| Author | Message | ||
     Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11662 Registered: 1-2003  |
jamie, I expect the Libertarian view says that no matter how many deaths it causes, we should not address it with legislation. Most of us, however, disagree with that view. Most of us believe in the power of consensus, to varying degrees and depending on the situation. And we believe that consensus should sometimes have the power of law. The trick is when to give it that much power. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1069 Registered: 3-2004  |
Tobacco kills more Americans than auto accidents, homicide, AIDS, drugs and fires combined. i will not deny that smoking is harmful, i call shenanigans on this stat. it is based on an incredibly liberal translation smoking stats. also smoking is a choice. if you dont want to be near second hand smoke, then dont frequent businesses that allow it. if enough people feel the same way that you do , then the business will change its policy. why are you so afraid to allow people to make their own choices? why do you feel they must be forced to accept your personal choices through legislation? forcing them to do it through legislation is a facistic policy and goes against the basic principles of freedom as laid down by the constitution. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1070 Registered: 3-2004 |
jamie, I expect the Libertarian view says that no matter how many deaths it causes, we should not address it with legislation. Most of us, however, disagree with that view. Most of us believe in the power of consensus, to varying degrees and depending on the situation. And we believe that consensus should sometimes have the power of law. The trick is when to giv e it that much power. http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/980.html http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 452 Registered: 2-2003 |
Jamie, You're presentation is so overwhelming that I almost feel sorry for the other side. Art, I'm impressed and glad we're on the same side here. Wish it would happen more often. Smokers, On what basis do you think you have the right to pump your smoke into my lungs? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1072 Registered: 3-2004 |
On what basis do you think you have the right to pump your smoke into my lungs? on what basis do you think you have the right to impose yourself on a group of people who have chosen to smoke and force them to stop just because you have arrived? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11663 Registered: 1-2003 |
So is it merely a matter of who is there first? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1073 Registered: 3-2004 |
no, just point/counter pointing a contentious question with a like minded one. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 332 Registered: 6-2001  |
Lib, do you think clean air/water acts are ok? Or should companies be allowed to pollute. How is that pollution any different? | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1075 Registered: 3-2004 |
clean air and water acts affect public land. anti-smoking legislation affects small private businesses. polluting a river infringes on everyones personal rights. smoking in a restaurant does not. we all need air and water. we do not all need to eat at st. james gate. the two ideas are not comparible. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 333 Registered: 6-2001 |
ok, so a "pub" is not a "pub"lic place.  | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 6867 Registered: 5-2001 |
Libertarian, you wrote: " On what basis do you think you have the right to impose yourself on a group of people who have chosen to smoke and force them to stop just because you have arrived?" I wish it were that easy to avoid coming into contact with second hand smoke. Unfortunately, I find it is more often the case that I arrive somewhere first, chose a place where nobody is smoking and then have smokers stand/sit next to me and light up. Yes, I could leave but why should I? By your argument don't I have just as much right to a smoke-free environment as smokers have to a smoke-filled one? By the way, smking/non-smoking sections in public places really don't work because the smoke frequently still travels from the smoking area to the non-smoking area so it is the non-smokers who lose out in an either/or situation. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1076 Registered: 3-2004 |
then do not frequent those businesses and if they truly want your business they will change their policy. if they dont change their policy then they dont want your business and then you should find a similar business that values you as a customer. this seems like the rational choice rather than attempting to force your personal choice on others through excessive legislation. it is also based on a basic principle of economics called, " voting with your dollar". | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 334 Registered: 6-2001 |
Which translates to: non-smokers - STAY HOME Or go to NYC where they were smart enough to enact the legislation, but at least Jersey will probably join the growing list of non smoking states soon enough.  | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11664 Registered: 1-2003 |
Libertarian, your free market value system assumes that everyone has perfect knowledge of everything. As Joan points out, she can enter a smoke-free restaurant and then be subjected to smoke. She didn't know that it can become objectionable. You haven't really answered her point. You answered as if she asked what happens when she walks up to a smoke-filled restaurant. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1078 Registered: 3-2004 |
Which translates to: non-smokers - STAY HOME so what you are saying is that if someone uses their money to start a private business, and they decide that they do not think that having you as a customer is important enough to change the way they do business, then you should force them through legislation? non-smokers are the majority in this country. impose your will through your dollars not through draconian and excessive legislation. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1079 Registered: 3-2004 |
