@Andyjoe - of course I know "The constitution". "The constitution" was signed in 1982 by Queen Elizabeth and Pierre Elliott Trudea. I don't know what that has to do with anything though.
You were talking about Alabama, but OK.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms §2(a) guarantees the freedom of conscience and religion. I'm not an expert on Canadian jurisprudence, but any neophyte law scholar could make a compelling argument that it should be interpreted to forbid a provincial government from teaching the views of a particular religion as true in public schools.
I'm comparing government to society. Not scientists employed by government to random people on the street.
Government gets its information from these scientists, and then they make decisions based on that (or that's what's supposed to happen, some states are too retarded to do that, which also defeats your points, by the way). You can argue that society can do the same locally, except it would still require the same process and, as such, would be identical to the governmental process. "Better fit" doesn't work either, because that has inherent problems with it if you, say, live in a local area that is 90% creationist.
If you let it up to just society you would have some creationist schools and some secular ones, and probably more mixes still. It would be as many options as clothing stores. Parents would choose the best schools for them.
I'm not sure you've really thought this through, here. This would have the effect of pouring even more fuel on that annoying bonfire that ID is somehow equivalent to evolution. Also, some private schools are effectively creationist schools and can do almost whatever they want in America, something I already find very troublesome: This proposal would just make things that much worse.
There may be more ID schools, but only people who like that kind of thing will go there. So the fools go to the fool school, you go to the school you want.
No, the children of fools go to the fool school. Through no fault of their own.
Also the marketplace weeds-out terrible things. If you want to go to Cambridge for biology they will probably have a big sign saying that if you went to an ID school you'll have to take many remedial courses. And Pfizer will probably stipulate that you had to go to a good university if you hope to be hired as one of their scientists.
No, the marketplace doesn't weed out terrible things. The marketplace weeds out unprofitable things (and only does that when you don't consider multiple products under the same banner).
And you don't think there have been any positive aspects to the way drugs and prostitution are handled? Really? Again, do you even know what the word "externality" means?
Jobs in law enforcement. That's a positive.
Otherwise, strict prohibition has been a waste of time and money. In the case of the border and smugglers, there's clout to the argument that increased enforcement has actually exacerbated the situation- they've essentially placed competitive pressure on drug trafficking organizations, forcing them to adapt and consolidate. These organizations are most powerful in Mexico, which has already been called a failed state (hyperbole, but not that much). The burden on the legal, penal and healthcare systems is staggering.
Most drug use rates climb steadily. DTOs get more powerful. It's clear the current approach isn't working, and it's arguable that states shouldn't be intervening in the way they do. Most politicians are guilty of attempting to pass these policies off as successful. Public opinion on this issue is slow to progress. It's a clusterfuck. Not evidence that government shouldn't be involved, but that government has made itself involved in the wrong way.
The clients, the workers, and employers had absolutely no choice in defending their right to breathe free air?
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Are you saying you would be fine with the smoking ban if it had been accomplished through countless tort suits from affected individuals resulting in no-smoking injunctions?
What I mean is that I would be content if individual establishments enacted no-smoking policies based on the requests of their clients and workers. The International House of Pancakes, for example, had no smoking-policy prior to the legislation. I ate their all the time on Sunday mornings, never bothered me. Most places had sections. Bars, well, we kind of knew what to expect when we went there...
The facts just don't add up when we say the law supports what the people wanted. What people? I'm personal friends with two gentlemen who own bars in maryland that never received one complaint about the smoke indoors from patrons; or from their workers. One of them had a $4,000 smoke-eater system installed that cleared the smoke away from the area where the drinks were being served just out of a sign of respect. Niether of them were happy about the law. I can't find any bar owner in all of my travels that thinks it was a good idea. The whole debate has devolved into , "I like it better without smoke" AFTER the fact... like the law was some pulmonary lancelot. The real question has been burried.
I can sit down and literally write down a hundred things that I could do without when I go out into public, believe me.. but my personal feelings and objective political stances are separate entities. Keep in mind, the law has empowered racists, murderers, theives, and con-artists too. It's not like the state is immune to deficiency. If it's not special interests, then it's a moral monopoly... protecting people's rights to be offended by things rather than protecting people's rights as free citizens.
Chaos Punk on
We are all the man behind the curtain.... pay no attention to any of us
Here's a link for the ones that agree that two men shouldn't have the right to willingly gamble with one another. This is how the state helps you overcome your gambling addiction.
The facts just don't add up when we say the law supports what the people wanted. What people? I'm personal friends with two gentlemen who own bars in maryland that never received one complaint about the smoke indoors from patrons; or from their workers. One of them had a $4,000 smoke-eater system installed that cleared the smoke away from the area where the drinks were being served just out of a sign of respect. Niether of them were happy about the law. I can't find any bar owner in all of my travels that thinks it was a good idea. The whole debate has devolved into , "I like it better without smoke" AFTER the fact... like the law was some pulmonary lancelot. The real question has been burried.
I'm quite sure most bar owners whose bars already allowed smoking were unhappy with the law, yes. On the other hand, that isn't the point.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The facts just don't add up when we say the law supports what the people wanted. What people? I'm personal friends with two gentlemen who own bars in maryland that never received one complaint about the smoke indoors from patrons; or from their workers. One of them had a $4,000 smoke-eater system installed that cleared the smoke away from the area where the drinks were being served just out of a sign of respect. Niether of them were happy about the law. I can't find any bar owner in all of my travels that thinks it was a good idea. The whole debate has devolved into , "I like it better without smoke" AFTER the fact... like the law was some pulmonary lancelot. The real question has been burried.
I'm quite sure most bar owners whose bars already allowed smoking were unhappy with the law, yes. On the other hand, that isn't the point.
