IF THEY WEREN'T SERIOUS, THIS WOULD BE HYSTERICAL

Now I'm terrified!

Low rent threats from Dettir.

From The Onion:

?

Previous Issue

Archives

New York is one of a number of U.S. cities considering a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars. What do you think?

		"This is a victory for annoying people like me who call cigarettes 'coffin nails' and 'cancer sticks' and all that sort of stuff."
Shelly Sabel Lighting Designer

		"Has Amnesty International heard about this?"
Jef Awada Real-Estate Agent

		"I can't stand cigarette smoke, but no one seems to care down at the Drink & Smoke & Drink & Smoke Tavern."
Tom Epstein Actor

		"Now that New York has addressed the problem of secondhand smoke, maybe they'll tackle the problem of secondhand human-waste stench."
Jim Mackil Advertising Executive

		"But what will I draw slowly on to indicate that I'm contemplating what's been said by my dinner companion?"
Dennis McCormack Systems Analyst

		"As a bar waitress, I'm glad someone is protecting my right to work in a bar that doesn't make any money."
Elizabeth Gabbay Waitress

Pig. I've got something for you to smoke right here.

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

You: 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: You start out just determining for the rest of us what the Constitution means. Then you move on to determining what I want. Now your determining that I am unable to manage my own life. There you have the crux of the Communist Manifesto. Now do you understand why your tribe is so small?

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

You: 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.

Me: And who will determine those “reasonable rights”? You? I see now why “minarchist” is so close to “monarchist.”

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

You: 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.

Me: How about an unqualified response? You’ve provided plenty of that kind so far.

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

You: 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.

Me: Does all of that mean your rules and restrictions would replace those of the community or not?

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

You: 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.

Me: Thanks for clearing that up. And all this time we thought the internet was invented by Al Gore. Individual initiative is a great thing and has served us well. The community is conservative, cautiously adopting and adapting change, usually wary of radical people and radical ideas. But what if “individual inititive” compels you to declare yourself sole arbiter of the Constitution? Is that as good as Microsoft? Less good? The same? The community will decide. And I suspect you won’t like the decision.

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

You: 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.

Me: Does :”personal responsibility” mean that the individual should accept responsibility for his own conduct? If that conduct is a violation of the law, he accepts personal responsibility for it, right? Conservatives, including me, fully accept that. What we do not accept is that the individual can obey whichever laws he agrees with and violate with impunity those he disagrees with.

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

You: 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: So now you call our representative democracy “mob rule.” Back to declaring that the “inalienable rights” of the minarchist are to decide what is “best” for the rest of us and impose that view upon us? That’s what you call “individualism?” And that, you assert, is “objectivist”? That’s why I return again and again to the fundamental point: merely calling subjectivism “objectivist” does not satisfy the rest of us whom you would make subject to your fiat. We prefer the messy business of a representative democracy. If you prefer to “let the individual dictate actions which are within the original confines of freedom of choice,” then what are those actions and what are the “original confines of freedom of choice”? Far from wanting to “manage” or “dictate” to you, the community only wants to prevent you from dictating to us -- and, of course, to get you to obey the law or punish you for violating it. I have read “Atlas Shrugged” and I much admire Ayn Rand. Where does she say that “when the producers leave, the sheep starve”? Or is that just your “objectivist” reading of it? Too bad that the Leninists have fastened onto Rand’s paen to individual creativity and turned it into “Animal Farm.” I’ve got the dough. Let’s make it clear that you are wagering $200,000 against my $l00,000 that I will “starve quickly without socialist guidance from above.” We’ll have to define “quickly.” We know already that you’re calling our representative democracy “socialist guidance.” So who holds the money and decides the winner?

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."

You: 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?

Me: No, the banning of obscene or religious behavior that is unseemly is not OK with me. But I don’t decide for the community what is “unseemly.” Neither do you. I wish no ill to anti-communistic individualists. I am among them. I merely like poking holes in the “objectivism” of the very “subjective” Leninists who demand to decide what is “best” for the rest of us.

Me: "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.">

You: 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 uggest 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: If you “do not believe in elitism,” as you claim, and you “do not believe in imposing [your] beliefs on others,” then who decides on the rules and restrictions in a community? Are they decided through representative democracy or by an individualist? That’s all I’m arguing throughout. The rules and restrictions in our community are decided through representative democracy. Attempts by an individual to impose his rules and restrictions upon us, whether “objectivist” or not, will be resisted. The individual can argue that he will follow only those laws he agrees with. But when his conduct violates the community’s law, any law, he may be punished for it. It is to be hoped that he will accept that violation as a “personal responsibility” and the punishment as his due. By the by, can you show me in “Das Kapital” or the “Communist Manifesto” any support for representative democracy? This will be a test of your “objectivism.”

