Thanks Facist Pigs!

[HeavyAaron]

Are you politically obliged as a Libertarian to let him die?

Once more, I am not a Libertarian. I am a libertarian. There's a world of difference. I'm not trying to be fussy here, but they have significantly different meanings.

I have no idea what it means to be politically obliged to do anything. It's a nonsensical term as best I can figure.

Oh, no, no, no, no.

We can't ignore the moral implications of the politics we promote. If the system or ideology has some morally corrupt consequences, then we can't just say "Oh, well. Too bad."

Something's still missing. The ideology says NOTHING about helping out another person affirmatively or denyingly. It simply says not helping the person should not be illegal. That's all. You're reading a normative judgement into that where none exists. Would you really advocate a governing system in which all immoral acts and nonacts are illegal?

Aaron

 

[luchog]

And that's where we differ, my island friend. From my way of thinking, and many libertarians I know, it's like this: The owner has a right to serve ill-prepared, unhygenic garbage on a plate, if he wishes, as long as he's honest about it. And you have the right to not eat there, on the grounds that the daily special is "E-Coli Explosion Surprise." As long as the owner makes no false claims about the quality or safety of his product, then he's in the clear, and it's up to you to use your brain and decide whether or not you want the E-Coli Special of the Day.

That's quite the opposite of most of the libertarians I know, and generally only represents the philosophy anarcho-capitalist radicals. The majority of libertarians are minarchists who accept that some government regulation is necessary for public health and safety. Although there is some disagreement as to the degree that it is necessary; it's generally accepted that such things as Pure Food and Truth in Advertising laws are a valid part of government.

 

[luchog]

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?

Feel free to link to any appropriate studies that demonstrate otherwise; but the last time I checked, second-hand rap music doesn't cause emphysema, lung and throat cancer, or asthma attacks. It just feels like it does. Rich people don't make my hair or clothing stink, or cause me breathing problems, just because I get stuck standing next to one in an enclosed bus shelter while commuting to work (except for that one jackass who wears several bottles of cologne, probably because he's destroyed his own oflactory sense through smoking so much).

 

[luchog]

There is no question that the water is legally Billy's.

That right there is where you completely and totally misunderstand libertarian philosopy and principles. That is a completely untrue statement. But it's not the first time you've dramatically misunderstood or mis-represented libertarianism; so I'm not at all surprised.

Here's a starting point if you really want to understand what and where you went wrong: Where did the water originate?

 

[skeptifem]

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.

they did that in fort collins, colorado. they had strict ventilation standards for businesses that wanted smoking. Many places spent several thousand dollars getting ventilation systems installed that were up to code, only to have smoking completely banned less than a year later by the city (not the state). No one go their money back.

I think having ventilation systems installed like that would be a great comprimise (sp?) between employees that dislike smoke and owners who want smokers' business.

 

[Zep]

STILL no answer to my question:

How many of their population are such addicted smokers that their absence will bankrupt a bar?

 

[skeptifem]

I dont understand if you want figures of how many smokers are in the population, or something more detailed. If i remember right the rate of smokers is usually around 15-18 percent in the us.

 

[pipelineaudio]

In your posts you are linking the act of migrating illegally to the desire to do some sort of damage to the host nation. You are therefore falsely presuming guilt on the basis of a near-totally unrelated crime and tossing out the liberty of others willy-nilly in the process.

IMO this is close to the model of ideology that seeds fascism.

The act of tresspassing is doing damage

Recieveing money for criminal activity (illegals working in the USA) is doing damage

Bankrupting the education system of the nation you invaded is doing damage

Bankrupting the health care system of the nation you invaded is doing damage

You are WAY off

 

[pipelineaudio]

Feel free to link to any appropriate studies that demonstrate otherwise; but the last time I checked, second-hand rap music doesn't cause emphysema, lung and throat cancer, or asthma attacks. It just feels like it does. Rich people don't make my hair or clothing stink, or cause me breathing problems, just because I get stuck standing next to one in an enclosed bus shelter while commuting to work (except for that one jackass who wears several bottles of cologne, probably because he's destroyed his own oflactory sense through smoking so much).

Werent the studies used by the EPA to start this second hand hysteria shown to be bunk?

Are there newer ones which can be trusted?