I'm not trying to be a dick, ya know, I get it.. I understand that society today is concerned with safety and public health, and the 'the children'... but utilizing the law to enforce "wise habits" like refraining from smoking or gambling or drinking or doing drugs is just not an effective way of dealing with groups of people. I doubt that you could find anybody who doesn't believe there is some level of risk involved with all of these types of things, nevertheless human society needs freedom of choice. This Lucy Page Gaston drivel just turns ordinary harmless people into "criminals", alleviates men and women from their own responsibility and consequences of their actions, and empowers the state to commit atrocities against citizens in the name of justice and safety.
Enlighten me, why is necessary for the state to have this level of control over the individual?
Chaos Punk on
We are all the man behind the curtain.... pay no attention to any of us
The ban isn't about "enforcing wise habits" or whatever; obviously if you wish to smoke, there are lots of places you can still do it (even in the many such establishments that have dedicated smoking rooms/lounges, at least in my state.)
The law is about protecting the health of the employees of those establishments, who unlike the patrons don't have a choice (at least, assuming they like to eat and make rent) about whether to be in a smoke filled bar for 6-8 hours a day.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The facts just don't add up when we say the law supports what the people wanted. What people? I'm personal friends with two gentlemen who own bars in maryland that never received one complaint about the smoke indoors from patrons; or from their workers. One of them had a $4,000 smoke-eater system installed that cleared the smoke away from the area where the drinks were being served just out of a sign of respect. Niether of them were happy about the law. I can't find any bar owner in all of my travels that thinks it was a good idea. The whole debate has devolved into , "I like it better without smoke" AFTER the fact... like the law was some pulmonary lancelot. The real question has been burried.
I'm quite sure most bar owners whose bars already allowed smoking were unhappy with the law, yes. On the other hand, that isn't the point.
I'm not trying to be a dick, ya know, I get it.. I understand that society today is concerned with safety and public health, and the 'the children'... but utilizing the law to enforce "wise habits" like refraining from smoking or gambling or drinking or doing drugs is just not an effective way of dealing with groups of people. I doubt that you could find anybody who doesn't believe there is some level of risk involved with all of these types of things, nevertheless human society needs freedom of choice. This Lucy Page Gaston drivel just turns ordinary harmless people into "criminals", alleviates men and women from their own responsibility and consequences of their actions, and empowers the state to commit atrocities against citizens in the name of justice and safety.
Enlighten me, why is necessary for the state to have this level of control over the individual?
Why is it necessary for an employer to have this level of control over the individual?
I'm not trying to be a dick, ya know, I get it.. I understand that society today is concerned with safety and public health, and the 'the children'... but utilizing the law to enforce "wise habits" like refraining from smoking or gambling or drinking or doing drugs is just not an effective way of dealing with groups of people. I doubt that you could find anybody who doesn't believe there is some level of risk involved with all of these types of things, nevertheless human society needs freedom of choice. This Lucy Page Gaston drivel just turns ordinary harmless people into "criminals", alleviates men and women from their own responsibility and consequences of their actions, and empowers the state to commit atrocities against citizens in the name of justice and safety.
Enlighten me, why is necessary for the state to have this level of control over the individual?
Smoking makes a piss-poor example due to the documented effects of second-hand smoking. It's not a question of whether the smoker is "aware of the risks" - though there's a discussion to be had about chemically addictive substances and conscious awareness of risks - it's about everyone else who did not choose to start smoking, who still end up in the cloud. Bar personnel is a ready example, but also other patrons.
It's not about denying people their God-given right to die coughing up their own blood and and hard-acquired tar, it's about preventing it happening to people who didn't make that same choice. In many of slices of democratic world, "Bars, well, we knew what to expect" was met with a sort of "Why the fuck would we expect that, again?".
Locally (as in, my country), the head of the restaurant-owner assosciation actually went on record going "If we'd known it would turn out like this [indoor smoking ban], we'd have done this years ago". You can't find a bar owner who actually disagrees with the ban, now that they know for sure that it didn't cost them any business, but made the working environment better. They consider it a win-win.
Eh, this is mostly about the misadventures of the largest street gang in America (aka the police). If anyone should have been charged in that case in the first place it's the detective for entrapment charges.
Anyway, Sheriff Joe, and the likes of him, is not so much an argument for less state intervention as it is an argument for a radical reform of the police in the shittiest places of the U.S.
I'd like to echo this and say that in Norway it is exactly the same way when it comes to smoking. Speaking of which, Scandinavia by itself pretty much refutes 90%+ of all libertarian arguments. I love that most libertarians seem to pretend Scandinavia doesn't exist, pretend that it's not sustainable (which it totally is due to our taxes, which is an important part of society), or don't know about it in the first place.
There may be more ID schools, but only people who like that kind of thing will go there. So the fools go to the fool school, you go to the school you want.
This seems disturbingly ignorant of physical reality.
When I was young, I went to the only school I could, because my parents couldn't afford to drive me 20 minutes to the next town over.
Why is it necessary for an employer to have this level of control over the individual?
This is really the issue that most casual libertarian arguments gloss over.
The "power" that we're talking about the state having or not having doesn't simply disappear when the state stops exercising it; different people just make the decisions. Business owners, community leaders, people with lots of money, people with guns, whatever.
It isn't enough to say "I don't want the state making XYZ decisions"; who would you prefer was making them?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It is generally the case that such state interventions harm at least someone. It's not really plausible to suggest that it is uniformly an improvement.
(It is, however, also the case that market power generally exists and generally harms at least someone - someone else, of course. There are terribly few markets where participants can be plausibly described has having no market power - commodities with small and numerous buyers and sellers, usually.)
ronya on
0
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
The facts just don't add up when we say the law supports what the people wanted. What people? I'm personal friends with two gentlemen who own bars in maryland that never received one complaint about the smoke indoors from patrons; or from their workers.
