"I undestand what you are saying. My point was that, as a smoker, I had no problem with the banning of smoke in public places.
I DO however have a problem with employer's firing me if I choose to smoke at home on my own time.
This is NOT a contradiction. One affects other's right not to have to breathe my smoke ... the other is my right to do any legal thing I want on my OWN time without being fired."
Welcome to FR grasshoper. You have much to learn.
Now, in advance I will ask forgiveness for such a long post, but here ya go.
First off, no one is forced into a private establishment. And yes, until the government starts to compensate private business owners for the use (or lack of use) of their private property, then that property is still private. It is not a matter of harm to the smoker or to the non-smoker. In fact, the studies that are bantered about are not conclusive to any harm caused by ETS, but that is another part of the discussion.
Read this article: Harm's a Two Way Street by WW
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20031119.shtml The bottom line is that the private property owner must be the decision maker regarding this subject. If a non-smoker does not like to enter that private property, they have the option of not entering. If they find after entering the property, then they can leave. If enough people leave and do not return, the market will cause the property owner to change his policy. In fact, the non-smoker that is not satisfied with the offerings of the market is free to risk his personal capitol and time to start a non-smoking establishment. If the market exists, it will thrive, if not his risk will not be rewarded.
What is happening today? Well, the government has specifically stated the market is no longer valid at driving risk takers into satisfying the market. Instead of the non-smoker (gnatzie) having the strength to go out and take the risk, they have turned to the government guns to force private property owners to cater to their desires. Keep in mind, this is based on their preferences and desire not to be offended by a smell.
Now, you may think the term "government guns" is an extreme statement. Well, let's look at the simple act of receiving a speeding ticket. If you fail to pay that ticket, then a warrant is issued for your arrest. If you refuse arrest and run from the police, they will then take you into custody by the barrell of a gun. The government has no way to enforce their laws without the barrell of a gun.
Therefore, smoking bans are nothing but a gnatzie's use of the government guns to ensure they are not forced to smell oders they find offensive. Regardless of the owner's smell preferences. As a result, the gnatzie's are effectively legislating private behaviour on private property against the wishes of the private property owner and his customers. A private agreement (contract) is no longer valid to enter into.
Now, let's take a look at the employer/employee relationship. You, as an employee, agree to work for a specified amount and you agree to receive that amount in real time. Every time you receive a paycheck your contract is completed and you chose to begin a new contract period. (unless you sign a long term contract, such as athletes)
If I want to hire only smokers, then I should be free to offer a private contract between consenting adults that reflects this. If a smoking employee decides to quit smoking, as an employer I should be able to fire them. In the same manner, if my employee wants to quit he is free to do so.
What will generally happen when the employer starts trying to control to much of your personal activity is that the cost he will need to pay for labor will rise. What will end up occuring is that for an employee to be willing to subject themselves to his requirements, their demand for benefits and compensation will go up, therefore the business owner will make himself less competitive in the market.
As a result, the business owner (fascist) is making choices that will kill his business and he will be forced to sell his property (business) to a more efficient employer.
If the opposit happens, and he finds employees willing to work for the same, or lower, wages than the rest in the market, well, he will become successful and a new business model will be born.
So, as you can see, the market is the best method to judge these business owner's choices. Not the government, not the gnatzies, not the smokers. The only decision maker should be the property owner and the only judge should be the market. Otherwise, we have given up our Republic.
I'll apologize for the length of this post and if it sounds disconnected. I am in a cc and I'm getting distracted every now and then......
Excellent post and explanation. You don't sound disconnected at all. I just read the link you provided and, for those who do not get around to clicking on links, I have done a copy/paste of your article. I hope more people will read it this way.
Harm's a two way street
Walter E. Williams (archive)
November 19, 2003
The largest losers of America's anti-tobacco crusade aren't tobacco companies and smokers, it's the American people who are incrementally giving up private property rights. You say, "Hold it, Williams, I agree that people have the right to smoke and harm themselves, but they don't have the right to harm others with those noxious tobacco fumes!" Let's look at it, because harm is a two way street.
If you're allergic to tobacco smoke or just find its odor unpleasant, and I smoke in your presence, I harm and annoy you. However, if I'm prohibited from smoking a cigarette in your presence, I'm harmed because of a denial of what I find a pleasurable experience.
There's an obvious conflict. One of us is harmed. How can it be resolved? There are several ways. You might consider the harm I suffer trivial compared to yours. You could organize a sufficiently large number of people and lobby lawmakers to enact smoking bans in bars, restaurants and workplaces. Alternatively, I might consider the harm you suffer trivial, and organize a bunch of people and lobby lawmakers to mandate that smoking be permitted in bars, restaurants and workplaces.
Let's think about this for a moment. If you owned a restaurant, and did not allow smoking, wouldn't you find it offensive if a law were enacted requiring you to permit smoking? I'm guessing you'd deem such a law tyranny. After all, you'd probably conclude, it's your restaurant, and if you don't want smoking it's your right. Similarly, I'd deem it just as offensive if smoking were allowed in my restaurant and a law were enacted banning smoking in restaurants.
The totalitarian method to resolve the conflict is through political power and guns. In other words, the group with the greatest power to organize government's brute force decides whether there'll be smoking or no smoking in restaurants. Totalitarians might justify their actions by claiming that bars, restaurants and workplaces deal with the public, and thus the public should decide how they'll be used. That's nonsense. Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it public property.
The liberty-oriented method to resolve conflict is through the institution of private property. In fact, conflict resolution is one of the primary functions of private property, namely it decides who gets to decide how what property is used in what way. Put another way: Who may harm whom in what ways? In a nutshell, private property rights have to do with rights held by an owner to keep, acquire and use property in ways so long as he doesn't interfere with similar rights held by another. Private property rights also include the right to exclude others from use of property.
Under the liberty-oriented method of private property, as a means to conflict resolution, we'd ask the question of ownership. If the owner wishes his restaurant to be smoke-free, it is his right. Whether a smoker is harmed or inconvenienced by not being allowed to smoke in his restaurant is irrelevant. Similarly, if a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, it is his right, and whether a nonsmoker is harmed or annoyed is also irrelevant. In the interest of minimizing possible harm either way, it might be appropriate for restaurant owners, by way of a sign or other notice, to inform prospective customers of their respective smoking policy. That way, customers can decide whether to enter upon the premises.
In today's America, the successful anti-tobacco campaign has become a template for conflict resolution through the forceful imposition of wills through the political system. It's part of a continuing trend of attacks on private property rights. Private property rights are the bulwark for liberty, and should be jealously guarded and not be sacrificed for the sake of expediency."