I am on www.facebook.com and there I have found a group of people (about 400) strong who want to ban smoking in all restaurants, and businesses, and apartment buildings and so on..
Working under the assumption that the very basic principals of the States' Constitution i.e. justice and common defense and within a represenative democracy are established and also just, what sort of arguement whould you throw up against those people.
(even if you personally think all government should be done away with, it should lay great inroads into a communists minds to talk about the justice of the issue and then let that person make the logical connection to other issues, until no government is left.)
so okay ready? GO!
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
I've always made a simple property rights arguements on this issue. The issue is not smoking vs. non-smoking or smokers vs. non-smokers, the issue at hand is wether or not the owner of the establishment has the liberty to decide the matter for themselves as to wether or not to allow smoking. If the owner decides to allow smoking, then those who wish to avoid smoking should either put up with it, patronize another establishment or try to open up their own non-smoking establishments. If the owner decides to not allow smoking, then smokers should either put up with it, patronize another establishment or open up their own establishments that allow smoking.
Freedom of association has pluralistic implications. In an atmosphere of freedom of association, it is important to have a sense of "tolerance" for the various preferences and arrangement that are inevitably going to co-exist in such a society. Those who wish to ban freedom of association in the name of uniformly enforcing their personal preferances onto everyone else lack the vigilance necessary to deal with liberty. The world is not a utopia or a completely black canvas for us to paint on. There is no such thing as a "right" to have your personal preferences enforced on someone else's property.
Of course, many advocates of state-wide or nation-wide smoking bans are going to claim that they have a "right to breath clean air". They are caught up in the doctrine of positive rights (I believe Walter Block has made some excellent arguements against positive rights in a video posted on this site a while back). In reality, they only have a "right to breath clean air" either (1) on their own property, I.E. I do not have a right to dirty up or stink up the air in their own home or establishment against their will or (2) on the property of others who themselves do not wish for their homes or establishments to be dirtied or stunk up.
Another common arguement made by smoking-ban advocates is "it's a public place". But a restraunt or bar is a private institution. It is only "public" insofar as the public are welcome to patronize them. But you must abide by their rules as soon as you decide to patronize them. I cannot just walk into your home and demand that you appease my personal and aesthetic preferences; you set the rules and cosmetic setup for your own home and you don't have to invite me in. If you do not like the way my household functions, you do not have to enter it or associate with me. Why should a buisiness establishment work any differently? If someone really doesn't like how the buisiness does things, they should boycott them and patronize someone else.
your second paragraph is quite helpfull I had employed the other points, but what I run up against is the particulars of the case. they say that smoking=poisioning others. and of course you can not poison a person's body (their property) regardless of where he is. and I must agree with that much. should I reduce down to the particular and try the monotonous arguement that 2nd hand smoke is not poison??
I've argued the points of indivual rights and (private) property rights at nausium. but there is no budge...
Some people are doing to continueing believing what they believe no matter how much logic and empirical evidence you throw at them.
The only times I will debate with a socialist are when:
- I gain by having to reorganize my thought patterns and sharpen my wits.
- There are undecided onlookers that I may influence.
I do not debate with a socialist to change his mind: you can't do it. And if by a stroke of luck he does change his mind it just means he was already ready to do so and just needed proper arguments, which is quite rare. As far as I can tell, there is a single pure socialist I like debating with (a university teacher most students don't talk to because he is very harsh and likes to make girls cry- really- lol) with and its only because he is so harsh that being able to stand the heat and put him back in his place feels so great. Not many people actually care to stand against me and argue for HOURS at a time. Most people here, even university students, just shun at the idea of debating about philosophy and epistemology (if they know the word to begin with) and the likes. At first he thought I was just a simple "right-winger" following a bandwagon. Now he may not agree with me, but we share a mutual respect in the sense that we know both of us put a lot of time thinking of our point of view .
sigh. I want to argue with you right now! but I think you're right...