Suppose the bar owners had received complaints? Would they have changed anything? After how many complaints? Would the patrons and employees have been able to predict that outcome accurately?
To be fair, state legislatures are hardly omniscient, either.
The contention is presumably merely that the legislative mechanism - lobbyists, opposition or lack thereof included - is at least no more ignorant than the individual affected bar owner or customer.
I'm not saying it is uniformly an improvement, just that the alternatives never seem to be considered. It's just "the state made (what I think is) a bad decision, ergo the state should not be making decisions."
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The facts just don't add up when we say the law supports what the people wanted. What people? I'm personal friends with two gentlemen who own bars in maryland that never received one complaint about the smoke indoors from patrons; or from their workers. One of them had a $4,000 smoke-eater system installed that cleared the smoke away from the area where the drinks were being served just out of a sign of respect. Niether of them were happy about the law. I can't find any bar owner in all of my travels that thinks it was a good idea. The whole debate has devolved into , "I like it better without smoke" AFTER the fact... like the law was some pulmonary lancelot. The real question has been burried.
I'm quite sure most bar owners whose bars already allowed smoking were unhappy with the law, yes. On the other hand, that isn't the point.
I'm not trying to be a dick, ya know, I get it.. I understand that society today is concerned with safety and public health, and the 'the children'... but utilizing the law to enforce "wise habits" like refraining from smoking or gambling or drinking or doing drugs is just not an effective way of dealing with groups of people. I doubt that you could find anybody who doesn't believe there is some level of risk involved with all of these types of things, nevertheless human society needs freedom of choice. This Lucy Page Gaston drivel just turns ordinary harmless people into "criminals", alleviates men and women from their own responsibility and consequences of their actions, and empowers the state to commit atrocities against citizens in the name of justice and safety.
Enlighten me, why is necessary for the state to have this level of control over the individual?
In bold is truth, but the thing to understand is that the justification isn't virtue-based- the state is not, in the case of indoor smoking laws, attempting to tell people how to live their lives. It's looking at empirical evidence that strongly suggests second-hand smoke is harmful to the people around the smoker, especially employees in those situations. Under the fundamental tenets of liberalism, asking smokers to smoke outside is more than an acceptable compromise; it sacrifices a minor liberty for the health of others.
The immediate counter-argument is that, well, if a bar owner doesn't want smoke in his establishment, he'll prohibit it. Except for the part where that would be suicidal for the business. One bar changes the rules and smokers stop going there. Here's the problem of collective action (which libertarian arguments tend to gloss over): every bar owner realizes this, and so no one is going to take that risk. The marginal utility of staying in business an additional day outweighs the marginal disutility of inhaling a day's worth of smoke.
The law means that the bar owners don't have to take that risk at all. It means that the rules are the same everywhere, so no bar will face disproportionate loss of business by patrons who resent the rule.
Getting back to the bolded sentences, you're correct that many vices are risky, but we should still be allowed to do those things. The sticky point is that the risk must be limited to ourselves, and that any risk to others must be negligible. This is why smoking outside isn't illegal, and shouldn't ever be- all the risk is to yourself. But inside, or in a car, the effect on others is an order of magnitude more harmful, especially in the long term.
The libertarian argument in a case like this focuses on the smoking patrons like their liberty is to be considered more important than the ability of the owner, staff and other patrons to have a smoke-free environment. Part of liberty is freedom from bodily harm. Sometimes the state has to take these actions because market forces alone are incapable of doing so, because of the problem of collective action, or (as Keynes stresses) because market forces will not bring about a desired outcome on a reasonable timeline. Sure, maybe a bar could eventually dig out a niche as the one smoke-free joint in the city, and attract the non-smoking crowd; this presumes a specific set of conditions, ignores the problem of collective action, and employs my favourite free-market term, "eventually."
Also, is anyone aware of any research done following the implementation of indoor smoking laws? Intuitively, I see it having a positive effect overall on business, since non-smokers will be deterred to a lesser extent. I imagine any immediate drop in business would be temporary, as people get pissed off then adapt...but I haven't heard of any empirical studies.
Smoking in bars is probably the best example strong-state supporters have of a policy that 1) people resisted and 2) everyone eventually embraced.
I'm happy to work with it as an example of a clear win-win.
So here is the question... why keep the no-smoking laws on the books? The state has made it's point, it's gotten the marketplace out of the rut of believing that all bars have to be smoking. They've shown that that's not the case and, according to anti-smoking supporters, even the bar owners are happy with the results.
So why keep the law on the books? You've convinced them. You've gotten the market to become accustomed to smoke-free bars. So what good is the law still doing? Now all you're doing is preventing a niche smoking club, a place for the handful of smokers to enjoy tobacco.
Smoking in bars is probably the best example strong-state supporters have of a policy that 1) people resisted and 2) everyone eventually embraced.
I'm happy to work with it as an example of a clear win-win.
So here is the question... why keep the no-smoking laws on the books? The state has made it's point, it's gotten the marketplace out of the rut of believing that all bars have to be smoking. They've shown that that's not the case and, according to anti-smoking supporters, even the bar owners are happy with the results.
So why keep the law on the books? You've convinced them. You've gotten the market to become accustomed to smoke-free bars. So what good is the law still doing? Now all you're doing is preventing a niche smoking club, a place for the handful of smokers to enjoy tobacco.
First off, most of the bans do have exemptions for tobacco-centric businesses, so that part of the argument is invalid.
Second, after seeing the various clusterfucks that have resulted from deregulation, I don't have faith that the status quo would stand.
Third, there is utility in a law that says that people have the right to not be subjected to pollution.
"Dodgeball, Red Rover, Wiffle Ball – those time-honored kids’ games, along with activities like Steal the Bacon and Capture the Flag – have been deemed dangerous by the state as part of an effort to tighten regulations for summer camps in the area."
