Forums | MacLife

registered_user wrote:

Nanny state?  Don't you hail from the land of socialized health care?  Surely you see that the state exists to protect its citizens.  You can use your slurs all you like, but it's the purpose of a state to defend the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its citizens.  At least it is here where people are free.

"Hail from" and "agree with" are two separate things.  I do not agree with the overall Canadian government take on smoking, nor their healthcare policies for that matter (and, interestingly enough, the two are linked).

That entire statement of yours is bizarre.  If people are free, why are they not free to smoke?  And why am I not free to choose, or to choose not to, frequent a smoking or non-smoking private business establishment?  If a private owner wishes to allow smoking, I can choose if I want to go there or not.  And vice versa.

There may be, granted, some merit to banning smoking in PUBLIC places, but not in private homes and/or other establishments.  There the decision to ban or not to ban is up to the owner(s).  And the decision ot enter or not to enter is up to the non-owner patrons.  And the decision to work there or not to work there is up to potential employees.  No one holds a gun to anyone's head and says "you must drink a coke in that smoking restaurant" or "you must wait on tables in that smokey pub."

If the State has its say in what I (or you) do to my own (or your own) body, then what is to stop them from telling you what job to take, how much you must (or must not) eat, and whether or not you are allowed to skydive?

If the State exists legitimately at all, it is there simply to enforce laws that prevent harm between citizens on each other or each others' property.  That is all.  The State does not exist to protect me from myself, especially if I am a competent actor in my own demise.

To allow the State any such control over me (or you) is to invite eventual despotism.

Smoking today, slavery tomorrow.

This modern Puritanism that you espouse sickens me, frankly.

Hank Rearden wrote:

There may be, granted, some merit to banning smoking in PUBLIC places, but not in private homes and/or other establishments.  There the decision to ban or not to ban is up to the owner(s).  And the decision ot enter or not to enter is up to the non-owner patrons.  And the decision to work there or not to work there is up to potential employees.  No one holds a gun to anyone's head and says "you must drink a coke in that smoking restaurant" or "you must wait on tables in that smokey pub."

It's far more than that.  People are forced to work in substandard conditions because they can't work elsewhere.  They simple have to work in dingy bars to feed their families.  The people working in these places must be protected from evil corporations that don't care about the health of their employees.  And patrons?  I think my right to clean air is greater than your right to allow smoking in a bar.  If you can grant me my right to the freedom to breathe free in a smoky room, I'm all ears. 

Hank Rearden wrote:

To allow the State any such control over me (or you) is to invite eventual despotism.

Smoking today, slavery tomorrow.

This modern Puritanism that you espouse sickens me, frankly.

Oh, the sickening and the slippery slopes.  We've had safety guidelines in play for decades regarding any number of workplace and personal safety issues and no one is enslaved.  In fact, we're among the richest nations in the world and we have great liberty.  The anarchy you campaign for will do little more than create an environment where evil, profit-driven corporations carry the whips.

bratboy wrote:

registered_user wrote:

It's far more than that.  People are forced to work in substandard conditions because they can't work elsewhere.  They simple have to work in dingy bars to feed their families.  The people working in these places must be protected from evil corporations that don't care about the health of their employees.  And patrons?  I think my right to clean air is greater than your right to allow smoking in a bar.  If you can grant me my right to the freedom to breathe free in a smoky room, I'm all ears.

So...your right to force a business owner to run his business in a specific way for YOUR benefit should trump his right to run the business as he sees fit to best accomodate his customers?

If there were such a huge demand for non-smoking bars, you would think they'd be able to exist on their own, without regulation...

We all know that this concept of a 'free market' doesn't accommodate the needs of a progressive society.  That's why we have as many laws as we do.

Do you think that the right to clean air is not valid?

actually, what we all know is that the free market is a myth.

bratboy wrote:

registered_user wrote:

We all know that this concept of a 'free market' doesn't accommodate the needs of a progressive society.  That's why we have as many laws as we do.

Do you think that the right to clean air is not valid?

Not in my business, no.

You have every right to not patronize my business.  I don't see why I should have to accommodate you further than that.

I suppose your business won't have a ramp for wheel chair access either.

yes, hobbes is sooooo relevant to economics...

bratboy wrote:

registered_user wrote:

I suppose your business won't have a ramp for wheel chair access either.

Is a wheelchair ramp harmful to my business or will it interfere with the enjoyment of my customers?

Will an outright smoking ban?  It's not like it allows the guy next to you to allow smoking to gain a competitive edge.

Let me get this straight:

A).  Growing and smoking tobacco is good. Outlawing it is bad and a violation of rights.

B).  Growing and smoking marijuana is wrong. It must be banned and violators must be imprisoned.

Why?

....so choose to not patronize bars that allow smoking.

And choose not to patronize the establishments that don't have wheel chair access?

Again, the free-market system of choosing how to spend your money doesn't allow for progressive society.  Government mandate from a democracy is the will of the people:  it is faster, more efficient, and it always reflect public demand.

more or less wrote:

yes, hobbes is sooooo relevant to economics...

It's relevant to the notion of a "free" market.

no,

but the LEVIATHAN is similar to market forces.