Freedom Infringing Freedom

[shanek]

On the issue of freedom and ownership smoking laws here in Ontario, Canada have been forged on neither of these premises. These laws have been put in place because a) cigarette smoke is a proven carcinogen

So? It is the responsibility of every person to accept the risks and responsibilities of his actions, which include eating in a restaurant that allows smoking.

b) health care costs are soaring,

Health care is the responsibility of the individual. Canada has abrogated that with socialized medicine, and this is the source of the problem. You're trying to cover up a symptom.

and c) smokers are in the minority.

So? The majority doesn't get to infringe on the rights of a minority. Slaves were a minority.

 

[Otther]

Shanek... do you think people should have the freedom to use their property as they wish to the detriment of other's property values?

 

[shanek]

Shanek... do you think people should have the freedom to use their property as they wish to the detriment of other's property values?

If they're doing something that's detrimental to the property values of others, then they're not merely using their property as they wish; they're going beyond that. I have the right to have a bonfire on my property as long as I make sure the ashes don't blow over to yours and burn down your barn. But if I'm careless and I burn down your barn, that's hardly "using my property as I wish."

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Freedom Infringing Freedom

And with that, I officially declare this post Far Too Silly. Where's the Colonel when you need him?

Why is it Far Too Silly? You said that the restaurant owner owned the air in the restaurant. Why was that not Far Too Silly? If that was not FTS, then mine is a legitimate question.

ETA: Your stance actually does lead me to conclude that the restaurant owner does own the air in my lungs--otherwise, your recent arguments about her or him infringing on my property must apply.

But it is a convenient way to avoid addressing the issues.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freedom Infringing Freedom

Why is it Far Too Silly?

It hardly needs to be pointed out to someone or written into a contract that giving someone permission to enter the premesis entitles whatever permission you might think is necessary to "breathe the air," even forgiving the fact that they exhale as much as inhale.

In fact, hey, they're producing valuable CO₂ that helps make the plants all healthy! I should be paying them for that production service, shouldn't I?

Give me a break...

 

[Otther]

If they're doing something that's detrimental to the property values of others, then they're not merely using their property as they wish; they're going beyond that.

So as long someone's five feet high (otherwise anatomically accurate) phallus statues aren't directly damaging their neighbor's property, they should have the right to keep the statues in their front yard? Why doesn't the property value damage not count?

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freedom Infringing Freedom

It hardly needs to be pointed out to someone or written into a contract that giving someone permission to enter the premesis entitles whatever permission you might think is necessary to "breathe the air," even forgiving the fact that they exhale as much as inhale.

So the air in their lungs is borrowed from the restauranteur, then. If it "hardly needs to be pointed out" that they have permission to breathe, do they in fact have the right to breathe in there? Or do they breathe purely due to the good graces of their host? What if you do not want the exhalation of someone else's air on your property--can you require someone to exhale before entering your restaurant? (I am not asking what is customarily done, I am asking what rights I have as property owner and as customer. Or...are you suggesting that these rights simply come from some sort of social agreement?)

In fact, hey, they're producing valuable CO₂ that helps make the plants all healthy! I should be paying them for that production service, shouldn't I?

Not if you have no plants. The CO₂ is not helpful then, and you should be able to sue them for what they have done to your air.

Give me a break...

Shanek, the silliness factor is inherent in your example; my question follows directly from it.

 

[shanek]

Why doesn't the property value damage not count?

Who said it doesn't?

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freedom Infringing Freedom

If it "hardly needs to be pointed out" that they have permission to breathe, do they in fact have the right to breathe in there?

They don't have a right to even be there in the first place. They have permission to be there, and certainly implicit in that is permission to breathe the air, stand on the floor, shed dead skin as dust, etc.

What if you do not want the exhalation of someone else's air on your property

Then don't invite them onto the property.

--can you require someone to exhale before entering your restaurant?

If there is a certain reason to, say, you're worried about contamination or infection, then you could require them to wear an SCBA, for example.

Or...are you suggesting that these rights simply come from some sort of social agreement?)

It's a privilege, not a right. Please learn the difference.

Shanek, the silliness factor is inherent in your example; my question follows directly from it.

No, it isn't; you're misunderstanding and abusing the nature of the word "rights."