okay but the question is how do you tell if someone has an open mind, but is just really confused and doesn't get it or is just... intrensicly stupid? I mean if socialism were really best, and it could work and someone could show us, we would change... but we are what we are because we have researched and studied and found to be our (respective) "systems" to be best? RIGHT?
bbbbut why then would they engage in such a long debate... okay you're right, but listen I think its still important to do actually deabte a socialist.. I call it areana debating. it isnt something you'ld do in Instant message or in any sort of personal conversation, here you are doing it for the sake of the on looker, that undecided fellow or the bandwagon commie... in which case I want to make sure my ideas are as sharp as possible... so... establish individual rights, rights to property, and talk about tolerance to let other people do what they do so long as it doesn't directly harm others, their property and yadda yadda...
and thats it? I mean I just want to make sure I haven't overlooked anything. I (like most of the people on here I think) have been self taught in the values of classical liberalism, and limited gov't through this site and lots and lots of reading. so I don't know if I am an A student or not... and when faced with such tenacious resistance it makes me wonder if I'm gettin it right.
Attackdonkey:I am on www.facebook.com and there I have found a group of people (about 400) strong who want to ban smoking in all restaurants, and businesses, and apartment buildings and so on.. Working under the assumption that the very basic principals of the States' Constitution i.e. justice and common defense and within a represenative democracy are established and also just, what sort of arguement whould you throw up against those people. (even if you personally think all government should be done away with, it should lay great inroads into a communists minds to talk about the justice of the issue and then let that person make the logical connection to other issues, until no government is left.) so okay ready? GO!
I'm an ex-smoker and I partially agree with them.
Tell them that they don't need to ban it -- just require that smoking areas be away from the general public and well-ventilated.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Nathyn: I'm an ex-smoker and I partially agree with them.Tell them that they don't need to ban it -- just require that smoking areas be away from the general public and well-ventilated.
well look, this is fine in a gov't building, city hall, city library, but it is not okay in someone else's business, they want to impose on restaurant owners and the like.
Attackdonkey: Nathyn: I'm an ex-smoker and I partially agree with them.Tell them that they don't need to ban it -- just require that smoking areas be away from the general public and well-ventilated. well look, this is fine in a gov't building, city hall, city library, but it is not okay in someone else's business, they want to impose on restaurant owners and the like. if you are in favor of this... you must be new to the site.
if you are in favor of this... you must be new to the site.
There is no place in America where smokers outnumber non-smokers and most non-smokers are extremely annoyed when they have to deal with smoke. So, requiring business owners to cordone off smokers into a certain area harms no one except for possibly creating a slightly higher cost for business owners that haven't yet established such areas. That doesn't seem to bother me.
Cigarette smoke is a pretty good example of an externality. Such bans would improve public health, if only by a tiny amount, but on a large-scale, that means a substantial change for the better.
I know most of you are Libertarians and I'm not a Libertarian. I just enjoy speaking with them.
Also, one more thing: You shouldn't label anyone who supports regulation as Socialist. Keynesianism is not Marxism. And there are plenty of European Liberals who would probably advocate public bans on smoking.
oh... okay Keynesianism... got it.
I dont smoke, I prefer not to be around cigerette smoke, and it pisses me off because it is such low quality tobacco. so these sorts of bans dont bother me, infact they help me on a personal level... (save any economic consequences passed onto me by the owner, because owners pay for nothing, the cost is always passed onto the consumer)
It is the principal that bothers me, if I own an establishment, I should be the one to set the rules. now if you want to petition and lobby the business owner... or boycott the business this is all fine and good... but lets try to keep government out of it ... eh? lest they decide to impose in some other area.
Keynesianism? So this is why you don't make any sense. Keynes is a farce.
Did you know that everything Keynes wrote that was new is false and everything that is correct was not new?
First off, deontological arguments won't work for most people (neither do I). Socialists are utilitarians. They want practical solutions.
You have to first convert these socialists to capitalists. In a socialist's mind, they think that businesses can exploit people by allowing smoking. Deregulate the economy so more businesses can compete, so there are more businesses that do not allow smoking. Therefore, you have the option to choose to go to businesses that do not allow smoking.
