The George Mason University Mercatus Center released its 2011 Freedom in the 50 States index.

Wisconsin ranks 25th among the 50 states, two positions better than in 2007. Wisconsin ranks 18th in personal freedom and 31st in economic freedom.

In the Midwest, Wisconsin trails Indiana (fourth), Missouri (sixth) and Iowa (13th), but ranks better than Michigan (27th), Minnesota (34th), Illinois (41st) and Ohio (42nd). New Hampshire tops the list, and New York is at the bottom.

The index ranks the states on economic and personal freedom based on the premise that freedom is grounded “on an individual-rights framework. In our view, individuals should be allowed to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties as they see fit, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.”

That, of course, is contrary to the toxic brew that has been politics in this state for basically all of its history. The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance’s Why Are Wisconsin’s Taxes High? quotes historian Daniel Elazar as putting Wisconsin into the third of three groups of political cultures among the states — “Moralistic,” which considers government “a positive instrument with a responsibility to promote the general welfare.” Elazar put an interesting mix of nine states in that category — Maine, Vermont, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Colorado, Utah and Oregon. That is as opposite as you can get from the “Individualistic” model, found in a belt of states almost exactly south of the Moralistic Belt, that “emphasizes the centrality of private concerns” and places “a premium on limiting community intervention.” When the study was written in 2003, seven of the nine Moralistic states ranked in the top 18 states for tax burden, which shows off Wisconsin’s Socialist roots as well.

The study’s rankings are based on fiscal (government spending and taxation) and regulatory (“labor regulation, health-insurance coverage mandates, occupational licensing, eminent domain, the tort system, land-use regulation, and utilities”) policy, as well as a category called “paternalism” that includes home- and private-school regulations as well as measures of personal freedom. Not only is this the only study (according to the authors) of objective measures of economic and personal freedom among the states,  it also recognizes that economic freedom (mostly favored by Republicans) and personal freedom (sometimes favored by Democrats) are inseparable.

First, the relative good news, in personal freedom:

The state has mandatory interdistrict public-school choice and a voucher program. Regulation of private schools, including general curriculum oversight, is light. Homeschools are also regulated with some annoying notification requirements. Wisconsin has very respectable asset-forfeiture laws (over one standard deviation better than average). Like North Dakota, Wisconsin has very high victimless-crime arrest rates (both as a percentage of the population and as a percentage of all arrests). On the other hand, its drug law-enforcement rate is actually below average. Alcohol laws are among the best in the country, with taxes fairly low across the board. Wisconsin does not authorize sobriety checkpoints and, before the data cutoff, was one of three states not to require auto insurance (it has since passed a law). Cigarette taxes are very high, but smoking bans allow numerous exceptions. Wisconsin enacted a domestic-partnership law after the cutoff date for our data.

Law enforcement and the prohibition lobby have been lobbying for sobriety checkpoints (which are blatant violations of the Fourth and Fifth amendments) and more restrictive drunk driving laws, but legislators have so far resisted them. (Wisconsin’s drunk driving problem is the number of drivers with unbelievably large numbers of drunk driving convictions, not the penalties for first-offense drunk driving or the legal definition of intoxication.) The anti-smoking zealots don’t believe the smoking bans are restrictive enough, while those who believe in economic freedom believe that bar owners should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to allow smoking.

Now, the bad news, in economic freedom:

In terms of economic freedom, the state’s spending and debt are roughly average. However, government spending on transportation and public safety are above national norms. The overall tax burden is quite a bit higher than average, as are individual income and property taxes. Eminent-domain-law reform has stalled and could go a lot further. Wisconsin has deregulated cable service but still needs further deregulation in other areas. The state has a prevailing-wage law, but minimum wage is not above the federal level. Occupational licensing is average and there is no community rating for health insurance (there are rate bands for small-group insurers).

