debating with a socialist... or someone who wants to "ban smoking everywhere"

Economics Political Theory
21

Thanks for the proffered value judgment - I don’t think I’ll accept it.

It really seems silly to me that you support unworkable proposals which will not make a dent in the overall level of health by any measurable scientific metric, but which will condition the populace to accept coercion as their rightful due and empower the State, which is demonstrably the primary threat to human health, States having killed 260M people in the 20th century. You are of course free to not accept this value judgment because you are free to form your own opinions. At least, until the State grows powerful enough through seemingly mundane and incremental conversions of social power to decide your opinions for you and enforce them upon you.

22

Nathyn, A penny saved is a penny earned. I work long, tiring hours to provide for myself and my family and don’t need or want anyone robbing me of my hard earned cash–even is it is just an extra nickel for a pack of gum.

Most of the time arguing with fanatics (anti-smokers in this case) is completely pointless --you’ll just end up giving yourself a headache. Like other posters have said, you’re not going to change any of their minds. To me and you it seems obvious that this is an issue that should be decided by the business owner; if you don’t like it you’re free to walk across the street and eat elsewhere. But by their logic, they have to right to enjoy a smoke-free cheeseburger anywhere they choose, even at the expense of telling the owner of the local burger joint that he can’t enjoy a smoke in his own building. Kind of funny though–“because I choose not to smoke, you have no choice but not to smoke in my presence” Ridiculous.

I have the right to light and enjoy a cigarette just like you have to right to take two steps to the left and enjoy the smoke-free “fresh air“.

23

A penny saved is a penny earned. I work long, tiring hours to provide for myself and my family and don’t need or want anyone robbing me of my hard earned cash–even is it is just an extra nickel for a pack of gum.

Most of the time arguing with fanatics (anti-smokers in this case) is completely pointless --you’ll just end up giving yourself a headache. Like other posters have said, you’re not going to change any of their minds. To me and you it seems obvious that this is an issue that should be decided by the business owner; if you don’t like it you’re free to walk across the street and eat elsewhere. But by their logic, they have to right to enjoy a smoke-free cheeseburger anywhere they choose, even at the expense of telling the owner of the local burger joint that he can’t enjoy a smoke in his own building. Kind of funny though–“because I choose not to smoke, you have no choice but not to smoke in my presence” Ridiculous.

I have the right to light and enjoy a cigarette just like you have to right to take two steps to the left and enjoy the smoke-free “fresh air“.

24

Thats only true in the case of socialized health care. In the vast majority of cases, cigarette smoke is not an externality at all, or at leat not much of one. With about 50% of health care spending being done by the government, I’d say obesity is a much, much more serious externality in our health care system than second-hand smoke.

26

Wait, since when do you care about the “measurable scientific metric”?

27

Hallo from Brazil,

I’ve just just joined this forum in order to add my 5 cents to the subject (actually, 4.9 cents owing to the inflation).

You must surely know that old joke “Q: how many psychotherapists are required to change a broken light bulb? – A: just one, but the light bulb must wish to be changed”. Sorry for that [:P], the idea is just to illustrate my belief - based on personal experience - that debating with a socialist, or interventionist, or big-gov’t supporter, may be a substantial time loss, unless he (she) has an open mind and wishes to challenge the surface of the “truth” absorbed through indoctrination.

Until 2005 I used to be a mild leftist, theoretically aligned with the so-called social-democratic thought, mainly because of the virtual monopoly established by the left in Brazil, be it in the media, university, arts or other areas. A severe brainwashing of the society, exacty as foreseen by Gramsci, has been implemented in this country, and as a result, anyone who dares speak a word against the overwhelming tide of collectivist rubbish is viewed as a selfish, wild capitalist who wishes to maintain the unjust “neo-liberal economic system” (whatever that newspeak-forged term means) and oppress/ exploit the poor masses etc. etc.

In 2005 I had the opportunity to read an article written by the Brazilian conservative philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, and on his website I found a link to Mises.org. I started reading everything I could, and at first I was in shock to discover that the skyscraper of mainstream economics and politics has been built onto the inconsistent foundations of socialism and suppression of freedom, at the cost of millions of human lives and an autophagic warfare-welfare state structure.

I took the Mises quiz “Are you an Austrian?” and realized to be surfing somewhere near the Chicago School, Keynesians and other confusing economic doctrines.

Mises’ essays on bureaucracy, interventionism, socialism and freedom, in addition to Rothbard’s Libertarian Manifesto, were just enough to demolish the already cracked building of my pseudo-socialist economic & political beliefs.

It was hard for my poor ego to discover, at the age of 44, that I’d been totally wrong in so many vital areas of knowledge.

Since then, I’ve been reading - whenever possible, as my time for studying economics is scarce - some fundamental essays and e-books on Mises.org.

