# News & Current Events > Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies >  OK - the "Libertarians" on here have me more than a little confused..

## PaulaGem

..

----------


## TheState

You have the right not to go to that bar or restaurant and deprive them of your money.

----------


## MRoCkEd

The government has no right to tell a private business whether or not they can allow smoking. If you don't like the conditions of a restaurant, do not eat there. Go somewhere that has a non-smoking policy. It's the same as a person's household; there shouldn't be a law that forbids him from smoking on his own property because somebody like you might want to visit.

----------


## malkusm

> I also ran into some who said I didn't belong here because I believe children under the age of 18 are due certain duties and protection by the state if their parents fail in their obilgations.
> 
> 
> Do libertarians believe in any state controld over behavior of its citizens?   If someone infringes on my basic rights doesn't the sate have some obligation to defend my rights for me,  or do we go back to "might is right" and anarchy?
> 
> 
> Let's take the smoking issue.   I "did acid" in high school.  Unfortunately it was in chem class, hydrochloric type, and my lungs were burned.     There are times that I have to hold by breath going into a building in order to get into it without having a serious asthma attack.    I can do that, I can deal with it because I understand these people are drug addicts and may not be able to escape the addiction.
> 
> What I can't handle is having someone smoke next to me in  a restaurant or a bar.   It's not because I don't like the smell (burning cigarettes are somewhat aromatic, it's ashtrays and stale smoke on clothes and skin that make my stomach queasy) ,   it's because the smoke makes my lungs quit working...   
> ...


As far as smoking goes -

Do you know others in your town who feel the same way, and don't feel like being bothered by smoke while you're at a restaurant?

*Then it looks like you've found an untapped market - why don't one of you start a non-smoking restaurant?*

The fact is that people who are going to restaurants and bars that don't have "no smoking" policies are making rational economic decisions. They may not like the smoke, sure; they might even complain about it, a lot, publicly. But they still go to the restaurant - why? 

Simple - the benefit of being a patron of the restaurant outweighs the negative aspect of smoking in the building, in their mind.

The question is, should the complaining non-smoker lobby the government to change everyone else's behavior? Or, perhaps, should they take personal responsibility and change their own behavior?

----------


## specsaregood

> You have the right not to go to that bar or restaurant and deprive them of your money.


^This.  I've had family members with horrible asthma and very prone to getting asthma attacks from cigarette smoke or even candles.  You know what they do?  They just don't got to businesses that allow smoking or have lots of candles burning.    Should the government mandate that restaurants can't have candles on the tables?  Should businesses not be allowed to have incense or other assorted scents that can cause an asthma attack?

----------


## MRoCkEd

Don't forget that the government should outlaw peanut products to protect people with severe peanut allergies.

----------


## malkusm

As for your first point - there are very few anarchists here (most of us are minarchists - minimal government). There are roles for government at a local level where a police force, court system, and perhaps basic things like water are reasonably handled by government, either due to conflicts of interest, or because of very high economies of scale for entering the market in combination with almost universal need for the product.

However, anything that changes the behavior of a free individual is a bad law. Zoning ordinances, for example, are terrible examples of central planners whose incentives are to raise property values in order to generate more tax revenue. If I own land, why should the government tell me I can only build a house on it, or only build a commercial structure on it?

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## malkusm

> Smokers are only 20-30% of any given population.    How do their rights become more important than the other 70-80%?    
> 
> Drunk or chemically impaired drivers are only a small percentage of the drivers on the road.  Should we repeal the laws against drunk driving too?


So I guess that means that the majority should always be catered to, and the minority's rights should not be protected? You do realize that this is what happens in anarchy/mob rule, right?

----------


## LibertyEagle

Paula,

First of all, you need to understand that there are all kinds of people on this forum.  Some are anarcho-capitalists, in that they believe everything should be left up to the market and that there should be no government; there are also constitutionalists here, traditional conservatives and I'm sure a whole lot of others too.

Don't let anyone tell you you don't belong, because if they're saying that to you, the spotlight should probably be turned on them instead.

As far as smoking in private businesses is concerned.  Let me ask you a question, Paula.  Do you believe that the government has the right to tell you who you have to allow in your house and whether they can smoke or drink?  I'm betting the answer is no.  If you believe that, why should the government be telling you who can be in your place of business (your private property) or whether they can smoke?  I mean, if you as a customer do not want to be around smoke, you have the right to go someplace else.  In fact, if there were enough people like you who didn't want to be around any smoke, it would be a fabulous business opportunity to open up a place of business to cater to those people.