Did I just see a libertarian do a double-take at the concept of "[t]he right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins?" I thought that was their central flipping argument for just about everything.
Did I just see a libertarian do a double-take at the concept of "[t]he right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins?" I thought that was their central flipping argument for just about everything.
That quote has to do with use of unwanted force. If you agree to be hit in the nose, then it's okay.
To clarify - In Libertopia you could go to a bar and if the owner allows you to smoke, you can smoke. If you choose to go to that bar you choose to accept the risks of second hand smoke.
Demanding that a bar provide you with a smoke-free environment and using police, fines and jail to make sure that happens is swinging your fist at their face.
On government owned land (the sidewalk, parks, government buildings) the government can have any rule it decides. Like a total smoking ban or a partial ban, or whatever it wants.
So, by virtue of walking into a bar (that I may not know allows smoking) I've agreed to have my lungs damaged, if only for a very short amount of time? I dunno, seems like I've just been hit in the face without having agreed to it.
So, by virtue of walking into a bar (that I may not know allows smoking) I've agreed to have my lungs damaged, if only for a very short amount of time? I dunno, seems like I've just been hit in the face without having agreed to it.
Well, one would hope that it's clearly noted that there is smoking allowed in the bar so that you go in knowing the risk. I mean, that's pretty important for people who are all about choice. I know some people who are passionately about liberty (to the point of being philosophically anarchists) and they are interested in the maximum amount of information.
Also, remember, you can just not go to the bar if you aren't sure and don't think that it's worth the risk. Certainly you wouldn't be so stupid as to not know that SOME bar SOMEWHERE allows smoking and if there isn't appropriate demarcation prior to you entering the establishment you can be aware that you may be walking into a bar that allows smoking. Then you can leave if it does.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
So, by virtue of walking into a bar (that I may not know allows smoking) I've agreed to have my lungs damaged, if only for a very short amount of time? I dunno, seems like I've just been hit in the face without having agreed to it.
Well you could sue the smoker. But you'd have to know who it was. And you'd have to prove damages, which are probably approaching zero. Also the government can not compel the defedant(s) to appear at trial. So the smoker probably wouldn't bother going to a trial that was so clearly unreasonable trolling.
So yes, if you can convince a judge to hear the case, and argue your point (against someone who doesn't bother to show up at trial) AND you're the victor on the balance of probability THEN you could move onto damages which might be fractions of cents.
Personally I don't think the judge would hear the case and even if they did, I don't think you'd win. And if you won I don't think you'd get a full cent.
This leads us to a conclusion that is much closer to ronya's - social engineering, violating the principle of liberty, may be permissible, even in non-extreme situations. We have to be cautious, we have to be very sure of the information and theory that we're basing our social decisions on, but we cannot justify a principled stand against all social engineering on the basis of liberty. Liberty is a very strong guideline more than it is an inalienable rule.
I don't have the time right now to give this post the response it deserves, but suffice it to say: I don't know that I actually disagree with you as a matter of kind rather than degree. Despite temporarily adopting the liberal mantle, I am not actually myself liberal on all issues. I think, however, that they are onto something that is at least partially right, and furthermore, regardless of the ultimate truth of pure liberalism, I find the cavalier attitude towards state power ronya takes to be disturbing.
Recall that this entire line of discussion came out of the French burqa bans--there we have an almost perfect example of exactly why and how liberals are almost always exactly right, even if on very rare occasion they may not be.
For my part, I find your conception of individual autonomy oddly careless, given its central role in this philosophy; there are way too many areas where you are drawing judgments and comparisons between conflicting goals in an essentially paternalistic way, and that is where the state intrusion is being hidden. Your reading of what may count as maximizing individual autonomy is broad where you seek to defend the expansive, regulatory state and narrow where you seek to criticize it. I suspect there is a conflict, but I'll grant that I'm finding it difficult to identify it. :P
And I think you're both eminently reasonable people with respectable ideologies and strong fundamentals, and I'd happy to see either of you in positions of leadership!
/diplomacy
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Well you could sue the smoker. But you'd have to know who it was. And you'd have to prove damages, which are probably approaching zero. Also the government can not compel the defedant(s) to appear at trial. So the smoker probably wouldn't bother going to a trial that was so clearly unreasonable trolling.
So yes, if you can convince a judge to hear the case, and argue your point (against someone who doesn't bother to show up at trial) AND you're the victor on the balance of probability THEN you could move onto damages which might be fractions of cents.
Personally I don't think the judge would hear the case and even if they did, I don't think you'd win. And if you won I don't think you'd get a full cent.
Anything else?
If you want to sell your interpretation of libertarianism, "I acknowledge that you can be harmed, but the system will prevent you from pursuing any justice or compensation and I'm totally okay with that" is, I daresay, not going to be an appealing description.
So, by virtue of walking into a bar (that I may not know allows smoking) I've agreed to have my lungs damaged, if only for a very short amount of time? I dunno, seems like I've just been hit in the face without having agreed to it.
Well you could sue the smoker. But you'd have to know who it was. And you'd have to prove damages, which are probably approaching zero. Also the government can not compel the defedant(s) to appear at trial. So the smoker probably wouldn't bother going to a trial that was so clearly unreasonable trolling.
So yes, if you can convince a judge to hear the case, and argue your point (against someone who doesn't bother to show up at trial) AND you're the victor on the balance of probability THEN you could move onto damages which might be fractions of cents.
Personally I don't think the judge would hear the case and even if they did, I don't think you'd win. And if you won I don't think you'd get a full cent.
Anything else?
No, I don't think we really need anything else; you've described how little you care for your fellow man's right not to get dementia, lung cancer, and heart disease.
You have quite accurately summed up exactly why I hate the libertarian position: Absolute ignorance + "Fuck you, got mine" + a horrible system for anyone who isn't a CEO—leading to streets filled with dead poor people and employees shat on by dictatorial employers.
