I am on www.facebook.com and there I have found a group of people (about 400) strong who want to ban smoking in all restaurants, and businesses, and apartment buildings and so on..
Working under the assumption that the very basic principals of the States’ Constitution i.e. justice and common defense and within a represenative democracy are established and also just, what sort of arguement whould you throw up against those people.
(even if you personally think all government should be done away with, it should lay great inroads into a communists minds to talk about the justice of the issue and then let that person make the logical connection to other issues, until no government is left.)
I’ve always made a simple property rights arguements on this issue. The issue is not smoking vs. non-smoking or smokers vs. non-smokers, the issue at hand is wether or not the owner of the establishment has the liberty to decide the matter for themselves as to wether or not to allow smoking. If the owner decides to allow smoking, then those who wish to avoid smoking should either put up with it, patronize another establishment or try to open up their own non-smoking establishments. If the owner decides to not allow smoking, then smokers should either put up with it, patronize another establishment or open up their own establishments that allow smoking.
Freedom of association has pluralistic implications. In an atmosphere of freedom of association, it is important to have a sense of “tolerance” for the various preferences and arrangement that are inevitably going to co-exist in such a society. Those who wish to ban freedom of association in the name of uniformly enforcing their personal preferances onto everyone else lack the vigilance necessary to deal with liberty. The world is not a utopia or a completely black canvas for us to paint on. There is no such thing as a “right” to have your personal preferences enforced on someone else’s property.
Of course, many advocates of state-wide or nation-wide smoking bans are going to claim that they have a “right to breath clean air”. They are caught up in the doctrine of positive rights (I believe Walter Block has made some excellent arguements against positive rights in a video posted on this site a while back). In reality, they only have a “right to breath clean air” either (1) on their own property, I.E. I do not have a right to dirty up or stink up the air in their own home or establishment against their will or (2) on the property of others who themselves do not wish for their homes or establishments to be dirtied or stunk up.
Another common arguement made by smoking-ban advocates is “it’s a public place”. But a restraunt or bar is a private institution. It is only “public” insofar as the public are welcome to patronize them. But you must abide by their rules as soon as you decide to patronize them. I cannot just walk into your home and demand that you appease my personal and aesthetic preferences; you set the rules and cosmetic setup for your own home and you don’t have to invite me in. If you do not like the way my household functions, you do not have to enter it or associate with me. Why should a buisiness establishment work any differently? If someone really doesn’t like how the buisiness does things, they should boycott them and patronize someone else.
your second paragraph is quite helpfull I had employed the other points, but what I run up against is the particulars of the case. they say that smoking=poisioning others. and of course you can not poison a person’s body (their property) regardless of where he is. and I must agree with that much. should I reduce down to the particular and try the monotonous arguement that 2nd hand smoke is not poison??
I’ve argued the points of indivual rights and (private) property rights at nausium. but there is no budge…
The only times I will debate with a socialist are when:
I gain by having to reorganize my thought patterns and sharpen my wits.
There are undecided onlookers that I may influence.
I do not debate with a socialist to change his mind: you can’t do it. And if by a stroke of luck he does change his mind it just means he was already ready to do so and just needed proper arguments, which is quite rare. As far as I can tell, there is a single pure socialist I like debating with (a university teacher most students don’t talk to because he is very harsh and likes to make girls cry- really- lol) with and its only because he is so harsh that being able to stand the heat and put him back in his place feels so great. Not many people actually care to stand against me and argue for HOURS at a time. Most people here, even university students, just shun at the idea of debating about philosophy and epistemology (if they know the word to begin with) and the likes. At first he thought I was just a simple “right-winger” following a bandwagon. Now he may not agree with me, but we share a mutual respect in the sense that we know both of us put a lot of time thinking of our point of view .
sigh. I want to argue with you right now! but I think you’re right…
okay but the question is how do you tell if someone has an open mind, but is just really confused and doesn’t get it or is just… intrensicly stupid? I mean if socialism were really best, and it could work and someone could show us, we would change… but we are what we are because we have researched and studied and found to be our (respective) “systems” to be best? RIGHT?
bbbbut why then would they engage in such a long debate… okay you’re right, but listen I think its still important to do actually deabte a socialist.. I call it areana debating. it isnt something you’ld do in Instant message or in any sort of personal conversation, here you are doing it for the sake of the on looker, that undecided fellow or the bandwagon commie… in which case I want to make sure my ideas are as sharp as possible… so… establish individual rights, rights to property, and talk about tolerance to let other people do what they do so long as it doesn’t directly harm others, their property and yadda yadda…
and thats it? I mean I just want to make sure I haven’t overlooked anything. I (like most of the people on here I think) have been self taught in the values of classical liberalism, and limited gov’t through this site and lots and lots of reading. so I don’t know if I am an A student or not… and when faced with such tenacious resistance it makes me wonder if I’m gettin it right.
well look, this is fine in a gov’t building, city hall, city library, but it is not okay in someone else’s business, they want to impose on restaurant owners and the like.
if you are in favor of this… you must be new to the site.
