debating with a socialist... or someone who wants to "ban smoking everywhere"

Paul Grad:

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.

In other words, something we do not have, have not had for well over a century, and are not likely to see in the future. So you are basing your position about what should happen based upon a reality that is little more than wishful thinking. Doesn't this seem a bit - fanciful - to posit as a basis for your argument?

Paul Grad:

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.

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that second hand smoke can cause harm. Question becomes one of proportionality, obviously. You noted "a citizen's sole remedy would be to make an armed response against this deadly physical aggression against themselves and their children." Is it truly your position that, absent government coercion, a legitimate response to catching a whiff of smoke on a public street is murder? Of course not - because of proportionality. Let's bear that in mind as we go - hyperbole doesn't serve the purposes of debate well.

Paul Grad:

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.

Let me explain this to you more simply then. I maintain that, absent State usurpation of what are more properly civil society preprogatives (e.g. providing for the poor), then innumerable civil society mechanisms come into being to address various issue - spontaneous order. For example, the innumerable mutual aid societies of the 19th century, at which time one in 3 adult males in the US were involved in these societies. But when the State usurps such functions, the civil society mechanisms disappear, because the State has thus 'taken over' and forced out the private, civil society organizations. So, my position was that, in a system which is NOT dependent on the State, where the State does NOT usurp the functions of civil society, we could expect to see more effective and efficient resolution of social issues like second hand smoke. But you then tried to apply this to our CURRENT system - the system in which those private initiatives do not exist because the State has arrogated to itself all protective functions. So you took the assertion I made, took it out of context, used it improperly, and then tried to claim this was proof that my proposal was unworkable. But the only thing unworkable in that process was your logic.

ozzy43:

Paul Grad:

Government is allowed to use coercion in defense of property rights

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. 

 

I did not see an answer to this one - can I presume you continue to drive a car, despite the knowledge that this is harmful to your fellow citizens' health?

I don't mean to be facetious - well, OK, perhaps I do, a little - but I haven't really seen you respond to the major points of my argument, including this one.

FYI - I am willing to stipulate that second hand smoke is harmful, to get that off the table, though with the proviso that just *how* dangerous is directly dependent on proportionality. 

 

ozzy43:

Paul Grad:

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.

In other words, something we do not have, have not had for well over a century, and are not likely to see in the future. So you are basing your position about what should happen based upon a reality that is little more than wishful thinking. Doesn't this seem a bit - fanciful - to posit as a basis for your argument?

Paul Grad:

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.

For the sake of argument, let's stipulate that second hand smoke can cause harm. Question becomes one of proportionality, obviously. You noted "a citizen's sole remedy would be to make an armed response against this deadly physical aggression against themselves and their children." Is it truly your position that, absent government coercion, a legitimate response to catching a whiff of smoke on a public street is murder? Of course not - because of proportionality. Let's bear that in mind as we go - hyperbole doesn't serve the purposes of debate well.

Paul Grad:

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.

Let me explain this to you more simply then. I maintain that, absent State usurpation of what are more properly civil society preprogatives (e.g. providing for the poor), then innumerable civil society mechanisms come into being to address various issue - spontaneous order. For example, the innumerable mutual aid societies of the 19th century, at which time one in 3 adult males in the US were involved in these societies. But when the State usurps such functions, the civil society mechanisms disappear, because the State has thus 'taken over' and forced out the private, civil society organizations. So, my position was that, in a system which is NOT dependent on the State, where the State does NOT usurp the functions of civil society, we could expect to see more effective and efficient resolution of social issues like second hand smoke. But you then tried to apply this to our CURRENT system - the system in which those private initiatives do not exist because the State has arrogated to itself all protective functions. So you took the assertion I made, took it out of context, used it improperly, and then tried to claim this was proof that my proposal was unworkable. But the only thing unworkable in that process was your logic.

Ozzy --- I am less pessimistic than you are about the ultimate victory of the Jeffersonian philosophy. It has never seen the ultimate conditions of free-markets within the framework of the Constitution, melded with modern technology, which would produce a super-capitalism with vast prosperity. Since we've either been under socialism or, when there was a large degree of free-market, we were in the dark ages of technology, America has never experienced anywhere near true free-market capitalism. So, I don't think you should be so pessimistic about the theory behind Jefferson's Constitution; it's never really been carried into praxis. Society must learn to cherish the wisdom of insecurity.