I was writing a response, but I think ronya and Paragon said what I was looking to say better than I would have.
I laughed at the "courts can't compel you to stand at a civil trial" thing. Because that's how court are now. If you get sued, is not going to force you to attend.
What he misses is that if you don't attend, then there is nobody to argue your side of the case. Which doesn't work out well.
He wasn't describing courts as they are, he was describing courts in a postulated Libertopia (context as per post #107). As noted, it seems like a world curiously apathetic about libertarian core principles.
He wasn't describing courts as they are, he was describing courts in a postulated Libertopia (context as per post #107). As noted, it seems like a world curiously apathetic about libertarian core principles.
Since Locke. Security of person and property rights are what government exists to protect- according to classical Liberals and libertarians, this is the only justification. Most liberals- even most small government ones- would extend this to most commonly accepted human rights. But as soon as you strip those tenets away, you're not talking about anything resembling liberalism.
Smoking in bars is probably the best example strong-state supporters have of a policy that 1) people resisted and 2) everyone eventually embraced.
I'm happy to work with it as an example of a clear win-win.
So here is the question... why keep the no-smoking laws on the books? The state has made it's point, it's gotten the marketplace out of the rut of believing that all bars have to be smoking. They've shown that that's not the case and, according to anti-smoking supporters, even the bar owners are happy with the results.
So why keep the law on the books? You've convinced them. You've gotten the market to become accustomed to smoke-free bars. So what good is the law still doing? Now all you're doing is preventing a niche smoking club, a place for the handful of smokers to enjoy tobacco.
Fair question, and not one with a definitive answer. Most would argue that if the law were repealed, things would fall back old ways over time. The counter-argument is that if businesses have ultimately benefited from the legislation, they would maintain the rule as a social norm. The only thing that can be said for certain is that both would occur to some extent.
This case has economic consequences that make it harder to predict. Efforts in social engineering, such as affirmative action, are explicitly temporary corrective measures that must be reviewed and ultimately repealed. With the indoor smoking laws, it's uncertain whether or not norms might just snap back. Keeping the law in place is to err on the side of caution, and as time goes on, the cost of its implementation will diminish. So...the utility of repealing the law is questionable at best.
The facts just don't add up when we say the law supports what the people wanted. What people? I'm personal friends with two gentlemen who own bars in maryland that never received one complaint about the smoke indoors from patrons; or from their workers. One of them had a $4,000 smoke-eater system installed that cleared the smoke away from the area where the drinks were being served just out of a sign of respect. Niether of them were happy about the law. I can't find any bar owner in all of my travels that thinks it was a good idea. The whole debate has devolved into , "I like it better without smoke" AFTER the fact... like the law was some pulmonary lancelot. The real question has been burried.
I'm quite sure most bar owners whose bars already allowed smoking were unhappy with the law, yes. On the other hand, that isn't the point.
I'm not trying to be a dick, ya know, I get it.. I understand that society today is concerned with safety and public health, and the 'the children'... but utilizing the law to enforce "wise habits" like refraining from smoking or gambling or drinking or doing drugs is just not an effective way of dealing with groups of people. I doubt that you could find anybody who doesn't believe there is some level of risk involved with all of these types of things, nevertheless human society needs freedom of choice. This Lucy Page Gaston drivel just turns ordinary harmless people into "criminals", alleviates men and women from their own responsibility and consequences of their actions, and empowers the state to commit atrocities against citizens in the name of justice and safety.
Enlighten me, why is necessary for the state to have this level of control over the individual?
In bold is truth, but the thing to understand is that the justification isn't virtue-based- the state is not, in the case of indoor smoking laws, attempting to tell people how to live their lives. It's looking at empirical evidence that strongly suggests second-hand smoke is harmful to the people around the smoker, especially employees in those situations. Under the fundamental tenets of liberalism, asking smokers to smoke outside is more than an acceptable compromise; it sacrifices a minor liberty for the health of others.
What empirical data are we using in this case? I accept that there is some level of risk with smoking tobacco, but I haven’t seen any objective, confirmed science that second hand-smoke is any more dangerous than perfume to my asthmatic girlfriend. This is debatable material. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that all the scientific research checks out in your point. How do you explain states that have expanded the smoking bans to beaches and other outdoor areas, private clubs where private membership is required, and even within people’s own cars and households?
The immediate counter-argument is that, well, if a bar owner doesn't want smoke in his establishment, he'll prohibit it. Except for the part where that would be suicidal for the business. One bar changes the rules and smokers stop going there. Here's the problem of collective action (which libertarian arguments tend to gloss over): every bar owner realizes this, and so no one is going to take that risk. The marginal utility of staying in business an additional day outweighs the marginal disutility of inhaling a day's worth of smoke.
The law means that the bar owners don't have to take that risk at all. It means that the rules are the same everywhere, so no bar will face disproportionate loss of business by patrons who resent the rule.
Non-smokers who drink constitute as much of the population as smokers who drink. Are you asserting that there is no market to appeal to this percentage of people? Saying that none of us have to inherit such a risk by allowing the state to interfere stands in complete diametric opposition to the principles of free-market enterprise. It is a business owners’ responsibility to collect data, research and develop, and take risks based on the information he/she has ascertained.
Getting back to the bolded sentences, you're correct that many vices are risky, but we should still be allowed to do those things. The sticky point is that the risk must be limited to ourselves, and that any risk to others must be negligible. This is why smoking outside isn't illegal, and shouldn't ever be- all the risk is to yourself. But inside, or in a car, the effect on others is an order of magnitude more harmful, especially in the long term.
