Thanks Facist Pigs!

[b33fj3rky]

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.

In your definition, the phrase "right to life" includes "right to force other people to give me food and water, even when they do not wish to do so."

From my point of view, forcing people to give you things against their will is robbery.*


*Note: if I were starving to death, and had no other choice, I'd rob people. The fact that I did it doesn't make it okay; it just makes it practical. If I were caught, I'd deserve punishment from the legal system, same as any criminal.

 

[Darat]

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.

...snip..

Why do this? You're just creating a very far-fetched hyopthetical and I thought you weren't interested in discussing the moral quandaries of a hypothetical, extremely farfetched "libertopia" scenario?

 

[Darat]

In your definition, the phrase "right to life" includes "right to force other people to give me food and water, even when they do not wish to do so."

From my point of view, forcing people to give you things against their will is robbery.

Glad you agree that for you the "right to own" is more important then "the right to life".

 

[brodski]

In your definition, the phrase "right to life" includes "right to force other people to give me food and water, even when they do not wish to do so."

From my point of view, forcing people to give you things against their will is robbery.

So where do you stand on taxation? That would fit your definition of robbery.
Is the robbery of taxation acceptable when used for some ends? Which ends, and why only those? Or are you at heart an anarchist?

 

[b33fj3rky]

Why do this? You're just creating a very far-fetched hyopthetical...

A world in which people interact voluntarily, and don't use force against each other, is far-fetched? Odd. Because that describes the place I live pretty accurately. Very rarely does anyone attack me and force me to give up my property; very rarely am I forced to interact with someone who I loathe.

 

[b33fj3rky]

Glad you agree that for you the "right to own" is more important then "the right to life".

Yep.

 

[b33fj3rky]

So where do you stand on taxation? That would fit your definition of robbery.
Is the robbery of taxation acceptable when used for some ends? Which ends, and why only those? Or are you at heart an anarchist?

From my POV, the American government is a neccessary evil. The "evil" bit being that gov. should have the power to collect taxes, and do it by force; the "neccessary" bit being that gov. should spend that tax money only on things that benefit all American citizens--roads, border defense, defense against terrorists, etc. The gov. shouldn't spend tax money on things that benefit only a few people, such as corporate welfare.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Then, let's discuss why your suggestions isn't about trying to force Billy to give Joe water.

 

[Tricky]

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."

Does this hypothetical bar use any city services? Public works? If there was a bar fight, could they call the police? Could they call 911 if there was a fire? Well, if they abide by the rules set out by the city to provide for the general health and welfare of the public, they can, but if they decide that they don't like living under the yoke of oppression, then it would seem that they should also be freed from any services provided by said yoke.

Handle your own drunks. Put out your own fires. Find your own source of water. Run your own generator. If you want to operate within the codes established by the local jurisdiction, you must operate within all of them. I warn you though that these codes are determined by the local people and their elected representatives for what they consider to be the health and welfare of their community, and their wishes may differ from yours. If you don't like them, please go away.

 

[skeptifem]

Why do this? You're just creating a very far-fetched hyopthetical and I thought you weren't interested in discussing the moral quandaries of a hypothetical, extremely farfetched "libertopia" scenario?

It was not a far fetched situation at all. Are customer complaints really that far fetched? People complain about EVERYTHING.

The island thing really was far fetched. why two men would feel the need to split an island only they are on, using dice no less, and kill each other over a stream instead of sharing it is beyond me.

 

[brodski]

From my POV, the American government is a neccessary evil. The "evil" bit being that gov. should have the power to collect taxes, and do it by force; the "neccessary" bit being that gov. should spend that tax money only on things that benefit all American citizens--roads, border defense, defense against terrorists, etc. The gov. shouldn't spend tax money on things that benefit only a few people, such as corporate welfare.

Border defence only befits a few people (those in border states who don't want to take advantage of illegal labour), roads only befit some people (all be it the vast majority). Defence against terrorists is likely only to benefit those in urban environments (rural communities are unlikely targets for terrorist attacks). You are prepared to violate the right to property in order to benefit wider society in some cases, but you act as if some great moral principle has been violated when people disagree with you about which cases they should be.

