Thanks Facist Pigs!

[Mashuna]

That is different. When it comes to smoking people go in and accept the risk by staying there. With what you listed there is no way for the patron to know of those dangers so government has to regulate it.

This then goes back to the question of the rights of the employees of the bar - unless you're arguing that their choice is to find another job?

 

[pipelineaudio]

This then goes back to the question of the rights of the employees of the bar - unless you're arguing that their choice is to find another job?

Show me that the employees are opposed to smoking

 

[pipelineaudio]

When I used the word fascist, I was being semi-euphemistic

but heavy aaron and user goggol you guys are the real deal!

That is SCARY stuff

Replace "smoking" with anything else, and you see the slippery slope from hell

I dont like rich houses that mean I gotta drive 50 miles to see any desert life because their complexes are scattered all over everything, can we ban rich people?

I dont like to hear rap music, can we ban black people?

etc etc....

 

[HeavyAaron]

When I used the word fascist, I was being semi-euphemistic

but heavy aaron and user goggol you guys are the real deal!

That is SCARY stuff

Replace "smoking" with anything else, and you see the slippery slope from hell

I dont like rich houses that mean I gotta drive 50 miles to see any desert life because their complexes are scattered all over everything, can we ban rich people?

I dont like to hear rap music, can we ban black people?

etc etc....

I don't think that's really fair. I find good reasons to outlaw mind altering chemicals. I find no intrinsic distinction between legal "recreational drugs" and illegal "recreational drugs." Therefore I will support the restriction on mind altering recreational drugs. Do you support legalizing more recreational drugs? If so, which ones, and why? Do you support keeping any illegal? If so, which ones and why? My contention is that the current dividing line makes no rational sense. So, I oppose it.

I do admit that it is not consistant with most of my libertarian vantage point to restrict any recreational drugs whatsoever. But, I have no trouble with rich homes. I do believe that limits on the volume of rap (or any other kind) of music is acceptable because of the externalities involved. Likewise my primary concern with smoking is the externality of second hand smoke.

I love the free market. But negative externalities ARE a market failing. And, while I admit to very few market failings, I allow government to regulate to mitigate them provided that the cost of regulation itself does not exceed the original problem. Here enforcement is trivial.

Aaron

 

[skeptifem]

This then goes back to the question of the rights of the employees of the bar - unless you're arguing that their choice is to find another job?

I have covered my opinion of that quite a bit in this thread. click back a few pages.

But in general, if you dont want the risks involved with any job you are expected to find another one. Most jobs have some sort of risk to safety.

 

[UserGoogol]

When I used the word fascist, I was being semi-euphemistic

but heavy aaron and user goggol you guys are the real deal!

That is SCARY stuff

Replace "smoking" with anything else, and you see the slippery slope from hell

I dont like rich houses that mean I gotta drive 50 miles to see any desert life because their complexes are scattered all over everything, can we ban rich people?

I dont like to hear rap music, can we ban black people?

etc etc....

That seems like circular logic. I am trying to logically determine what is good and what is bad. You cannot refute a system of goodness by saying that it would be bad, because that assumes that you have a system of goodness already to say what is good and what is bad. Explain your system of goodness and how it is more logical than mine, but don't simply say my system is bad.

The case of black people is interesting, though. I suppose it is true that there are people who are made uncomfortable by being around black people, and in that sense the thing might be made analogous. However being black is extremely different from being a smoker, and these differences correspondingly change the goodness calculation. Besides the "being black isn't a choice" argument that has already been mentioned, when someone is black, they are black all the time. To contrast, a smoker only actually smokes some of the time. To ban smoking in bars does not say that they cannot smoke or that they cannot be in bars, merely that they cannot do those things simultaneously. For this reason, the harm done to a smoker by telling them not to smoke in bars is much less than the harm done to a black person by telling them not to foist their blackness upon others.

Any system of morality which requires judging each situation on a case by case basis is going to have the problem of miscalculations leading to injustice. But that does not seem like a sufficient reason to toss careful calculations aside, at least in principle. (In practice it might be better to use rules of thumb, but because this is the Internet nothing we say matters, so we should aspire to the truth, not mere pragmatism.) Just because an idea is dangerous does not make it false, and when we think and discuss ideas we should work towards the target of truth, not merely whatever ideas seem like a nice idea to have. (Especially because as I said, we need to have a logically valid idea of niceness before we can logically judge ideas on their niceness.)

But again, I am not neccesarily certain that smoking bans are a good idea, merely that they should not be rejected out of hand.