----------


## MRoCkEd

> Smokers are only 20-30% of any given population.    How do their rights become more important than the other 70-80%?    
> 
> Drunk or chemically impaired drivers are only a small percentage of the drivers on the road.  Should we repeal the laws against drunk driving too?


We're not talking about a person's "right to smoke." We're talking about a restaurant owner's right to determine policy. He can forbid smoking, allow smoking, or even decide to only serve people with cigarettes in their mouths. You have the right to deny any restaurant your money because you don't agree with its policies.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## specsaregood

> Shouldn't you, as a patrotic citizen, be willing to be inconvenienced in manner in which you satisfy your drug addiction so that the other 70-80% of the people in this country can be safer and more healthy.


Well then by that logic we should ban anything deemed "unhealthy"......
And it is like LE said,  the issue is property owners having the right to decide what happens on their property.

P.S. Are you just funning us?

----------


## pacelli

> I also ran into some who said I didn't belong here because I believe children under the age of 18 are due certain duties and protection by the state if their parents fail in their obilgations.
> 
> 
> Do libertarians believe in any state controld over behavior of its citizens?   If someone infringes on my basic rights doesn't the sate have some obligation to defend my rights for me,  or do we go back to "might is right" and anarchy?
> 
> 
> Let's take the smoking issue.   I "did acid" in high school.  Unfortunately it was in chem class, hydrochloric type, and my lungs were burned.     There are times that I have to hold by breath going into a building in order to get into it without having a serious asthma attack.    I can do that, I can deal with it because I understand these people are drug addicts and may not be able to escape the addiction.
> 
> What I can't handle is having someone smoke next to me in  a restaurant or a bar.   It's not because I don't like the smell (burning cigarettes are somewhat aromatic, it's ashtrays and stale smoke on clothes and skin that make my stomach queasy) ,   it's because the smoke makes my lungs quit working...   
> ...


You have the liberty to avoid any situation that could be hazardous to your health, like ones that involve hydrochloric acid, or ones that involve other forms of toxic fumes.  You also have the liberty to engage in those situations, but you are ultimately responsible for any consequences that occur.

----------


## MRoCkEd

> But it has been good for business and good for public health.
> 
> 
> http://www.boston.com/ae/food/restau...der_smoke_ban/
> 
> Shouldn't you, as a patrotic citizen, be willing to be inconvenienced in manner in which you satisfy your drug addiction so that the other 70-80% of the people in this country can be safer and more healthy.
> 
> It seems like a small price to pay to me, and it is something that you should have done without having laws to force you to comply.


You have no right to tell a business how to set its policies. Is it patriotic to avoid smoking to make things more "convenient" for others? I don't think patriotic is the right word, but I'm not disagreeing with you that it might be a nice thing to do. However, you want the government to use its guns to force people to behave a certain way. That, my friend, is unpatriotic.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Smokers are only 20-30% of any given population.    How do their rights become more important than the other 70-80%?    
> 
> Drunk or chemically impaired drivers are only a small percentage of the drivers on the road.  Should we repeal the laws against drunk driving too?


Liberty is based on private property ownership, Paula.  The difference between these two things you mention is that in the former, government is dictating to private property owners what can and can't go on on their own private property.  

It shouldn't matter whether 1 or 99 percent disagree and that concept is exactly what a republic is all about.  Protecting the rights of the minority, or the one, against the force of the majority.

----------


## malkusm

> But it has been good for business and good for public health.
> 
> 
> http://www.boston.com/ae/food/restau...der_smoke_ban/
> 
> Shouldn't you, as a patrotic citizen, be willing to be inconvenienced in manner in which you satisfy your drug addiction so that the other 70-80% of the people in this country can be safer and more healthy.
> 
> It seems like a small price to pay to me, and it is something that you should have done without having laws to force you to comply.


"Patriotic citizens" should always support laws that are beneficial to the majority, with no regard for individual rights? 

You're missing the point here - every person has the same individual rights. The person who doesn't smoke has the right to go somewhere else - their rights are still in tact. However, when the government BANS smoking in all restaurants, the rights of the smoker have now been taken away, as they have no alternative.

Again, your link just suggests that there is an untapped market, and that someone who starts a restaurant/bar that is non-smoking would stand to profit greatly.

Plus, as the others have said, this is a property rights issue as well. Business owners have a right to run their business as they see fit, just like you have a right to run your house as you see fit; the government has no place in either.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## LibertyEagle

Paula,

Go here please and type "private property" into the search box.  Then read.

www.fee.org

----------


## specsaregood

> As for the rights of the few against the rights of the many.   It's also the type of right.   I can not see how the health of 80% of the people in this country can be less important that the ability of 20% to satisfy a drug addiction.    And yes, that should supercede the right of anyone who operates a public establishment.   He also does not have the right to jeopardize the health of the 80%.


