Replies

Only someone who has the mistaken idea that they have a right to tell someone else what rules to make for the use of their private property would make such a comment. The home and the business place share the same property rights. Anyone who suggests otherwise should be jailed. It should be a jailable offence.

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?

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

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."

This I just love, the bait and switch. Here, you make an argument for laws that restrict initiation of force, ie, aggression. That is a libertarian argument. Then you pull the fast one, hoping the reader won't notice, linking rules against aggression to rules that have nothing to do with aggression and everything to do with mob rule. You think we don't know the difference?

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?

When given a choice between fighting socialist entitlements that are the cause of your tax liability, or limiting other's behavior, you choose the latter.

Why is that?

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.

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

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 planning on making it worse.

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."

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.

How those laws are made, how those restrictions are decided, is the key issue. By fiat? Edict? Representative vote?

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.

The founding fathers accepted slavery and wrote it into the Constitution with the infamous 3/5ths clause.

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 anti-slavery clause, sir.

The founding fathers accepted "indirect" election of Senators. Most of us don't.

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.

The list goes on.

As do you, sir. Paragraphs are our friends.

A medical and legal argument can be made that all people exposed to tobacco smoke are harmed, including those not smoking.

These arguments have all been pretty well refuted, which you'd know if you'd been paying attention around here.

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?

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.

Why should I be barred from restricting your conduct in this instance and then forced to pay for the consequences of your conduct?

In an extension of your thought process, why shouldn't I be able to restrict your right to express your opinions because they might raise my blood pressure? Eroding private property rights further in the name of "health concerns" is no different than stifling free speech.

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

Then you have just dictated the basic tenant of socialism which is that no property is "private" but is part of the community or commune.

"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."

So according to you, if a community passes a law restricting a businessman who owns a fabric shop to sell only red fabric, then he must abide by that. And if he does so at a loss, because he opened the business before said law was passed, he must accept the loss because another law was passed banning all businesses from closing. Your logic is purely Hegelian. And quite Leninist. Read your history.

"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."

A non-starter. You are basically comparing the "use" of private property against another individual. A business (for example a bar) is open to all individuals, but no one is forced to go in there and endure any smoke which might be in the air. There are other businesses which offer the same services without smoking. But if there are not, you are saying since there are not, and because you as an individual, a non-capitalist who is too lazy to start a competeting, non-smoking establishment, have the right to deny the entrepreneur the right to profit and to run the establishment within the established laws before you came along. Wow, what a facistic communistic view you have. Congrats. You've got your degree in Stalinism now.

"All laws put people on notice of ways their conduct is restricted and that, if they violate those restrictions, they're liable to punishment."

So according to you, all fast food places must be closed down as they are harmful. All liquour stores shut down. All wine and beer banned. All red meat banned. All chemically enhanced or treated produce, processed foods, or foods not deemed 100% healthy by the medical profession must be banned. SUV's, luxury sedans, banned. Nice list. You must have this desire to live in 1970 Albania. And what a sucessful model for society that was.

"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."

According to your rules though, we have the right to ban individuals whose lifestyles are abhorrent to us from our "community". In other words, if in the village of Facistville, two lesbian couples move in and they appall the residents, we would have the right to have a vote and they would be banned from working or being seen in public during limited hours of the day. 1984 or worse. Simply amazing.

"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."

Yes, but this goes against the equal treatment under the law principle. If I object to fat people because they are a drain on our community and ruin it's appearance, your logic gives me the right to have them banished or worse. Pure Stalinism.

"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?"

Why should I be barred? Hmmm, according to your logic, I should be able to ping JR, and have you banned from this board for being a facist. But being a true objectivist Libertarian, I just ignore your opinion and shoot it down with logic. You are basically wanting a 100% government controlled and maintained society. If you really want that, please, publish your name and address and I PERSONALLY will take a portion of my profits and purchase the visa and tickets to relocate you to North Korea. It's what you really want, so don't be shy.

"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.

"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