 

[pipelineaudio]

it would be "good" if we had a totalitarian rule by this logic

If we all were handed our food units every day, then proceeded to our work units, then went back to our sleep units

Nothing "bad" could happen, as you wouldnt be allowed to choose where to go and maybe hurt someone. You would only be transported by transport units so there would be no car accidents

You wouldnt get hurt riding a bike, or hang gliding or heavens forbid, be subject to loud music because recreation would be illegal.

1984 here we come

 

[UserGoogol]

No it wouldn't, because living under totalitarianism sucks. You have to look at the whole picture. They would be reducing harm caused by others, but increasing harm by forcing us to do exactly what they say. The cost would exceed the benefit, in that case. But you haven't been talking about cost versus benefit, you've just been talking about cost: how this is totally fascist and horrible. In order to judge anything properly, you need to look at every possible consequence of it and see if it adds up to a net improvement.

I mean hell, you said in the OP that you're opposed to illegal immigration, but isn't it a bit fascist for the government to prohibit people from moving freely from what place to another? They have to have the right papers or they get kicked out of the country? :3

 

[pipelineaudio]

I mean hell, you said in the OP that you're opposed to illegal immigration, but isn't it a bit fascist for the government to prohibit people from moving freely from what place to another? They have to have the right papers or they get kicked out of the country? :3

not in the slightest

One of governments ONLY rightful jobs is to secure our borders against invaders who wish to do us harm

 

[HeavyAaron]

not in the slightest

One of governments ONLY rightful jobs is to secure our borders against invaders who wish to do us harm

I totally agree. Government duties according to Aaron:

1) Protect property rights.
2) Defend the boarders.
3) Regulate negative externalities where economically feasable.

It's a short list, indeed. And I admit my desire to regulate intoxicants isn't on the list. (As I said, it runs against most of my ideologies.)

Aaron

 

[UserGoogol]

not in the slightest

One of governments ONLY rightful jobs is to secure our borders against invaders who wish to do us harm

I don't see why the law should make a distinction between invaders who wish to do us harm and natives who wish to do us harm. They are both equally dangerous, so to regulate the borders so as to pay attention to the foreign meanies more than the domestic meanies seems arbitrary and dangerous. At best it's profiling.

I'm not saying that borders should be completely open, mind you (maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, there's a lot of variables to consider) but the "keep out invaders" argument seems flawed. Why should someone be dangerous just because they happen to have been born on a different side of a line?

 

[Francesca R]

You don't understand the libertarian viewpoint. You've ignored the rights of the business owner. For libertarians, business transactions should be based on a very simple principle: voluntary interaction between two individuals (or parties.)

The business owner can run his business as he sees fit. He has no right to force you to patronize it. If you don't want to shop/eat/whatever there, then you don't have to.

And, in turn, you can patronize it, or not, as you see fit. If you don't like it, don't go there. You have no right to force the business owner to run his establishment the way you wish it were being run.

I don't think you are outlining libertarianism. Rather—you are espousing unfettered laisser-faire free-market capitalism. In this model, rights are not relevant; only money is.

 

[brodski]

I totally agree. Government duties according to Aaron:

1) Protect property rights.
2) Defend the boarders.
3) Regulate negative externalities where economically feasable.

It's a short list, indeed. And I admit my desire to regulate intoxicants isn't on the list. (As I said, it runs against most of my ideologies.)

Aaron

So, according to your ideology government has no role in outlawing crimes such as rape and murder? I can't see how those crimes would fit into 1, 2 or 3. I think you may need to expand your definition of "acceptable" government.

 

[Mashuna]

I have covered my opinion of that quite a bit in this thread. click back a few pages.

But in general, if you dont want the risks involved with any job you are expected to find another one. Most jobs have some sort of risk to safety.

But most of these risks are bounded by legislation. This applies if you're working in a mine, with heavy machinery and now it's being extended to smoking in bars.

If there are risks involved in a job, I expect my employer to take steps to mitigate the risks, otherwise they'll be held liable. I don't expect to be told to find another job if I don't like it.

 

[b33fj3rky]

Nobody has a right to do anything, that's just silly.

The only way to really force someone to do something is to go into their brains and make it so that they choose your thing, and even then it's debatable whether it's truly coercion...

Both those statements are so jaw-droppingly asinine, and so out of touch with the political realities of modern, civilized, free nations, that I can conclude only that you must be trolling. From now on, I'll ignore you.

 

[b33fj3rky]

So, if a malicious owner decides to cause gastrenteritis to his customers just for fun, he should be free to do it ? And what if the owner simply doesn't know that his ways of preparing the food are not hygienic ? How can he be honest if he is ignorant ? And who's going to verify the owner's honesty ? Wouldn't we need some inspections ? And wouldn't it be simpler to inspect the food quality instead of the owner's honesty ?