As Joan points out, she can enter a smoke-free restaurant and then be subjected to smoke. She didn't know that it can become objectionable. You haven't really answered her point. You answered as if she asked what happens when she walks up to a smoke-filled restaurant. she walks into a restaurant, they allow smoking. she must be able to make the leap of logic that even if there are no smokers there at the time, since they allow smoking there is a chance that smokers will arrive. she should vote with her dollar and frequent businesses that do not allow smoking. if the business values her dollars they will stop allowing smoking. if they do not then they will not bother to try to accomodate her. that way, she gets to make a choice and the business gets to make a choice. everyone is free to make a choice. enacting this legislation denies the possibility of choice and is therefore against the very principles of the founding of this nation. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11665 Registered: 1-2003 |
Why are votes by dollars more valid than votes by levers? | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 3436 Registered: 1-2004  |
Lib- It isn't as easy as you think. There are many business owners who welcome the smoking ban. This way they don't have to be the 'bad guy.' A smokers right to smoke ends where my right not to breath the second hand smoke begins. You say smoking is a choice, true to a point. But as I've said more then once, most smokers began due to peer pressure. It isn't as easy as you think for many people to give up smoking. Many people are ADDICTED to the nicotine and therefore find it very difficult to stop. I have a feeeling the more smoking becomes unacceptable and the more difficult it will be for smokers to light up in public places, the number of people who smoke will decrease. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1080 Registered: 3-2004 |
so you think we should make a law to force people to quit smoking who wouldnt otherwise do it? why then we should enact laws to stop people from drinking alcohol and eating fast food, all unhealthy ventures. when do we stop trying to use government to enforce lifestyle choices and let people assume personal responsibility for their choices. i find it ironic that those who complain about George w. infringing on american's personal freedoms with his phone tapping are the same people who will happily legislate away other personal freedoms. But as I've said more then once, most smokers began due to peer pressure. i would like a link to the research that proves this. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1081 Registered: 3-2004 |
Why are votes by dollars more valid than votes by levers? because voting with dollars allows for personal decision while voting with levers allows for tyanny of the majority. read the previous links. now dont go arguing that i am against voting and democracy, blah blah, blah. that is not my point and you know it. there is a diffrence between voting away freedoms and voting for government posts. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11668 Registered: 1-2003 |
because voting with dollars allows for personal decision while voting with levers allows for tyanny of the majority. Why is personal decision better than collective decision? You seem to assume that if we can boil every decision down to seeing whether it's personal or collective, we'll always choose the personal angle. I don't think that's true. Not all collective decisions are tyrannical. Some are, for sure, for instance, a decision to mandate following the majority religion. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1082 Registered: 3-2004 |
Why is personal decision better than collective decision? not my point. you have a tendency to take something i say about a particular issue and then argue it as if it were my intent to apply it as an all encompassing philosophy on every single issue. i dont think voting is bad as a whole. i dont think all collective decisions are bad. i never implied that. there are matters that should be voted on as a collective society. denying personal freedoms is not one of them. please stick to the issue or start a different thread. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11670 Registered: 1-2003 |
I do broaden the issues, but it's because I think we should be making decisions within a framework. If we use a different method for each issue, it's subject to whim and more likely to be unfair. I gather that smokers' lives are not as badly affected by these laws as we would have predicted. Given that, combined with the fact that a large number of people think the law is an appropriate instrument for this issue, these laws sound beneficial, overall. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1083 Registered: 3-2004 |
I gather that smokers' lives are not as badly affected by these laws as we would have predicted. Given that, combined with the fact that a large number of people think the law is an appropriate instrument for this issue, these laws sound beneficial, overall. so you are basing the validity of this vote on your personal belief and no proven stats to back up this statement. I do broaden the issues, but it's because I think we should be making decisions within a framework. If we use a different method for each issue, it's subject to whim and more likely to be unfair. so you are in favor of a rigidity in thought that doesnt allow for consideration of facts that are specific to an issue? you think these anomolous facts should be disregarded and only those facts that apply to your "framework" should be considered. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1084 Registered: 3-2004 |
ombined with the fact that a large number of people think the law is an appropriate instrument for this issue, these laws sound beneficial, overall. http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/980.html http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11672 Registered: 1-2003 |