Nathyn, if you're not a libertarian, what are you? You don't seem like a commie or a liberal even.
Nathyn: There is no place in America where smokers outnumber non-smokers and most non-smokers are extremely annoyed when they have to deal with smoke. So, requiring business owners to cordone off smokers into a certain area harms no one except for possibly creating a slightly higher cost for business owners that haven't yet established such areas. That doesn't seem to bother me.
They don't have to deal with smoke - they could not go to restaurants and bars that allow smoking, or that don't cordon off smokers. Requiring businesses to cordone off smokers certainly harms someone - the restaurant owner who didn't want to. He had some reason for not wanting to, didn't he, or else you wouldn't need to threaten to shoot him if he didn't do it.
There is no place in America where fatties outnumber the non-fatties and most mesomorphs and ectomorphs are extremely annoyed when they have to look at muffintops. So, requiring business owners to cordone off the fatsos into a certain area harms no one except for possibly creating a slightly higher cost for business owners that haven't yet established such areas. That doesn't seem to bother me.
Attackdonkey:I am on www.facebook.com and there I have found a group of people (about 400) strong who want to ban smoking in all restaurants, and businesses, and apartment buildings and so on..
I don't think you can use sophisticated arguments with people of this sort - arguing property rights and so forth rarely penetrates. I try (with very little success I might add) to analogize:
These people drive cars, and cars emit carcinogens, teratogens and mutagens, and since nobody can escape these emissions when walking down the street, or even when inside buildings, then the logic that supports banning cigarette smoking would also support banning all automobiles. So if these folks are serious, they need to stop driving immediately, else they're hypocrites.
As noted, it's not the most effective argument, but frankly, I have not found that any amount of argument ever really does much good with people as steeped in collectivist, coercive thinking as the smoking ***.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. - Goethe
baxter: Nathyn: There is no place in America where smokers outnumber non-smokers and most non-smokers are extremely annoyed when they have to deal with smoke. So, requiring business owners to cordone off smokers into a certain area harms no one except for possibly creating a slightly higher cost for business owners that haven't yet established such areas. That doesn't seem to bother me. There is no place in America where fatties outnumber the non-fatties and most mesomorphs and ectomorphs are extremely annoyed when they have to look at muffintops. So, requiring business owners to cordone off the fatsos into a certain area harms no one except for possibly creating a slightly higher cost for business owners that haven't yet established such areas. That doesn't seem to bother me.
ROFL ... nicely put.
Nathyn - State coercion harms ALL of us, especially inasmuch as it conditions people to become accustomed to being coerced - by the entity whose only reason for being - according to the DoI - is to secure our rights. You are arguing for a State which performs positive interventions, and the problem there is that you cannot control it once that starts. As I think is blindingly obvious to anyone who takes a quick look around.
So while this may not bother you, under what ethical principle do you get to say that others who ARE bothered by it should be disregarded? Because you don't mind when the State coerces others, then the rest of us have to just accept it?
I'm really curious what your political persuasion is - even non-anarchist libertarians generally agree that the State can only legitimately perform negative interventions, yet you consistently argue for positive ones. Do you buy self-ownership, for example? Your positions seem to conflict with that principle.
Nathyn:Cigarette smoke is a pretty good example of an externality. Such bans would improve public health, if only by a tiny amount, but on a large-scale, that means a substantial change for the better.
Cigarette smoke is not an externality in the vast majority of circumstances. It generally is only a problem indoors, and its effect rarely extends outside someone's property. As such, its something a market can deal with easily. Business owners who allow smoking in their premises must do so knowing that it could cost them business, or help their business, depending on their clientel.
Smoking bans are popular because the voters do not bare the cost of the ban, and most people are slightly annoyed by cigarette smoke. The market of course does place a small cost on a smoke-free business, so its less attractive to those who don't mind using government to "solve problems".
I personally don't have any problem with the government banning smoking on its own property. Although I don't think government property is legitimately acquired and I'd prefer it didn't exist at all, I'd rather have some sort of ownership be exercised over it, even via a very imperfect democratic process. Unowned and unregulated property (chaos?) seems to be the worst of all worlds to me.
