Restaurant smoking ban in Baton Rouge

Although there is a fine line between the two, I wasn't saying that it meant anarchy. What I am saying is that hard-line libertariansim favors the abolishment of all coercive bodies, right? So then, who would they choose to enforce the ideals of libertarians? By all means, it would have to be some sort of forceful entity, would it not? The way I see it, a governments role is to protects its people, not only from foreign intruders, but also from each other...but not from themselves. Would you not agree that (sane) libertarians would agree with that statement? That is why I favor the smoking ban. I guess if you adopted a truly radical philosophy, you could say that it should be legal to kill or harm someone on private property so long as they were aware of such consequences beforehand. But such an idea is so off-base that it's not worth entertaining. There is a certain element of basic human nature that must be reconciled in any system of government. I think even the most gung-ho libertarians would agree with that.

Only heard him speak a few times, but found it intruiging (not necessarily agreeable) nonetheless. Not making a comparison, but I also find the teachings of such despicable characters as Mao and Hitler intriguiging.
But, as an aside, is it wrong to respect pompous gasbags?

Out of curiousity, what do you see as their fundamental flaw? I don't think the implementation of their ideals would exactly be practical at this stage, but fundamentally, it's very hard for me to disagree.

You know what, martin...I'll give you this one. Although I typically agree with social liberalism and economic conservatism, perhaps it was your fanatical arguing that spurned my distaste for some of the utopian misgivings to which they adhere. Maybe it was my mistake for giving them too much credit of being rational and actually learning from history (w/ respect to monopolies). Perhaps it's also to do with some of the other things I've learned over the course of the past few months as well. I'm not afraid to admit that I'll be learning until the day I die. Either way, savor this moment.

It should also be noted that I am in a particularly good mood right now. My girl is coming home tomorrow after being gone for a month (China) and I just got a really good job today at a very prominent firm making 17% more than at my current job. I may never again be as agreeable as I am now. Savor.

On a somewhat related note, I thought that you might be able to appreciate the following quote that I came up on recently:

'A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism.' - Carl Sagan

 

there isnt a fine line, there is a very very fat line. we need to stop thinking of huge government as the status quo and freedom as scary and chaotic.

no, that is called anarchy. libertarians favor a government that prevents people from screwing each other over. that means there will be a need for the government to have coercive power to stop bad guys. there are crazies out there in every group that favor a wild version of whatever philosophy, but the kind of libertarians you might vote for are pretty reasonable dudes. they dont favor taking power and then abolishing their own authority or anything.

sure, but my argument is that you voluntarily spend time around smokers, it is you who are making the decision, and you do not need to be protected from your right to make that choice. again, i remind of of what i mentioned earlier, that you are literally never forced to be around smoke. smoke is banned in virtually every place you would ever have to go, like the court house or the dmv or whatever. all other places you visit voluntarily.

this is a terrible analogy. and of course, you should never be allowed to bring harm to anyone, unless they wanted you to. and by hanging around smokers, you are accepting the risk of secondhand smoke. personally, i dont find the risk to be very worrisome. but i live on the edge.

no, christopher hitchens is a pompous gasbag and i really like him.

who? gasbags?

it isnt so much utopian and idealist as it is a realistic understanding of how terrible government can be, as well how hard it is for a monopoly to actually control anyone without government help. i think we like to pretend we are hostages to monopolies when we really arent, we are voluntary customers.

decisions made by groups are almost always inferior to allowing individuals to manage their own decisions. of course some people are lazy and stupid and will make bad decisions, but that doesnt mean it is the responsibility of everyone else to protect them. each man should manage his own life and not be forced to be his brother's boss or keeper.

also as i understand it "geo-libertarianism" is really a misnomer, it opposes private ownership of land.

 

I understand, and that is exactly what I said (paraphrased). But the question becomes, as with any idealogy, where do you draw the line? When you're dealing with personal freedoms, there are an infinite number of interpretations of what that means. There has to be some sort of universal compromise, which is ultimately a contradiction of true libertarianism. What one person might see as harming others, another may view as his right. That's what I was getting at when I said that I generally don't like to label myself. I don't want to be lumped in with all the whackos.

