Posted on 10/01/2002 11:16:00 PM PDT by SheLion
The movement to get the Dallas City Council to pass a city ordinance to make ALL establishments 100% smoke free is gaining momentum. They advocate preventing a bar or restaurant owner to make his or her own decision about giving a choice to the customer. They advocate putting into LAW that you can't... CAN NOT... smoke anywhere in the City of Dallas. "Well, how about the cigar bar in Del Frisco's after a big steak dinner?"
Nope. In fact if they get this passed, they might come back and try to get a law passed that we can't eat a big steak dinner because they found a study that suggests that the side-effects of other people enjoying a steak is bad for "the children".
In fact, there is no stopping a group of people organizing, coming up with their own "research", and lobbying to take our rights away because they don't like what others do.
I know that sounds ridiculous and that is why no normal citizen, who enjoys the rights that people before us fought and died for, ever thinks that anything as absurd as a law to take away any of those rights could be even considered as serious. That is where we have been wrong... dead wrong. It seems that advocates share a certain trait with politicians: they both feel the need to get "involved" with the issue of guiding our citizenry. In the meantime, our citizenry is comfortable knowing that our Constitution is protecting us so we can go about our daily lives working and enjoying life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Well, guess what? We were wrong.
There is a group in Dallas that is working hard to "ban" smoking in any establishment in the city limits.
They contend a restaurant owner has no business making a decision about his or her own policies. They think that the local government should decide what type of customers they should try to attract. This group has even stooped to the over-done, we-should-do-it-for-the-children-and-if-you-disagree-with-that-you-hate-children tactic.
They wonder why when they are with their "children" (because after all, they are pro-family... aren't you?) and someone in a restaurant lights up, the government isn't there to protect the health of their family. They wonder why they are expected to make a decision not to go to that restaurant instead of making everyone around them change so they don't have to.
To find the wisdom in our system, it is often necessary to read what our leaders said a long time ago. It was Abraham Lincoln that had words for this situation:
"Those who deny freedom for others deserve it not for themselves".
Let me be clear. I do not smoke cigarettes. They are nasty and dangerous. There are probably many chemicals and poisons that are let out into the air by smoking. But I reserve the right to smoke one day, if I want to. I won't smoke at your church, school, or in your government building. If you don't allow it in your home, I will totally respect that. I won't smoke in your car, or even near you when I can... I am not rude. However, when I choose a restaurant that wants me as a customer so much as to have a section for me, and you want to go there too (because the food and service are great), we have both made a decision based on personal freedom. Since you have made that choice, why is it my fault that you aren't comfortable? Why do you insist that city government get involved to make sure your dining experience is more pleasant? If you walk by a club and the rap music from inside is so loud that it seems offensive, will you go inside? No, of course not, and you wouldn't run to the city council wanting a law against rap music.
You simply wouldn't go. Get it?
I am not even going to start in on the junk science and so-called "surveys" presented as "irrefutable fact" by this poster group for political correctness. I will give you the link to the web site. Twenty years ago this web site would have made a great satirical magazine. It would have shown, in a ironic way, how fanatics try to push their agenda using any scare tactic they can. Sadly, this is not satire. It is a group that will not be content until others behave the way they think they should. It is time for common sense to replace political correctness.
It is time that people realize a perfect world is not formed by laws.
Here is the web site. Enjoy. http://smokefreedallas.org/
Anyone want to make predictions what their next move will be?
My predicts are:
1. They will continue to tax smokers higher and higher. (added benefit of more tax revenue is irresistible)
2. Crackdown on internet/mail order sales.(added police powers are irresistible)
3. Then stop issuing licences to sell tobacco within city limits/revoke those already held for entrapment type offenses.
4. Zone certain residential areas as no smoking, adding to these areas until all are covered.
Ah, spoken like a true business-owner-rights-loving conservative... /sarcasm.
We already have:
tobacco, guns, alcohol, fast food, SUV's, gambling
Next up, extreme sports? (skateboarding is now a crime...)
You: Then you have just dictated the basic tenant of socialism which is that no property is "private" but is part of the community or commune.