That's not a good analogy, because the act of being fat doesn't harm anyone through contact, the same as with smoke.
But yes, obesity is somewhat of an externality too, driving up the cost of healthcare and so on. Reasonable steps to lower obesity -- like the decision not too long ago to require labeling of trans fats -- are also a good idea. Sometimes, the government can go too far, such as the FDA wanting to regulate salt. This isn't one of those cases.
It really seems so silly the way that Libertarians treat the tiniest restriction of their freedom as tyranny. If they levy a 5 cent tax on bubble gum, you're out in the streets, picketing.
Nathyn:It really seems so silly the way that Libertarians treat the tiniest restriction of their freedom as tyranny. If they levy a 5 cent tax on bubble gum, you're out in the streets, picketing.
Thanks for the proffered value judgment - I don't think I'll accept it.
It really seems silly to me that you support unworkable proposals which will not make a dent in the overall level of health by any measurable scientific metric, but which will condition the populace to accept coercion as their rightful due and empower the State, which is demonstrably the primary threat to human health, States having killed 260M people in the 20th century. You are of course free to not accept this value judgment because you are free to form your own opinions. At least, until the State grows powerful enough through seemingly mundane and incremental conversions of social power to decide your opinions for you and enforce them upon you.
Nathyn, A penny saved is a penny earned. I work long, tiring hours to provide for myself and my family and don’t need or want anyone robbing me of my hard earned cash--even is it is just an extra nickel for a pack of gum.
Most of the time arguing with fanatics (anti-smokers in this case) is completely pointless --you’ll just end up giving yourself a headache. Like other posters have said, you’re not going to change any of their minds. To me and you it seems obvious that this is an issue that should be decided by the business owner; if you don’t like it you’re free to walk across the street and eat elsewhere. But by their logic, they have to right to enjoy a smoke-free cheeseburger anywhere they choose, even at the expense of telling the owner of the local burger joint that he can’t enjoy a smoke in his own building. Kind of funny though--“because I choose not to smoke, you have no choice but not to smoke in my presence” Ridiculous.
I have the right to light and enjoy a cigarette just like you have to right to take two steps to the left and enjoy the smoke-free “fresh air“.
Nathyn: It really seems so silly the way that Libertarians treat the tiniest restriction of their freedom as tyranny. If they levy a 5 cent tax on bubble gum, you're out in the streets, picketing.
A penny saved is a penny earned. I work long, tiring hours to provide for myself and my family and don’t need or want anyone robbing me of my hard earned cash--even is it is just an extra nickel for a pack of gum.
Nathyn:But yes, obesity is somewhat of an externality too, driving up the cost of healthcare and so on.
Thats only true in the case of socialized health care. In the vast majority of cases, cigarette smoke is not an externality at all, or at leat not much of one. With about 50% of health care spending being done by the government, I'd say obesity is a much, much more serious externality in our health care system than second-hand smoke.
ozzy43: Nathyn:It really seems so silly the way that Libertarians treat the tiniest restriction of their freedom as tyranny. If they levy a 5 cent tax on bubble gum, you're out in the streets, picketing. Thanks for the proffered value judgment - I don't think I'll accept it. It really seems silly to me that you support unworkable proposals which will not make a dent in the overall level of health by any measurable scientific metric, but which will condition the populace to accept coercion as their rightful due and empower the State, which is demonstrably the primary threat to human health, States having killed 260M people in the 20th century. You are of course free to not accept this value judgment because you are free to form your own opinions. At least, until the State grows powerful enough through seemingly mundane and incremental conversions of social power to decide your opinions for you and enforce them upon you.
Wait, since when do you care about the "measurable scientific metric"?
Hallo from Brazil,
I've just just joined this forum in order to add my 5 cents to the subject (actually, 4.9 cents owing to the inflation).
