Harm is a 2-way street/Walter E. Williams: Private property rights key to liberty

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, November 19, 2003 | Walter E. Williams

[LakerCJL]

I just finished a fascinating book by Kyle Mills called Smoke Screen here at Amazon

Basically, the tobacco industry is getting clobbered by law suits and losing billions in settlement money, so finally they withdraw their products and close their productions until they receive iron clad protection against being sued.

They admit their products are bad for you and will kill you, but since it is a legal product, it should be a matter of personal choice whether to kill yourself or not (suicide on the installment plan is what a friend of mine calls it).

I hate smoking and would frequent restaurants and businesses that didn't allow smoking over those that did, but at the same time, where does the line get drawn where the govt can and can't control your life.

[VermiciousKnid]

I did that very thing to my (allegedly GOP) state senator awhile back. He practically blew a gasket, but I stood firm and left him the blubbering idiot he is.

Regards,

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[tacticalogic]

No smoking should be a house rule, not a constitutional ammendment.

Better a constitutional amendment than a "substantial effects" or "general welfare" sophistry.

[webstersII]

"But can't the office stay smoke free? "

It's private property. Let the employer decide.

[webstersII]

"Put another way: Who may harm whom in what ways?"

My neighbor has a car with a loud muffler which he thinks sounds really cool. It wakes me up late at night (along with other neighbors).

Whose rights should be protected here? My right to reasonable expectation of a quiet neighborhood at night or his right to have his car sound 'cool'?

[CSM]

The rest of the paragraph I quoted from the article says:

"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."

Does that clear it up for you?

[dcwusmc]

He has the right to have his car sound as "cool" as he wants, just so long as the noise does NOT penetrate YOUR house or anyone ELSE's house. Where rights may conflict, the right to be left alone on YOUR property reigns supreme.

[Ohioan]

Walter Williams is one of the few columnists and few academicians who always comes down on the side of common sense and a basic understanding of what American Liberty is all about.

I do not give anyone carte blanche to speak for me; but Williams comes about as close as you can get to generally voicing my views on the subjects and issues of the day. He is one of the few really consistent voices on our side. He stands like a rock for traditional values in the field of interaction between the citizen and his Government.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[stainlessbanner]

Bracing for the ammendment that outlaws cherry bombs.

[Publius6961]

BUMP

[Ohioan]

The Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and early 1960's was largely a good thing. But I believe the judicial concept of "public accomodation" began at that time, and that was a bad thing. Who can sit at the lunch counter? It used to be the decision of the owner of the lunch counter -- but that is no longer so.

As I have posted elsewhere, I believe that the "Civil Rights movement" was largely a bad thing, and have taken particular exception to some of the non-public accommodation sections. (See, for example, "Civil Rights" vs. A Free Society.) I also would oppose the public accommodation sections of the Civil Rights Acts, for the same reason that you indicate, but honesty requires me to point out that the public accommodation concept goes way back in the Law--back to the days when travellers in rural England had the choice of one inn in a small town or the elements.

Because there are some aspects of the resulting concepts still involved in the question of how and to what extent places of public accommodation should be regulated, I have not included that concept in my attack on the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. It really is not the same thing as legislation taking away the individual's right to decide whom he would hire, or to whom he would sell his property.

William Flax

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Whose rights should be protected here? My right to reasonable expectation of a quiet neighborhood at night or his right to have his car sound 'cool'?

The former, of course.

[webstersII]

"The former, of course."

I agree with you, but from reading W.E.W. column, I'm not sure that he would agree.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I agree with you, but from reading W.E.W. column, I'm not sure that he would agree.

I'm not sure how Williams would characterize himself on the political spectrum, but this whole thing kind of reminds me why I don't consider myself a Libertarian: I believe in things like zoning laws and other limits on behavior which could be considered as restricting one's absolute freedom, such as in your example. The need for much of this, in my opinion, is due to the fact that decency and civility have withered away to such a degree we now need laws to enforce decent or civil behavior.