IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL

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.

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:

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.

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.

" Me: " Telling "someone else what rules to make for the use of their private property" is exactly how a community organizes and protects itself."

Translation - "I am unable to manage my own life thus I must have others do that for me." The true crux of the Communist Manifesto.

" Me: Are you suggesting, then, that so-called “libertarians” oppose all rules and restrictions on the use of private property?"

Uh no. There are reasonable rights which allow the protection of others from the USE of private property. Banning individuals from using legal products such as alcohol or tobacco is absurd. You might as well start enforcing the numerous bible belt laws against sodomy, etc. and have the homosexual community sent to prison as a whole. I'm sure you'd be in favor of that.

"It’s okay to shoot your neighbor with your private revolver or run Grandma down with your private automobile?"

They typical extremist over reaction of a socialist reactionary. Not even worthy of a qualified response because it would go well over any socialist's head.

"Instead, your rules and restrictions would replace those of the community."

Really? So what you are saying is that individual initiative and creativity is not as important as groupthink? Orwell would be proud. Guess what Einstein. Individuals are what made this nation possible. The "commune" (the foundation of the "community") resisted separation from the King of England. In your world, authortarianism is "ok" as long as the group is patted on the head and gets three square daily.

"Can you understand now why your tribe is so small?"

It is? Perhaps a dose of reality would enhance your worldview. My community consists of the same type of people who created the internet, founded Microsoft, and invented most of the tools you take for granted today. In your world, the community resists change. We would still be using stone tablets and praying to the moon, stars and "Gods of nature" if your utopian "community" was the norm.

"The community wants to choose, under a representational democratic system that they support, which conduct is acceptable, which not and, therefore, punishable.

No, you are making an assumption and a very incorrect one. I believe in personal responsibility. For example (take a long deep breath now) if a bar, is smoke filled, then I should not enter that bar or GOD FORBID, restraunt and offer my monies to the owner. I should offer my business to another location which is amicable to my desires. Wow, what a concept.

"You are suggesting a dictatorship of “minarchists.” Sounds pretty much like the dictatorship of the proletariart to the rest of us."

A dictatorship of the proletariart? Hilarious. A total misconception of my beliefs. In my world, I believe that each individual is born with "inalienable rights" (big word, I know, but it's in the dictionary). What you suggest is mob rule. What I suggest is individualism. I'm an objectivist. I really don't give a rat's ass what you think. If you want to be a narrow minded fool who bleets with the sheeple, go for it. I prefer to let the individual dictate actions which are within the original confines of freedom of choice. If you don't like that, so what. You might think you have the ability to "manage" or "dictate" to me, my behavior or way of life. BZZZZZZZZZzt, wrongo. Read "Atlas Shrugged". When "us", the producers leave, the sheep starve. You'll starve quickly without socialist guidance from above. I'll bet $100,000 on that tommorrow. Got the dough to cover that bet? I'll wager another $100,000 you don't.

" 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."

Ahh, so the banning of obscene or religious behavior that is unseemly is ok with you. In other words if there is a Satanic cult which locates in your "community" that's ok. Hmmm, in 1934, the children of Satan were in Germany. So do you prefer to use "showers" on your anti-communistic individualists, or do you just like the plain old firing squads?

"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.">

Hmmm, so now you turn the name I applied to your comments in a weak attempt against me. I do not believe in "elitism" as you do. I do not believe in imposing my beliefs on others. To each his own, etc. I know that's a tough concept to grasp. But your arguments make Lenin grin and Stalin smile. This was the same concept introduced by Karl Marx in "Das Kapital". If you have not taken the time to read it and the "Communist Manifesto" I would suggest it. You will find that almost all of the philsophical ideals you support are in there. It was mandatory reading at my school of business. And very useful as a laissez faire capitalist.

" 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."

Out of the DNC handbook. Repeat yourself until others believe your argument.

"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."