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

Me: If not a system of representative democracy, then what do you suggest?

Me: "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."

You: 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.

Me: “Let the market decide without government interference.” That may work for bars and restaurants. But how about disputes over whether a child has been sexually assaulted? How about disputes over property lines? How about deciding disputes over what any particular provision of the Constitution means? How does the market decide? How does the market operate toward a resolution of those disputes? Through the representative democracy we have chosen or by some other means? What other means?

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

You: 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.

Me: Are you suggesting, then, that if the community cannot apprehend and punish all violaters of the law, it should not apprehend and punish any of them? Orwell’s vision is not my dream, in a sense of desiring it, but my nightmare, in a sense of resisting it. Your dream may have died, but the everyday lives of the rest of us continue -- doing the best we can in a difficult and messy representative democracy to hew to a middling course, recognizing that we are flawed, but resisting all effort by individuals, objectivst or not, elite or not, impose by coercion their controlling will upon our lives. It’s as simple as that and as complex as that.

Me: "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? "

You: 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: It’s the legal way that I defend. Are you suggesting that “behavioral restrictions on parts of society” are unconstitutional? I say that “behaviorial restrictions on parts of society” are constitutional. That’s what the Constitution (and the community) are about -- restricting behavior and providing for punishment when that restricted behavior occurs. How, then, is the issue to be decided? Through the representative democracy framed by the Constitution or some other method? I say through our representative democracy. How do you say?

" 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."

You: 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: If you truly “enjoy the democracy for all,” then you accept the representative democracy through which we express our will. As long as we can agree that it is through that representative democracy that we express our will, all our other disputes can be resolved -- the legal way; that is, by recognizing the judicial system as the final arbiter on disputes about what is or is not constitutional. Do we agree?

" 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."

You: 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.

Me: It’s exactly this “minority of people” dictating human behavior that the community and our representative democracy resist. If you believe that only a minority of people have imposed no-smoking rules on a restaurant, for example, then take it to court and assert your view that it is unconstitutional. Maybe your view will prevail. That’s what the socialists, the fascist, and the communists would not allow you to do.

Me: "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."

You: 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.

Me: Do you care about “productivity and providing [your] company with a profit” by any means? Legal? Illegal? Under the law as presently written, all of that makes a difference to the community. Productivity and profit are essential goals -- but how they are achieved matters. Profits to a company through stock manipulation is not acceptable to us.. Productivity through sweatshops of illegal aliens is not acceptable to us. We respect your goals but the methods are important too. (Incidentally, I do care about sexual orientation. I think homosexual conduct, public or private, ought to be a punishable offense. Others disagree. We’re presently working out that dispute in our legislatures and judicial system.)

Me: " 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."

You: 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.

Me: No, what I am saying is that the community decides, through our chosen representative democracy, whether or not “smoking is indecent exposure.” As a check and balance, we provide a judicial system to be the final arbiter on whether or not the restrictions on smoking are constitutional. Enforcement of the law falls woefully short too often, but we are not going to throw up our hands in despair and say that since we do not enforce the law at all times and all places, we cannot enforce the law at any time, any place. I think you’ll find that Hillary Clinton disagrees. Do you?

Me: "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."

You: That says it all.

Me: Thank you. I sense we are closing in on agreement in some places. You aren’t going to kiss me on the lips, are you?

" 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.”

You: 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.

Me: If everyone is equal, as you say, how are they equal? Under the law? In height? In brain power? In the ability to increase the productivity and profit of their company? How is everyone equal? But I note with alarm some backsliding . “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,” you say. Do you mean sometimes? Or never? Should the community be enabled to enforce at the point of a gun the behavior of you or your customers for some kinds of conduct? Or at no time, regardless of circumstances? Think about it a moment. How about murder? How about robbery? How about rape? How about selling or using cocaine, other illegal drugs?

Me: "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."

You: 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.