I know people that can go into an asthma attack if somebody has too strong of a perfume or cologne.  Should the government ban people from wearing perfume and cologne?

----------


## MRoCkEd

> That's why our legislators are supposed to be "leaders"....
> 
> Before smoking bans establishment owners had the false perception that it would cost them businss to ban smoking.   Now most of them would NOT go back to permitting smoking, they realize that that perception was wrong.
> 
> As for the rights of the few against the rights of the many.   It's also the type of right.   I can not see how the health of 80% of the people in this country can be less important that the ability of 20% to satisfy a drug addiction.    And yes, that should supercede the right of anyone who operates a public establishment.   He also does not have the right to jeopardize the health of the 80%.    So smokers should lobby legislators for a special smoking license so that a facility can permit smoking if they warn non-smokers at the door, perhaps make available a comprehensive pamphlet on the dangers of passive smoke, and prohibit minors.
> 
> I wouldn't object to that.


Your complete lack of consideration for property rights makes me wonder whether you grasp the concept of liberty.
 If you don't want to eat somewhere that allows smoking, *don't*. Stop trying to control other people.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Kraig

> Shouldn't you, as a patrotic citizen, be willing to be inconvenienced in manner in which you satisfy your drug addiction so that the other 70-80% of the people in this country can be safer and more healthy.


Nope.  If I am on private property the property owner sets the rules.  I really don't see what your problem is, there are plenty of non-smoking restaurants.  I can understand your beef with people smoking outside the entrance of buildings which is why I always smoke as far away from the entrance or where people are walking as possible, it's also why there are plenty of private buildings that do not allow smoking near the entrances.  It is still private property, it is still up to the property owner to set the rules.  If you don't like it or if it's a building you go to regularly, contact the owner or stop going.  Whatever arguments you come up with are moot as long as you are trying to justify government forcing property owners what to do and what not to do.  At my job here we are only allowed to smoke way in the back by the dumpster, I have no problem with that, it was the owner's decision, and it's good buisness too.  It's not you trying to restrict smoking that I have a problem with, it's you wanting the government to do it for you rather than dealing with sovereign individuals and their rights.

I'm sure you could even look into some kind of face mask that would block it out if it is really that bad, you are the one trying to inconvenience others because you $#@!ed up your lungs in high school.

----------


## Kraig

> Patriotic citizens should realize that the right to breathe trumps the right to indulge in a drug addiction.    You say I should stay at home so I can breathe, isn't it much more practical for that 20% to stay at home so they can toke?


Give me a break, the only thing you have to worry about when you step outside is air pollution mostly from cars and industry.  You can easily avoid smoke just by not going certain places, you are really blowing this out of proportion.

----------


## ARealConservative

> I also ran into some who said I didn't belong here because I believe children under the age of 18 are due certain duties and protection by the state if their parents fail in their obilgations.


You belong here if you want to massively reduce the size of the *Federal* government.

Most libertarians are too simplistic to see the inherent flaws in their philosophy.  Just humor the self righteous variety - as this site is full of those kind - but don't question your role in the movement because of their flawed thinking.

----------


## malkusm

> Patriotic citizens should realize that the right to breathe trumps the right to indulge in a drug addiction.    You say I should stay at home so I can breathe, isn't it much more practical for that 20% to stay at home so they can toke?
> 
> Pass legislation with an exemption for business owners who want to make smoking bars.   As I said, most would not go back now, but I'm sure a few would.
> 
> As for the "untapped market" --- no, now bar and restaurant owners realize that the majority of the market would prefer not to deal with smokers at all.   Business went up after smoking was banned.   The niche market is with the minority, the nicotine addicts.


If this is true, then why haven't all of the bars and restaurants in your area seen the great increase in business in "smoking ban" states, and changed their policies accordingly? Massachusetts, in case you're unaware, is a fairly liberal area. I'd be willing to bet that the same effect would not take place in a state like, say, Alabama.