I never said that. Quit using the Neville Daschle handbook. I said let the market decide without government interference. If you want a non-smoking restraunt or bar, open one. I have no objection. Hell, open a non-smoking tourist city as far as I am concerned. But don't steal my tax dollars at gun point to subsidize your failing operation when it doesn't work.

"That’s why we have and enforce laws, to prevent that very thing."

Duh. So why are not 90% of the married couples in jail for sodomy violations? Why is not 50% of the population of Ohio in jail for consuming alcohol on a Sunday? Why are we not enforcing laws for riding a mule on the left hand side of the street in Americus, GA? Why are we not executing homosexuals for practicing what they do on a daily basis in Arkansas? Your dream world is 1984. My dream world died in 1948 with the re-election of Truman.

"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? "

Why not? Simple. The Constitution was modified to prevent it. You want to ban smoking everywhere, then get a Constitutional amendment passed. Oh, I forgot. Your minority doesn't have the will to do things the legal way. You want the courts to pass laws and use the dictatorship of the socialist legislature to pass behaviorial restrictions on parts of society. Ok smarty pants. You want to enforce these laws on the books. When are you going to press your representative to enforce ALL of the laws on the books, no matter how archane? Never mind. I forgot. You support the NJ Supreme Court too. Whatever laws are "convenient" to your lifestyle, you'll support.

" 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."

An abusurdity on top of an absurdity. "Your" anti-smoking community contains large elements that wants all of those things banned. But you won't admit it. You enjoy the democracy of convenience. I enjoy the democracy for all.

" 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."

Uncomfortable? You're damn straight. When a minority of people dictate human behaviour you end up in a puritanical society which encourages law breaking and defiance instead of maintaining social norms. Your extremes are considered norms by the socialists and facistical-communist movement. You had best look into the history books before making another reach like that.

"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."

Really? Wow. Guess I've been asleep since 1860. In my world, I don't care about sexual orientation. I care about productivity and providing MY company with a profit. In your world, even if the sexual orientation or behavior is against "some laws" that your precious "community" has passed, it's ok. You want selective enforecement. I want equitable treatment under the law.

" 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."

LOL, please, you're making laugh too hard. Your commentary is beyond the pale. What you are saying is that smoking is indecent exposure? But as long as the laws against homosexual behaviour within a dwelling are not enforced by your precious "community" that's ok. But by God, do something in public you deserve to go to jail. Ok, I'll buy that. Let's carry your argument to it's logical conclusion. Every precious "community" then should be doing sweeps and arresting everyone in every homosexual bathouse on a daily basis until they go out of business. What's the difference between that health risk and the risk of smoking in a bar? Oh, I forgot. Homosexuality is the privelage of the elitist left thus it becomes a "human right" and not a health risk. Oh please, you're conclusions are more shallow than a Hillary Clinton speech.

"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."

That says it all.

" 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.”

BZZZZZZZZZt. Nope, never said that. I said everyone is equal. I don't care what you do. Who you do. How many times you do what. I just care that in my house or on my private property which is a "business" that you do not have the right to enforce at the point of a gun what the behavior of the participants or customers of my business do. If I elect to serve and make it convenient for people to smoke, it's my choice. If portions of the "community" decides to ban that, then that reflects an unstated mental weakness because I will not cater to "their" desires even though they are willing to purchase my products. Unlike many business people, I have some principles. I would shut my business down, increase the unemployment rate and put a big "FU" to whatever government agency dictated this regulation on my windows and doors as I closed. You'll find that many bars will tell the non-smokers to do the metaphysically impossible AND remain open much like the speakeasys did in the 1930s. All you are proposing is to make a legal substance a scarlet letter on those that enjoy said substance. Fine. Then all homosexuals should be doing 10-20 years in the jails of our state (Florida) for violation of the sodomy laws still on the books from the 1890s. What's fair is fair.

"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."