You must surely know that old joke "Q: how many psychotherapists are required to change a broken light bulb? -- A: just one, but the light bulb must wish to be changed". Sorry for that , the idea is just to illustrate my belief - based on personal experience - that debating with a socialist, or interventionist, or big-gov't supporter, may be a substantial time loss, *unless* he (she) has an open mind and wishes to challenge the surface of the "truth" absorbed through indoctrination.
Until 2005 I used to be a mild leftist, theoretically aligned with the so-called social-democratic thought, mainly because of the virtual monopoly established by the left in Brazil, be it in the media, university, arts or other areas. A severe brainwashing of the society, exacty as foreseen by Gramsci, has been implemented in this country, and as a result, anyone who dares speak a word against the overwhelming tide of collectivist rubbish is viewed as a selfish, wild capitalist who wishes to maintain the unjust "neo-liberal economic system" (whatever that newspeak-forged term means) and oppress/ exploit the poor masses etc. etc.
In 2005 I had the opportunity to read an article written by the Brazilian conservative philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, and on his website I found a link to Mises.org. I started reading everything I could, and at first I was in shock to discover that the skyscraper of mainstream economics and politics has been built onto the inconsistent foundations of socialism and suppression of freedom, at the cost of millions of human lives and an autophagic warfare-welfare state structure.
I took the Mises quiz "Are you an Austrian?" and realized to be surfing somewhere near the Chicago School, Keynesians and other confusing economic doctrines.
Mises' essays on bureaucracy, interventionism, socialism and freedom, in addition to Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto, were just enough to demolish the already cracked building of my pseudo-socialist economic & political beliefs.
It was hard for my poor ego to discover, at the age of 44, that I'd been totally wrong in so many vital areas of knowledge.
Since then, I've been reading - whenever possible, as my time for studying economics is scarce - some fundamental essays and e-books on Mises.org.
I try to read at least some essays or articles every day, while setting some ambitious mid-term goals such as, for instance, reading Human Action and other Austrian cornerstones. Perhaps too much for a humble engineer, but anyway the experience has been enlightening.
My mind has radically changed with respect to practical life, for example: I'm no more working as a regular employee but already 1 year as an independent engineering consultant; I'm no more contributing to state-managed (?) social security but look now forward to find a suitable private plan; i.e., some steps to reassure my refusal to take part in the "statolatrist" machine.
In summary, anyone sincerely interested in learning sound economics and embracing freedom and a fully consistent system of understanding reality should get rid of prejudices and seek the truth.
Last but not least, going back to the subject of this thread, I can only agree with the libertarian viewpoint. Even though I'm a non-smoker - and personally find smoking a disgusting habit, having seen in my own family the devastating consequences to health it brings -- I support the idea that I have no right to stop others from smoking - except inside my own house/ store/ property whatsoever.
The main point is: "why are there still millions of people who believe that any subject, left to gov't to take care of, will have a better result than provided by private economic agents", when the counter-evidences are so obvious ??? Perhaps the overall "Peter-Pan-Syndrome" that has caught modern societies causing adults to behave like eternal teenagers, demanding for rights without responsibilities??
Nathyn --- You're the Libertarian on this one. Rothbard clearly states the Libertarian Creed: No man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.
Exposing anyone to second-hand smoke without their permission is such an aggression. That's why smoking in public places and buildings and even the streets, unless the smoker is a certain distance from any other person so that they do not breath any of his smoke (say 100 yards), is an assault on property rights. Actually an assault with a deadly weapon.
There is ample backing for this smoking-restriction in Libertarian doctrine in the writings of F A Hayek. He maintains, in "The Road to Serfdom", that government can legitimately impose restrictions on air pollution. If your neighbor burns plastic and the smoke crosses over the property line, that is a physical assault on you. Hayek also says that society can guaranteed a certain level of sustenance to its members without becoming necessarily collectivist. He maintains that certain minimal government functions beyond that of the police are legit and that they don't necessarily mean one is on the road to Stalinism.
The "Libertarians" you are debating with here are more radical. I think the're dead wrong on second-hand smoke.
Paul Grad:There is ample backing for this smoking-restriction in Libertarian doctrine in the writings of F A Hayek.
