Jason Sorens and William Ruger's report Freedom in the 50 States is used to discuss personal freedom in New York in The Legislative Gazette.

Read the whole article here.

It's no surprise that New Yorkers pay more than anywhere else in the nation to live in their state, but according to a recent report by two political science scholars, they also experience some of the lowest levels of personal freedom in the country.

"Freedom in the 50 States: An Index of Personal and Economic Freedom," published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, compares fiscal policies along with regulatory policies of states to create an economic index as well as a personal freedom index in order to rate the level of freedom in each state. One of the findings: "New York is the least free by a considerable margin … " Rounding out the bottom of the list of the five least-free states are New Jersey, Rhode Island, California and Maryland.

Basing their idea of freedom on an individual rights framework, the authors of the report, Jason Sorens from the University at Buffalo and William Ruger from Texas State University, define freedom as the ability to live one's life as they see fit, so long as their actions do not infringe on the rights of another. In 2001, Sorens gained some fame when he founded the Free State Project with the goal of getting 20,000 "pro-liberty activists" to move to New Hampshire " … where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society … " with libertarian ideals, according to the project's Web site. The project's Web site also shows just more than 9,000 people have signed on and almost 700 are already in New Hampshire, which the report defines as the most free state.

In the report, a short profile is provided for each state, briefly detailing the factors that led to its ranking. In New York's profile the authors noted New York's high taxes, above average spending on social services, immense government debt, restrictive gun laws, motorist regulations, "burdensome" home school policies, strict health insurance community rating regulations and unreformed eminent domain laws as issues leading to the state's low standing. Positive standings were given to issues such as better than average marijuana laws, the allowance of several kinds of gambling and reformed asset forfeiture laws.

Sorens, who holds a degree in economics and philosophy as well as a doctorate in political science, said while the authors did expect liberal states, in general, to fare better than they did in the rankings, some findings were not unexpected. "We weren't terribly surprised that states like New York and New Jersey were at the bottom," he said. "I was a bit surprised that New York was so far behind all the other states, but New York does have a reputation as a highly taxed, highly regulated state."

Michael Moran, spokesperson for the Business Council of New York State Inc., agreed saying, "It's not surprising because unfortunately it fits with many other surveys that have been out there … There is a body of evidence from scholars, business people and analysts of the tax system that says New York overspends and overtaxes to a level that damages our economy. We think the Legislature needs to pay heed to this."

Chief Executive magazine's recent survey of CEO's to determine the best and worst states for jobs and business and economic growth placed New York in its familiar bottom ranking. For the fourth year in a row the survey ranked New York as the second worst state to conduct business in, besting only California each time. Similarly, the Tax Foundation's 2009 State Business Climate Index also ranked New York second to last.

Sorens highlighted what he said was one of the more interesting findings of the study; people appear to be moving toward freedom. While cost of living and climate also play a role in a person's decision to move, Sorens said when these two factors were controlled, the result still held that people were moving from less-free states to those with more freedom. He said New York lost 7.6 percent of its population between 2000 and 2007 to outmigration, but the authors estimated if the state had been as free as other, higher-ranking states, New York would have attracted 2.5 percent of its population.

"We're hoping that this study and others like it will stimulate changes in policies," said Sorens. "We believe freedom is desirable for its own sake, but the results on migration seem to show there is a benefit to your economy as well. We hope policymakers will look at this and see they really need to have a climate attractive to both economic and personal freedom in order to attract taxpayers and businesses."

New York Conservative Party Executive Director Shaun Marie Levine also said legislators should have been required to read the report before voting on this year's budget, which favors taxes and fees over spending cuts. "No wonder we are losing population, and when New York citizens become more aware of how other states conduct their business and take care of their citizens, we will certainly lose more," she said.

Levine said spending cuts were needed, rather than tax increases, and she agreed regulations in New York are "not conducive to conducting business." She said businesses will leave "as long as legislators continue to strangle business."

"You can't keep taxing people to a level to support government spending that just punishes them to do business. They will move," echoed Moran.

On the other end of the spectrum, "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire emerged in the report as the freest state in the nation because of its "excellent fiscal policies and moderate levels of regulation and paternalism," but with Colorado and South Dakota close on its heels. All three states have low taxes and government spending coupled with "middling levels of regulation and paternalism." Solely in terms of personal freedom Alaska is the clear winner, but falls to number 47 economically. Maryland is the least-free state when it comes to personal freedoms alone.

In addition to examining fiscal and regulatory policy, the authors delved into a category of what they referred to as "paternalistic" regulations, such as education, gun control and marriage and drug laws. Abortion and the death penalty, both high-profile, frequently debated issues, were not included in the index. "We thought differing views on those two issues are legitimate, and we didn't want to push the issue one way or another," said Sorens. "We decided to leave that up to individuals." Data on the subjects has been coded and is publicly available at www.statepolicyindex.com in order for individuals to create their own rankings.

Sorens also pointed out the discovery that there appears to be no relationship between state ideology and personal freedom. That is to say while liberal states may be expected to be more free, conservative states come out on top with certain issues. Sorens noted liberal states tend to have same-sex partnerships, more relaxed drug laws and punishments, and fewer regulations and taxes on alcohol. But conservative states, he said, tend to do better with issues like home schooling regulations, gun rights and regulations on motorists.

"In general, we found that especially states in the East tend to be kind of nanny states," he said. Overall, he added, the freest states were found to be located between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains. "That tends to jive with the notion that part of the country has a more live-and-let-live attitude."

When asked if he thought this report or others like it may actually prompt policy changes, Sorens said changes in state freedom are always possible and have occurred before. "Looking historically, changes in state freedom have happened pretty dramatically over the past 50 years," he said. "Fifty years ago the Northeast would have been a very free area relative to the rest of the country. The South had racial segregation, it was extremely un-free. We do think these things can change and maybe in 20 or 30 years from now New York will be more desirable."

Moran also said change could come, but it wouldn't be overnight. "The state budget and spending is kind of like an aircraft carrier, you're not going to turn it around on a dime," he said. "We need to reduce spending, at least gradually. We need to start controlling spending and as a result, lowering the tax burden on both individuals and businesses."