 

[pipelineaudio]

STILL no answer to my question:

Anyone who feels unwelcomed at a bar will cease to go there...not rocket science

MANY examples unrelated to smoking Im sure you can figure out

 

[brodski]

Werent the studies used by the EPA to start this second hand hysteria shown to be bunk?

No, they weren’t discredited in any meaningful way. I am told that Penn and Teller have publicly apologised for misrepresenting the facts in their episode of "Bulls-Hit". There is almost as much evidence that prolonged exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) can cause cancer as there is that smoking causes cancer. Of course there are those that have historically disputed that smoking causes cancer, usually for financial or ideological reasons. Now there are those disputing that prolonged exposure to ETS causes harm for exactly the same reasons.
That said, it is extremely unlikely that your average bar-goer will have enough exposure to ETS to cause them significant problems (unless they have underlying medical issues), bar staff on the other had are at risk.

 

[Zep]

Anyone who feels unwelcomed at a bar will cease to go there...not rocket science

...and not the answer to my question. This is actually the answer to the question "Will people not come back to a bar?" (for 100, please, Alex).

Read the question again: How many of their population are such addicted smokers that their absence would bankrupt a bar?

Now, would you like me to rephrase that, if it helps you think?

Which bars are you talking about that rely solely and completely on smokers for their ongoing business?

 

[skeptifem]

since when does a bar have to lose all of its business to go under? that doesnt make much sense. The number of customers that have to be lost to make a place go out of business varies from place to place.

however, I am willing to be that cig smokers drink more often than the rest of the population (or perhaps that alcoholics smoke cigarettes more often than the rest of the population, either way). I found some stuff on google to support that.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco//research_data/survey/samhsa.htm

"Current smokers are more likely to be heavy drinkers and illicit drug users than nonsmokers. Among smokers in 1995, 12.6 percent were heavy drinkers and 13.6 percent were illicit drug users. Among nonsmokers, 2.7 percent were heavy drinkers and 3.0 percent were illicit drug users."

so they probably support the bar scene more than non smokers on average.

 

[Zep]

You're getting closer to seeing the point...

I didn't imply that bars have to lose all their custom to go under (clearly, it's a case of sales versus cost of sales). My question was to do with how vulnerable any bars are to the complete loss of custom of just the smokers.

Imagine, as a mind experiment, that all the smokers in the world suddenly got Raptured up to god, but no-one else. Question: Would all the bars that had smokers then automatically go under from loss of custom?

 

[skeptifem]

Im sure a fair number of them would. it looks like about 1/2 of heavy drinkers would dissapear if that happened.

 

[b33fj3rky]

Change the scenario.

They were both ship wrecked on an island, there were two places to live, they tossed a pebble to decide who got which place. Everything is fair and equitable, oh but the only source of fresh water on the island happens to be a small stream, that flows through both pieces of land (the source of which is on Billy's land).

20 years roll-by, Billy wakes up one morning and damns the stream and diverts it all back onto his land. 4 days later Joe dies.

What "poorly-made life choices" did Joe make?

If Billy can outsmart Joe during negotiations, and Joe later dies as a result, is that also OK, according to Libertarianism?

If Joe feels that he has been victimized by a contract that was misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent, then he is free to seek appropriate legal remedies.

Here in the real world he could seek mediation, contact the Better Business Bureau, organize a boycott, try to garner some sympathetic media attention for his plight, or hire a lawyer and take it to court.

But if Joe's stuck way the hell out there on Magic Hypothetical Island, with Dam-Building Billy? Well, if I were Joe, and I felt that my water had been unfairly cut off, then I'd go into the jungle, find myself a nice, big, sharp stick, and name it the Rod Of Magic Island Justice.

My point being, I'm not interested in discussing the moral quandaries of a hypothetical, extremely farfetched island scenario.

 

[Francesca R]

How did the US get in here? The US isn't a libertarian state. This was theoretical.

OK—I'll let that go.

Nice assertion. Would you like to back that up?

The value of liberty exists in public space. A libertarian is opposed to behaviour that harms the liberty of another. The liberty of others (society) is a public good in libertarianism, even if every person's liberty is "privately owned". Violation of the liberty of others is contrary to libertarian principles and should be prevented by the acceptance of individual responsibility. If it occurs anyway, it should be met with compensation and/or punishment. I view this as "obligation to society" and communitarian logic. Argue against if you will . . .