The whole question of proportionallity seems completely irrelevent to me to the question of the rule of law, and I am shocked that a so-called libertarian, who believes in the sacredness of property rights, would condone the violation of those Creator-given inalienable rights. More specifically, since second-hand smoke is known to raise the risk of heart attack in the victim, and if I have read this information in a major medical journal like the Lancet, or a publication of the University of California, then if you directly blow a lungful of smoke into my infant daughter's face on the street as I walk by you, and she gets a full lunger, then I am well within my rights to regard that as a deadly assault. If I value the property rights of my own body, as many in America do not, I may also regard any tobacco exposure as an assault on my whole health integrity, especially since I may be investing vast amounts of treasure and time to maintain my health. Your exposing me to tobacco has assaulted the entire integrity of my health in my view, and since you refuse to do your duty under the Jeffersonian constitution we are both living under, then you leave me know alternative but to defend the rights myself. And since, as I pointed out in an earlier post, those "civil society mechanisms" you talk of have failed to protect me for the last 20 years, whatever the reason you give for that failure, since the Surgeon General's report on nicotine addiction was released in 1988, you are failing in your Jeffersonian responsibilities towards me and yourself. You leave me no alternative to enforcing my rights with a gun because what you really are proposing appears to me to be a return to the law of the jungle, the Hobbes-Locke State of Nature.

Once you violate the rule of law, you are on the road to either collectivism or the law of the jungle. Your proportionality argument excuses this very fundamental tenet of libertarianism. Proportionality is a form of utilitarian incrementalism in my view. Perhaps a test case will arise at some point if the government continues to fail in its responsibility to defend the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit, and we will have a court debate that can further clarify the issues involved.

Your mutual aid societies, which 1 in 3 males were members of in the good old days, cannot guarantee my Rights or the Rights of 100% of my fellow citizens.

If you disagree, please tell me specifically, how would  these mutual aid socities,or civil society mechanisms you mention, protect my infant child  or me on the street from second-hand smoke, since you claim the government's enforcement of the provisions of the constitution is the real problem?

ozzy43:

ozzy43:

Paul Grad:

Government is allowed to use coercion in defense of property rights

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. 

 

I did not see an answer to this one - can I presume you continue to drive a car, despite the knowledge that this is harmful to your fellow citizens' health?

I don't mean to be facetious - well, OK, perhaps I do, a little - but I haven't really seen you respond to the major points of my argument, including this one.

FYI - I am willing to stipulate that second hand smoke is harmful, to get that off the table, though with the proviso that just *how* dangerous is directly dependent on proportionality. 

 

Ozzy --- Yes, I just answered your other points on tobacco and wanted to save the car/smoking question for this separate post.

I'd say this. Driving a car is not theoretically an absolute necessity. But we know for many it is a virtual absolute necessity for Right to Life, (if you live in a rural area 30 miles from the nearest city, it sure is), so I would go to the point of saying a car in America is a necessity or a "virtual necessity" of life, though it might be nothing more than a luxury. Smoking tobacco is a choice, and a non-necessity of life. Therefore, I don't feel you are violating my property rights in the same way when you drive from necessity as when you smoke from choice.

I've thought about this in relation to noise pollution too. If neighbor Smith runs his loud chainsaw in the middle of winter to cut wood to keep his wife and 6 children from freezing, I don't have a right to object to the noise pollution, for he does it in pursuit of his Right to Life. Likewise if he cuts his fire-hazard dry grass with a weed-eater in summer which helps prevent him (and me and the whole neighborhood) from burning to death. Right to Life and I cannot object.

But when neighbor Smith blasts his stereo so loud that I cannot pray in silence within my own house, or read Rothbard or respond to a Mises forum post in quiet, then he is violating my Constitutional Rights because his activity is not a necessity to the implimentation of those Rights. (There is also, in most real estate codes of law, the concept (which is in my state's statutes) of the Right to the Quiet enjoyment of one's property. This argument I believe could well be used to smash discretionary noise polluters in court). So the noise from the chainsaw/tractor/weedeater drifting onto my property is legal; the boombox bass contagion is not.

Paul Grad:

Society must learn to cherish the wisdom of insecurity.