You're still not understanding what this argument is all about, though: private property rights and individual rights.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## LibertyEagle

> That's why our legislators are supposed to be "leaders"....
> 
> Before smoking bans establishment owners had the false perception that it would cost them businss to ban smoking.   Now most of them would NOT go back to permitting smoking, they realize that that perception was wrong.
> 
> As for the rights of the few against the rights of the many.   It's also the type of right.   I can not see how the health of 80% of the people in this country can be less important that the ability of 20% to satisfy a drug addiction.    And yes, that should supercede the right of anyone who operates a public establishment.   He also does not have the right to jeopardize the health of the 80%.    So smokers should lobby legislators for a special smoking license so that a facility can permit smoking if they warn non-smokers at the door, perhaps make available a comprehensive pamphlet on the dangers of passive smoke, and prohibit minors.
> 
> *I wouldn't object to that.*


So basically, you're fine with using big government force as long as you agree with what that force is being used to do?  Is that correct?  Tell me, how's that going to work for you when that same government force is used on you?  Because it will be.

Why do you have such a problem with letting people operate their own private businesses the way they choose?  That is how the free market came up with all kinds of alternatives, Paula.  If someone saw a niche that someone else's business wasn't filling and thought there was enough demand, then voila, a new business or product would be created.  Contrast that with let's say how Soviet Russia handled things.  Government decided it all.  I was reading about this the other day.  There was like 1 or 2 options in everything.  For example 1 kind of toothpaste, 1 or 2 kinds of toothbrushes, etc.

You seem to totally be missing how huge a role that the concept of private property has in your freedom.  That's why I'm wanting you to go over to fee.org, search for private property and start reading.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Kraig

> Nicotine addicts are dupes of the media and big business.    They have been enslaved by the tobacco companies.    Their enslavement should not be a tax on the general population (in the form of health care) or jeopardize the right of 80% of the people to breathe and have healthy lungs.
> 
> Liberty is not based on property ownership, then you would have to cede liberty to the corporations.   Liberty is based on your inalienable rights.    I can't think of one right that should come before the right to breathe.
> 
> The minority does not have an inalienable right to drug addiction or any other behavior that jeopardizes the TRUE rights of the majority.
> 
> *** grin ***  I live near the People's Republic of Boulder  - they definitely would never go back.


Then lets ban TVs because all the idiots in this country are really making be suffer right now.  I could even argue that TV does more damage than smoking does. 

And yes I have a right to any drug addiction in the privacy of my own home.




> No I am not.    Second hand smoke is far mor dangerous than the general pollution levels in this country.


Yeah but much more easily avoidable.

----------


## MRoCkEd

Paula --

About this "right to breathe"... By your reasoning, shouldn't the government force restaurants to avoid using products some people have severe allergies to? I know somebody whose throat closes up as a reaction to peanuts. His right to breathe surely trumps the property owner's right to decide whether or not to serve peanut products?

----------


## malkusm

> Nicotine addicts are dupes of the media and big business.    They have been enslaved by the tobacco companies.    Their enslavement should not be a tax on the general population (in the form of health care) or jeopardize the right of 80% of the people to breathe and have healthy lungs.





> Car owners are dupes of the media and big business. They have been enslaved by the auto makers. Their enslavement should not be a tax on the general population (in the form of higher insurance premiums) or jeopardize the right of the 15% of the people to walk/bike and be exposed to less risk.





> Fast food consumers are dupes of the media and big business. They have been enslaved by the hamburger. Their enslavement should not be a tax on the general population (in the form of health care) or jeopardize the right of 70% of the people to eat healthy and live longer.


Which one is the real quote?

This could get out of hand quickly

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Nicotine addicts are dupes of the media and big business.    They have been enslaved by the tobacco companies.    Their enslavement should not be a tax on the general population (in the form of health care) or jeopardize the right of 80% of the people to breathe and have healthy lungs.
> 
> Liberty is not based on property ownership, then you would have to cede liberty to the corporations.   Liberty is based on your inalienable rights.    I can't think of one right that should come before the right to breathe.
> 
> The minority does not have an inalienable right to drug addiction or any other behavior that jeopardizes the TRUE rights of the majority.


Liberty IS based on private property ownership, Paula.  

And yes, if I choose to be addicted, I have every right to do so.  It is MY body, after all.  The problem is that no one else should be required to pay for my OWN decisions, regardless of what they are.  So back to smoking.  Let's say a business owner decides his place of business is open to smokers and let's say he puts a big sign on his door that says so.  How in heck do the smokers in that business owner's establishment infringe on your right to breathe?  If you know it's a smoking establishment, shouldn't you go somewhere else?  

By the way how do you define "TRUE" rights?

----------


## Working Poor

As a person who has worked in many restaurants and bars I have noticed that smokers were more likely to tip well than non smokers. I remember getting into arguments with co-workers over who *had* to work the non smoking section. Even the non smoking employees wanted to work the smoking section because of the money.

