain fiscal measures for reasons other than what Dr. Paul thinks is constitutional or not.
On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.
At 7/19/10 07:33 PM, Al6200 wrote:At 7/19/10 02:14 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:Anywho, here is the map with states colored by what side of the country they are on. I coded it manually, so it might contain a few errors.
This is a fascinating little charting experiment, and it confirms to some extent what we've known about the West for the past hundred-odd years: It tends to trend populist, especially when economic indicators start flagging. Another interesting idea would be to compare how much each state donated to Ron Paul in relation to the state's unemployment numbers at the time, and in relation to the percentage of heavy industry in that state. I'm willing to bet declining Midwestern and Western states were more likely to push for Paul than fairly balanced places like the Northern Virginia area.
At 7/19/10 07:33 PM, Al6200 wrote: Anywho, here is the map with states colored by what side of the country they are on. I coded it manually, so it might contain a few errors.
You can't draw any conclusions about that data set without doing statistical analysis.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.18 / 5.00 3,534 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.80 / 5.00 4,200 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