As our new friend from Brazil put it in the final lines of his post that appears just millimeters above yours:
The main point is: "why are there still millions of people who believe that any subject, left to gov't to take care of, will have a better result than provided by private economic agents", when the counter-evidences are so obvious ???
In other words, a libertarian position would ALWAYS look for ways to accomplish meritorious goals through civil society mechanisms prior to asserting a State role. You seem to have jumped right over that crucial step and taken it straight to the State. Hardly libertarian.
Paul Grad:That's why smoking in public places and buildings and even the streets, unless the smoker is a certain distance from any other person so that they do not breath any of his smoke (say 100 yards), is an assault on property rights. Actually an assault with a deadly weapon.
I don't think anyone should smoke in public places, buildings, or publicly owned streets. I also don't think anyone should breathe in public places, buildings, or publicly owned roads. That's because there shouldn't be public places, buildings, or publicly owned streets.
JAlanKatz: Paul Grad:That's why smoking in public places and buildings and even the streets, unless the smoker is a certain distance from any other person so that they do not breath any of his smoke (say 100 yards), is an assault on property rights. Actually an assault with a deadly weapon. I don't think anyone should smoke in public places, buildings, or publicly owned streets. I also don't think anyone should breathe in public places, buildings, or publicly owned roads. That's because there shouldn't be public places, buildings, or publicly owned streets.
Where would you house the mint?
ozzy43: Paul Grad:There is ample backing for this smoking-restriction in Libertarian doctrine in the writings of F A Hayek.This may be an arguable position (depending if actual harm has been done) - that it's a private property rights issue - but why then jump immediately to the conclusion that State coercion is the proper mechanism of restriction, as you seem to have done??? As our new friend from Brazil put it in the final lines of his post that appears just millimeters above yours: The main point is: "why are there still millions of people who believe that any subject, left to gov't to take care of, will have a better result than provided by private economic agents", when the counter-evidences are so obvious ??? In other words, a libertarian position would ALWAYS look for ways to accomplish meritorious goals through civil society mechanisms prior to asserting a State role. You seem to have jumped right over that crucial step and taken it straight to the State. Hardly libertarian.
Well, I'm approaching this from a Jeffersonian view of government's role as warranter of the Creator-given inalienable Rights, one of which is Life. Government is allowed to use coercion in defense of property rights, in fact that is its sole function, so if someone assaults my person with a poison against my will, government must come in and protect my right, so a general law against exposing others to second-hand tobacco smoke is fully justified under Jefferson. All this assumes you accept second-hand tobacco smoke is harmful, which I think is incontrovertable based on the scientific evidence. If you don't believe that, they your argument against government coercion in this matter would have, I think, some basis. (For example, can the government ban me from smoking spearmint or coffee on the streets?)
Also, if you are speaking of a theoretical society, and not the US under our Constitution, then the results may be different.
Another reason I have jumped right to a government coercive role is that I and countless others have been exposed, and continue to be exposed, to tobacco smoke for the last 50 years, and your civil society mechanisms haven't done one bit of good in stopping me, and my fellow citizens, from being poisoned on the streets against our will. Your mechanism hasn't worked, so if government won't intervene, a citizen's sole remedy would be to make an armed response against this deadly physical aggression against themselves and their children.
And what of the unborn baby in the womb, who cannot vote or sue. If you feel that is a separate individual, then how can his Rights to not be assaulted be warranted without State or government intervention?
So let me get this straight, you want the government to invade private property owners' premises to prosecute people who are there by the owner's voluntary consent... and call this libertarian? If you were making an argument regarding government-owned premises I might agree. But you're not. So I don't. Please do not try and paint this as 'libertarian'.
AttackDonkey...personally, I find facebook to be quite....interventionist in their thinking. I have personally stopped arguing with one guy about how the minimum wage is harmful(he personally believes it was the sole cause of ending the great depression).
