[freeeee]

When most people think of communism they think of money. The most famous characteristic of classic communist countries is a nationalized economy: communist governments don't recognize an individuals right to assert private property rights over a business. This is chiefly done to deny a private business owner's property right to his profits, hence the tendency to think of communism as a purely economic phenomenon. But when closely analyzed, the key component of communism isn't merely state control of money, it's the state's failure to respect private property rights of all sorts.

Money isn't the only property right a business owner has. He has the right to determine what occurs on his or her property. His right extends to the cash in his register, the music he plays, the food he serves, the products he offers, and yes, what behavior is tolerated on his property, including smoking.

The communist holds that the will of the people outweighs the rights of the individual, hence they will themselves become owners of businesses, and collectively assign themselves its property rights. It is said communist governments assert this "ownership" on behalf of the people. But at least they're honest and upfront about it: they tell you right to your face that you can't own a business.

However a more insidious form of communism exists: government, always seeking power and therefore money may seek to take advantage of the prosperity of the free market. It operates under a false façade of ownership, alleging private property rights exist and doling them out in barely sufficient amounts as privileges in order to lure productive individuals to create wealth. This is properly called fascism.

So when any people vote to steal a man's property right to allow smoking on his premises, they are by definition behaving as communists. When they allege he still owns his business, they are fascists. Few will own up to this because it would expose them for what they are. They'll call themselves free or capitalists, but then again I can call myself a fire hydrant. They are defined by their actions, and now you know who and what they really are.

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, these issue can be viewed simply as a battle between "communism" and "liberty," but I think that approach misses a lot of the important subtleties that are going on in these issues. The problem is that most of the "libertarians" grant that there should be some restrictions on one's use of property and most of the "communists" agree that there are some limits to government. All of the action in the real world takes place between these extremes.

The modern regulator views property rights as the relationship between a human being and the property he owns in a less than absolute way. He doesn't see an owner as having unlimited rights as a consequence of ownership. Instead, he sees ownership as involving a bundle of different rights and attempts to focus on the particular rights which might have to be modified in order to protect other values he deems to be more important.

For example, at one time the owner of real estate was thought to own the space above his land to the cosmos. Rightly or wrongly, the advent of aviation led us to modify the landowner's rights in that regard. Were those modifications a victory for "communism" or just a victory for progress and common sense? Everyone has their own opinion, I guess.

[lockjaw02]

Great post, freeeee. I plan to use that in letters to my reps in NY who voted for that miserable ban, some who were in the service fighting the "Cold War" against communism. How easily they forget.

Let's play a little game.

Welcome to Jeopardy. Please pose your "answer" in the form of a question.

I'd like "Famous Quotes" for a $1000, Alex.

Alex, "It takes a village."

[CSM]

Great post #81. I am glad I was able to read it!