Me: Are you suggesting, then, that so-called “libertarians” oppose all rules and restrictions on the use of private property? It’s okay to shoot your neighbor with your private revolver or run Grandma down with your private automobile? I think not. Instead, your rules and restrictions would replace those of the community. Can you understand now why your tribe is so small? The community wants to choose, under a representational democratic system that they support, which conduct is acceptable, which not and, therefore, punishable. You are suggesting a dictatorship of “minarchists.” Sounds pretty much like the dictatorship of the proletariart to the rest of us.
Me: "A person either wants community to a more or lesser extent or he doesn't want community at all. Most people freely choose to want community to some extent. And they decide, under a set of cultural and constitutional rules, to what extent."
You: So according to you, if a community passes a law restricting a businessman who owns a fabric shop to sell only red fabric, then he must abide by that. And if he does so at a loss, because he opened the business before said law was passed, he must accept the loss because another law was passed banning all businesses from closing. Your logic is purely Hegelian. And quite Leninist. Read your history.
Me: No, I’m asserting that the community, under a representational democratic system that most members support, determines the rules and restrictions placed on conduct. If we’d wanted those rules and restrictions imposed by a small clique of those who “are more equal than others,” we’d have elected you and Lenin.
Me: "That's why the community will punish you if you use your private property to shoot and kill or wound your neighbor or a stranger on a street. That's why the community will punish you if you drive your private automobile into a pedestrian who is "following the accepted rules."
You: A non-starter. You are basically comparing the "use" of private property against another individual. A business (for example a bar) is open to all individuals, but no one is forced to go in there and endure any smoke which might be in the air. There are other businesses which offer the same services without smoking. But if there are not, you are saying since there are not, and because you as an individual, a non-capitalist who is too lazy to start a competeting, non-smoking establishment, have the right to deny the entrepreneur the right to profit and to run the establishment within the established laws before you came along. Wow, what a facistic communistic view you have. Congrats. You've got your degree in Stalinism now.
Me: No, I’m saying that the community has decided upon a representational democratic system by which it makes rules of conduct and punishes violation of those rules. You’re suggesting that a miniscule number of “minarchists” in the community are entitled by “superior intelligence” to establish and enforce the rules and restrictions that they want. That’s why we have and enforce laws, to prevent that very thing. Your comment about your right to do what you want “within the established laws before you came along” is somewhat different from your general assertion -- but just as scary. Since slavery was “within the established laws before you came along,” it should be legal now?
Me: "All laws put people on notice of ways their conduct is restricted and that, if they violate those restrictions, they're liable to punishment."
You: So according to you, all fast food places must be closed down as they are harmful. All liquour stores shut down. All wine and beer banned. All red meat banned. All chemically enhanced or treated produce, processed foods, or foods not deemed 100% healthy by the medical profession must be banned. SUV's, luxury sedans, banned. Nice list. You must have this desire to live in 1970 Albania. And what a sucessful model for society that was.
Me: Once again you confuse the community’s democratic view and your authoritarian one. One need only look around to see that fast food places thrive, supermarkets have lots of red meat, and the parking lots are full of SUVs. While far from a flawless community, we get along -- and we treasure our choices. Indeed, we treasure them far too much to turn the community’s guidance over to authoritarians.
Me: "How those laws are made, how those restrictions are decided, is the key issue. By fiat? Edict? Representative vote? While the founding fathers professed "limited government," acceptable limits change and the community reflects that. The founding fathers accepted slavery and wrote it into the Constitution with the infamous 3/5ths clause. Most of us don't. The founding fathers accepted "indirect" election of Senators. Most of us don't. The list goes on."
You: According to your rules though, we have the right to ban individuals whose lifestyles are abhorrent to us from our "community". In other words, if in the village of Facistville, two lesbian couples move in and they appall the residents, we would have the right to have a vote and they would be banned from working or being seen in public during limited hours of the day. 1984 or worse. Simply amazing.
Me: That comes from a world in which only extremes exist, and I can see why you’re so churlish and I can see why you're so churlish and uncomfortable there. Look around, as the rest of us do, and see our real world. While you weren’t paying attention, the community has decided that a person may not be barred from employment because of his sexual orientation. Violate that restriction and the community will punish you. At the same time, the community has decided that your homosexual couples, or others, violate acceptable conduct by having sex in a public park and will be punished for doing so. We’re not perfect, our community, but we’re pretty good, most of the time, at pursuing a course that leaves the extremists, Stalinists among them, howling.