 

I'd be happy yo review any evidence whatsoever that this is the direction in which we are headed. I can provide you with reams of evidence that we're moving in the opposite direction. So far, I have seen zero evidence on the other side - your opinion is all well and good, but without logic to back it up - and I've seen none - it remains an opinion.

Paul Grad:

The whole question of proportionallity seems completely irrelevent to me to the question of the rule of law

OK, so if you inhale 3 molecules of second hand smoke, it's the same as though you inhaled a lung full??? This is an absurdity. Of course the rule of law considers factors like this. According to your logic, if I accidentally nick the doorframe as I leave your residence, it's the same as though I drove a bulldozer through your house. How is proportionality NOT the key issue here??

Paul Grad:

if you directly blow a lungful of smoke into my infant daughter's face on the street as I walk by you, and she gets a full lunger, then I am well within my rights to regard that as a deadly assault.

This is simply not true. I am 100% confident that no scientific study has proven than a lungful of second hand smoke is lethal. Again, your failure to grasp the centrality of proportionality is causing you to make some very absurd assertions.

Paul Grad:

Your exposing me to tobacco has assaulted the entire integrity of my health in my view

This may be your view, but it is not science's view, nor is it the view of any rational person. If we follow your logic, it just makes me case about your car that much stronger - absent proportionality, I can take the view that it is perfectly fine for me to walk to house after house in my neighborhood and shoot all of the drivers I find. This is insanity.

Paul Grad:

And since, as I pointed out in an earlier post, those "civil society mechanisms" you talk of have failed to protect me for the last 20 years,

You have not heard a thing I've been saying have you? I dealt with this TWICE already, yet you still cling to your erroneous logic wihch is based on an apparent inability to understand the simple words that I have been using. Before it was 50 years, now 20, but the fundamental error is the same - nothing like appropriate civil society mechanisms have been in place for a CENTURY. Now, that's 3 times I've explained this. Please stop repeating this mistake.

 

Paul Grad:

the Surgeon General's report on nicotine addiction was released in 1988,

And that report stated what, exactly - that second hand smoke is addictive? More random illogic, it seems...

Paul Grad:

You leave me no alternative to enforcing my rights with a gun because what you really are proposing appears to me to be a return to the law of the jungle, the Hobbes-Locke State of Nature.

Wow. This is really quite astonishing. A few molecules of cigarette smoke and you're ready to shoot someone. All I can say is, it's a good thing my fuse is not as short, nor my logic and flawed, as yours, since I open carry every day. I would have been on death row by now for sure. 

Paul Grad:

Once you violate the rule of law,

The rule of law is how I express the notion of positivism. Jeffersonianism, on the other hand, is better expressed the Rule of Law. You will note, I hope, that the *** followed the rule of law - to the letter. Every action they took was legal - all the i's dotted and t's crossed. The rule of law has always been abused by those empowered to make those laws. Look around you - we live under exactly that situation.

Paul Grad:

Your mutual aid societies, which 1 in 3 males were members of in the good old days, cannot guarantee my Rights or the Rights of 100% of my fellow citizens.

Again, the thought occurs: what on Earth are you *talking* about?? The 1 in 3 figure was part of an example of how civil society used to function more effectively and efficiently than government after it usurped civil society functions - it was specific to that one example. I have no idea what point you are trying to make by inserting it here.

You seem not to be able to extract contextual meaning from either examples or analogies, and you do not seem to respond to logic either. That makes it very difficult to reason with you. So I think I'll just stop now.

 

 

Paul Grad:

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.

Unless of course I refuse to be robbed to fund their operations.  They'd shoot me for that. So much for the government protecting my right to life.

Paul Grad:

Government is allowed to use coercion in defense of property rights

No one needs permission to defend property rights.

Paul Grad:

in fact that is its sole function

Except of course when it's violating property rights to fund its own operation, and using violence to prevent people from using alternative means of defense.

Paul Grad:

so if someone assaults my person with a poison against my will

On my own property I'll do what I like. I wouldn't invite you onto my property anyway, so if you're on it then you should probably be more worried about lead poisoning than about second-hand smoke.

Paul Grad:

government must come in and protect my right

Your right to what? Trespass? 

Paul Grad:

so a general law against exposing others to second-hand tobacco smoke is fully justified under Jefferson.

Assuming that were true, when did Jefferson become an infallible source for all things right and wrong?