so you are in favor of a rigidity in thought that doesnt allow for consideration of facts that are specific to an issue? you think these anomolous facts should be disregarded and only those facts that apply to your "framework" should be considered. While it may appear that this is my view, it is not. You don't like my taking the big picture. I'm saying I think you would do well to give it a try. If we consistently take the small view, we'd be voting (with dollars or levers) for "me me me" which does not make an orderly society. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1085 Registered: 3-2004 |
so you think that the majority has the right to impose its will though it may impose upon the rights of the individual? you realize that this is directly addressed by the founding fathers as an evil and against the very foundations that they wished to lay? http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1100tyrannymaj.htm | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1086 Registered: 3-2004 |
You don't like my taking the big picture. no, what i said was i dont like you taking my view on an issue and implying that it is my view on all issues. i take each issue individually and make my opinion on it on a case by case basis. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11676 Registered: 1-2003 |
Oh, OK. Thank you for clarifying that. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 335 Registered: 6-2001 |
In the U.S., about 440,000 people die a tobacco-related death every year. Lib - What other legislation that seeks to save lives do you oppose? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11678 Registered: 1-2003 |
so you think that the majority has the right to impose its will though it may impose upon the rights of the individual? Sometimes. The very tricky question is, "when?" I wish I could codify that, but I don't think anyone will ever manage to do that. That Charles Bloomer article you linked to is good. It's a good reason for supporting the separation of church and state, for example. But it's possible to take it to the extreme, just as it's possible for the majority's will to become tyrannical. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1087 Registered: 3-2004 |
What other legislation that seeks to save lives do you oppose? this is a loaded question that neither addresses the issues i have pointed out nor advances any rational conversation on the subject. you know that. it is merely an attempt to bait me. shame on you. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1088 Registered: 3-2004 |
Q:so you think that the majority has the right to impose its will though it may impose upon the rights of the individual? A:Sometimes. WOW! jefferson, Madison, and Adams are spinning in their graves! | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11680 Registered: 1-2003 |
How about taxation? The public's right to tax me impinges on my right to keep and spend my money. Jamie's question seems fair to me. Basically, we'd like to know if the government should ever consider public health. Or is it always a private matter? If it's a private matter, then your position on smoking laws seems consistent. If not, then it's hard to understand why you'd favor some public health laws but not this one. How about laws that require car makers to put seatbelts in cars? They specify exactly how the seatbelts are to perform. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1089 Registered: 3-2004 |
The public's right to tax me impinges on my right to keep and spend my money. i agree! i think we need to take a long hard look at the taxation system. i think you know quite well my feelings on the tax system | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11682 Registered: 1-2003 |
If you think taxation is categorically wrong, then you need to find some sort of place where there is no government. You won't find many like-minded people in these here parts. Good luck. I thought you believed that some government work was good. Was I wrong? I was trying to cite an example that you agreed with, but apparently, I missed the target. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1090 Registered: 3-2004 |
If you think taxation is categorically wrong, where did i say this? again you are expanding my thought to cover a much larger piece of ground than i was discussing. if i say i dont like bananas you question why it is i dont like fruit as a whole. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11683 Registered: 1-2003 |
I got that impression because you said you agree with the notion of taxation impinging on my right to my money. Do you see how someone could interpret your agreement to that? Really, it's hard to keep you on track. I don't know why I try, but here I go again... Taxation is not wrong. I have just established that you and I agree on that. Yet you also agree that it impinges on our rights. How then can we allow it? We allow it because the majority's will to impinge on the individual's rights is sometimes an acceptable thing to do, for the greater good. In this case, tax money does things for the society. Is that clear enough, or do I need to draw some kind of diagram? I hope not, because I'm no good at drawing. | ||
| The Libertarian Citizen Username: Local_1_crew Post Number: 1091 Registered: 3-2004 |
the problem we seem to be having is that i do not see things in the black and white fashion that you do. you say that taxation is not wrong and therefore argue that all taxation is right. i feel some taxation is necesssary for the good of society but some taxation impinges on the rights of the individual and is either unnecesssary, inequitable, or just plain wrong. the problem we seem to be having understanding each other is that you seem to think that something is entirely right or entirely wrong. there is no other option to you. does that make sense or do i have to draw a diagram? | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 336 Registered: 6-2001 |
I got a libertarian perspective from another libertarian: He draws the line when innocent people get hurt. He support suicide. And opposes homicide. Secondhand smoke kills innocent people, |