Me: "Are smoking bans in public spaces beyond the extent that we want community? Not, apparently, for some people. A medical and legal argument can be made that all people exposed to tobacco smoke are harmed, including those not smoking."
You: Yes, but this goes against the equal treatment under the law principle. If I object to fat people because they are a drain on our community and ruin it's appearance, your logic gives me the right to have them banished or worse. Pure Stalinism.
Me: I can understand how you’d think that way, since the minarchist’s anthem is the Orwellian “all animals are created equal, but some are created more equal than others.” That, sir, is pure Stalinism, the apotheosis of unlimited government. The community, on the other hand, has chosen a more temperate, middling course. If you think not, walk down any street and count the fat people.
Me: "A political argument can be made that I am harmed when you smoke in the privacy of your home -- if I and others are then liable to pay for the treatment of your smoking-related illnesses. Why should I be barred from restricting your conduct in this instance and then forced to pay for the consequences of your conduct?"
You: Why should I be barred? Hmmm, according to your logic, I should be able to ping JR, and have you banned from this board for being a facist. But being a true objectivist Libertarian, I just ignore your opinion and shoot it down with logic. You are basically wanting a 100% government controlled and maintained society. If you really want that, please, publish your name and address and I PERSONALLY will take a portion of my profits and purchase the visa and tickets to relocate you to North Korea. It's what you really want, so don't be shy.
Me: Far from wanting a “100% government controlled and maintained society,” the community has with some consistency steered between the zealots of the left and the zealots of the right. While the minarchists curse us for our tolerance, millions around the globe vote with their feet, risking their lives, to join us -- so much so that the very attraction poses a new threat to our country. But I note that you once again insist on telling me what I want. I fear that you have not yet understood. It’s exactly that, your telling me what I want, which the rest of us oppose. I can see that opposition course through the fervid brain of a “true objectivist Libertarian,” causing churlishness, then rage, and finally (as we knew it would) the slyly veiled attempt at intimidation. (Later, as we knew it would, the velvet glove will come off of the iron fist and the “true objectivist Libertarian” will be revealed as Koestler’s “Darkness At Noon.”) The churlishness won’t move us. The rage won’t persuade us. The intimidation won’t succeed. We’re no Chamberlain, our community.
I'm actually amazed that some anti-smoking zealot hasn't filed a class action suit against the parents of America on the behalf of the children.
I'm a little discombobulated by your second sentence. I'm not sure that suing a robber would accomplish anything -- you're unlikely to collect if a jury awarded you a judgment and even then the robber is unlikely to pay. How, then, is he penalized for robbing you? But I think your suggestion about how to handle restrictions on smoking is insightful and may be the start of a welcome compromise. If I walk down a sidewalk, say, and someone wafts tobacco smoke in my face, I would be at liberty to sue that person and receive judgment, if I convinced a jury. That course probably has a pretty high price tag, but what the hey, it's our personal liberties we're talking about here. If there were 40- or 50-million such lawsuits a year, how would we handle them? But if, say, I went into a restaurant and tobacco smoke wafted to my table, I could sue both the restaurant owner and the smokers nearby. A person could probably get six or eight lawsuits out of one incident. But tell me this? Who's going to be happy with this solution? Besides the lawyers?
You'd make a great consultant for some tyrant, if you were so inclined. Glad you're on our side!
First of all, eroding private property rights further in the name of "health concerns" is different from "stifling free speech." It may be just as bad. It may be just as dangerous to the body politic. But it is different if there is anything to the word distinction. And that's what a community does -- it distinguishes one conduct from another, one transgression from another. That's why robbery is punished differently from murder. The acts are different, and the community distinguishes between the acts.
But I think your proposition is an excellent test of our nation's politics. How do we conduct the test? Professors will decide? Lawyers will decide? A unanimous vote of all three "minarchists" will decide?
I suggest that since it is a political question and we have a chosen political system that we test this proposition as we do others. Why not take it to your Representative or your Senator (or both) and ask them to introduce legislation that will make it equally illegal to "erode private property rights further in the name of health concerns" and "to stifle free speech." While that is percolating through the system, you could also find a case in which you thought private property rights were being further eroded and take it through the state and Federal court systems asking whether or not that was like stifling free speech.
I realize that may seem clumsy, and if you have different ideas about how to test this proposition, I'd like to hear them.
