Ed from OC

Agreed. What kind of friendship was lost? Is he that sensitive? Is he that devoted to Obama or socialism that an off-the-cuff remark makes him turn away? Could be several reasons for his response, none of them good. If he doesn't appreciate you that much, then why value his friendship to a greater extent? I have many dance friends who are very left-wing, if not outright socialist, cheering Obama and ObamaCare. We've settled into friendships based on what we have in common, but I doubt our friendships will grow closer. Yet for the most part, I can enjoy occassional, short, civil disagreements, and that's fine. There's plenty of people in the world with whom to be friends, and all sorts of types and degrees of friendship. Don't lose sleep over an incident like this, where you did nothing wrong. Consider the alternative: that you constantly feel on edge, censoring yourself to consider whether someone might get offended by such innocuous remarks. To hell with that! You ought to be free to speak your mind (some degree of tact and manners kept in mind, of course) without fear of losing friends. If you can't do that, then they aren't your friends, or worthy of your respect. My two cents

When I was younger I didn't appreciate the value of kids and was convinced I didn't want any. I changed my mind after spending time with friends who had kids of their own. I got to see directly the joy the parents experienced as well as enjoy the company of the kids myself. I suggest doing the same thing to see if that is something worth investing in yourself - financially and emotionally. I don't think it is for everyone, so take a good look at it. What I get from what you wrote is a desire to clarify the value side, and this is where it would likely help to spend time with kids and their parents. Along the lines of what others wrote, raising kids is an investment and a potential value. Any investment means foregoing other uses for one's resources (time, money, energy). This is where the cost you mentioned factors in. Yes, there is a definite cost to raising kids -- but that's true of investments as such. The fact that there are costs associated with raising kids does not negate the value. What else will you do with your time? Spend and extra 20 hours/week on your career? Take up a hobby? Travel? Retire early? These are all possible uses for your time and money. Having kids means giving up some measure of flexibility in your schedule, because their activities require priority. So maybe you give up a spontaneous trip to happy hour with co-workers, in order to help Johnny with his multiplication tables, or nurse Susie through a cold, or take the family out bowling. So a deeper issue is consciously, explicitly identifying your value hierarchy. Where there are grey areas, spend time investigating which values are higher than others. What I see from raising kids is the potential of creating a close personal relationship with another person that lasts throughout your life. You get to see and participate in the development of a person, from birth through adulthood. You get to see the joy of discovery of the world in a young pair of eyes. Re: the happiness survey mentioned earlier: I don't think this is necessarily applicable to everyone. What average parents do with and get from their kids has little bearing on what one may get. What one gets from values depends on the valuer, his purpose, and his methods. One can't say "kids are always values" because of this; one has to ask: to whom? for what? So, for the parents surveyed: why did their happiness go up after the kids left? How were the kids raised? Were the parents themselves to blame for their own unhappiness? Were the parents to blame for making the kids miserable, and the kids were happy to leave home? I'm sure that's true of at least some of the people surveyed. So, I'd ignore the results without knowing more.

Dude. That's a lame excuse. I have to say.

thanks all.

Well, shoot. I got on here at the beginning in order to peddle pictures of nude celebrities in Nigerian casinos. That didn't work out too well.

Happy Birthday!

Ran across this article today. Seems pretty on the money.

It is solely a red herring for the Democrats to use in an attempt to assassinate the integrity of the tea party Republicans. Even cutting 100% of the defense budget won't fix the nation's financial problems. It is Social Security and Medicare that must ASAP be phased out, or we are bankrupt -- period. As a nation, we must decide what roles and priorities the government may and should have. November's election was the first round in that debate.

Here is another comparison of freedom in the states. Here is a pdf of the report.

There are a lot of details to my personal context that I'd rather not get into, so I'll leave the question unanswered. However, if someone wants to start a thread to compare countries, go ahead; it sounds interesting. Another reason for asking about states is I'm aware of comparisons of levels of freedom between countries, but not between states. I've found some that compare some aspect of freedom, such as the best and worst states for business (2009 and 2010). This page shows the CEOs grading of three subcategories: taxation and regulation; workforce quality; and living environment. For taxation and regulation, the A grades go to DE, NV, SD, and TX. California gets the only F. Such rankings as this gives a decent assessment of the relative freedom of the different states, at least in one large area of one's life. Together with rankings of other aspects of freedom (say, free speech, gun laws, etc) one could get a measure of the overall cultural acceptance of freedom in a particular state.

I appreciate the insights provided, but the thread has drifted to comparing USA to other countries, which isn't really the initial question. Within the US, which states have the best pro-freedom culture?

It's useful, but such things don't give a good perspective on the culture and the sense of life of the people. I appreciate the other info. That's the kind of info I'm looking for here. the more pro-freedom the sense of life, the better the place will be in the long run. That makes Texas good.

I'm currently looking at the differences between the states, in terms of politics and financial health. Clearly some states like Texas are in much better shape than California. California has 1/3 of all US welfare cases, the first cap-and-trade greenhouse gas emission law, and is head-over-heels in debt. The solution, given the recent state election, is: raise taxes even more. Some analysts are projecting 30 - 80% increases in gas prices over the next 5 years, for Californians. That's presumably over and above any national or international price or tax increases. The culture here is to punish the successful and pay out free goodies for votes, while further entrenching power in unions. Texas, by contrast, leads the nation in growth, by the last census. It has fairly handled the great recession, with a relatively mild economic hit. It has low taxes, low regulation, and a pro-business government (even the Democrats are that way, I hear). The mindset is pretty much laissez-faire (in spirit if not consistent law). What about other states? What other states are like Texas, politically? Which are more strongly pro-property rights? Some states I haven't seen much discussion about are Colorado and North Carolina. Colorado has very right wing, religious areas (Colorado Springs) and very left wing, socialist ones (Boulder). What about Denver and the state as a whole? I've heard the state was a lot like a Texas but so many ex-Californians have moved there in the past decade-plus that the state has tilted leftward to some degree -- though to what extent I can't say. So, any Forumers out there in CO care to share a word or three? And the same goes for residents of other states. I'd like to get a view of which states are particularly oriented toward or away from freedom. Thanks!

Please add this book to rate: Bounce by Matthew Syed

If we are to have taxes at a certain level, we'd all be much better off with a very simple tax rate than with a higher base rate filled with complex deductions. The latter gets the tax code in the way of rational economic decisions, favoring certain investments over others. It costs time and money to merely comply with the code. It leaves open the doubt of whether one has actually complied, with the possibility of future legal actions. For businessmen, it clouds one's planning. But most of all, it opens the door to political manipulation and corruption. A flat tax with no deductions would simplify our lives immensely. Why did we have a housing bubble over the last ten years? The tax code was one part of it, as it favored real estate over other investments. What other investment has so much margin (zero down loans!), a huge capital-gains-tax exemption, as well as a deduction for interest on the loan? Now if the government had in fact provided the same tax incentives for other investment vehicles we may not have had such a distorted market. (Other factors contributed to the bubble, of course, but this was certainly a big one!)