I can certainly believe the part about government spending on public safety, given the presence of the waste of tax dollars that is the Town of Ripon Police Department and the Wisconsin State Patrol. The Mercatus Center helpfully points out Wisconsin’s totals in state and local government spending (23.3 percent), taxes (11 percent) and debt (19.8 percent) as a percentage of personal income to prove that the overall tax burden is “quite a bit higher than average.” (Fourth highest, as you know.)

One and a half of the Mercatus Center’s policy recommendations are already getting legislative attention: “Reduce the income-tax burden while cutting back spending in areas above the national average, like education,” and “Broaden the school-choice/school-voucher reforms.” The third area has gotten little attention, but needs attention: “Reform eminent-domain laws,” to prevent unfairly-compensated government land grabs in the name of development. The half is in taxes, because too many people in this state persist in the delusion that more money automatically means better schools.

I can’t tell if Wisconsin is going in the right direction or not. The Walker administration’s defanging of public employee unions is in the courts, tax cuts haven’t taken effect and aren’t large enough anyway, and we don’t have concealed-carry yet. (Concealed-carry is in fact about freedom. You have heard of the Second Amendment, right?) Going from 27th to 25th is not really progress,  but had the Nov. 2 election results been different, we’d be heading toward 50th instead of the correct direction.

A surprising exchange of views took place last week on Charlie Sykes’ show on WTMJ and his Facebook page.

Several Milwaukee conservatives, including WTMJ’s Sykes and Jeff Wagner and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s Patrick McIlheran, are opposed to concealed-carry legislation that is so-called “constitutional carry” — that is, essentially unrestricted concealed-carry, with no training or registering required.

First: With all due respect to Flynn, he disrespected the officers he was supposed to be commending and, more importantly, the people who pay his salary by deviating to condemn the concealed-carry bill he considers too extreme.

Those who oppose concealed-carry — in fact, those who oppose the Second Amendment and firearm rights entirely — are crowing that this means constitutional carry is, well …

Sykes and Wagner call the proposed laws “way too extreme” and say support for these bills comes from the “kook fringe.”

Like all of us, Sykes and Wagner sound just disgusted that our legislature is considering legislation that requires no background checks and no safety training whatsoever.  Heck, you can almost see Wagner throwing his hands in the air, when he says sarcastically, “Let’s let everybody carry guns.”

When right wing radio hosts – who generally support concealed, loaded weapons in public – call pro gun legislation “screwed up,” you know it’s extreme.

“Extreme” is a better description of the anti-gun movement. Their solution to crime is for you to cower in your homes in fear and, if someone breaks into your house or assaults you, try to understand the root causes of their misbehavior while hoping the police show up.

You’ve read about the boycott of some Wisconsin businesses by public-sector unions. Well, two sides can play that game:

Milwaukee “conservative” radio talk show hosts Charlie Sykes and Jeff Wagner think people who support Constitutional Carry are “The kook fringe”

How nice of supposedly “conservative” radio show hosts to give the anti’s talking points.  …

Email the advertising sales manager Tom Sheridan: tsheridan@620wtmj.com and let him know that Wisconsin Carry and the USCCA chose this past week to run our 2-week series of ads on WISN radio instead of WTMJ in part because of comments like Charlie and Jeff’s.

Since when did wanting smaller government and fewer taxes become “Kook fringe?”

Since when did not wanting meaningless permits and registration (its a felony for felons to carry and police, using their radio, can determine in SECONDS during a stop if a person who is carry is legal to do so) become “kook fringe”

Since when did embracing personal accountability VOLUNTARY training and knowing that people either already have or will seek training out of self-preservation (not shooting themselves handling their gun AND staying out of jail because using your gun unlawfully will get you a quick trip to jail) and government training mandates are not effective, become kook fringe?

EVEN the NRA is pushing AGAINST training mandates.  Are their 100,000+ members in Wisconsin the “kook fringe”?

