Pat Robertson can join SamJoe in whatever they deserve.

Meanwhile, I love this clearly unbiased study.

Here's my favorite part
In otherwords, "If we only look the things conservatives don't think should be regulated, and ignore the things that conservatives do think should be regulated, then we can prove that these states are regulating the things that we don't think should be regulated, and define that as `liberal and unfree`."

I'm not sure why what you quoted is problematic. He lists items that both sides of the fence are more likely to look for government intervention or control. He didn't say "conservatives are completely for freedom and liberals are for none". He said conservatives are move likely to look to regulate X and Y, and liberals are more likely to regulate a, b, c, and d. It the issue that more items were listed on the liberal side?

My read is that the problem lies in the characterization of regulating guns, motor vehicles, tobacco, and home schooling as "nanny states" while regulating marriage rights and marijuana is more "tolerant."

I can see that, but I read right over that myself. It would be like singling out the fact that earlier he used "freer" to describe liberal states as compared to conservative. But I can't say what you point out is without merit.

The issue would seem to be that while they do list ways both conservatives and liberals regulate personal behavior they simply define the liberal regulations as more restrictive of freedoms.

But I haven't read the study so maybe the article just erroneously gives that impression. It is here. If I have time I'll read.

Read the first paragraph and that is the slant. They simply define freedom along Libertarian lines. By that definition I imagine much of the results will not be a surprise (though I am interested in seeing how they evaluate the relative restriction on freedom created by seatbelt laws vs. animal cruelty laws vs. mandatory education laws vs. drug criminlization vs. etc.).

A lot of people would disagree with that definition though. Say by considering it an important "personal freedom" to not worry that you'll die from a gangrenous ingrown toenail because you don't have access to insurance or quality emergency care and that this is a much more important freedom (while the study would consider it a restriction on freedom) than the freedom to set up a target shooting practice range in your urban back yard.

The opening paragraph (which is in the Newsmax article as the last paragraph long after most readers will stop paying attention):

So I'd say simply presenting the results as an objective measure of "freedom" is misleading. It is, perhaps, an objective measure of Libertarianism across the states (which isn't even necessarily a point of view that "conservatives" agree with).

There's nothing particularly judgmental about "freer," nor - I admit - is there about "tolerant". "Nanny State," on the other hand, is a very biased characterization.

Poking in the data (available here) is interesting.

Idaho is a freer state than New Mexico because they have compulsory education from ages 7-16 rather than 5-18. By Libertarian definitions definitely true. But many people wouldn't think this is an issue of "freedom" at all.

Kansas is freer than New Jersey because it allows students to be home schooled but has no curriculum requirements.

Arkansas is freer than Alabama because it allows you and your passengers to sit around with open beers while driving.

Any form of civil union, domestic partnership, or same sex marriage are considered equally "free." Obviously there are plenty who disagree that one is just as good as the other and others who disagree on whether this is an issue of freedom at all.

Not letting you get married because of closeness of genetic relationship has no bearing on freedom but actually requiring a blood test to prove it does.

Anyway, I have libertarian inclinations so many of the things they measure I agree with on a philosophical level. But so far I'm not buying into their relative measurements.

They ignore abortion access, for example. As well as age of consent (it is a restriction on freedom to require a 16 year old to go to school but not one to criminalize sex with a 19 year old). Death penalty is also excluded though many would consider that a significant abrogation of rights. Nothing about border control or illegal alien services (open borders being a libertarian ideal).

I have a question for our conservative friends... When did eating Dijon mustard become un-American? Seriously. I must have missed that memo.

I have to think the two guys in limos are probably Republicans.