hey there so i was having a disscussion about smoking and i got through the free to choose part of the argument and the pirvate property part, lettign bussinesses decide whether to let people smoke inside or not. what i was wondering how the free market would deal with second hand smoke. whould it be like with the indoors places where the bussiness owner can say what goes on in his establishment or would people just have to suck it up. (whitch i doubt)
I was thinking about that this morning. I see this potentially giving rise to a tort claim, but the particulars would be difficult to sort out. It doesn't rank very high on cost-benefit analysis.
The cost of evidence, courts, and the time spent is hardly worth an injunction or a tiny (foreseeably) monetary award.
Then there's the question of how you would even get the names of the smokers. I came up with a gimpy solution.
A nice, quick survey where participants (the unaware smokers) must enter their first and last name on the sheet (for a prize :) )as well as a telephone number. Of course, I wouldn't expect everyone to fall for it, but I can see at least some falling for it.
You've been served.
Owner sovereignty.
It is already like that, especially if you respect the state's claim over public property, aka state property.
this seems to be almost like fraud though
state property is, obviously
i was more shooting at the other guy. but yeah the state don't got anything, except stolen property
Of course, if you're going to offer a survey and have a prize for the winner, then you can't lie about it.
It's a trade off. They get some gummy bears, and you get their personal information for the process servers. If you're really desperate, I think it would be worth it.
I am confused about what you mean in an individual having to "suck it up". The condition of the property is up to the owner. Others who wish to use this property do so at the rules and preferences of the owner. If individuals dislike second hand smoke but the owner allows smoking and therefore the environment on his/her property contains second hand smoke then these individuals always have the option NOT to use the property. Is an individual showing their preferences to not go to the place of an owner who has different preferences you definition of "sucking it up"? If so then yes the people want to use the property would have to "suck it up". Any other forced arrangement is an act of violence and a reduction in the property rights of the owner.
As for the supposed, actually non-existent, dangers of second hand smoke. If the users of the property who obey the rules and respect the preferences of the owner are hurt or have their property damaged, without the owner notifying them of the risk then they have a claim against the owner for negligence. If the owner knowingly lied then the individuals have a claim for fraud. Now the individuals must establish damages at that point. With second hand smoke this may not be easy to do.
As for the supposed, actually non-existent, dangers of second hand smoke
How do you figure?
It is wrong to demand of people to pay for breathing in second hand smoke. Second hand smoke should be free. First hand smokers are just going to have to suck it up.