tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post6006588141864672096..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Our Lying, Cheating Do-Gooders: Part TwoUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-35400975121422693812007-12-11T07:55:00.000-05:002007-12-11T07:55:00.000-05:00Mr. Cline,Thank you for the insightful essay!My ow...Mr. Cline,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for the insightful essay!<BR/><BR/>My own research into the topic for my post on it had me questioning a lot of premises of the supposed dangers of smoking. I see from what you've found I was right to be suspicious. I didn't think it was nearly this bad, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.<BR/><BR/>Again, thanks!<BR/><BR/>-InspectorAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-68036048745643392112007-12-07T18:04:00.000-05:002007-12-07T18:04:00.000-05:00Should business owners close their businesses to p...Should business owners close their businesses to protest anti-smoking regulations?<BR/><BR/>This question, for me, raises another question: If a businessman is going to protest statism by closing his business, why wait until the state imposes regulations against smoking?<BR/><BR/>In other words, why now? Why not at other times to protest the many other forms of exploitation by statists: taxation, licensing, building permits, zoning, and so forth?<BR/><BR/>More generally, I question whether closing one's business should ever be a protest. I can certainly see someone closing his business because he can't operate profitably enough to justify the effort; or because the political system has become so bad that he is hopeless about protecting his property; or because a particular regulation--the nature of it doesn't matter--is the "last straw" for a particular businessman. But I don't see why this particular issue, secondhand smoke, would be a general reason for businesses to close.<BR/><BR/>Burgess Laughlin<BR/>http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.comBurgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-57078203167980303322007-12-07T15:33:00.000-05:002007-12-07T15:33:00.000-05:00For those who have studied this issue more closely...For those who have studied this issue more closely than I:<BR/><BR/>1. Today, in U. S. culture, what does "public" mean under the law (if it has a legal definition)?<BR/><BR/>2. Is it a valid concept, or is it invalid because it is a sort of package deal?<BR/><BR/>3. In a free society, what would "public" mean? <BR/><BR/>For the last question, I would suggest that in this context the concept "public" would subsume all the individuals who should receive protection from a proper government (which means everyone living within U. S. borders and all U. S. citizens anywhere).<BR/><BR/>Accordingly, a "public" place in a free society would be a place owned (or leased!) by government and always accessible under normal conditions to any peaceful, honest individual who deserves the protection of the government. An example of such a place would be a courtroom.<BR/><BR/>By this definition, a conference room in police headquarters would not be "public." Nor would it be "private." Instead it would be governmental, that is, required for the functioning of government employees doing their proper jobs -- always subject to orderly inspection by legislators.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-80211441429108754632007-12-06T12:49:00.000-05:002007-12-06T12:49:00.000-05:00Mr. Bracken: What would happen if restaurants and ...Mr. Bracken: What would happen if restaurants and bars refused business to the do-gooders? They would ultimately need to go on strike, for the do-gooders would probably sue them for discriminatory behavior, and so the best action would be for the property and business owners to simply shut down. (I've been encouraging restaurant and bar owners to do that for years.) <BR/><BR/>Rp: Your comments here are an emotionalist rant, and I do not attempt to reply to that kind of argument. On one point, I find Harley riders much less objectionable than the Lance Armstrong wannabe cyclists, who, while they are traffic hazards and may as well be on roller skates, expect to be treated as though they own the roads and were 1.5 ton vehicles. My reply to them is Galt's: "Get the hell out of my way." As for my possibly assaulting your lungs, well, I just won't go anywhere near you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-50411982613676394332007-12-05T22:50:00.000-05:002007-12-05T22:50:00.000-05:00The guy with the Harley assaults my ears (hearing ...The guy with the Harley assaults my ears (hearing loss may or may not result - that's debatable) but it's still an assault and I wouldn't mind government protection from such unnecessary noise.<BR/>Your second hand smoke is an assault on my lungs (I am allergic but even without that, just the filth and smell is bad enough) and I appreciate the much cleaner air in public locations as apparently many others do as well. Smoke all you want where you aren't ruining life for others. That should be your individual right, but for the respect of other individuals stop and think about how you are initiating force against others in an action such as smoking, loud noise, hazard waste production, etc. We can’t really protect ourselves in public spaces against all the inconsiderate individuals in the world so some of your freedom to assault others has to be curtailed by government - the agency that we have agreed on to use force for individual protection.<BR/>Ed, stick to freedom of speech, freedom from religion, rational thinking, limited goverment, etc. but fighting to be free to assault others with your smoke is like O'Reilly saying he's in a "no spin Zone" with Jesus and the Republicans.Rphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09842083121020297834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-47160657625598896262007-12-05T14:14:00.000-05:002007-12-05T14:14:00.000-05:00I'm wondering what would happen if the bars and re...I'm wondering what would happen if the bars and restaurants that have been forced to exclude smokers boycotted these "do-gooders".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com