I understand and agree with those concerns. So I'll be more specific about my libertarian vision of bar/restaurant commerce.

Now, I'm not saying that the Health Department should be abolished. (Some libertarians do--and I disagree with them.) I believe having the government inspect restaurants for cleanliness and safety is a good thing, and *I* sure as hell wouldn't want to eat someplace that hasn't passed a health inspection lately.

However, I think if a business fails (or refuses to submit to) an inspection, the government shouldn't shut the place down. Let the business owners run an unsafe, unclean restaurant. What the government should do is, require the place to erect several large signs saying:

"WARNING: The Health Department recommends you avoid this establishment. It has failed to meet basic standards of sanitation, safety, and/or quality. Eating the food here may lead to gastrointestinal discomfort, food poisoning, other illnesses, and death. The owners of this restaurant have decided that asserting their right to run an unsafe, unclean establishment is more important than protecting your health. If you eat here, you do so at your own risk."

I believe the government should work to keep businesses honest. Also, it should aid consumers in making intelligent choices about food, employment, housing, drugs, medical care, etc. However, if the consumer wants to make a stupid, horrible, harmful choice, even after being warned, then that's his or her right.

It's your body; shovel whatever crap into it that you want. Smoke cigarettes. Eat a pound of candy every day. Trepan yourself. Hang out in filthy, smoky S&M bars, and dance barefoot on a spiky carpet of AIDS-infested needles. Waste fifty dollars on a Quantum Karmatic Healing Prayer Chants CD. Whatever. But when you get sick because of your poor choices, don't expect me or the taxpayers to foot your medical bills. You have the right to do what you wish with your body, and you, and you alone, have the responsibility to deal with the consequences of your retarded-ass life choices.

It's similar to the way that the US government is treating many homeopathic remedies. Right now, if I wish, I can go into a drugstore and buy "Stamina RX-- A Maximum Sexual Stimulant!" However, written right on the package is, "These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

Or, on a pack of smokes:

"SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks To Your Health."

Caveat emptor.

 

[b33fj3rky]

I don't think you are outlining libertarianism. Rather—you are espousing unfettered laisser-faire free-market capitalism. In this model, rights are not relevant; only money is.

From Wikipedia:

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. "

If I own the bar, I am free to allow smoking, or forbid it, as I see fit. It's my bar.

You are free to bring your butt into my bar, or not, as you see fit. It's your butt.

You, the customer, don't have the right to force me to change my policies.

I, the owner, don't have the right to force you to patronize my establishment.

Freedom for all.

 

[Gurdur]

Why you need laws to ban smoking in bars has always been beyond me. If there's a market force in favor of it, then bars would do it. Why can't it just be left up to the establishment? It makes me uncomfortable to have the government intruding on things like this.

I don't like going to certain bars only to leave smelling like a$$, but it's ultimately up to me whether I want to patronize them or not.

Personally I am all in favour of smoking in bars, and in smoking sections in restaurants and elsewhere, but your argument is not so valid.

Allow me to illustrate by changing a couple of things in your argument:

Why you need laws to ban murder or theft has always been beyond me. If there's a market force against suchlike, then society wouldn't allow it. Why can't it just be left up to people? It makes me uncomfortable to have the government intruding on things like this.

 

[HeavyAaron]

So, according to your ideology government has no role in outlawing crimes such as rape and murder? I can't see how those crimes would fit into 1, 2 or 3. I think you may need to expand your definition of "acceptable" government.

Are you kidding?!? They fit into two of them VERY STRONGLY.

Your body is your property. Another person exersizing control over it via rape or murder is a serious property crime.

Rape and murder have INCREDIABLY LARGE negative externalities!

Aaron

 

[CFLarsen]

From Wikipedia:

"Libertarianism is a political philosophy advocating that individuals should be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe on the same liberty of others. "

If I own the bar, I am free to allow smoking, or forbid it, as I see fit. It's my bar.

You are free to bring your butt into my bar, or not, as you see fit. It's your butt.

You, the customer, don't have the right to force me to change my policies.

I, the owner, don't have the right to force you to patronize my establishment.

Freedom for all.

Billy and Joe live on the same hill. They own properties next to each other. Billy lives on the top of the hill, Joe lives at the foot.

Now, Joe has no access to water on his property. He depends entirely on the water that flows from Billy's property. Heck, it doesn't even rain, so he can't gather water that way.

There is no question that the water is legally Billy's. One day, Billy decides to use all the water himself. Joe will die, if he doesn't get water. Joe doesn't have any money to move or buy water.

According to Libertarianism, Billy can keep all the water himself, letting Joe die.

How is Billy not infringing on Joe's right to life?

Does Billy's right to his own water supersede Joe's right to his own life?