Now of course the smoking section has gotten smaller in most places and there are many restaurants that do not have a smoking section the places that do have a smoking section are usually very busy if the food is good though.

I don't see what is wrong with having a choice, unless cigarettes get banned altogether I do not see why it should be made illegal to smoke if the owner of the establishment wants to serve smokers.

----------


## Kraig

> Paula --
> 
> About this "right to breathe"... By your reasoning, shouldn't the government force restaurants to avoid using products some people have severe allergies to? I know somebody whose throat closes up as a reaction to peanut properties. His right to breathe surely trumps the property owner's right to decide whether or not to serve peanut products?


I have a friend who has the same reaction to fish, fish ban anyone?

----------


## angelatc

> Smokers are only 20-30% of any given population.    How do their rights become more important than the other 70-80%?


Minority rights are an integral part of a republic.  Majority rule is tyranny.

Besides, it isn't about individual rights.  It is about property rights.  I should be allowed to do what I like on my property.  If you do not like what we do on my property, then you should stay away from my property.  If that bothers me, financially or otherwise, then I will change what I allow on my property.

Freedom means accepting that other people will make choices, and sometimes those choices are bad.  The function of government should be to protect freedom.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Kraig

> Restaurants didn't have a choice, or at least they didn't PERCIEVE that they had a chooice.    You're ignoring the influence of the media and a vocal minority of drug addicts.    Of course the addict is going to scream more loudly than the non addicted person who is not aware of the threat the addict poses to their own health.
> 
> Once the scientific information came out, and then the information about the Cigarette companies spiking their product to make it more addictive, and people began to understand that the way cigarettes were being advertised on TV was perpetrating a fraud upon the American people, the  Federal government stepped in and appropriately controlled corporate actions that were endangering the health of American citizens.     I don't have a problem with that.
> 
> The smoking bans are local laws, and I believe they are appropriate.


Restaurants didn't have a choice?  are you serious?  they were brainwashed by the media and the drug addicts?

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## malkusm

I'm done arguing this one; I'll just leave with this...

----------


## angelatc

> No I am not.    Second hand smoke is far mor dangerous than the general pollution levels in this country.


You'd think, but as the exposure to it declines, the percentage of the population with breathing difficulties (like asthma and allergies) is rising.  

I actually met an airline pilot who retired when they stopped allowing smoking on flights. Not because he wanted to smoke, but because the nicotine stained the stress fractures in the aircraft and allowed the crew to see them before there were any other indications of trouble.   He simply did not trust the planes not to fall apart. (They haven't been falling apart, so perhaps he was a little over cautious, if that's possible.)

----------


## Kraig

> I will not question that , and you can do it on your own property.


What if I have my friends over and they want to smoke to? am I allowed to let them?

What if I want to make dinner for my friends too, and we smoke afterward?

What if my food turns out really good, so I start selling it and invite everyone?  That's where you draw the line?  No one is making you come to my property.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## MRoCkEd

> Restaurants didn't have a choice, or at least they didn't PERCIEVE that they had a chooice.    You're ignoring the influence of the media and a vocal minority of drug addicts.    Of course the addict is going to scream more loudly than the non addicted person who is not aware of the threat the addict poses to their own health.
> 
> Once the scientific information came out, and then the information about the Cigarette companies spiking their product to make it more addictive, and people began to understand that the way cigarettes were being advertised on TV was perpetrating a fraud upon the American people, the  Federal government stepped in and appropriately controlled corporate actions that were endangering the health of American citizens.     I don't have a problem with that.
> 
> The smoking bans are local laws, and I believe they are appropriate.


Paula, are you sure you didn't mean to register on Ralph Nader Forums?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_advocacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

----------


## Kraig

> Don't you remember how all of the "cool" people in movies and TV used to smoke?   Don't you believe that the corporations could shape the media to foster addiction?   Gee, they are still doing that in other countries.


lmao welcome to media influence, you think that is the only negative aspect?  People are still free to make up their own minds.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Smokers have a right to participate in their drug addiction.   I will not question that , and you can do it on your own property.
> 
> The rights of smokers end where the greater right of others to breathe begins.   *If you own a bar or a restaurant and you want to cater to smokers I agree, there should be that option,  but the default should be supportive of the majority's greater and more important right to breathe.*


If a restaurant or bar was allowing smoking, clearly they were operating it as they chose to do.  It was government who FORCED them to change.   

