Smoking Ban

[Moliere]

I can play along in your Orwellian fantasy

You started the Orwellian lingo with "propertarian". I chose to clarify my position by saying I am about the individual's freedom versus this vague term "society", "greater good" and "fair share".

"Freedomtarians" out here in California began crying about a smoking ban in bars and restaurants. They said it would destroy their businesses, etc.

I lived most of my life in CA before escaping a couple of years ago. As a non-smoker and dancer I was a big beneficiary of the smoking ban. I didn't like my clothes smelling and coughing any more then dann. However, I was always very clear on the understanding that I voluntarily put myself in this situation. I even spent about a year working with a group of people to start my own club. The point being that it's more important for me to defend the rights of others even when I benefit from the bad laws. I am not offering pragmatic arguments about whether bars closed down, they lost business or if there is some connection with ETS and a possible health risk. This is a moral argument to stand up for the rights of property owners.

they fail to realize that individuals seeking to sell their labor in the free-market are up against a background of coercion.

This is quite an insult to people looking for a job or wanting to start their own business. The union thugs would love you. See the book by Walter Williams "More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well".

 

[brodski]

about a year working with a group of people to start my own club. The point being that it's more important for me to defend the rights of others even when I benefit from the bad laws. I am not offering pragmatic arguments about whether bars closed down, they lost business or if there is some connection with ETS and a possible health risk. This is a moral argument to stand up for the rights of property owners.

Ok lest start from first principles here,

do you believe that the government (in any form state or federal or local, I'm not an American and have only a passing acquaintance with your governments structure so forgive me if I confuse the role of state government with the role of federal government) has the right, no duty, to regulate the operations of the market?
Or should all human activity be left to market forces?

 

[username]

Ok lest start from first principles here,

do you believe that the government...has the right, no duty, to regulate the operations of the market?
Or should all human activity be left to market forces?

This is too absolutist. The question isn't whether government has a right or duty to regulate at all, the question is what right/duty do they have to regulate smoking in an establishment where the owner chooses to allow smoking, a legal activity?

The argument is that nobody is required to enter the atmosphere if they find it objectionable.

A counter argument could be made that employees don't have as much of a choice as customers, but AFAIK employment laws do not prohibit refusing to hire based upon whether the applicant is a smoker or non smoker so it is a non issue. Their 'right' to employment isn't a legally protected right in this case so it is a moot point as far as the law is concerned.

I think the government is within it's rights to insist upon proper notice *outside* the establishment informing the public that smoking is permitted inside to provide fair warning to those who choose to avoid second hand smoke, but that is about all the further I can see any government having any kind of proper legal authority in the US.

 

[brodski]

This is too absolutist. The question isn't whether government has a right or duty to regulate at all, the question is what right/duty do they have to regulate smoking in an establishment where the owner chooses to allow smoking, a legal activity?

I am aware that the argument is actualy how much regulation the gouvermnt is entilted to, but first we have to agree that some regualtion in some circumstances is appropreate.

Like I said, I wanetd to work from first principels up.

So can I take it as read that you agrre that regulation of private proeprty is appropreate in some circumstances?

If so do you belive that working conditions should ever be regulated under any circumstances?

these questions are not the end of my argument, I will introduce levels of subtly later. I just want to make sure that we are on the same page here, so please bear with me.

 

[Cain]

You started the Orwellian lingo with "propertarian". I chose to clarify my position by saying I am about the individual's freedom versus this vague term "society", "greater good" and "fair share".

Uh, no. This is a long-running debate -- not really worth exploring in great detail -- but self-described American "libertarians" originally co-opted the term from left-Anarchists. In any case, "propertarian" is a much more accurate description.

An example may help. Does a property owner restrict the freedom of potential patrons when he says that black people are not allowed into his bar?

The answer for most libertarians is "no" because freedom is DEFINED in relation to property rights. Does the state restrict my freedom when it says I cannot insert my knife into your chest? Again, the answer (for most "libertarians") is an obvious "no" because I am violating your ownership right in your person.

The question then becomes this: Where do these ownership rights come from and why do we have them? A libertarian cannot appeal to "freedom" or "liberty" because we've already seen those concepts are DERIVED from property; we only know someone is restricting freedom after property rights have been defined. Ryan Cheyney has a famous article to this effect in an old issue of _Ethics_.

Left-libertarians, or real-libertarians, those old anarchists I was talking about earlier, take self-ownership, Lockean rights in one's person, as something more than merely a formal right. It's a much richer understanding of personal autonomy.

I lived most of my life in CA before escaping a couple of years ago. As a non-smoker and dancer I was a big beneficiary of the smoking ban. I didn't like my clothes smelling and coughing any more then dann. However, I was always very clear on the understanding that I voluntarily put myself in this situation. I even spent about a year working with a group of people to start my own club. The point being that it's more important for me to defend the rights of others even when I benefit from the bad laws. I am not offering pragmatic arguments about whether bars closed down, they lost business or if there is some connection with ETS and a possible health risk. This is a moral argument to stand up for the rights of property owners.

This is quite an insult to people looking for a job or wanting to start their own business. The union thugs would love you. See the book by Walter Williams "More Liberty Means Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well".

This is so utterly weak I'm not sure it merits much of a response. As Bertrand Russell put it once: Liberty means the liberty of the rich and wealthy to exploit the poor.

It's interesting -- and by "interesting" I mean "foolish" -- how you seemlessly move from offering up a (misguided) moral argument followed by a book suggestion from a free-market economist based out of GMU!

More liberty very often does mean less government. In other cases, however, government is necessary to generate liberty -- that is, EFFECTIVE rather than merely FORMAL freedoms.

For some reason I highly doubt most humans cherish their freedom to starve to death, a life dictated by circumstances rather than choices.