There is no place in America where smokers outnumber non-smokers and most non-smokers are extremely annoyed when they have to deal with smoke. So, requiring business owners to cordone off smokers into a certain area harms no one except for possibly creating a slightly higher cost for business owners that haven’t yet established such areas. That doesn’t seem to bother me.
Cigarette smoke is a pretty good example of an externality. Such bans would improve public health, if only by a tiny amount, but on a large-scale, that means a substantial change for the better.
I know most of you are Libertarians and I’m not a Libertarian. I just enjoy speaking with them.
Also, one more thing: You shouldn’t label anyone who supports regulation as Socialist. Keynesianism is not Marxism. And there are plenty of European Liberals who would probably advocate public bans on smoking.
I dont smoke, I prefer not to be around cigerette smoke, and it pisses me off because it is such low quality tobacco. so these sorts of bans dont bother me, infact they help me on a personal level… (save any economic consequences passed onto me by the owner, because owners pay for nothing, the cost is always passed onto the consumer)
It is the principal that bothers me, if I own an establishment, I should be the one to set the rules. now if you want to petition and lobby the business owner… or boycott the business this is all fine and good… but lets try to keep government out of it … eh? lest they decide to impose in some other area.
First off, deontological arguments won’t work for most people (neither do I). Socialists are utilitarians. They want practical solutions.
You have to first convert these socialists to capitalists. In a socialist’s mind, they think that businesses can exploit people by allowing smoking. Deregulate the economy so more businesses can compete, so there are more businesses that do not allow smoking. Therefore, you have the option to choose to go to businesses that do not allow smoking.
They don’t have to deal with smoke - they could not go to restaurants and bars that allow smoking, or that don’t cordon off smokers. Requiring businesses to cordone off smokers certainly harms someone - the restaurant owner who didn’t want to. He had some reason for not wanting to, didn’t he, or else you wouldn’t need to threaten to shoot him if he didn’t do it.
There is no place in America where fatties outnumber the non-fatties and most mesomorphs and ectomorphs are extremely annoyed when they have to look at muffintops. So, requiring business owners to cordone off the fatsos into a certain area harms no one except for possibly creating a slightly higher cost for business owners that haven’t yet established such areas. That doesn’t seem to bother me.
I don’t think you can use sophisticated arguments with people of this sort - arguing property rights and so forth rarely penetrates. I try (with very little success I might add) to analogize:
These people drive cars, and cars emit carcinogens, teratogens and mutagens, and since nobody can escape these emissions when walking down the street, or even when inside buildings, then the logic that supports banning cigarette smoking would also support banning all automobiles. So if these folks are serious, they need to stop driving immediately, else they’re hypocrites.
As noted, it’s not the most effective argument, but frankly, I have not found that any amount of argument ever really does much good with people as steeped in collectivist, coercive thinking as the smoking Nazis.
Nathyn - State coercion harms ALL of us, especially inasmuch as it conditions people to become accustomed to being coerced - by the entity whose only reason for being - according to the DoI - is to secure our rights. You are arguing for a State which performs positive interventions, and the problem there is that you cannot control it once that starts. As I think is blindingly obvious to anyone who takes a quick look around.
So while this may not bother you, under what ethical principle do you get to say that others who ARE bothered by it should be disregarded? Because you don’t mind when the State coerces others, then the rest of us have to just accept it?
I’m really curious what your political persuasion is - even non-anarchist libertarians generally agree that the State can only legitimately perform negative interventions, yet you consistently argue for positive ones. Do you buy self-ownership, for example? Your positions seem to conflict with that principle.
Cigarette smoke is not an externality in the vast majority of circumstances. It generally is only a problem indoors, and its effect rarely extends outside someone’s property. As such, its something a market can deal with easily. Business owners who allow smoking in their premises must do so knowing that it could cost them business, or help their business, depending on their clientel.
Smoking bans are popular because the voters do not bare the cost of the ban, and most people are slightly annoyed by cigarette smoke. The market of course does place a small cost on a smoke-free business, so its less attractive to those who don’t mind using government to “solve problems”.
I personally don’t have any problem with the government banning smoking on its own property. Although I don’t think government property is legitimately acquired and I’d prefer it didn’t exist at all, I’d rather have some sort of ownership be exercised over it, even via a very imperfect democratic process. Unowned and unregulated property (chaos?) seems to be the worst of all worlds to me.
That’s not a good analogy, because the act of being fat doesn’t harm anyone through contact, the same as with smoke.
But yes, obesity is somewhat of an externality too, driving up the cost of healthcare and so on. Reasonable steps to lower obesity – like the decision not too long ago to require labeling of trans fats – are also a good idea. Sometimes, the government can go too far, such as the FDA wanting to regulate salt. This isn’t one of those cases.
It really seems so silly the way that Libertarians treat the tiniest restriction of their freedom as tyranny. If they levy a 5 cent tax on bubble gum, you’re out in the streets, picketing.