Paula, I can agree with you on public property, but on private property, the owner should dictate what is and isn't allowed.  If you as a customer don't like their decision, then don't go on their private property.  Seems clear to me.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Kraig

> If you invite everyone and open a public establishment you are obliged to abide by health codes ( you know the stuff like you have to sanitize your dishes, wash your hands before preparing the food,  clean the refrigerators, etc).   Not serving the food in a polluted environment is just another health code, dude.


Says you.  Come over and say that to me, and I would just kick you out.  I would take you off the invited list, and then it would no longer be a 100% open establishment, and then your points are moot.

----------


## Kludge

> Paula,
> 
> First of all, you need to understand that there are all kinds of people on this forum.  Some are anarcho-capitalists, in that they believe everything should be left up to the market and that there should be no government; there are also constitutionalists here, traditional conservatives and I'm sure a whole lot of others too.
> 
> Don't let anyone tell you you don't belong, because if they're saying that to you, the spotlight should probably be turned on them instead.


Whoa. Well said.

----------


## angelatc

> Smokers have a right to participate in their drug addiction.   I will not question that , and you can do it on your own property.
> 
> The rights of smokers end where the greater right of others to breathe begins.   If you own a bar or a restaurant and you want to cater to smokers I agree, there should be that option,  but the default should be supportive of the majority's greater and more important right to breathe.


The default should be what the property owner chooses it to be.  

If we correctly assume that the majority of Americans don't suffer any ill effects from second hand smoke, your "majority rules" argument falls apart.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Anti Federalist

> That's why our legislators are supposed to be "leaders"....


Where'd you get that idea?

That pack of sluts on the Potomac couldn't "lead" their way to a Manila whorehouse with a fistful of 100s.

They are not supposed to be "leaders", they are supposed to be representatives of the people and follow their oaths to defend the constitution.

You have an ax to grind against smokers. Your personal discomfort animates this.

Others have personal discomforts with other freedoms.

And so, freedom dies a death by a thousand cuts, perpetuated by self absorbed busybodies who insist that there "oughtta be a law" against each and every one of their personal grievances.

Before long everything is against the law.

----------


## angelatc

> Paula, are you sure you didn't mean to register on Ralph Nader Forums?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_advocacy
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism


That's not appropriate.  (Neither is this....but I am going there anyway.)  She has stated her opinion.  If you can't counter it, then move to the next thread. 

Ralph Nader defines a lot of America's problems the same way that Ron Paul does.  It's the solutions we disagree on.

----------


## Kraig

> I just made the point that if you can't make them keep the air clean, you shouldn't be able to make them keep the dishes clean and the food safe either...


of course not, those laws are bull$#@! too

----------


## LibertyEagle

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=123970

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## angelatc

> I just made the point that if you can't make them keep the air clean, you shouldn't be able to make them keep the dishes clean and the food safe either...


That's fine, and if you think that's true, then don't eat there.

I am recently from Chicago, where health certificates are passed out based on bribes to the inspector. They have nothing to do with the cleanliness of the restaurant.  If you haven't lived there, you think I am joking or exaggerating.  If you have lived there, you just accept that's the way government is run there.

----------


## angelatc

> Your assumption is incorrect.  Second hand smoke extremely dangerous, especially to children.  
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sec...-smoke/CC00023
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/secondhand_smoke/index.htm



I know the studies, but you haven't disproved my statement.   The majority of people exposed to second hand smoke do not suffer any ill effects from it.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## MRoCkEd

> I know the studies, but you haven't disproved my statement.   The majority of people exposed to second hand smoke do not suffer any ill effects from it.


And the issue remains that if you are so worried about second-hand smoke then you should just go to restaurants that choose to be smoke-free.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## MRoCkEd

> So you are a supporter of social Darwinism, then?   Where's your study to support that?


This isn't about whether or not second-hand smoke is dangerous. It's about whether or not you think the self-serving politicians should be able to use their guns to force business owners to behave a certain way.

----------


## pacelli

> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...actsheet7.html


Is the risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke greater than, less than, or equal to, the risk-free level of exposure to hydrochloric acid?

----------


## angelatc

> This isn't about whether or not second-hand smoke is dangerous. It's about whether or not you think the self-serving politicians should be able to use their guns to force business owners to behave a certain way.


Exactly.

----------


## angelatc

> So you are a supporter of social Darwinism, then?   Where's your study to support that?


Your studies support my statement.   (And the surgeon general piece is cheap propaganda.)