Paul Grad:

All this assumes you accept second-hand tobacco smoke is harmful, which I think is incontrovertable based on the scientific evidence.

I seriously lol'd at that. In real science, as opposed to government science, when the difference between two things is less than the margin of error, it's said to be "not statistically significant". In layman's terms, that means there's no discernable difference.

Paul Grad:

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?)

The argument against government coercion has some basis regardless of the effects of second-hand smoke. 

Paul Grad:

Also, if you are speaking of a theoretical society, and not the US under our Constitution, then the results may be different.

Well any talk about a just society would have to exclude both the present US government and one which follows the US Constitution, as neither resemble anything remotely respectful of property rights.

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.

No, it's your "civil society mechanisms"  that have created the situation about which you now complain. It's your system which includes the patently absurd notion of "public property".

Paul Grad:

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.

It isn't deadly physical aggression and even if it was it's your fault, and the fault of others like you, that there even is such a thing as "public streets" over which such disputes might arise. It's your mechanism which hasn't worked, but rather than admit that your system is broken, you insist on shifting the blame elsewhere. Your mechanism is based on violence as a first resort in conflict resolution, including violence even before any conflicts arise, so it's not surprising that your solution to its failure is more violence.

Paul Grad:

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?

Violence not working? Just add more violence! Lovely.

Paul Grad:

I'd say this. Driving a car is not theoretically an absolute necessity. But we know for many it is a virtual absolute necessity for Right to Life, (if you live in a rural area 30 miles from the nearest city, it sure is), so I would go to the point of saying a car in America is a necessity or a "virtual necessity" of life, though it might be nothing more than a luxury. Smoking tobacco is a choice, and a non-necessity of life. Therefore, I don't feel you are violating my property rights in the same way when you drive from necessity as when you smoke from choice.

I've thought about this in relation to noise pollution too. If neighbor Smith runs his loud chainsaw in the middle of winter to cut wood to keep his wife and 6 children from freezing, I don't have a right to object to the noise pollution, for he does it in pursuit of his Right to Life. Likewise if he cuts his fire-hazard dry grass with a weed-eater in summer which helps prevent him (and me and the whole neighborhood) from burning to death. Right to Life and I cannot object.

So what if he's starving and steals food from you? "Right to Life"? What about the "Right to Liberty" and the "Right to Pursue Happiness" (i.e. property)? Your whole position seems to be based on assigning different priorities to different "Rights", quite subjectively, on a case by case basis. A rational understanding of individual rights would produce no contradictions and would thus require no such subjective reprioritization of rights.

Paul Grad:

But when neighbor Smith blasts his stereo so loud that I cannot pray in silence within my own house, or read Rothbard or respond to a Mises forum post in quiet, then he is violating my Constitutional Rights because his activity is not a necessity to the implimentation of those Rights.

More subjective reprioritization of rights. Your praying isn't a "necessity" either, nor is your reading of Rothbard or your posting to this board in quiet. There's also no such thing as a "Constitutional Right". Even the Constitution itself makes no such claims; the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it clear that no rights are created by it, they are simply recognized as pre-existing and declared inviolable by it. The limits outlined in the Constitution also do not apply to individuals, only to the federal and (in some cases) state governments; I suggest you read it again if you don't believe me.

Paul Grad:

(There is also, in most real estate codes of law, the concept (which is in my state's statutes) of the Right to the Quiet enjoyment of one's property.

That's not at all surprising. When you have an inherently self-contradictory system of "Rights", it's only natural that you'd have to conjure up new and ever more absurd "Rights" to resolve the conflicts which inevitably arise.

Paul Grad:

This argument I believe could well be used to smash discretionary noise polluters in court).

Appeal to force.

Paul Grad:

So the noise from the chainsaw/tractor/weedeater drifting onto my property is legal; the boombox bass contagion is not.

So your "Right to the Quiet enjoyment" of your property is entirely dependent on the type of noise produced? And this makes sense to you?

Why don't you try actual property rights instead? If your neighbor has homesteaded an easement to a certain amount of noise, he has every right to make that much noise regardless of the source. If he hasn't homesteaded such an easement then he has no right to make that much noise, also regardless of its source. I suggest you read Rothbard's Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.

Since the issue of proportionality was brought up by one commentator, let me record my own views on this "assault  on the property rights to one's body by tobacco smoke" issue.