Assuming that smoking outside isn’t already illegal, which it is in a lot of areas, this might work. However, the fact that lawmakers have banned smoking outside kind of contradicts the original “limited to ourselves” argument. So maybe its pollution and bad for the earth and you may drink water with carcinogens in it? When we add the environmental variables to the equation, the whole picture gets even more skewed, and inadvertently we’ll have to include things that aren’t demonized just so that our logic checks out. The reality is that it just became acceptable to hate cigarette smoke and even more acceptable to ostracize and dehumanize smokers by claiming they contravene everybody’s right to inhale smoke-free air.
The libertarian argument in a case like this focuses on the smoking patrons like their liberty is to be considered more important than the ability of the owner, staff and other patrons to have a smoke-free environment. Part of liberty is freedom from bodily harm.
This is based on an assumption that customer complaints are not an effective way of changing policy. If there were enough complaints about indoor smoking, then a good bar owner will know that a counter measure has to be introduced. If it is exhibited that complaints are frequent, then compromise is in the owner’s best interest. Smoking ventilation systems, for example, are possibly the best way to purge the area of harmful toxins in the air (some even remove mold spores and other microbiological allergens). The systems are cost-effective, consumer-driven, and beneficial to both parties. If it was about public health, why didn’t the state attempt to pressure bar owners to install these systems rather than just banning the entire practice? It’s actually easier for state inspectors to catch someone without a working ventilation system than it is for them to catch someone smoking.
Sometimes the state has to take these actions because market forces alone are incapable of doing so, because of the problem of collective action, or (as Keynes stresses) because market forces will not bring about a desired outcome on a reasonable timeline. Sure, maybe a bar could eventually dig out a niche as the one smoke-free joint in the city, and attract the non-smoking crowd; this presumes a specific set of conditions, ignores the problem of collective action, and employs my favourite free-market term, "eventually."
Yes, it would be financial suicide to appeal to non-smokers the same way it would be if someone started a fetish club for the masochists (yet surprisingly those who do generate excellent profits, hmmm).
What’s so bad about “eventually”? Eventually with market forces smoking can become antiquated in a completely voluntary environment by offering new-age products to the market that people actually want to use rather than being forced not to use. Take electronic cigarettes for instance. They’re cool, they’re available, they work. I’m not saying smoking needs to become antiquated, but there are better ways of getting people to take control of their health than just saying, “Don’t do it, it’s against the law!”
Also, is anyone aware of any research done following the implementation of indoor smoking laws? Intuitively, I see it having a positive effect overall on business, since non-smokers will be deterred to a lesser extent. I imagine any immediate drop in business would be temporary, as people get pissed off then adapt...but I haven't heard of any empirical studies.
Now we’re talking about spin. I can take a video camera and interview 500 people that think the smoking ban sucks cock, and another 500 people that think the smoking ban made everything fresh as daisies. Empirical data is too refutable. If you look at the hard statistics there were businesses who suffered, some that stayed the same, and others who had better quarters than years before. If it was just about “things being better”, why bother in the beginning? The facts were that smoking didn’t hinder business. Bringing up these arguments to show that it made things “better” is just rationalizing a defense for lawmakers to back special interests and moral monopolies rather than supporting people’s liberty and right to chose.
Chaos Punk on
We are all the man behind the curtain.... pay no attention to any of us
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
The ban isn't about "enforcing wise habits" or whatever; obviously if you wish to smoke, there are lots of places you can still do it (even in the many such establishments that have dedicated smoking rooms/lounges, at least in my state.)
The law is about protecting the health of the employees of those establishments, who unlike the patrons don't have a choice (at least, assuming they like to eat and make rent) about whether to be in a smoke filled bar for 6-8 hours a day.
Let's not be ridiculous and pretend that a large part of smoking-bans isn't about "enforcing wise habits". Even the most cynical person would agree with the most idealistic person that these kind of laws are at least partly about stopping the evils of smoking.
Julius on
0
Options
Andy JoeWe claim the land for the highlord!The AdirondacksRegistered Userregular
The same thing that's wrong with the long run: eventually we're all dead. Some people would like to start reducing lung cancer/heart disease/whatever ill you want to talk about now, instead of waiting for the market to provide a solution at some nebulous-but-far-off point in the future.
Posts
You were talking about Alabama, but OK.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms §2(a) guarantees the freedom of conscience and religion. I'm not an expert on Canadian jurisprudence, but any neophyte law scholar could make a compelling argument that it should be interpreted to forbid a provincial government from teaching the views of a particular religion as true in public schools.
No, the children of fools go to the fool school. Through no fault of their own.
No, the marketplace doesn't weed out terrible things. The marketplace weeds out unprofitable things (and only does that when you don't consider multiple products under the same banner).
These two things aren't necessarily connected.
Jobs in law enforcement. That's a positive.
Otherwise, strict prohibition has been a waste of time and money. In the case of the border and smugglers, there's clout to the argument that increased enforcement has actually exacerbated the situation- they've essentially placed competitive pressure on drug trafficking organizations, forcing them to adapt and consolidate. These organizations are most powerful in Mexico, which has already been called a failed state (hyperbole, but not that much). The burden on the legal, penal and healthcare systems is staggering.
Most drug use rates climb steadily. DTOs get more powerful. It's clear the current approach isn't working, and it's arguable that states shouldn't be intervening in the way they do. Most politicians are guilty of attempting to pass these policies off as successful. Public opinion on this issue is slow to progress. It's a clusterfuck. Not evidence that government shouldn't be involved, but that government has made itself involved in the wrong way.
This is a statement of Libertarian faith. It is not a statement of objective fact.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
What I mean is that I would be content if individual establishments enacted no-smoking policies based on the requests of their clients and workers. The International House of Pancakes, for example, had no smoking-policy prior to the legislation. I ate their all the time on Sunday mornings, never bothered me. Most places had sections. Bars, well, we kind of knew what to expect when we went there...
