When two people walk into a restaurant they are equal. As they both share the same air they are equal. As they eat they are equal. When they pay the bill and tip the waiter they are equal. As they leave they are equal.
When one of those people lights up, they are no longer equal. Once person is enjoying his habit while the other person is having to deal with the stink.
Who took the offending action?
I know you think you are advancing the cause of freedom. I don’t see it that way at all. You are advocating the freedom to destroy someone else’s freedom, and then telling that person whose freedom was impacted that they are in fact the one destroying the other person’s freedom.
That libertarian guideline has been repeated to me many times. It shouldn’t be something that only applies when it works for your benefit.
Thanks for the response.
The government took the offending action, by removing the option from the private property owner to invite smoking customers.
The thought of eating sushi repels me, so I avoid sushi restaurants.
For the life of me, I will never understand why anti-smokers seem unable to make a simple choice. Enter, or not.
Libertarianism argues in favor of private property rights; socialism argues "equality."
You obviously did not read the linked article written by Walter Williams, as a result I can see that you are not interested in any opposing point of view to yours.
“When two people walk into a restaurant they are equal.”
Neither are as equal as the owner of the property, while on that property. Your supposition assumes that both have equal claim to that private property without making any investment with hard work or money for that property.
Your argument is the perfect tool for anti private property actions everywhere.