Given the body of current scientific knowledge, it is obvious that to knowingly expose another to second-hand tobacco smoke in a public place against their will or without their expressed permission is a heinous crime. To expose a child is even worse. But recall we are talking of exposure within a legal limited distance, say 100 yards. Beyond that, if no person is present, it would not be a crime to smoke in a public place.

I believe a fine equivalent to 6 months times the average private insurace health policy cost in America would be a fair compensation for one incident of exposing a normal, average-health adult to second-hand smoke within 100 yards in a public place. It should be a Class C Misdemeanor, and the fine ought to be in the range of $2,000-3,000. To expose a child from 10-16, should be a Class B Misdemeanor and the fine ought to run about $6,000-7,000. For a child between 3 and 10, it ought to be a Class A Misdemeanor with a fine of around $10,000. For an infant 0-3, or an elderly person with a chronic breathing condition documented by a past medical history, it should be a Class C Felony with a fine of around $13,000. Exposing a pregnant woman should be a Class B Felony carrying the top fine and at least 30 days jail time. All these are for first offense only, of course, and based on the currently rapid depreciating US dollar. There will probably have to be an upward adjustment in the fines by the time we Jeffersonian Libertarians (I speak for myself only) get this legislation enacted, to maintain the purchasing parity of the fines.

Repeat offenders deserve to be strapped in an iron lung for a month in solitary, but I'm sure the Supreme Court would rule it cruel and unusual punishment. However, out of compassion for tobacco addicts, given the fact that it is the most addictive of the commonly used drugs according to Prof. Benowitz of UCSF, I believe we should have a small number of public areas set aside where tobacco smoking is permitted, and anyone entering that area would be made aware of it by signs. This would compassionately accomodate tobacco addicts while protecting the Right to Life.

Paul Grad:

Given the body of current scientific knowledge, it is obvious that to knowingly expose another to second-hand tobacco smoke in a public place against their will or without their expressed permission is a heinous crime. To expose a child is even worse. But recall we are talking of exposure within a legal limited distance, say 100 yards. Beyond that, if no person is present, it would not be a crime to smoke in a public place.

Do you feel the same way about other pollutants? A car exhaust also produces dangerous fumes that can cause respiratory problems in both infants and adults. There is strong scientific evidence that shows a clear link between air pollution and, say, asthma.

It should be a Class C Misdemeanor, and the fine ought to be in the range of $2,000-3,000. To expose a child from 10-16, should be a Class B Misdemeanor and… :snip:

I don’t quite understand your reasoning for different ages here. How do you come to the justification that a child is more important than an adult or an elderly person is more important than a child?

Exposing a pregnant woman should be a Class B Felony carrying the top fine and at least 30 days jail time.

This is simply ludicrous to me. Coming into contact with smoke isn’t going to kill anyone and it surely doesn’t justify jail time.

This would compassionately accomodate tobacco addicts while protecting the Right to Life.

Again, coming into brief contact with tobacco smoke isn’t going to kill anyone. Prolonged exposure increases the risk of developing lung cancer or heart disease. Simply walking through a stream of smoke while outdoors carries no real risk. At least no more than, say, breathing car exhaust.

Paul Grad:

Since the issue of proportionality was brought up by one commentator, let me record my own views on this "assault  on the property rights to one's body by tobacco smoke" issue.

Before this goes any further I feel I have to ask this: you don't seem to have any respect for the property rights of others, so why should I give a damn about yours?

Paul Grad:

Given the body of current scientific knowledge, it is obvious that to knowingly expose another to second-hand tobacco smoke in a public place against their will or without their expressed permission is a heinous crime. To expose a child is even worse. But recall we are talking of exposure within a legal limited distance, say 100 yards. Beyond that, if no person is present, it would not be a crime to smoke in a public place.

The only heinous crime here is your continued failure to back up your claims about the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. If there's so much "scientific knowledge" to back up your claims, where is it? Why haven't you produced any of it? I want to see the research data, and by that I mean real numbers, not some "summary for policy makers".