 

[b33fj3rky]

If you want to operate within the codes established by the local jurisdiction, you must operate within all of them. I warn you though that these codes are determined by the local people and their elected representatives for what they consider to be the health and welfare of their community, and their wishes may differ from yours. If you don't like them, please go away.

I agree completely.

 

[b33fj3rky]

Border defence only befits a few people (those in border states who don't want to take advantage of illegal labour), roads only befit some people (all be it the vast majority). Defence against terrorists is likely only to benefit those in urban environments (rural communities are unlikely targets for terrorist attacks).

I disagree with all those statements.

You are prepared to violate the right to property in order to benefit wider society in some cases, but you act as if some great moral principle has been violated when people disagree with you about which cases they should be.

Yep.

 

[Zep]

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

OK. This all assumes:

(1) The heavy drinkers make up the critical bulk of the bar's turnover;
(2) Smokers really do make up half the heavy drinkers;
(3) That, if smoking is banned, they will never EVER buy another drink there.

But...

(1) No proof this is so. And I would suggest that the bulk of any bar's turnover is made up from "the regulars", not the heavy drinkers (who I suspect number only a few).

In Australia, when smoking was banned, bars actually increased their custom, and diversified it too, by offering more than just a watering hole. They now offer good food (many are restaurant quality), better entertainment, gambling, conferencing, etc, etc. They are packed...far more than they used to be.

(2) Again, no proof this is so. And even if so, smokers would also number among the not-so-heavy drinkers.

(3) Proven wrong by facts. Heavy drinkers who are smokers simply will simply not smoke while drinking, but they WILL keep on drinking! The heavy drinkers are a dedicated lot - they will gladly forgo the cost and time for a drag on a ciggie if it gives them more drinking!


In summary, I'm not seeing any proof yet of the original assertion that smoking bans alone cause bars to go bankrupt. Bad management, poor operations or health issues, lack of business imagination, failure to adapt and improve, successful competition, etc, WILL cause bars to go bankrupt. Perhaps these issues had more to do with it entirely, n'cest pas?

 

[skeptifem]

Does this hypothetical bar use any city services? Public works? If there was a bar fight, could they call the police? Could they call 911 if there was a fire? Well, if they abide by the rules set out by the city to provide for the general health and welfare of the public, they can, but if they decide that they don't like living under the yoke of oppression, then it would seem that they should also be freed from any services provided by said yoke.

Handle your own drunks. Put out your own fires. Find your own source of water. Run your own generator. If you want to operate within the codes established by the local jurisdiction, you must operate within all of them. I warn you though that these codes are determined by the local people and their elected representatives for what they consider to be the health and welfare of their community, and their wishes may differ from yours. If you don't like them, please go away.

I missed this, but this doesnt make much sense. You are pretty much saying that the law is correct because its the law, and that if someone breaks one law they dont deserve any emergency services? Where is the logic in that exactly? The topic of discussion is wether or not making it legal to smoke in resteraunts is logical or not, not wether or not it is legal.

 

[Tricky]

I missed this, but this doesnt make much sense. You are pretty much saying that the law is correct because its the law, and that if someone breaks one law they dont deserve any emergency services? Where is the logic in that exactly?

No, I'm not saying the law is correct because it is the law, but I am saying that you don't get to violate laws (with impunity) just because you disagree with them. You work to change them or you violate them at your own risk. Logically, by opening a business that is governed by local ordinances, you are entering a contract to obey the local ordinances. If you violate the contract, then the community (in principle) should not be obliged to honor their part, which is to provide services. Of course, in practice this doesn't happen. They just deal with you as a lawbreaker and in most cases, close you down.

The topic of discussion is wether or not making it legal to smoke in resteraunts is logical or not, not wether or not it is legal.

Logical? Well, logical depends on your assumptions. If your assumption is that the personal freedom to smoke outweighs the risk of health issues (something the local government has every right to consider) then allowing smoking is logical. Reverse the assumption and the logic is reversed. So which assumption do you use? The government of your elected representatives determines that. More correctly, the branch of government which has jurisdiction over such things. Here is were we enter the legal quagmire.

From a personal position, I'm fine with smoking in restaurants provided there is reasonable separation from the smoke for non-smokers like me. My wife disagrees vehemently. Interestingly, we live outside the Houston city limits. Houston has enacted a total smoking ban in restaurants, but outside the city limits, there is no such ban in effect. So if we go out to dinner, I always lobby for convenience, i.e. a nearby restaurant, while she wants to drive into the city to avoid any possibility of smoke. By agreement, we can drive into the city provided she is the designated driver and can have only one drink at dinner.