Anyways, onto the topic. My favorite way of debunking any argument is bringing it to its logical conclusion. Apply it in another situation..and see if it makes sense. If smoking is poisonous..then let us ban smoking in homes. I mean, THINK OF THE CHILDREN! The children of these families are being poisoned by the parent's cigarette smoke. Of course, I doubt they would support such a ban. I mean, it's someone's home.
I learned this sort of technique from reading articles by Stephen Molyneux. Check out some of his articles from LRC. You can use this technique with practically ANY sort of policy. Even discrimination.
Personally, I had an argument in my management information systems class(wierd..I know) about discrimination laws. I asked them that if it is ok for a consumer to not shop at a store because the owner was black. Nobody minded that. So then, if I as a person can discriminate like that, why can't business owners? The argument put forth was that I am affecting many people because of it. I didn't think of it on the spot, but the same could be said about me that particular consumer not shopping at the store. I could be taking away potential sale for that person. That money could then be potentially taken away from another merchant..who affects millions of people...etc. Just another way of "reducto ad absurdium" works in debunking arguments(even though sometimes, people believe the ridiculous arguments)
Paul Grad:Government is allowed to use coercion in defense of property rights
So, given the past 200 years of American history, what makes you so certain that you can stop government at that point? Isn't history clear on this - a government of limited and enumerated powers inevitably grows to a monster of coercion. So your stated position seems to be wildly unrealistic and completely at odds with the reality of history and politics.
Paul Grad:All this assumes you accept second-hand tobacco smoke is harmful, which I think is incontrovertable based on the scientific evidence.
Please provide a pointer to that scientific evidence to back up this assertion.
Paul Grad:Another reason I have jumped right to a government coercive role is that I and countless others have been exposed, and continue to be exposed, to tobacco smoke for the last 50 years, and your civil society mechanisms haven't done one bit of good in stopping me, and my fellow citizens, from being poisoned on the streets against our will.
What civil society mechanisms? The State in this nation has - *especially* over the last 50 years and more! - usurped civil society functions to the point where those mechanisms have become almost negligible. This is similar to those arguments which postulate that our 'free market economy' keeps failing and thus we need the State to step in and regulate and manage the economy, when in fact we do not HAVE a free market economy, and those examples of 'failure' (e.g. the Great Depression through Enron) are in fact due entirely to State meddling in the economy in the first place. Thus, this argument is simply a straw man based on a non-factual reading of reality.
In a true free market economy where there is a determined and fundamental respect for property rights - including your right to NOT be poisoned by others' cigarette smoke, you would have recourse and it would be costless and easy of access. I maintain that under such a system, this issue would be almost immediately resolved in YOR favor (providing that the harm could be proven, which you assert is the case).
But you have no such recourse under our present system - not because civil society mechanisms do not work, but because there are no such mechanisms in place since the State has arrogated that protective role to itself - and yet, that State, which is the root cause of your lack of recourse, is to whom you turn?? This seems to me an awful lot like environmentalists who want to turn over pollution 'control' to the nation's worst polluter - the State!
Also, if you truly believe in the logic you are espousing, you need to stop driving today. The emissions from your vehicle have no doubt negatively impacted the health of innumerable of your fellow citizens. To continue to drive - and thus poison your fellow citizens - while attempting to use the powers of the State to coerce those same citizens into not poisoning you is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Inquisitor: So let me get this straight, you want the government to invade private property owners' premises to prosecute people who are there by the owner's voluntary consent... and call this libertarian? If you were making an argument regarding government-owned premises I might agree. But you're not. So I don't. Please do not try and paint this as 'libertarian'.