Paul Grad:

I believe a fine equivalent to 6 months times the average private insurace health policy cost in America would be a fair compensation for one incident of exposing a normal, average-health adult to second-hand smoke within 100 yards in a public place. It should be a Class C Misdemeanor, and the fine ought to be in the range of $2,000-3,000. To expose a child from 10-16, should be a Class B Misdemeanor and the fine ought to run about $6,000-7,000. For a child between 3 and 10, it ought to be a Class A Misdemeanor with a fine of around $10,000. For an infant 0-3, or an elderly person with a chronic breathing condition documented by a past medical history, it should be a Class C Felony with a fine of around $13,000. Exposing a pregnant woman should be a Class B Felony carrying the top fine and at least 30 days jail time. All these are for first offense only, of course, and based on the currently rapid depreciating US dollar.

Arbitrary levels of violence and theft in response to something you repeatedly claim is harmful to you without providing the slightest bit of evidence to support such claims. You support doing violence against me if I don't support your "public property", then if I attempt to make use of this "public property" (for which I've been forced to pay) in a manner which offends you, you wish to do additional violence against me. By your own previously established standard of justice, I should just shoot you.

Paul Grad:

There will probably have to be an upward adjustment in the fines by the time we Jeffersonian Libertarians (I speak for myself only) get this legislation enacted, to maintain the purchasing parity of the fines.

Fascist, perhaps. Statist, certainly. Libertarian, not in the slightest.

Paul Grad:

Repeat offenders deserve to be strapped in an iron lung for a month in solitary

Yay! More violence!

Paul Grad:

but I'm sure the Supreme Court would rule it cruel and unusual punishment.

Does that mean that you don't?

Paul Grad:

However, out of compassion for tobacco addicts

Compassion? You've got about as much compassion for smokers as ATF agents have for gun owners.

Paul Grad:

given the fact that it is the most addictive of the commonly used drugs according to Prof. Benowitz of UCSF

Some guy with initials after his name said something, therefore it's incontravertible truth?

Paul Grad:

I believe we should have a small number of public areas set aside where tobacco smoking is permitted, and anyone entering that area would be made aware of it by signs.

Sort of like "free speech zones". Yay!

Paul Grad:

This would compassionately accomodate tobacco addicts while protecting the Right to Life.

I'm finding it really difficult to believe that you aren't just trolling.

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.

You're confusing democracy with liberty.  If you've done any thinking about this at all you know they're not the same thing.  The *** were elected and for the most part enjoyed popularity almost until the end of the War.  In Japan too, the facists also enjoyed majority support.  Just because a majority of people support something, that doesn't make it a good idea.  This has been true even in ancient times.  The Athenians voted the death penalty to some of their best generals jsut becasue they had a bad day.  It's no wonder the "freedom-loving" Athenians lost to the "war-mongering" Spartans.

Nathyn:

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.

That's because you're not the one paying for it, or rather you are but you also want to spread it around to everyone else.  That seems to fit the definition of selfish to me.  Just like a person in their home, people who run businesses also have the right to run them as they see fit, so long as they don't keep another person from exercising their rights.

 first we will need to see the elephant in the room: cars

 car and truck emissions are much more harmful than smoking. i would rather be stuck in a garage full of smokers than a garage with 1 car running. one would result in death within half an hour, and the other wouldn't. therefore, those who wish to ban smoking must also want to ban cars, since they are much more harmful. in fact, cars and trucks kill more people by far than cigarratte smoking, so get your priorities strait.

 of course, the real elephant in the room is the official mafia pointing guns at and kidnapping anyone who dares not follow their orders. turn the swords into plowshares, then we'll talk.

California has an interesting law loophole. Smoking is banned in California at all indoor publicly accessible establishments, ie bars, restaurants, etc... However, if the owner of the establishment can get ALL his employees to sign a waiver that they are fine with patrons smoking, then the owner may allow smoking in his/her establishment. Thoughts?

This is kinda the idea... if I were the employer and wanted to allow smoking, I'ld say Im giving a raise if... even better... if you don't sign on then we're going to have to lay some people off! hahaha! Sounds like there were some libertairians in california to make that loophoe. lol 

Yan Grenier:

I do not debate with a socialist to change his mind: you can't do it.

 

 It was done to Hayek, Robbins, and Popper, for instance.

 Of course, some socialists are very stubborn, ignoring all logical (often empirical too - "the world is becoming poorer and poorer!") facts, but most people are reasonable. I have, to various extents, "converted" true socialists into, at least "market friendly socialists" (whatever that is) or social democrats. And you can, too! ;)