The facts just don't add up when we say the law supports what the people wanted. What people? I'm personal friends with two gentlemen who own bars in maryland that never received one complaint about the smoke indoors from patrons; or from their workers. One of them had a $4,000 smoke-eater system installed that cleared the smoke away from the area where the drinks were being served just out of a sign of respect. Niether of them were happy about the law. I can't find any bar owner in all of my travels that thinks it was a good idea. The whole debate has devolved into , "I like it better without smoke" AFTER the fact... like the law was some pulmonary lancelot. The real question has been burried.
I can sit down and literally write down a hundred things that I could do without when I go out into public, believe me.. but my personal feelings and objective political stances are separate entities. Keep in mind, the law has empowered racists, murderers, theives, and con-artists too. It's not like the state is immune to deficiency. If it's not special interests, then it's a moral monopoly... protecting people's rights to be offended by things rather than protecting people's rights as free citizens.
Here's a link for the ones that agree that two men shouldn't have the right to willingly gamble with one another. This is how the state helps you overcome your gambling addiction.
Full Story
http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/17/justice-for-sal
I'm quite sure most bar owners whose bars already allowed smoking were unhappy with the law, yes. On the other hand, that isn't the point.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'm not trying to be a dick, ya know, I get it.. I understand that society today is concerned with safety and public health, and the 'the children'... but utilizing the law to enforce "wise habits" like refraining from smoking or gambling or drinking or doing drugs is just not an effective way of dealing with groups of people. I doubt that you could find anybody who doesn't believe there is some level of risk involved with all of these types of things, nevertheless human society needs freedom of choice. This Lucy Page Gaston drivel just turns ordinary harmless people into "criminals", alleviates men and women from their own responsibility and consequences of their actions, and empowers the state to commit atrocities against citizens in the name of justice and safety.
Enlighten me, why is necessary for the state to have this level of control over the individual?
The law is about protecting the health of the employees of those establishments, who unlike the patrons don't have a choice (at least, assuming they like to eat and make rent) about whether to be in a smoke filled bar for 6-8 hours a day.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Why is it necessary for an employer to have this level of control over the individual?
It's not about denying people their God-given right to die coughing up their own blood and and hard-acquired tar, it's about preventing it happening to people who didn't make that same choice. In many of slices of democratic world, "Bars, well, we knew what to expect" was met with a sort of "Why the fuck would we expect that, again?".
Locally (as in, my country), the head of the restaurant-owner assosciation actually went on record going "If we'd known it would turn out like this [indoor smoking ban], we'd have done this years ago". You can't find a bar owner who actually disagrees with the ban, now that they know for sure that it didn't cost them any business, but made the working environment better. They consider it a win-win.
Eh, this is mostly about the misadventures of the largest street gang in America (aka the police). If anyone should have been charged in that case in the first place it's the detective for entrapment charges.
Anyway, Sheriff Joe, and the likes of him, is not so much an argument for less state intervention as it is an argument for a radical reform of the police in the shittiest places of the U.S.
I'd like to echo this and say that in Norway it is exactly the same way when it comes to smoking. Speaking of which, Scandinavia by itself pretty much refutes 90%+ of all libertarian arguments. I love that most libertarians seem to pretend Scandinavia doesn't exist, pretend that it's not sustainable (which it totally is due to our taxes, which is an important part of society), or don't know about it in the first place.
When I was young, I went to the only school I could, because my parents couldn't afford to drive me 20 minutes to the next town over.
This is really the issue that most casual libertarian arguments gloss over.
The "power" that we're talking about the state having or not having doesn't simply disappear when the state stops exercising it; different people just make the decisions. Business owners, community leaders, people with lots of money, people with guns, whatever.
It isn't enough to say "I don't want the state making XYZ decisions"; who would you prefer was making them?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
(It is, however, also the case that market power generally exists and generally harms at least someone - someone else, of course. There are terribly few markets where participants can be plausibly described has having no market power - commodities with small and numerous buyers and sellers, usually.)
Suppose the bar owners had received complaints? Would they have changed anything? After how many complaints? Would the patrons and employees have been able to predict that outcome accurately?
The contention is presumably merely that the legislative mechanism - lobbyists, opposition or lack thereof included - is at least no more ignorant than the individual affected bar owner or customer.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
In bold is truth, but the thing to understand is that the justification isn't virtue-based- the state is not, in the case of indoor smoking laws, attempting to tell people how to live their lives. It's looking at empirical evidence that strongly suggests second-hand smoke is harmful to the people around the smoker, especially employees in those situations. Under the fundamental tenets of liberalism, asking smokers to smoke outside is more than an acceptable compromise; it sacrifices a minor liberty for the health of others.
The immediate counter-argument is that, well, if a bar owner doesn't want smoke in his establishment, he'll prohibit it. Except for the part where that would be suicidal for the business. One bar changes the rules and smokers stop going there. Here's the problem of collective action (which libertarian arguments tend to gloss over): every bar owner realizes this, and so no one is going to take that risk. The marginal utility of staying in business an additional day outweighs the marginal disutility of inhaling a day's worth of smoke.
The law means that the bar owners don't have to take that risk at all. It means that the rules are the same everywhere, so no bar will face disproportionate loss of business by patrons who resent the rule.
Getting back to the bolded sentences, you're correct that many vices are risky, but we should still be allowed to do those things. The sticky point is that the risk must be limited to ourselves, and that any risk to others must be negligible. This is why smoking outside isn't illegal, and shouldn't ever be- all the risk is to yourself. But inside, or in a car, the effect on others is an order of magnitude more harmful, especially in the long term.
The libertarian argument in a case like this focuses on the smoking patrons like their liberty is to be considered more important than the ability of the owner, staff and other patrons to have a smoke-free environment. Part of liberty is freedom from bodily harm. Sometimes the state has to take these actions because market forces alone are incapable of doing so, because of the problem of collective action, or (as Keynes stresses) because market forces will not bring about a desired outcome on a reasonable timeline. Sure, maybe a bar could eventually dig out a niche as the one smoke-free joint in the city, and attract the non-smoking crowd; this presumes a specific set of conditions, ignores the problem of collective action, and employs my favourite free-market term, "eventually."