I try to read at least some essays or articles every day, while setting some ambitious mid-term goals such as, for instance, reading Human Action and other Austrian cornerstones. Perhaps too much for a humble engineer, but anyway the experience has been enlightening.

My mind has radically changed with respect to practical life, for example: I’m no more working as a regular employee but already 1 year as an independent engineering consultant; I’m no more contributing to state-managed (?) social security but look now forward to find a suitable private plan; i.e., some steps to reassure my refusal to take part in the “statolatrist” machine.

In summary, anyone sincerely interested in learning sound economics and embracing freedom and a fully consistent system of understanding reality should get rid of prejudices and seek the truth.

Last but not least, going back to the subject of this thread, I can only agree with the libertarian viewpoint. Even though I’m a non-smoker - and personally find smoking a disgusting habit, having seen in my own family the devastating consequences to health it brings – I support the idea that I have no right to stop others from smoking - except inside my own house/ store/ property whatsoever.

The main point is: “why are there still millions of people who believe that any subject, left to gov’t to take care of, will have a better result than provided by private economic agents”, when the counter-evidences are so obvious ??? Perhaps the overall “Peter-Pan-Syndrome” that has caught modern societies causing adults to behave like eternal teenagers, demanding for rights without responsibilities??

28

Nathyn — You’re the Libertarian on this one. Rothbard clearly states the Libertarian Creed: No man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.

Exposing anyone to second-hand smoke without their permission is such an aggression. That’s why smoking in public places and buildings and even the streets, unless the smoker is a certain distance from any other person so that they do not breath any of his smoke (say 100 yards), is an assault on property rights. Actually an assault with a deadly weapon.

There is ample backing for this smoking-restriction in Libertarian doctrine in the writings of F A Hayek. He maintains, in “The Road to Serfdom”, that government can legitimately impose restrictions on air pollution. If your neighbor burns plastic and the smoke crosses over the property line, that is a physical assault on you. Hayek also says that society can guaranteed a certain level of sustenance to its members without becoming necessarily collectivist. He maintains that certain minimal government functions beyond that of the police are legit and that they don’t necessarily mean one is on the road to Stalinism.

The “Libertarians” you are debating with here are more radical. I think the’re dead wrong on second-hand smoke.

29

This may be an arguable position (depending if actual harm has been done) - that it’s a private property rights issue - but why then jump immediately to the conclusion that State coercion is the proper mechanism of restriction, as you seem to have done???

As our new friend from Brazil put it in the final lines of his post that appears just millimeters above yours:

The main point is: “why are there still millions of people who believe that any subject, left to gov’t to take care of, will have a better result than provided by private economic agents”, when the counter-evidences are so obvious ???

In other words, a libertarian position would ALWAYS look for ways to accomplish meritorious goals through civil society mechanisms prior to asserting a State role. You seem to have jumped right over that crucial step and taken it straight to the State. Hardly libertarian.

30

I don’t think anyone should smoke in public places, buildings, or publicly owned streets. I also don’t think anyone should breathe in public places, buildings, or publicly owned roads. That’s because there shouldn’t be public places, buildings, or publicly owned streets.

31

Where would you house the mint?

32

Well, I’m approaching this from a Jeffersonian view of government’s role as warranter of the Creator-given inalienable Rights, one of which is Life. Government is allowed to use coercion in defense of property rights, in fact that is its sole function, so if someone assaults my person with a poison against my will, government must come in and protect my right, so a general law against exposing others to second-hand tobacco smoke is fully justified under Jefferson. All this assumes you accept second-hand tobacco smoke is harmful, which I think is incontrovertable based on the scientific evidence. If you don’t believe that, they your argument against government coercion in this matter would have, I think, some basis. (For example, can the government ban me from smoking spearmint or coffee on the streets?)

Also, if you are speaking of a theoretical society, and not the US under our Constitution, then the results may be different.

Another reason I have jumped right to a government coercive role is that I and countless others have been exposed, and continue to be exposed, to tobacco smoke for the last 50 years, and your civil society mechanisms haven’t done one bit of good in stopping me, and my fellow citizens, from being poisoned on the streets against our will. Your mechanism hasn’t worked, so if government won’t intervene, a citizen’s sole remedy would be to make an armed response against this deadly physical aggression against themselves and their children.

And what of the unborn baby in the womb, who cannot vote or sue. If you feel that is a separate individual, then how can his Rights to not be assaulted be warranted without State or government intervention?

33

So let me get this straight, you want the government to invade private property owners’ premises to prosecute people who are there by the owner’s voluntary consent… and call this libertarian? If you were making an argument regarding government-owned premises I might agree. But you’re not. So I don’t. Please do not try and paint this as ‘libertarian’.

34

AttackDonkey…personally, I find facebook to be quite…interventionist in their thinking. I have personally stopped arguing with one guy about how the minimum wage is harmful(he personally believes it was the sole cause of ending the great depression).

