Pub smokers fume as Irish ban begins

The Guardian ^ | March 30, 2004 | John Waters

[tnlibertarian]

You're playing with the meanings of words. That's charlatanry. Note that I am not calling you a charlatan.

Cute. Although I could say the same thing about the whole 'By the way, once smoking in a bar is banned, it's not a legal activity, is it?' The law that we were discussing was passed by the federal government in Ireland. It was not a local government. However, can a law not be dictatorial even when passed by a democratically elected government? The whole fascism argument, though, is getting away from the central issue. I know, I know. I started it.

Let's look at this another way using a different analogy, other than your (Prof’s) poisoning analogy. The two of you go to a baseball game. At some point you begin discussing what a jerk tnlibertarian was for calling everybody a fascist and that he is probably suffering from a major munchie fit right now because all those libertarians do is smoke dope and are no-good punks. Prof gets going good on the loserdopians and their legalized prostitution and how they are just a bunch of anarchists, and he stops paying attention to the ball game. BONK! Right on the noggin with a foul ball. Now what is to be done? You went to the ball park with full knowledge of its inherent danger. You, however, want a ball park where you can go and not get your noodle whacked. (Whoops, still thinking about the prostitutes) In your society, the government, local, federal, whatever, would then make baseballs illegal at ball parks.

[Modernman]

You admitted to being a troll earlier.

You're delusional. You libertarians smoke too much pot.

[freeeee]

Libertarians are a distinct minority on FR.

Most were purged.

[Protagoras]

Another attempt to change the subject. I'm not a Libertarian, not that it matters, except to you when your trying to change the subject.

What kind of governmental regulation are you okay with, then?

My opinions on off topic subjects are irrelevant, but save the question. After you are totally fried on this thread, you are free to ask me on any other thread. I'll happily answer.

Now back to your bizarre assertion that you have some right which doesn't exist.

[Modernman]

In your society, the government, local, federal, whatever, would then make baseballs illegal at ball parks.

I would put a law like that into the vast area of "Constitutional, but stupid." Like I've said before, I really don't care about smoking bans. I like it when they get passed, but I would never lobby for them. If enough people don't like the bans, they can always be reversed.

[Modernman]

Most were purged.

Why is that, I wonder?

[Protagoras]

You libertarians smoke too much pot.

LOL, the last hiding place for goofs who have made an ass of themselves.

Just for the record, I have never used an illegal substance, I leave that for CJ, Dane and probably you. How about it? You ever use any illict substance?

All this is off topic of course, which is your plan. It won't work.

[freeeee]

Assuming that their system of government is some type of republic/democracy, they're democratic socialists.

Ok, knowing that our system is a republic/democracy, when the majority vote themselves private property rights, we're democratic socialists as well.

So what was the cold war about? Who got to sit on Marx's throne?

[Modernman]

So what was the cold war about? Who got to sit on Marx's throne?

Two biggest dogs on the block fighting over who gets to be the alpha male.

[freeeee]

Why is that, I wonder?

With W's win, and control of Congress won, their support was no longer needed and their voice for small government became embarrassing in light of the new administration's actions.

[freeeee]

Two biggest dogs on the block fighting over who gets to be the alpha male.

That's what I thought.

[Right Wing Professor]

It is painfully obvious that requiring licenses to conduct business on private property, under threat of force is not libertarian in nature.

The only one who mentioned that was you. Have a good time discussing this with yourself.

But contracts based on the threat of force if one uses one's own private property without a license is not libertarianism, which is what we're discussing.

Nope. You said that government control of business was fascism. I pointed out that libertarians believe govt. should enforce contracts, which is certainly a form of control. Thewrefore, libertarians are fascists, by your definition.

Look, I'm outta here; I'm following Mendelson's adage about arguing with libertarians. It was libertarians, wasn't it?

[freeeee]

I'm following Mendelson's adage about arguing with libertarians. It was libertarians, wasn't it?