In 2010 the Wisconsin GOP changed their party platform at the state convention to support right to carry concealed WITHOUT a permit. Are they all “kook fringe”

The massive Wisconsin Tea-Party coalition and all of its 100+ independent member groups support constitutional carry. Are they and the 10’s of thousands of law-abiding everyday folks they consist of all “kook fringe”?

It appears there is an out-of-touch “kook fringe” in this story, but its the radio talk show hosts who sit on their perch behind microphones, pretend to be conservatives and talk down to the rest of us.

I would point out as someone with a marketing background that advertising on a radio station that did not carry the aforementioned objectionable opinions may be less than effective, but it is their money.

Flynn’s and Chisholm’s position prove the point I made last week on Facebook that law enforcement is not necessarily a friend of your constitutional rights, particularly law enforcement leadership. Police chief organizations have more often than not come out against concealed-carry, although police officer organizations seem less opposed.

And, to be perfectly blunt, I do not care what Flynn’s or Chisholm’s opinion — or, more bluntly, the opinion of anyone in law enforcement — is about concealed-carry. The Second Amendment and the state Constitution guarantee our rights to own and possess firearms. Period. Police chiefs, sheriffs, district attorneys and judges should have only the same opinion pull that any ordinary citizen has. Their job is to enforce the law, not pontificate on it.

The objections to unrestricted concealed-carry are based, to be equally blunt, on fear. And that is misdirected fear. No gun I have ever seen has loaded itself, pointed itself at a target, and fired. The people that concealed-carry legislation will affect are those who respect the law enough to follow its provisions, and those who respect firearms enough to become familiar with their weapons to the point of practicing enough with them

There has never — never — been a firearms law that has deterred a criminal. The experience of Great Britain, which has banned most firearms for decades (their gun ban is so complete that waivers had to be created for shooting events to take place at the 2012 Olympics), shows that the bad guys simply replace some other lethal weapon they can get for the lethal weapon they can’t get. Pass any law you want; criminals do not care because they are criminals.

James Wigderson has more proof:

Liberal writer Jim Rowen offers a blog post that I think is pretty typical of those who are opposed to legalized concealed carry in this state. Ralph Lang was planning on shooting people at an abortion clinic when a gun he had went off in his hotel room. Rowen wrote,

For gun-crazy legislators trying to make it as easy to carry a concealed weapon in Wisconsin as a wallet, the fortuitous capture of a man admitting his murderous intentions should be a major, major teachable moment.

What is the lesson? That maybe someone at the clinic should consider carrying a gun in case a nut decides to commit an act of violence?

Because if the person was intent on committing homicide, violating the current law against concealed carry of a weapon wasn’t much of a deterrent. Making concealed carry legal would not have affected this case at all, anymore than the current prohibition on concealed carry affected Lang’s decision making.

Interesting, isn’t it, that there is only one constitutional right we have that requires, in some people’s minds, restrictions. The old saw that the First Amendment is not absolute in that you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater (a reference becoming sadly obsolete in the Internet age) is not correct: You can yell “Fire,” and then you can live with the consequences of your actions by getting firsthand experience in the criminal courts system. There were no requirements that women be trained in how to vote when the 19th Amendment was passed, or for 18- to 20-year-olds when the 26th Amendment was passed.

Rowen and others of his left-wing ilk clearly believe the Second Amendment needs to be removed from the Constitution, as with the similar gun-rights provision in the state Constitution — passed with three-fourths of the voters voting for it, mind you. And if they feel that way, they should try to abolish the Second Amendment, just as the 21st Amendment eliminated the 18th Amendment — passing both houses of Congress and getting 38 state legislatures to pass the amendment. They will not succeed, of course, because they are wrong about gun rights, and most people believe they are wrong about gun rights.

Wisconsin and Illinois are the only states without concealed-carry. The experience of 48 other states shows that legalizing concealed-carry does not create a Wild West environment where people routinely settle arguments with their 9mm pistols, whether or not citizens have to get a concealed-carry permit or whether they have to train before being authorized to carry a concealed weapon. The police have a saying that applies to private citizens too: Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.