Subject:
|
Re: Victories for smokefree ballot initiatives
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:02:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1329 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney wrote:
> > >
> > > > In the mean time, whatever I can do to clear the air, making it safer for me and
> > > > others, I'll do.
> > >
> > > Even if it violates people's rights?
> >
> > The right to breathe clean air is inherently superior to the right to subject
> > others to the byproduct of your pleasure.
>
> Where? You have no right to breathe ANY air (clean OR dirty) when on my
> property, unless I grant it. And conversely I have no right to emit smoke on
> your property, unless you grant it.
>
> Therefore when you're on my property, you will breathe the air I choose you to
> breathe, or you will need to choose not to be there. And therefore, when I'm on
> your property, I will emit the exhaust you choose me to emit, or I will need to
> choose not to be there.
>
> Those rights and their boundaries are sufficient to solve your putative issue
> without need for further coercion, unless we are talking about public property.
> Restaurants and bars are not public property.
They're open to the public. We aren't talking about esatblishments that close
their doors to people walking in.
Nontheless, I don't sense we can agree on this issue, as we take a fundamentally
different approach towards individual rights. Individual rights are a good
thing, but I don't believe they trump all, they should be tempered in certain
cases (like this one) by appeals to the common good.
Who decides that? The best answer would be 'the majority,' though the majority
doesn't always favor what's good for them.
Anyways, though this has been entertaining (and challenging), I don't have the
time nor desire to carry on a lengthy, point-for-point debate. If I had the
time, it would be an interesting challenge to research counterpoints to the ones
you raise. It would likely take me considerably longer than you to formulate
responses, since you've been arguing the libertarian viewpoint for longer than
I've been debating, period.
IMO libertarianism is good--to the extent the assertion of individual rights
doesn't subject others to injustice. Secondhand smoke in public and publicly
accessible spaces is IMNSHO a grave injustice.
Alas, I have other priorities than to continue this.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Victories for smokefree ballot initiatives
|
| (...) Just thought of this one: I think your basis for saying that these establishments should ban smoking is for the employees, not the customers. Basically that if the employees were, say, robots, that it would be ok to have bars that allowed (...) (20 years ago, 10-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Victories for smokefree ballot initiatives
|
| (...) Where? You have no right to breathe ANY air (clean OR dirty) when on my property, unless I grant it. And conversely I have no right to emit smoke on your property, unless you grant it. Therefore when you're on my property, you will breathe the (...) (20 years ago, 10-Nov-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
22 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
