CAPITALISM. You do not have the 'right' to a smoke free bar or restaraunt. If a capitalist businessman wishes to create such a place out of his own free will, great. The government creates nothing, and should have no right to interfere with private property rights. You should be free to do whatever you wish on your property, and likewise for everyone else. If you owed a bar, it should be your descision, not the government's, as to whether or not you wish to allow smoking, prostitution, gambling, heroin mainlining, or any other victimless activity on YOUR PROPERTY. I wish I lived in a free country.
This is a public health issue. That supercedes any private rights you may claim. As the owner you have no right to inflict hepatitis on me or the other patrons either.
CAPITALISM. You only wish to patronize businesses that are 100% smoke free, and this is your right. Because many other people feel the same way as you, I'm sure that such businesses would emerge under a capitalistic system. You'd still have your smoke free bars, without any government interference whatsoever. Some people want to smoke in bars, and the free market system would encourage that sort of bar to exist as well. Some people want to buy and smoke marijuana in bars, and capitalists would create that sort of business as well. I realize that the notion of liberty is long forgotten in this country. I'd like to see it make a comeback.
Hey Surf...Pick up a newspaper once in a while (Israel Defense Forces). JK...no one expects you to know everything....although you do a pretty good job of giving that impression at times. I agree with this, and I don't think Rearden would disagree either. I think (I could be wrong) that he just doesn't believe that the LAW should dictate how a person decides to treat their own body. But the LAW should be able to control how one person's behavior affects the comfort, health, etc. of those around them. The fact is that there are arguments to be made either way. Obviously, since I personally don't smoke, and don't want people around me to smoke, then outlawing smoking would be pleasing to me. But is it the government's place to do this? After driving motorcycles for too many years to think about, helmet laws caught up with me. I objected, but I had to comply. Then they repealed the law. But by then, I felt uncomfortable without a helmet, and continued to wear one. But despite my feelings about the helmet law (initially), there was a valid argument for the law. True, it should be up to me if I want to die in a motorcycle accident rather than have the protection of the helmet. But things aren't so simple. What is the expense to the public if I do die like that? Do the police have to spend more time (and tax dollars) investigating my death? Does the hospital have to put my critical head injury ahead of the next person in triage? Does someone else die waiting for the surgeon who is working on my possibly avoidable head injury? Does my accident help to raise insurance premiums for other motorcycle owners? Or motorists in general? Does the ambulance that came to get me miss saving someone else? Yes, people should have a right to choose how to live their lives. How much safety can you regulate? Saving lives saves money. So there is justification in some of these laws of protection. Seat belt laws are pretty universal (at least in the US) for the same reasons as I gave for motorcycle helmet laws. Seat belts save lives. That saves money. And resources. Heroin and other hard drugs cause expense to the public. Crime, yes. Would the crimes committed to get money for drugs decrease if the drugs were legalized? Probably. But there are other costs. Treatment costs, medical costs (if use increases), etc. No easy answers. But one thing is for sure. If heroin were legal, as alchohol is, people using the drug could kill others with their automobiles. So anyone old enough to drink, can. But they cannot endanger others by driving drunk. Get caught driving drunk today in most states, and it's "one strike and you are out". As it should be. Cigarette smokers endanger others when they smoke in the presence of other people. It is unhealthy (and unpleasant) to be exposed to second hand smoke. So Alfonso is right. His nose should be off limits to those who smoke. I am still amazed to think back how things were when I was a kid. All adults seemed to smoke. My dad smoked. How my two brothers and my mother (who never smoked) and I survived being in a car with him with the windows closed is amazing. I guess we were so used to it, we didn't notice. I don't remember it being uncomfortable. Just part of my life as a kid. But today? It would probably be considered "child abuse". If he had been rich, and were still alive, I wonder if I could sue him for what he did then Peace, RS
Surf, sorry I somehow missed your post asking about the IDF. Yes, I lived in Israel for ten years (age 11-21). At 18, my ass was drafted along with every other non-Muslim boy and GIRL in the country. Ayn Rand was strongly against the concept of military draft, but the state of Israel truly has no choice if it wishes to survive. Those peaceful Muslims would happily cause Holocaust 2 if given the opportunity.
As far as I understand the law, in Florida, this is the case (as far as smoking). You MAY allow smoking in a bar. But then the rules are different. No kids, for one thing. As far as the other stuff (allowing the use of drugs), that is a different issue entirely. I agree though. If you wish to permit smoking, and no one is forced to enter your establishment, then yes, that should be ok. I am pretty sure that the present law in Florida gives restaurant owners a choice. So it comes down to this....cater to smokers, or cater to families. I think that's it. I believe there are no more "smoking sections" in restaurants down here. I think it's all or nothing. Augusta National doesn't permit female members. Your arguments for "freedom to choose" are reasonable I guess. And so far, as far as I know, pretty much that freedom still exists. Right or wrong? Not for me to say. Certainly if I were dictator, a lot of things would change. Would things be better? Depends on your point of view. But no way could I (or anyone) please all of the people. Peace,, RS
Yeah, I will quote myself again on this. (at the risk of going off topic). I had said here before that if that if the Arab world disarmed, there would be no more war in the Middle East. If Israel disarmed, there would be no more Israel in the Middle East. So fucking sad! RS
No, it's impossible to please all people, however you could FREE all people. Religious people with children are no longer allowed to refuse to rent their own property,adjascent to their homes, to flaming homosexuals. Private property rights no longer exist. If I want to build a golf course and wish to forbid Muslims from entering MY property, this should be my constitutional right. If Mohammad Abdul wishes to exclude me from his sheep fornicators club, that should be his right. Enslaving everybody to each other is not liberty.