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.
But, from a broad conservative view, he is more right than wrong here. Your pursuit of the Good may just trample the Just.