Oh, but "selective" government is better????? Your definition of the term "community" is restricted to those with your beliefs. What happened to taking into account all minorities? Uh, never mind, you really appreciate that.

"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."

The ultimate moronic statement. Europe has no such restrictions you propose and they are more socialistic. Unlike your utopia, they prefer to let human behavior be let alone and if you want to smoke, well, they don't care what you smoke. You more strongly propose to insure that I only eat foods that are "approved", smoke nothing, drink nothing, and drive only Yugos. Grow up.

"But I note that you once again insist on telling me what I want."

You, once again, missed the big picture. I don't care what you want. Just don't make me abide by it. If I want a business that allows smokers, what harm comes of that to you? Uh, none. If no one smokes and I go out of business so what. If I prosper, so what. Oh, I forgot. Success is punishable in your world.

" 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 do not know what is more frightening. Your lack of education or your lack of comprehension. Once again, I don't care about you. What you want, what you oppose. UNTIL, it interferes with my freedoms and my customer's freedoms.

"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.”)"

Look, I realize you are jealous of success. You envy those of us who don't need our hands held to live every day, nor a government to dictate the obvious to us. So admit your weaknesses and be honest with yourself. You can are unable to deal with a community of individualists because your weakness does not allow you to compete nor accept the privelages of success.

" The churlishness won’t move us. The rage won’t persuade us. The intimidation won’t succeed. We’re no Chamberlain, our community."

No, we're not trying to intimidate. We're in rage not because of you. It's what you stand for. It's what Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and many other tyrannists believe in. Your company has a long, dubious history. Sadly, as usual, it's the 80/20 rule in full effect.

I do not smoke cigarrettes. I don't like them. I don't care about those who do or do not partake in them. But I do care about individualism. I do care about free enterprise. And I will fight facism with a fanatic zeal which would make Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton smile. You have my full blessings to continue your rant. However, keep in mind, that the company you keep may come back to kill you. Because when all of the "vices" you perceive in the lifestyles of the individualists are banned, then you, and your followers will be banned also. One day at a time, one group at a time. By those you "used" to worship as your heroes. If you do not believe that, read "One Day in the Life Ivan Denisovich". If your NEA education gives you the ability to do so.

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.

Can't get blood from a rock. Still, the victim is due restitution from the criminal. The criminal must pay off the debt. Perhaps, "you've got a choice, go to jail or go to work here until you pay off your debt. And even if you chose jail you still have to pay off the debt." Objective law has yet to be created and I sure don't have anywhere near all the answers.

How, then, is he penalized for robbing you?

The punishment or realignment with morals that prohibit theft could be dealt with via a set of sentencing codes. Similar to what there is today. The point is to take into account whether the criminal is a threat to society, to what extent and how to rectify that situation.

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?

Good luck trying to prove to an impartial jury that a person/smoker smoking a cigarette in a restaurant that was posted as "smoking permitted" initiated force against the supposed victim. Nobody forced the person to enter the restaurant owner's private property. After the first few lawsuits, if there even was a first few, the supposed victims losing each one would stop the frivolous lawsuits. Especially when the loser pays the court cost and lawyer fees.

That said, the point of my post was to encourage people to stop looking to the supposed "higher authorities" for answers to problems. Which in reality are non-problems. Problems created by parasitical politicians, self-serving bureaucrats and dishonest lawyers -- problems that need not exist in the first place. Those "higher authorities" create the problems. The highest authority is the individual.

For a peaceful and prosperous society to exist the citizens do not need hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations. They need an objective law and an honest court system and arbitration services to ensure that when a person is the victim of initiation of force, threat of force or fraud there is a means for the victim to gain restitution and a way to protect society from the criminal and rehabilitate the criminal. Parents, friends, peers and the free market can work to educate citizens away from harmful habits and self-destructive behaviors. Remove the negatives and the positives take care of themselves.

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.

IF THEY WON'T SURRENDER NUKE'M