Inquisitor --- No, I said nothing about private property owner's premises (unless the smoke accessed the public street). I said above "In public places and buildings and in the street" meaning public places and PUBLIC buildings. On private property the right of consenting adults, owners and customers, to do what they liked would seem inviable.
ozzy43: Paul Grad:Government is allowed to use coercion in defense of property rights So, given the past 200 years of American history, what makes you so certain that you can stop government at that point? Isn't history clear on this - a government of limited and enumerated powers inevitably grows to a monster of coercion. So your stated position seems to be wildly unrealistic and completely at odds with the reality of history and politics. Paul Grad:All this assumes you accept second-hand tobacco smoke is harmful, which I think is incontrovertable based on the scientific evidence. Please provide a pointer to that scientific evidence to back up this assertion. Paul Grad:Another reason I have jumped right to a government coercive role is that I and countless others have been exposed, and continue to be exposed, to tobacco smoke for the last 50 years, and your civil society mechanisms haven't done one bit of good in stopping me, and my fellow citizens, from being poisoned on the streets against our will. What civil society mechanisms? The State in this nation has - *especially* over the last 50 years and more! - usurped civil society functions to the point where those mechanisms have become almost negligible. This is similar to those arguments which postulate that our 'free market economy' keeps failing and thus we need the State to step in and regulate and manage the economy, when in fact we do not HAVE a free market economy, and those examples of 'failure' (e.g. the Great Depression through Enron) are in fact due entirely to State meddling in the economy in the first place. Thus, this argument is simply a straw man based on a non-factual reading of reality. In a true free market economy where there is a determined and fundamental respect for property rights - including your right to NOT be poisoned by others' cigarette smoke, you would have recourse and it would be costless and easy of access. I maintain that under such a system, this issue would be almost immediately resolved in YOR favor (providing that the harm could be proven, which you assert is the case). But you have no such recourse under our present system - not because civil society mechanisms do not work, but because there are no such mechanisms in place since the State has arrogated that protective role to itself - and yet, that State, which is the root cause of your lack of recourse, is to whom you turn?? This seems to me an awful lot like environmentalists who want to turn over pollution 'control' to the nation's worst polluter - the State! Also, if you truly believe in the logic you are espousing, you need to stop driving today. The emissions from your vehicle have no doubt negatively impacted the health of innumerable of your fellow citizens. To continue to drive - and thus poison your fellow citizens - while attempting to use the powers of the State to coerce those same citizens into not poisoning you is hypocrisy of the highest order.
As far as backing up the tobacco harm assertion, I'd refer you to the work of Prof. Neal L Benowitz, M.D. of the University of California at San Francisco's Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education. He is the author of 300 peer reviewed articles on tobacco addiction, and was the Senior Scientific Editor of the 1988 U.S. Surgeon General's Report on "Nicotine Addiction". He is also Director of the FAMRI Center of Excellence on Second-hand Smoke.
I am very puzzled that you ask me "What civil society mechanisms?" since you are the one who introduced the term when you stated in an earlier post "A Libertarian position would always look for ways to accomplish merotricious goals through civil society mechanisms, prior to asserting a state role". So you have introduced a term, then I repeat it back to you, and then you ask me to define it as if I were the one who introduced the term. Perhaps you can clear the confusion by defining the term yourself, and telling me what you meant.
Paul Grad:Ozzy --- Absolutely nothing makes me certain I can stop government at that point, except the intelligence of a literate public constantly vigilant in the defense of the Rights innumerated in the Constitution.
You know, we aren't having this discussion in a vaccum. At present, the government you are asking for protection from smoke has taken away habeas corpus, engages in torture, uses confessions obtained through torture, and is running a detention camp. This government is taking people, American citizens included, to foreign countries for questioning, and is preparing at this time to pass a thought-crime bill. It also is engaging in wiretaps, domestic spying, and information mining. The question of trust is indeed relevant. Is this really the time that it makes sense to argue for yet another area in which the government should have power? Have the mechanisms you mentioned above worked?
Paul Grad:Where would you house the mint?
Hahahahahahaha. Yes, you're right, I'm very concerned about ensuring that the government has ways to inflate the currency.
Paul Grad:Inquisitor --- No, I said nothing about private property owner's premises (unless the smoke accessed the public street). I said above "In public places and buildings and in the street" meaning public places and PUBLIC buildings. On private property the right of consenting adults, owners and customers, to do what they liked would seem inviable.
Fair enough.
Xevec, they will usually try and argue that workplaces etc. are 'public' places and therefore the government has the right to regulate them. A non sequitur, really.