Replies

"Even if you just say the smoke is bothersome to non-smokers, you have a case of one person's freedom restricting another person's freedom."

The smoking restrictions are not an issue of the smoker's rights vs. the non-smoker's rights. Neither the smoker, nor the non-smoker trump the rights of the property owner. However, the legislative actions that ban smoking in privately owned establishments have allowed the anti-smoking zealot's rights to trump the property owner's rights.

I am fine with allowing the owner to make the decision and then allowing the market to reward or punish that owner for his decision.

Of course, you will see many FReepers that don't like the free market.

Good points in your post #8. There are some lines to be drawn with private property owners. I just don't think smoking is worthy of that line in all but a few cases. Sometimes the market can't correct the problem if everyone offering a service, say air travel, decides to offer smoking. What are others to do? Drive everywhere? What about medical services? Sure the market should provide the fix, but the problem is, selfish people who are brought up to think only of themselvs and their own instant gratification get in the way. Of course choosing to be considerate would be the far better answer to government intervention. I will never understand why a smoker thinks he OUGHT to smoke on an airplane. It's rude! This is where the debate should include the issue of people being fit for liberty. Raising the next generation with a strong moral sense, an understanding of the difference between good and evil, a Judeo-Christian ethic of putting God first and others second, where selfishness is still a sin, is the most important thing you can do to protect liberty. Without it, you can holler about individual rights, property rights, and liberty this and that all you want. It can't work if the people are unfit to govern themselves.