I wrote the following to my City-County Councilor:
Dear Ms. Mansfield:
Though I am a non-smoker I am very disappointed in your support of the proposed smoking ban. Such smoking bans are onerous, misguided and dangerous. Your disregard for an otherwise legal activity leads me to conclude that I will not support you in the next election and will work to see that a candidate with more respect for individual rights will be representing our district.
Sincerely,
11 comments:
Florida passed a law a few years ago, banning smoking in restaurants. While I don't know if the law you are opposing here is a similar one, I have to tell you that I thought it was a great idea, and I do not see it as a restriction of liberty. When a person opens an establishment ot the public, they have certain obligations to that public, as far as providing for the safety of that public.
Laws requiring fire exits, fire suppression systems, and the like are similar.
The idea that business owners answer to no one because of their ownership of property is to establish the rest of us as serfs that must obey our feudal landlords.
Otherwise, a business owner could allow people to randomly shoot firearms inside of the bar, and anyone who is hit, well that is just too bad- if you don't like it, you should not have been here.
"Otherwise, a business owner could allow people to randomly shoot firearms inside of the bar..."
Personally, I would suggest not patronizing such an establishment.
Some people obviously need the government's help to figure that out, though. ;)
"When a person opens an establishment ot the public, they have certain obligations to that public, as far as providing for the safety of that public."
Sorry, I call bullshit. And I agree 100% with Tam.
It's true that if there weren't laws on the books regarding fire exits etc., some places wouldn't bother. But my guess is that it would be damn few -- because I don't care how "popular" a place is, if it's unsafe, and if people get hurt there, the market will operate to close it down.
Similarly, if you and your non-smoking friends want to patronize a non-smoking bar, find one where smoking is frowned on or prohibited, and take your custom there. If you're a bartender or waitress and you don't like smoke, find another place to work (or another line of work).
Let the MARKET decide. Not governments.
"BBBBUT those mean smokers might blow smoke in my face......."
Yep, let the market decide. If there is a market for non smoking bars and restaurants, then that market will be served....
Much like the whole issue with Rush Limbaugh vs Air Amerikka...One found an audience that paid the bills, one didn't.
IF the market wants no smoking, then someone will serve that market.
I tend not to patronize gay bars (I prefer my potential mates and conquests sit down to pee, and be hetero, or at least BI), but there is a market for that.
Personally, I think business owners should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they want. IF they wish to exclude women, or blacks, or men, or gay white women or black straight men or hispanics or whatever, they should be allowed to. If they wish to exclude non english speakers(or english speakers for that matter)
Other than fire exits and such, nothing should be regulated.
Some folks will find a market to serve, others will go bankrupt.
Evolve or die, It works for businesses just like lifeforms.
"The idea that business owners answer to no one because of their ownership of property is to establish the rest of us as serfs that must obey our feudal landlords."
Are you feeling particularly ironic making a statement like that, while declaring that merely owning your own property does not free you of being a serf to the state, who you want to see as the feudal landlord who declares what you can and cannot do with "your" property, and what activities are allowed to happen inside "your" establishment?
Odd that you feel like a slave when someone else is allowed to do what they want with their private property, but you are perfectly happy having the state dictate what you are and are not allowed to do with your property.
In an ideal world, sure. However, this is where the fantasy that is the libertarian ideal falls apart.
If the market were capable of dealing with it, things like the following wouldn't happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire
The point is, the market method did not work. Sometimes business only does the right thing when FORCED to.
The only way that smoking bans could be made slightly less onerous would be if the governing body enacting the ban would at the same time stop taxing or receiving tax proceeds from tobacco sales.
Seems to me that if government won't allow a legal product to be used they shouldn't also benefit from its sale.
We've had the equivalents of shirt factory fires since all of these wonderful laws have passed.
More laws don't prevent bad behavior ... they merely make it easy to punish transgressors after the fact.
This is a primary example of the statist "Don't let a crisis go to waste" attitude.
"If the market were capable of dealing with it, things like the following wouldn't happen..."
Given the legislative water under the bridge since 1911, a sweatshop fire a year would be a small price to pay to get the .gov back to its Taft-administration size. If it'd take us back to the Mauve Decade, I'd be willing to go for two per year.
If the local government wants to require a business owner to post a sign tellin his potential customers whether smoking is allowed in his establishment. I can see that. The customer can then make an informed decision as to who he gives his custom to. Other than that the government and the busybodies need to to mind their own damn business.
I just find it funny that so many complain that they want the government to stay out of private transactions, but see corporations (a government created fictional person) as being vital to business.
Corporations allow a person to make decisions to make profit without accepting any responsibility for their decisions.
This is analogous to a person driving a car. Being the COO of the car means deciding where the car goes, but when you run over someone, they cannot sue YOU, they must only sue the car. Meanwhile, the driver gets to shelter his houses, other cars, and yacht from the lawsuit.
Tam, the point here is that I agree that government is too bloated, but you and I both know that this is not an A/B decision. You cannot honestly think that your argument is sound. Lack of government oversight does not equal 1 fire a year. However, assuming that could happen, who among us would volunteer to be the first into the Soylent Green tanks in order to feed the others?
Post a Comment