The act of tresspassing is doing damage

This is just re-phrasing "illegal immigration"

Recieveing money for criminal activity (illegals working in the USA) is doing damage

Fraudulently taking up employment is not confined to illegal immigrants, nor do all of them do it.

Bankrupting the education system of the nation you invaded is doing damage

Illegal or fraudulent consumption of services in education is not confined to illegal immigrants, not do all of them do it.

Bankrupting the health care system of the nation you invaded is doing damage

Illegal of fraudulent consumption of health-care services is not confined to illegal immigrants, nor do all of them do it.

You are WAY off

If your claim is simply "illegal entry is illegal entry is a crime" and not presuming guilt of anything else, I am not in dispute with you. If you make the presumption that illegal immigrants are guilty of additional crimes, I maintain that this presumption is profoundly illiberal, and close to the ideology that seeds fascism.

 

[b33fj3rky]

2) How can you force a person to do something? Consider the following thought experiment where you have a person sit in a chair and ask them to push a button. You could threaten to kill them, but that's not really forcing, because they could just let you kill them. You could grab their arm and push it onto the button, but that's not really forcing, because they could just try really really hard to resist.

I don't understand the point of this thought experiment.

Any action can in theory be resisted, unless you go into their brains and take away their ability to resist.

I dislike science fiction.

3) I don't see what political realities have to do with anything... I am trying to construct a logical system by which I can determine what is good and what is bad. Allowing myself to be biased by what already exists would be irrational of me. In order to be unbiased, I need to isolate myself from reality...

You know, that reminds me of a guy I know who wanted to learn rock guitar. I told him to take guitar lessons, study music theory, and maybe learn songs by Jimmy Page, Eric Clapton, Hendrix, or other great guitarists. However, the guy refused to do any of that. He wanted to be "original." He believed that if he learned theory or studied the pros, it would taint his innate pristine special specialness or something.

So he started staying at home for hours every day, sitting alone on his couch and noodling around with his guitar, free of any outside influence or knowledge.

After weeks of that, he announced he'd written his first song.

"Let me hear it," I said, and he did.

When he'd finished, he asked my opinion of his brilliantly original, earth-shatteringly new musical form.

"Congratulations," I said. "You've just discovered the key of C major."

 

[Darat]

...snip...

My point being, I'm not interested in discussing the moral quandaries of a hypothetical, extremely farfetched island scenario.

Yet you take a lot of words to say that....

As I said the point of the hypothetical is to demonstrate that the ideology you propose does not have as a principle that people in a society based on it have a right to life.

 

[b33fj3rky]

Now, getting back to the OP. For me, libertarian ideals boil down to two simple principles.

1. Interactions, transactions, and relationships between people should be voluntary.

2. People shouldn't initiate force, or use the threat of force, against each other.
__________________

So, let's apply those two principles to the OP about smoking in bars.

"I want to enter your bar and have a drink," the customer says.

"Fine," the owner says. "Come in. I'd like to make a profit off you."

"By the way, I also want a smoke-free environment," the customer says. "Make everybody inside put out their cigarettes."

"No. I don't want to do that."

"Well, I demand to have it that way."

"You're the customer. You don't get to dictate to me how I run my business. You have no right to give me orders; only requests."

"But I'm allergic to cigarette smoke!"

"Then go elsewhere," the owner says. "I'm not going to provide a smoke-free environment; I will never agree to do business with you under that condition. Please go away."

The appropriate thing for the customer to do is, of course, go away.

If a transaction is not voluntary, then the transaction shouldn't happen. It's simple. If both parties don't agree to the terms, then neither party should be forced into the exchange.

If one party tries to force the other into a disagreeable contract or transaction or relationship, then it's the government's role to step in and settle the dispute.

To sum it up, I've been to many bars and stores which had a sign on the wall: WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE. And that's fine. If you're obnoxious, or smelly, or dangerous-looking, or improperly dressed, or twitching and farting and screaming about Jesus at the top of your lungs, or otherwise unacceptable to the business owners, then they have the right to turn you away.

And, conversely, my friend said the other day, "I hate Walmart. I'm never shopping there." And that's just fine. Walmart certainly doesn't have the right to force her to come inside and spend her money. If she wants to go to K-Mart instead, Walmart certainly doesn't have the right to sue her, claiming she's unfairly discriminating against the Walton dynasty.