Cite me the study that has not been debunked, thrown out of court, or cherry picked data that says ETS is harmful to anyone that doesn't have a pre-existing medical condition.
David Duke?
You would pay the citation and whine.
You: Zoning is the only analogy I can see to the point you're reaching for and zoning has failed miserably in most cases, giving us the patchwork quilt we so abhor today and todays planners are
Me: Let’s look outside the box for a moment. Would you consider a gun private property? An automobile? A house? A supermarket? A restaurant? How about a production line of Zantac? I, personally, would consider all of these private property -- and a huge list beyond these. But just considering these few, which would you say is not private property and which would you say none of the uses can be restricted?
Me: That's why the community will punish you if you use your private property to shoot and kill or wound your neighbor or a stranger on a street. That's why the community will punish you if you drive your private automobile into a pedestrian who is "following the accepted rules."
You: False analogy, sir. You're implying that it would be OK to shoot and kill someone while on public property. Murder among the tribal members was taboo long before the advent of any notion of private property.
Me: Please give my two sentences a careful reading. How was I implying that “it would be OK to shoot and kill someone while on public property”? Will this help? “That’s why the community will punish you if you use your private property, a .38 caliber, Smith &Wesson six-shot revolver with 4 -inch barrel, to shoot and kill your neighbor or a stranger on a public street.” Is this better? “That’s why the community will punish you if you drive your private automobile, a 1988 Dodge Ram V8 loaded with options, into Grandma Jones while she is crossing with the green light on the corner of Main and First?”
Me: How those laws are made, how those restrictions are decided, is the key issue. By fiat? Edict? Representative vote?
You: More and more, these regulations and laws are promulgated by unelected planning boards, environmental authorities or "boards of health". This is not the way our Republic is supposed to work.
Me: That’s a fair political argument. But how are we to decide how our Republic is supposed to work? Who decides what our Constitution means? Who decides how laws are made? How they are tested? How they are changed? The community does -- through a representative democracy that most of us support. If you want to change that, you have to convince enough of the rest of us in order to do so -- peacefully and legally, at least. Saying that “I don’t have to obey the law” is not the most productive way to start.
Me: The founding fathers accepted slavery and wrote it into the Constitution with the infamous 3/5ths clause. You: The "infamous 3/5ths clause" was inserted by the Northern states to stop the South from counting the slave population to give themselves more representation in the House, while denying the slaves the franchise. It was an ti-slavery clause, sir.
Me: Did the 3/5s clause recognize slavery or not, sir?
Me: The founding fathers accepted "indirect" election of Senators. Most of us don't.
You: Now there's a case where the founders knew what they were doing. The 17th Amendment has turned the Senate into a dog and pony show and deprived state legislators of their voice in national government. It should be repealed ASAP.
Me: Once again, you’ve posed a fair political argument. And again, the community has provided a way for your view to compete with others in the marketplace. Go for it.
Me: The list goes on.
You: As do you, sir. Paragraphs are our friends.
Me: Good advice. I’ll try to follow it.
Me: A medical and legal argument can be made that all people exposed to tobacco smoke are harmed, including those not smoking.
You: These arguments have all been pretty well refuted, which you'd know if you'd been paying attention around here.
Me: “Pretty well refuted” may be good enough for you, but the rest of us want better. I know there are doctors who testify that tobacco smoke, first hand or second hand, is not harmful to the person who inhales it. For decades the tobacco companies had some doctors saying that smoking tobacco did not harm the smoker. They lied, and probably for money. The tobacco settlement is a fair admission that they lied. Second hand smoke may be different. There are competing studies, but for now a cautious community is tending toward a cautious judgment -- second hand tobacco smoke is harmful to the person who inhales it.
Me: A political argument can be made that I am harmed when you smoke in the privacy of your home -- if I and others are then liable to pay for the treatment of your smoking-related illnesses. Why should I be barred from restricting your conduct in this instance and then forced to pay for the consequences of your conduct?
You: Your energy and ire would be put to better use if you'd join the fight to get government the hell out of the medical business, but then you'd have no reason left to castigate and tut-tut your fellow citizens.
Me: The medical business is government. Have you looked at the bill for Medicare and Medicaid lately? I have plenty of reasons left to castigate and tut-tut. Don’t get me started.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.