Me: The community, like government, is by its nature “selective.” Imagine going to a town council meeting and offered as the first item on the agenda is a proposal to “repave Sixth St. from Independence Ave. to Jefferson St.?” Imagine someone standing up to say, “You can’t do that, that’s selective”? Imagine yourself in a jury room helping to decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of first degree murder. Imagine someone saying, “You can’t do that, that’s selective”? Of course the community is selective. My definition of community is everyone, all those agreeing with me, all those disagreeing with me, all those not giving a tinker’s damn one way or the other. The size of my definition is determined by an agreed view of geography -- neighborhood, town or city, county, state, nation.

Me: "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."

You: 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.

Me: You assert, then, that European socialism is “better” than our representative democracy? But one aspect of your point is well-made. The nations that have legalized drugs or are seriously considering it are Socialist (with a strong undercurrent of anti-Americanism). Are you suggesting , then, that it would be better for us to follow the Socialist path? Sounds that way to me.

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

You: 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.

Me: Success? The community sees a major difference between “success” in a legal business enterprise and, say, “success” in an armed robbery. The community decides which one to reward with esteem and which to punish with the law.

Me: " I fear that you have not yet understood. It’s exactly that, your telling me what I want, which the rest of us oppose."

You: 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.

Me: And who will decide that, when it “interferes with [your] freedoms and [your] customer’s freedoms?” That’s the nub. Not me. Not you. But the community through its chosen system of a representative democracy.

Me: "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.”)"

You: 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.

Me: You want to decide what rules and restrictions apply to the rest of us, and we won’t let you. We have, and defend, a representative democracy in which we can participate. As a result, we can admire success, admit and work to overcome our weaknesses, compete and win sometimes, lose other times. But there are these that we will not do: Let someone cast aside our represenative democracy and impose his controlling will on us. Let someone decide for himself whether he will or will not obey the laws we make and apply.

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

You: 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.

Me: And you implied that you admire success. Was that just Tom-foolery? Remember that my community successfully resisted Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and the rest of that lot who tried to hookwink us with “objectivism” in a try at shackling us. We’ll successfully resist you too. I read “One Day in The Life of Ivan Denisovich.” You apparently misunderstood that as much as you misunderstood Ayn Rand. Too bad. Too bad for you. Too bad for the community.

. Thats why you should just stay home & smoke & shut up.

How very "liberal" of you, ditter. So in your brave new world I am not allowed to smoke in a business I pay for, I pay taxes on, and I suffer if it goes under. It becomes more obvious every day that anti-smoker nico-Nazis have never owned businesses.

When the majority decides I shouldn't drive an SUV anymore, its gone.

Incredible.

"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." - whilom

Exactly the point on all these threads.
We constitutional libertarians are NOT telling you authoritarian types how to live your personal lives.
We simply want you to obey the "constitutional rules" you cited above so that we can live ours, as we choose.
You seem to have the odd idea that you can tar us as being the authoritarians here. No sale. You are.

repost of #340

"or"? That changes what I said how?

What a weakling, what a Kool-Aid drinker, what a pathetic, childish, hiding-under-the-bed seeker of approval, bus-driver to Hell, gold-plated, snot-nosed, sniveling seed-of- destruction sower you are.

Hehehe, Madame. Well, I enjoyed it. Wouldn't it be just awful to be so terrified of such insignificant things?

Me: You want to decide what rules and restrictions apply to the rest of us, and we won't let you. We have, and defend, a representative democracy in which we can participate. As a result, we can admire success, admit and work to overcome our weaknesses, compete and win sometimes, lose other times. But there are these that we will not do: Let someone cast aside our represenative democracy and impose his controlling will on us. Let someone decide for himself whether he will or will not obey the laws we make and apply.

Why do you insist on saying we live in a 'representive democracy'? You seem to be ignoring the fact that our government is guaranteed by the constitution to be republican in form. -- And that the rule of constitutional law overrules the will of the majority.

Heck, Max.

I enjoyed it too!

Why do you insist on saying we live in a 'representive democracy'? You seem to be ignoring the fact that our government is guaranteed by the constitution to be republican in form. -- And that the rule of constitutional law overrules the will of the majority.

Because we do live in a representative democracy; that's the framework the Constitution provides -- we elect representatives and they act, accountable to us. Constitutional law is indeed the law of the land. But when there are disputes about the meaning of the Constitution, how are those disputes decided? Not by an individual. Not by a self-selecting person or group of "superior intelligence." Instead, by the political and judicial framework provided by the Constitution. As they should be. Therefore, if an individual proclaims that he is an "individualist" hewing to the "objectivist" philosophy and that he will decide for himself what provisions of the Constitution mean, he probably can proclaim all he wants, but if he acts on that, flouting the established law, he's likely to be apprehended and punished. That's all I meant.