Never heard of it.

See ya round.

[Shryke]

No no no no, you come right back. The last page or two you've discussed the necessity for government to exercise some modicum of control on private business. I believe what the opposition was trying to stress (as am I), is that when this control enters the realm of normal legal activity (smoking), you are entering fascist policies. Telling someone that they cannot engage in a legal activity on their property is rather absurd, no? You've made some parallels to food regulation, etc., but as far as I am aware, purposely serving someone poisoned or rotten food will result in direct bodily harm, and is thus illegal (as well as fraudulent). This is not the case with cigarette smoking. Whatever opinions you have on the lethality of SHS, blowing smoke in someone's face (which doesn't happen in smoking restaurants, I'm exaggerating) is not illegal. You want to outlaw smoking? That's fine, vote your conscience. But applying an unjust restriction on a property owner that wishes to engage in activity that is perfectly legal, well, I can't stress how wrong that is.

Perhaps I should ask you to imagine a situation that is less emotional for you. For example, aquiring a restaurant, purchasing your liquor licenses, and then having your state government tell you that you cannot allow liquor consumption on your property, as it is a FAR greater danger to society then smoking. How just is that?

[Protagoras]

Too late, he cut and ran. Good thing too, he was looking goofier by the post.

The other guy ran like hell too after he brought up drug usage and was asked the unexpected question about his own usage.

Works everytime, the answer is quite clear.

[CSM]

I will ask again: How do you define right wing?

Take into consideration the following statements you made:

"What gets paid for with my money is my business."

Given this statement, I should be able to control your life. You are paid with taxpayer dollars, your grants are from government funded organizations. Would you agree that your livelihood is paid for by me, and other private citizens, so I should be able to dictate your activities?

"Having my options restricted makes life unpleasant for me, and for others, too."

Would you force a pizza place to serve you chinese food? A smoker can make the same statement and state that all restaurants should be forced to allow smoking. Would you support that? Should all grocery stores call you to make sure they carry the brands you prefer? Where will you stop in enforcing your preferences on other people's property?

Again, how do you define right wing? My guess is that you define it as more Right than your Left leaning peers.

[CSM]

"You have no clue what "fascism" and "communism" really mean, what those systems entail. Hint: fascists and communists couldn't care less about smoking bans. Only a true democracy/republic like the US has the luxury of debating whether people should smoke in bars."

So, do you advocate only taking on the battle against fascism after it reaches its full potential? The rest of us would rather head it off early on that slippery slope!

Think for a moment about your answer. Think about the incremental creep of socialism and fascism in this country. Think how your response can be supportive of that creep.

[CSM]

"The government COULD nationalize all industry (so long as it paid for it) and set tax rates at an extremely high level so as to facilitate re-distribution of wealth. Such a system doesn't hold much appeal for the American people, though."

This shows your naivity regarding the american people. Such a system holds a lot of appeal to about half the people. Of the other 50% we have people like you that advocate infringement on private property. I would argue that we are dangerously close to becoming a full blown socialist country, we don't have much further to go down the slope. When I am a slave for nearly 50% of my time, it is almost time to shrug.

[Modernman]

The other guy ran like hell too after he brought up drug usage and was asked the unexpected question about his own usage.

Nope. Just had to go pick up my car from the shop.

And, for the record, I admit that I've tried illegal substances in my youth, but haven't partaken in years.

[Protagoras]

And, for the record, I admit that I've tried illegal substances

LOL, nice Clintoonion answer, you TRIED it, LOL. Good stuff. Another druggie heard from.

I guess now the question you asked is more important, just that the wrong person was being questioned. So,,,,maybe you were smoking too much dope when you made those comments,,put down the bong pipe, you must be high,,,,,,,blah, blah, blah.

So now we have criminals who smoke telling us that they will sic gun toting thugs on us if we smoke LEGAL substances on private property.

It gets goofier every post. Here's your shovel, keep digging.