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Kraig

> http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/librar...actsheet7.html


You are picking and choosing certain thinks to support your argument, no one is saying smoke isn't dangerous, they are saying stay away from it.  So deal with that side of the argument instead of telling us what I'm sure we all already know.  You are the one confused.  You even said smokers should be able to smoke on their own property, yet you don't seem to understand what property is.  Business are not there for you, they do not exist to do whatever you want, they are private property, run by private individuals, for their own benefit, not yours.  Society is not here to serve you.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Paula, if they took a survey in your town and 64% of the people agreed that your money should be stolen and your private property confiscated, would that make it ok?

----------


## pacelli

She Who Pawns?

----------


## Kraig

> The proportion of adults participating in the New York State Adult Tobacco Survey who said that they supported the state's smoke-free law increased from 64% in 2003 shortly before the law took effect to 80% after the law had been in effect for two years. The proportion of smokers supporting the law increased from 25% to 37% over this period, while the proportion of nonsmokers supporting the law increased from 74% to 86%.2 
> 
> A series of surveys of California bar patrons conducted three months after and then two-and-a-half years after that state's 1998 smoke-free bar law went into effect found that the proportion of patrons who approved of the law increased from 46% to 62%. The proportion of patrons stating that it was important to them to have a smoke-free environment inside bars increased from 47% to 61% during this period. 
> 
> A study of California's smoke-free bar law found that 51% of bar owners and staff working in bars preferred to work in a smoke-free environment in 2002, compared with 17% in 1998, shortly after the law took effect.
> 
> A study from Ireland conducted in 20032005 found that almost a year after a national smoke-free law took effect 64% of adult smokers supported or strongly supported a total ban on smoking inside pubs in Ireland, and 83% stated that the law was a good thing or a very good thing. In addition, the proportion of smokers responding to the same survey who believed that smoking should not be allowed at all in workplaces, restaurants, and pubs increased from 43%, 45%, and 13%, respectively, shortly before the law was implemented to 67%, 77%, and 46% almost a year after the law was implemented.
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_stat...ic_support.htm


How many people have told you here that majority does not make right?  Once again, deal with the argument we are actually presenting.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> You can't own or defend property if you are too ill to do so.
> 
> The right to a healthy body must logically come first.
> 
> I know this all too well.   I lost two properties to foreclosure due to ill health in 2007.


That's unfortunate and you're not the only person here who has had bad things happen to them, including losing their property.  But that still doesn't give you the right to use government force to dictate to other private property owners.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Meatwasp

> I know people that can go into an asthma attack if somebody has too strong of a perfume or cologne.  Should the government ban people from wearing perfume and cologne?


I think they were already to do this in SF. Didn't happen.

----------


## Kraig

> When I was a kid in Chem class an irresponsible jerk started playing with the experiment and exposed me to the acid.
> 
> After that accident I was forced to spend two hours a day on a school bus filled with tobacco smoke.  From 1971-1981 I worked in the hospitality industry because I enjoyed it and I made good money.  I didn't know that I was doing further damage to my lungs by exposing myself to second hand smoke.
> 
> That is why I currently have serious asthma.   As a result of the damage done to my lungs I had an episode of anaphylactic shock and almost died.   In 2006 I was diagnosed with brain damage, most probably due to lack of oxygen.    In 2007 I lost all of the property that I had worked so hard to acquire.  
> 
> This is why I put the right to health and not be exposed to second hand smoke above the right to property.


Clearly all forms of chemistry should be banned.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Kraig

> So screw the health regulations in restaurants, go back to allowing patent medicines with god-knows- what in them, and Property Rights trump all other rights?
> 
> Is that the consensus of opinion here?
> 
> If so, I am in the wrong place.


Yeah because all the good doctors in buisness right now will just start trying to kill there patients for a quick buck if the laws disappear.

----------


## PaulaGem

...

----------


## pacelli

> When I was a kid in Chem class an irresponsible jerk started playing with the experiment and exposed me to the acid.
> 
> After that accident I was forced to spend two hours a day on a school bus filled with tobacco smoke.  From 1971-1981 I worked in the hospitality industry because I enjoyed it and I made good money.  I didn't know that I was doing further damage to my lungs by exposing myself to second hand smoke.
> 
> That is why I currently have serious asthma.   As a result of the damage done to my lungs I had an episode of anaphylactic shock and almost died.   In 2006 I was diagnosed with brain damage, most probably due to lack of oxygen.    In 2007 I lost all of the property that I had worked so hard to acquire.  
> 
> *This is why I put the right to health and not be exposed to second hand smoke above the right to property.*


Thanks for sharing that, I'm sorry you've gone through such terrible experiences and have health problems.  Since you can't go back and change the past, I suppose the only thing you can do is exercise your personal right to avoid second hand smoke.