Anyways, onto the topic. My favorite way of debunking any argument is bringing it to its logical conclusion. Apply it in another situation..and see if it makes sense. If smoking is poisonous..then let us ban smoking in homes. I mean, THINK OF THE CHILDREN! The children of these families are being poisoned by the parent’s cigarette smoke. Of course, I doubt they would support such a ban. I mean, it’s someone’s home.

I learned this sort of technique from reading articles by Stephen Molyneux. Check out some of his articles from LRC. You can use this technique with practically ANY sort of policy. Even discrimination.

Personally, I had an argument in my management information systems class(wierd..I know) about discrimination laws. I asked them that if it is ok for a consumer to not shop at a store because the owner was black. Nobody minded that. So then, if I as a person can discriminate like that, why can’t business owners? The argument put forth was that I am affecting many people because of it. I didn’t think of it on the spot, but the same could be said about me that particular consumer not shopping at the store. I could be taking away potential sale for that person. That money could then be potentially taken away from another merchant..who affects millions of people…etc. Just another way of “reducto ad absurdium” works in debunking arguments(even though sometimes, people believe the ridiculous arguments)

35

So, given the past 200 years of American history, what makes you so certain that you can stop government at that point? Isn’t history clear on this - a government of limited and enumerated powers inevitably grows to a monster of coercion. So your stated position seems to be wildly unrealistic and completely at odds with the reality of history and politics.

Please provide a pointer to that scientific evidence to back up this assertion.

What civil society mechanisms? The State in this nation has - especially over the last 50 years and more! - usurped civil society functions to the point where those mechanisms have become almost negligible. This is similar to those arguments which postulate that our ‘free market economy’ keeps failing and thus we need the State to step in and regulate and manage the economy, when in fact we do not HAVE a free market economy, and those examples of ‘failure’ (e.g. the Great Depression through Enron) are in fact due entirely to State meddling in the economy in the first place. Thus, this argument is simply a straw man based on a non-factual reading of reality.

In a true free market economy where there is a determined and fundamental respect for property rights - including your right to NOT be poisoned by others’ cigarette smoke, you would have recourse and it would be costless and easy of access. I maintain that under such a system, this issue would be almost immediately resolved in YOR favor (providing that the harm could be proven, which you assert is the case).

But you have no such recourse under our present system - not because civil society mechanisms do not work, but because there are no such mechanisms in place since the State has arrogated that protective role to itself - and yet, that State, which is the root cause of your lack of recourse, is to whom you turn?? This seems to me an awful lot like environmentalists who want to turn over pollution ‘control’ to the nation’s worst polluter - the State!

Also, if you truly believe in the logic you are espousing, you need to stop driving today. The emissions from your vehicle have no doubt negatively impacted the health of innumerable of your fellow citizens. To continue to drive - and thus poison your fellow citizens - while attempting to use the powers of the State to coerce those same citizens into not poisoning you is hypocrisy of the highest order.

36

Inquisitor — No, I said nothing about private property owner’s premises (unless the smoke accessed the public street). I said above “In public places and buildings and in the street” meaning public places and PUBLIC buildings. On private property the right of consenting adults, owners and customers, to do what they liked would seem inviable.

37

Ozzy — Absolutely nothing makes me certain I can stop government at that point, except the intelligence of a literate public constantly vigilant in the defense of the Rights innumerated in the Constitution.

As far as backing up the tobacco harm assertion, I’d refer you to the work of Prof. Neal L Benowitz, M.D. of the University of California at San Francisco’s Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education. He is the author of 300 peer reviewed articles on tobacco addiction, and was the Senior Scientific Editor of the 1988 U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on “Nicotine Addiction”. He is also Director of the FAMRI Center of Excellence on Second-hand Smoke.

I am very puzzled that you ask me “What civil society mechanisms?” since you are the one who introduced the term when you stated in an earlier post “A Libertarian position would always look for ways to accomplish merotricious goals through civil society mechanisms, prior to asserting a state role”. So you have introduced a term, then I repeat it back to you, and then you ask me to define it as if I were the one who introduced the term. Perhaps you can clear the confusion by defining the term yourself, and telling me what you meant.

38

You know, we aren’t having this discussion in a vaccum. At present, the government you are asking for protection from smoke has taken away habeas corpus, engages in torture, uses confessions obtained through torture, and is running a detention camp. This government is taking people, American citizens included, to foreign countries for questioning, and is preparing at this time to pass a thought-crime bill. It also is engaging in wiretaps, domestic spying, and information mining. The question of trust is indeed relevant. Is this really the time that it makes sense to argue for yet another area in which the government should have power? Have the mechanisms you mentioned above worked?

39

Hahahahahahaha. Yes, you’re right, I’m very concerned about ensuring that the government has ways to inflate the currency.

40

Fair enough.

Xevec, they will usually try and argue that workplaces etc. are ‘public’ places and therefore the government has the right to regulate them. A non sequitur, really.