 

[skeptifem]

OK. This all assumes:

(1) The heavy drinkers make up the critical bulk of the bar's turnover;
(2) Smokers really do make up half the heavy drinkers;
(3) That, if smoking is banned, they will never EVER buy another drink there.

But...

(1) No proof this is so. And I would suggest that the bulk of any bar's turnover is made up from "the regulars", not the heavy drinkers (who I suspect number only a few).

1. The critical bulk differs from bar to bar and I dont ever recall saying they would go under if smoking was banned- i can, however say that if all smokers dissapeared like in your question there would be less heavy drinkers about. Why would I assume that smoking, heavy drinkers go to bars less often than anyone else? You are trying to get me to say I claimed things that I never did. I claimed that businesses would suffer under the assumptions you laid out (that smokers would dissapear) and you are trying to make it look like i attribute a loss in business soley to the ban. I never said such a thing.
2. If you have evidence to prove me wrong post it. I posted evidence of smokers making up roughly half of heavy drinkers in the us.
3. No, I didnt assume that at all. You asked if all the smokers DISSAPEARED RAPTURE STYLE what would happen. You asked me a question under the assumption that they wouldnt be getting a drink from anywhere ever again.

In Australia, when smoking was banned, bars actually increased their custom, and diversified it too, by offering more than just a watering hole. They now offer good food (many are restaurant quality), better entertainment, gambling, conferencing, etc, etc. They are packed...far more than they used to be.

Unless you have proof that this is happening in america too there isnt a point in posting it.

(3) Proven wrong by facts. Heavy drinkers who are smokers simply will simply not smoke while drinking, but they WILL keep on drinking! The heavy drinkers are a dedicated lot - they will gladly forgo the cost and time for a drag on a ciggie if it gives them more drinking!

where is the evidence of that? Link to proof showing that smokers keep going to bars but stop smoking while there? Isnt it possible that the increase in AU bar attendance was mostly non smokers while the smokers opted to drink at home or at private parties?

In summary, I'm not seeing any proof yet of the original assertion that smoking bans alone cause bars to go bankrupt. Bad management, poor operations or health issues, lack of business imagination, failure to adapt and improve, successful competition, etc, WILL cause bars to go bankrupt. Perhaps these issues had more to do with it entirely, n'cest pas?

Well gee, you posted that aussie bars are doing better after the ban and consider it proof, but when someone posts that tempe bars are going out of business after a ban there it isnt proof?

And why is it that you attribute the smoking bans to a boost in bar attendance in AU, but if someone is to attribute a drop in business to the smoking bans you say there are too many variables to prove that? You can't have it both ways. it either makes an impact that is measurable, or it doesnt.

 

[Esperdome]

From a personal position, I'm fine with smoking in restaurants provided there is reasonable separation from the smoke for non-smokers like me. My wife disagrees vehemently. Interestingly, we live outside the Houston city limits. Houston has enacted a total smoking ban in restaurants, but outside the city limits, there is no such ban in effect. So if we go out to dinner, I always lobby for convenience, i.e. a nearby restaurant, while she wants to drive into the city to avoid any possibility of smoke. By agreement, we can drive into the city provided she is the designated driver and can have only one drink at dinner.

Baytown has been smoke-free, at least at restaurants, for several years now.

The strangest thing about it for me is not getting the "Smoking or non-smoking?" question the instant you walk in the door.

 

[pipelineaudio]

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.

Ahhh its so confusing, this issue! ABout the bar staff however, Id like to see that even a significant minority are opposed to smoking in bars, I wouldnt believe it

 

[pipelineaudio]

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?

That would probably actually be not as bad of a hit for the bars than a smoking ban. In the ban scenario, those that are WITH the party who has made to feel unwelcome will back the party they are with. This has been proven in the real world over and over again.

Think of a office crowd that goes for drinks after work. When they go check out a new Stupid Stereotype Redneck Bar the staff doesnt seem to happy to serve "the darkies" and some customers are outright hostile.

Do you think ONLY the object of discrimination leaves? hell no, the whole party leaves