We simply want you to obey the "constitutional rules" you cited above so that we can live ours, as we choose.

I promise to obey the "constitutional rules" as determined by our political and judicial system and to acknowledge that you can live your life as you choose. If you choose to violate the law, you may be punished if apprehended and convicted. Now, on the other hand, conservatives want you to obey the "constitutional rules" so we can live our lives as we choose. If we choose to violate the law, we may be punished if apprehended and convicted.

"There is a time to laugh and a time not to laugh, and this is not one of them."----Inspector Jacques Clouseau

Government by the mob... No group of people can rightfully collude to restrict or deny individual rights...

I know you "minarchists" shun representative democracy as "government by the mob." That's your choice. But it's not your choice to impose that view on us -- to wit, that you have the "individual right" to violate the law with impunity. Sounds like you're hiding behind Hillary's skirts. Just like your friend, Bill.

Just how do we distinguish your views from standard totalitarianism? You and we already know that you share a common rhetoric. So how do we tell the difference? I'm sure you are not knowingly a chum of Lenin and Hitler, et al.

You're right in saying that I am not a chum of Lenin and Hitler. They detested representative democracy about as much as you appear to do. In representative democracy power devolves to ordinary citizens by elections. In totalitarian states power concentrates in the autocrat, a person ruling with unlimited authority, unaccountable to the governed.

In reality, a real man would say "can you please direct your smoke elsewhere" politely, or not "offer" his or hers monies to a restraunt which allows this. In your world, the police would beat the owner senseless for having a smoking section.

It's difficult to take seriously a paragraph that contains "hers monies," but let me try anyway. If you tried that "can you please direct your smoke elsewhere" here in Abilene, you'd wake up in ICU if you woke up at all. More likely to get a kindly reaction is this: "Get your smoke out of my face, dude, or get ready to sing soprano." Anyway, that's beside the point. The point is this. Who decides what conduct is lawful? And who decides what the provisions of the Constitution mean? The individual? Or the community, including of course the political and judicial system they have chosen?

Why do you insist on saying we live in a 'representive democracy'? You seem to be ignoring the fact that our government is guaranteed by the constitution to be republican in form. -- And that the rule of constitutional law overrules the will of the majority.

Because we do live in a representative democracy; that's the framework the Constitution provides -- we elect representatives and they act, accountable to us. Constitutional law is indeed the law of the land.
But when there are disputes about the meaning of the Constitution, how are those disputes decided? Not by an individual. Not by a self-selecting person or group of "superior intelligence." Instead, by the political and judicial framework provided by the Constitution. As they should be.

As you well know this 'framework' has been corrupted by many federal violations & the same at state/local levels. Our political dual party socialism by majority rule is at the base of these constitutional 'disputes'.

Therefore, if an individual proclaims that he is an "individualist" hewing to the "objectivist" philosophy and that he will decide for himself what provisions of the Constitution mean, he probably can proclaim all he wants, but if he acts on that, flouting the established law, he's likely to be apprehended and punished. That's all I meant.

Indeed, you 'meant' to support our current political 'business as usual'.
You seem to deny there is anything wrong with the massive errosions of individual liberty we have suffered in the last century. Can you say this isn't so?

Hi Max you finally crawled in. I am not a liberal, I am a realist. I can read the handwriting on the wall & all smokers are doing is beating their heads on it.

howabout a 28 billion dollar verdict for a 64 year old smoker, like an LA jury just awarded against Philip Morris. Pretty outrageous, eh?

What do these people do, get lawyers to send them the names of people who name leftist causes in their wills, and then use them as fodder in these lawsuits?

I want drug addicts kept out of public places, lest they corrupt my children or injure my own health. Smoking tobacco (or pot) ought to be legal in one's home and a jailable offense outside it.

Note the use of 2 little nasty words above , Public Places. These places are not public places, they are the property of the owners of said establishments, and the owner, as host, has a right to set the rules.

Public Places are places that are paid for, and supported by, The Government, aka the people. City and town halls, Schools and other government buildings all fall under the terms Public Places.

Just because the public has been invited to enjoy an establishment, does not give the public the right to say what goes on there. When the mob rule of Democracy succeeds in renaming restaurants, bars, and bowling alleys as public places, we are all doomed.