Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

registered_user wrote:

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.

There are various bars in the city I live in that do not have wheelchair access.

Again, there's a disconnect.  Allowing smoking is not a practice that benefits the business owner at the expense of the customer.  Quite the opposite, a bar owner who choses to allow smoking does so because of their desire to accomodate their customers.

And what of the employees that are forced to suffer the thick unhealthy smoke just to put a few extra dollars in the pockets of the greedy corporate bar?  Must they suffer so?

more or less wrote:

registered_user wrote:

more or less wrote:

i always like a side of mayo with my carcinogens.

Then you'll have to move to either a red state or Europe.

so, there is a middle ground wherein a COMMUNITY could choose otherwise.  correct?

what are you doing to fight the will o' the people?

Fight it?  I am it!  Why would I fight it?

Communities must obey the laws of their states.   It ensures freedom and equality.

registered_user wrote:

And what of the employees that are forced to suffer the thick unhealthy smoke just to put a few extra dollars in the pockets of the greedy corporate bar?  Must they suffer so?

They can sign a waiver, or work somewhere else without the occupational hazards.  From my experience with the public debate over smoking bans, I saw lots of outsiders saying "what about the employees?"  and lots of employees saying "We don't care!"


...and would you knock it off with all this emotive language like constantly saying "greedy" this and that?  It sounds so contrived, it's making this 'discussion' difficult.

bratboy wrote:

oatmeal wrote:

bratboy wrote:

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

Yeah, right.   In areas that allow smoking in bars, have you EVER seen one that doesn't allow it?

You mean a non-smoking bar couldn't survive the competition?

I thought everyone wanted smoke free bars?

Well the loud annoying people do.

freecat wrote:

more or less wrote:

no,

but the LEVIATHAN is similar to market forces.

In your version of reality, maybe.

i'd love for you to explain the difference between the war of all against all and perfect competition.  except, i still don't know why you bring hobbes up.

you can stop your posturing any time now.

bratboy wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Well the loud annoying people do.

Yes...I remember one or two of the people speaking at the Austin City Council meeting saying "we'd go out probably once or twice a month if there wasn't smoking!"

Another guy said "my friend likes bringing her infant to happy hour, and she should be able to without worrying about secondhand smoke!"

What about all the people that like smoking at happy hour?

registered_user wrote:

If you're right, and this RI ban is somehow the action of a corrupted General Assembly, then we can expect to see great change in state leadership next election.  That's the power of democracy.

If, however, you are wrong and the people really do want to end smoking, then it's imperative that it be banned outright.

I never used the word "corruption."  I would assume the politicians behind such bans are well-meaning...but I believe those that are the most outspoken about banning smoking in bars are those who have the LEAST association with them, either as customers or employees.  I'm not claiming that the majority of citizens would not be for or indifferent to a ban...

RE:  waiver.  This is a terrible idea and one that doesn't fly.  Imagine if OSHA worked on a waiver system.  There's be sweat shops and working conditions that SE Asia could only dream of.  Loss of life due to poor safety standards would be astronmoical, and that's simply unacceptable in today's progressive society.  I mean just society.  Sorry, that extra adjective just rolled out.  I'll try to keep an eye on them.

I've worked in businesses that did not offer workman's comp.  When I delivered pizza, my own insurance policy covered my driving....etc.

Perhaps such laws are different in Texas.

freecat wrote:

more or less wrote:

i'd love for you to explain the difference between the war of all against all and perfect competition.

Umm, isn't that the Hobbesian Jungle? Leviathan is the book, the Hobbesian Jungle is described in that book as the "war of all against all."

Oh, there is no perfect competition.  It's an illustrative construct.  But so is the Hobbesian Jungle.  That's my point.

ahh,

i'm glad an incoherent person understood you.  and my point was, there is no free market.  thanks for illustrating the myth.

Last edited by more or less (2005-03-04 4:25 pm)

But there is such a thing as a market in a state of anarchy, and it's very un-Jungle-like.

registered_user wrote:

Word choice aside, that's what we're talking about.  An elected official not acting in the best interest of the people he and/or she serves.

No, it isn't corruption.  An elected official is never going to satisfy every person that they serve.

Perhaps they are.  You are in a red state.  But aren't you grateful that the federal government has stepped in and set tough guidelines to ensure automotive safety?  That never would have happened if we left it for people to "choose" to buy the safer car.

...but some cars ARE safer than others....

i'll come back, we've got a lightining storm right now.

registered_user wrote:

bratboy wrote:

registered_user wrote:

Word choice aside, that's what we're talking about.  An elected official not acting in the best interest of the people he and/or she serves.

No, it isn't corruption.  An elected official is never going to satisfy every person that they serve.

Perhaps they are.  You are in a red state.  But aren't you grateful that the federal government has stepped in and set tough guidelines to ensure automotive safety?  That never would have happened if we left it for people to "choose" to buy the safer car.

...but some cars ARE safer than others....

The official will satisfy the majority, however.  Lest he be removed. 

And ALL cars meet minimum safety guidelines thanks for government intervention.

So...are you claiming that occupations that contain hazards do not exist?