Also, is anyone aware of any research done following the implementation of indoor smoking laws? Intuitively, I see it having a positive effect overall on business, since non-smokers will be deterred to a lesser extent. I imagine any immediate drop in business would be temporary, as people get pissed off then adapt...but I haven't heard of any empirical studies.
What? Since when?
Smoking in bars is probably the best example strong-state supporters have of a policy that 1) people resisted and 2) everyone eventually embraced.
I'm happy to work with it as an example of a clear win-win.
So here is the question... why keep the no-smoking laws on the books? The state has made it's point, it's gotten the marketplace out of the rut of believing that all bars have to be smoking. They've shown that that's not the case and, according to anti-smoking supporters, even the bar owners are happy with the results.
So why keep the law on the books? You've convinced them. You've gotten the market to become accustomed to smoke-free bars. So what good is the law still doing? Now all you're doing is preventing a niche smoking club, a place for the handful of smokers to enjoy tobacco.
First off, most of the bans do have exemptions for tobacco-centric businesses, so that part of the argument is invalid.
Second, after seeing the various clusterfucks that have resulted from deregulation, I don't have faith that the status quo would stand.
Third, there is utility in a law that says that people have the right to not be subjected to pollution.
"Dodgeball, Red Rover, Wiffle Ball – those time-honored kids’ games, along with activities like Steal the Bacon and Capture the Flag – have been deemed dangerous by the state as part of an effort to tighten regulations for summer camps in the area."
More here:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Freeze-Tag-Red-Rover-Deemed-Dangerous-in-New-Summer-Camp-Regs-120195644.html
That quote has to do with use of unwanted force. If you agree to be hit in the nose, then it's okay.
To clarify - In Libertopia you could go to a bar and if the owner allows you to smoke, you can smoke. If you choose to go to that bar you choose to accept the risks of second hand smoke.
Demanding that a bar provide you with a smoke-free environment and using police, fines and jail to make sure that happens is swinging your fist at their face.
On government owned land (the sidewalk, parks, government buildings) the government can have any rule it decides. Like a total smoking ban or a partial ban, or whatever it wants.
Well, one would hope that it's clearly noted that there is smoking allowed in the bar so that you go in knowing the risk. I mean, that's pretty important for people who are all about choice. I know some people who are passionately about liberty (to the point of being philosophically anarchists) and they are interested in the maximum amount of information.
Also, remember, you can just not go to the bar if you aren't sure and don't think that it's worth the risk. Certainly you wouldn't be so stupid as to not know that SOME bar SOMEWHERE allows smoking and if there isn't appropriate demarcation prior to you entering the establishment you can be aware that you may be walking into a bar that allows smoking. Then you can leave if it does.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Well you could sue the smoker. But you'd have to know who it was. And you'd have to prove damages, which are probably approaching zero. Also the government can not compel the defedant(s) to appear at trial. So the smoker probably wouldn't bother going to a trial that was so clearly unreasonable trolling.
So yes, if you can convince a judge to hear the case, and argue your point (against someone who doesn't bother to show up at trial) AND you're the victor on the balance of probability THEN you could move onto damages which might be fractions of cents.
Personally I don't think the judge would hear the case and even if they did, I don't think you'd win. And if you won I don't think you'd get a full cent.
Anything else?
And I think you're both eminently reasonable people with respectable ideologies and strong fundamentals, and I'd happy to see either of you in positions of leadership!
/diplomacy
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
@Loklar:
If you want to sell your interpretation of libertarianism, "I acknowledge that you can be harmed, but the system will prevent you from pursuing any justice or compensation and I'm totally okay with that" is, I daresay, not going to be an appealing description.
No, I don't think we really need anything else; you've described how little you care for your fellow man's right not to get dementia, lung cancer, and heart disease.
You have quite accurately summed up exactly why I hate the libertarian position: Absolute ignorance + "Fuck you, got mine" + a horrible system for anyone who isn't a CEO—leading to streets filled with dead poor people and employees shat on by dictatorial employers.
I laughed at the "courts can't compel you to stand at a civil trial" thing. Because that's how court are now. If you get sued, is not going to force you to attend.
What he misses is that if you don't attend, then there is nobody to argue your side of the case. Which doesn't work out well.
In other words, he wants worthless courts.
Since Locke. Security of person and property rights are what government exists to protect- according to classical Liberals and libertarians, this is the only justification. Most liberals- even most small government ones- would extend this to most commonly accepted human rights. But as soon as you strip those tenets away, you're not talking about anything resembling liberalism.
Fair question, and not one with a definitive answer. Most would argue that if the law were repealed, things would fall back old ways over time. The counter-argument is that if businesses have ultimately benefited from the legislation, they would maintain the rule as a social norm. The only thing that can be said for certain is that both would occur to some extent.
This case has economic consequences that make it harder to predict. Efforts in social engineering, such as affirmative action, are explicitly temporary corrective measures that must be reviewed and ultimately repealed. With the indoor smoking laws, it's uncertain whether or not norms might just snap back. Keeping the law in place is to err on the side of caution, and as time goes on, the cost of its implementation will diminish. So...the utility of repealing the law is questionable at best.
Let's not be ridiculous and pretend that a large part of smoking-bans isn't about "enforcing wise habits". Even the most cynical person would agree with the most idealistic person that these kind of laws are at least partly about stopping the evils of smoking.
The same thing that's wrong with the long run: eventually we're all dead. Some people would like to start reducing lung cancer/heart disease/whatever ill you want to talk about now, instead of waiting for the market to provide a solution at some nebulous-but-far-off point in the future.