 

[Mercutio]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Freedom Infringing Freedom

They don't have a right to even be there in the first place. They have permission to be there, and certainly implicit in that is permission to breathe the air, stand on the floor, shed dead skin as dust, etc.

Ok. So, everywhere but my own property, I breathe by the permission of others. And anyone on my property breathes only through my permission. Implicit, certainly, but in theory something which could be denied. (And I was not asking about their right to be there--I understood that. I was asking specifically about breathing. I have no right to breathe when I am on your property, or indeed anyone's but my own. Gotcha.)

Then don't invite them onto the property.

If there is a certain reason to, say, you're worried about contamination or infection, then you could require them to wear an SCBA, for example.

Or to be on my property only while they held their breath. They breathe only through my permission.

It's a privilege, not a right. Please learn the difference.

That is why I ask questions, Shanek.

No, it isn't; you're misunderstanding and abusing the nature of the word "rights."

Again, I am simply trying to understand something you claim is very simple, but which does not seem that way to me.

 

[dsm]

If they're doing something that's detrimental to the property values of others, then they're not merely using their property as they wish; they're going beyond that. I have the right to have a bonfire on my property as long as I make sure the ashes don't blow over to yours and burn down your barn. But if I'm careless and I burn down your barn, that's hardly "using my property as I wish."

How about "water rights"?

A river flowing through several pieces of property is dammed by one of the property owners and, thus, turns one (or more) of the properties downstream into a desert. From what I gathered from some of the other posts in this thread, when the water flows onto the property, it becomes the property of the property owner. Therefore, damming the water would seem to be within his rights, but, in so doing, he has had a detrimental effect on the property owners downstream. The property owner has ensured that nothing left his property to cause harm to the other properties, yet damage was done.

Does the downstream property owners have any recourse? What if the property owner simply threatens a dam and tries to tax the downstream property owners for use of the water?

 

[shanek]

How about "water rights"?

Discussed to death in other threads. If you dam a river and deprive others of their property value, then you are damaging their property.

 

[a_unique_person]

Discussed to death in other threads. If you dam a river and deprive others of their property value, then you are damaging their property.

what about cities like New York that could not exist without dams to provide them with water?

 

[shanek]

what about cities like New York that could not exist without dams to provide them with water?

I'm unaware of any such dams that deprive downstream rivers of water. I live near a dam holding back one of the largest man-made lakes in the world. The Catawba River still runs downstream where it always has.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm unaware of any such dams that deprive downstream rivers of water. I live near a dam holding back one of the largest man-made lakes in the world. The Catawba River still runs downstream where it always has.

There are plenty of rivers that are subject to conflict and debate about who takes what water out of them and if the waterways are being treated properly.

Take this one for example.

 

[shanek]

There are plenty of rivers that are subject to conflict and debate about who takes what water out of them and if the waterways are being treated properly.

Take this one for example.

What does anything in that link have to do with what we're talking about? Or did you just Google for "Catawba River" and grab the first link that looked good?

 

[Mercutio]

I'm unaware of any such dams that deprive downstream rivers of water. I live near a dam holding back one of the largest man-made lakes in the world. The Catawba River still runs downstream where it always has.

How about the Colorado river? There is more need than water, and squabbles about the rights of various groups, especially Native Americans, to the water.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm unaware of any such dams that deprive downstream rivers of water. I live near a dam holding back one of the largest man-made lakes in the world. The Catawba River still runs downstream where it always has.

Argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[a_unique_person]

What does anything in that link have to do with what we're talking about? Or did you just Google for "Catawba River" and grab the first link that looked good?

Exactly. Rivers systems that are dammed and utilised are going to have management issues, including yours. It is inevitable.

If you want to see a country where all rivers are the subject of fierce debate and squabbling, try Australia. Everyone wants a piece of the Murray, so much so that it can't even make it to the sea much of the time. This even with irrigation water rights cut to 30% of their nominal amount.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I'm unaware of any such dams that deprive downstream rivers of water.

Granite Reef Diversion Dam

About five miles below the point where the Salt and Verde Rivers join is Granite Reef Diversion Dam. At Granite Reef, all the water is taken from the Salt River and diverted into the Arizona Canal, which delivers drinking and irrigation water to Phoenix and the west valley, and the South Canal, which delivers water to the east valley.

http://www.maricopa.gov/emerg_mgt/dams.asp