[Protagoras]

Telling "someone else what rules to make for the use of their private property" is exactly how a community organizes and protects itself. 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. 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." All laws put people on notice of ways their conduct is restricted and that, if they violate those restrictions, they're liable to punishment. 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. 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. 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?

Breathtaking in it's wrongheadedness. I would take it apart on a point by point basis if I thought there was a chance in a million that your mind could be changed, but it is pointless. As for anyone else reading it, I'm sure anyone with an oz. of freedom in their blood already understands how off base the post is.

If anyone with an open mind wants an explanation of it I would be happy to address it.

[Just another Joe]

If anyone with an open mind wants an explanation of it I would be happy to address it.

Go for it, TJ.
I'm in the middle of a tobacco tax battle and I need all the logical thinking I can gather.

[Zon]

As for anyone else reading it, I'm sure anyone with an oz. of freedom in their blood already understands how off base the post is.

If you think a person's act of smoking a cigarette has harmed you, take the person to court and do your best to prove it to an impartial jury. After all, that's what a rational person would do if a person robbed them, right?

This forum is used by some people that want the power to initiate force, fraud and coercion against people (be the "higher authority") or seek to enlist government agents ("higher authority") to initiate force, fraud and threat of force against people on their behalf.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

TJ, I addressed it point by point. I'm late to the party but wow, did I have to respond to that weirdo. It must be something in the water because the Stalinists are out in force today.

[Whilom]

Well, you're partly right. The breathtaking part. Is that close enough for "minarchist" work?