True. But that goes back to idealogy. In a perfect world, everyone who didn't like ETS would stay home to eat all the time because, unfortunately, in a place like BTR, there is a very small number of restaurants that don't allow smoking (and I don't think I've ever been to one). Then, the business owners would begin hemmhoraging money and change their policies, right? Ok. But the reality of it is that's never going to happen. Believe me, I wish my fellow man had the motivation to do something like that, but it's just not the case.

If so, then why is this statement...

...not equally terrible? If it was legal to harm people in any other way on private property, the people who would be subjected to such harm would still be voluntarily patronizing/employed on said property. So, why is it any different?

No, geo-libertarians.

Not us, but the market/economy that we are so obsessed with preserving.

Sort of. It's not like you wouldn't be entitled to restrict or prevent access to a tract of land. The theory is that, since land is not the product of labor, then no one person should have sole 'ownership' of it. Only the improvements made to the land are a product of labor, but not the land itself. Therefore, entitlement would result from you paying 'rent' to the 'community.' So, even though you technically own all the rights to the land, you're not giving x amount of money to one guy, but a small percentage of it to everyone. Now, the fee for improvements (i.e. development) would go directly to a person or entity, but the cost of the land itself would still go in the 'community chest.'

I don't know if I agree with it for practicality's sake, but it's pretty interesting.

 

i fully uinderstand the question and agreee there can be some tricky interpretations, but i think the one thing we should realize first is that if there is a continuum of personal freedoms vs government management, and there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, that line is much closer to the personal freedom side than we are now. i mean, there are questions we would need to answer as we became more individual rights oriented, but we could cross that bridge when we come to it.

sure, that question could arise, but not in this situation. because it is clear tht the rights of the private owners of places make the rules for their places. a big part of personal liberty is the right to manage things you own.

i think we need to remember that just because something might make people better off, that doesnt mean that it is the government's responsibility or right to intervene in our lives. motorcycle helmets is a good example. i am sure we would save lives with a national helmet law. there is no question in my mind. but still, the rights of man to make his own decisions, even if they are bad decisions, should not be mangled unless the consequences are ultra crazy hardcore. the government is not our parents, and shouldnt be managing us, even if they have good intentions. i think there is inherent value in my right to make a bad decision. at some point people have to be responsible for themselves and their property. if that means avoiding smoke on your own, so be it.

so if i want to spend every waking hour in a smoky casino and riding harleys naked with ben roethlisberger, these thiongs should be my right in a free country, even though they are bad ideas.

and i dont feel right using my power as a member of the collective to make the rules for everyone else. your decisions are yours, even if i know whats best for you. even if i can enslave you and make you a better person, i shouldnt.

 

apparently there is a new airline that is specifially for smokers:

http://www.smintair.com/

they only fly from germany to japan.

CC maybe you should call the authorities and try to get them shut down. they dont seem to have any idea that you know what is best for them. this is your chance to interfere with people even more.

 

When I move to Germany, I might care.

I'm amused that some of the same people that are so up in arms about this also defend the Patriot Act. Amused, indeed.

 

dont worry, when you move to germany you can just not fly on the airline and be ok.

oops nevermind it isnt you that you are worried about, you are saving everyone else from themselves. nice work.

 

'Themselves.' Ha! I think you're just intentionally being a slow learner. If you're bored, just try reviewing the thread. You may find it helpful in avoiding silly mistakes like that.

 

where there are thousands of bars, and some have smoke and some do not, and you choose to go into the smoky one, who exactly was it that just chose to go the smoky one? was it not you?

if you are too dumb to avoid smoke, you are not my responsibility.

also, if i am too stupid to avoid smoke, leave me alone, why cant you mind your own damn business? why must try to be everyone's parents? who do you think you are?

the government is there to protect us from each other, not ourselves. stop pretending that we are ever forced to breathe smoke. that is a lie, an excuse for you to impose your rules on everyone, because you think you know what is best.

i know you dont really understand alot of issues and you are trying to figure them out. well, go back and reconsider what freedom is, how individual responsibility works. thats what this country should be about. understand that rights come with responsibilty, and you shouldnt take way people's rights to decide things for themselves, even if you are convinced you know better then they do. even if you are right and could make better decisions for everyone, it doesnt make it your right.

if you want to do your part and be mr noble, convince people to stop smoking.

 

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8052758379654103954