----------


## Kraig

> Then all health restrictions on business should be revoked.


I agree.

----------


## Meatwasp

Oh Geez Paula . Follow your sense and quit advocating more laws , more government and LESS freedom.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Kludge

Second-hand smoke does pose a problem. It's certainly aggression as certainly as it's a gross amount of hazardous pollution. It's easy to say that owners have the right to choose whether or not to allow it on private property, but how do we handle public property where taxpayers all own it? Majority should rule there, shouldn't they? I'd favor a "public" smoking ban.

----------


## PaulaGem

...

----------


## Kraig

> No one said that restaurants or bars should be confiscated,  they just can't be open to the public without certain safeguards to public health.  Your argument is moot.


lmao not open to the public?  Now you've narrowed it down to who they can and can't invite?

----------


## Kludge

> No one said that restaurants or bars should be confiscated,  they just can't be open to the public without certain safeguards to public health.  Your argument is moot.


No private property is open to the public so long as owners have right to refuse service and prosecute trespassing.

----------


## Original_Intent

Paula, I have to think that whenever anyone gives you a good argument as to how wrong you are, you do the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and say "la la la".

The government, using your logic, mandates that all places of business MUST provide handicapped access.

Libertarians would say that an individual busines owner should have the right to weigh the cost of providing handicapped access,  against the additional business that providing that access will bring them. And the may have personal reasons for wanting to provide access or not.

People using your logic see a business without handicapped access and go on a crusade saying things like "He must hate handicapped people!" "That's not fair!" etc. etc. And you get a law passed that the majority of the people support.

The fact that you got the majority of the people to support it does not make it morally right. The handicapped people do not have an "inalienable right" to access someone else's private property.

Private business owners should have the right to allow or prohibit smoking in their places of business. Yes you have a right to breath, and it is a higher priority than someone else's right to smoke. Therefore you have the right to stay away from places that allow smoking. Again, you may feel that this is extremely unfair because it limits where you can go, and having the government come in and pass no smoking laws may be "liberating" to you because it allows you the freedom to go more places (and stay alive). But it has only done so by coercively forcing a private business owner thru an unjust law.

Let's follow the slippery slope that you are on. Some atheists are starting to make claims that publicly visible religious symbols such as crosses cause them mental anguish and that they are outcasts of society. They have already for years campaigned (and often won) to have religious symbols such as crosses, displacys of the ten commandments etc removed from PUBLIC places. Would it be right for them to force private places such as churches to remove crosses from any visibility because of the mental distress it caused them? This is where the slippery slope of your kind of thinking leads. You may think it is wonderful when the law is imposing on others to your advantage, but will you feel the same when it is your face that the boot of government is stamping on?

----------


## MRoCkEd

> Second-hand smoke does pose a problem. It's certainly aggression as certainly as it's a gross amount of hazardous pollution. It's easy to say that owners have the right to choose whether or not to allow it on private property, but how do we handle public property where taxpayers all own it? Majority should rule there, shouldn't they? I'd favor a "public" smoking ban.


That's an interesting point. Of course we wouldn't have this problem in the perfect society in which all property is privately owned. But considering that we do have public parks and the like, I suppose a majority vote is best-suited in these situations... The issue at hand, however, pertains to private property, where the owner should set policy.

----------


## tremendoustie

> When I was a kid in Chem class an irresponsible jerk started playing with the experiment and exposed me to the acid.
> 
> After that accident I was forced to spend two hours a day on a school bus filled with tobacco smoke.  From 1971-1981 I worked in the hospitality industry because I enjoyed it and I made good money.  I didn't know that I was doing further damage to my lungs by exposing myself to second hand smoke.
> 
> That is why I currently have serious asthma.   As a result of the damage done to my lungs I had an episode of anaphylactic shock and almost died.   In 2006 I was diagnosed with brain damage, most probably due to lack of oxygen.    In 2007 I lost all of the property that I had worked so hard to acquire.  
> 
> This is why I put the right to health and not be exposed to second hand smoke above the right to property.


They own their property. Do you get that? If you don't like the rules someone has on their property, don't go there.

You have no right to use another person's private property, and you certainly have no right to force them to abide by your rules on their property.

Stop trying to use violence and force against your neighbors to make them behave as you wish, and just choose to go to non-smoking establishments.

----------


## tremendoustie

> The laws are on the books and they are a logical extension of laws that have been on the books for decades.   Again, do you want to repeal all health laws concerning restaurants and bars?   No one has gone there...


Yep. If a restaurant is dirty, it won't get business. 

If a restaurant allows smoking, and you go there anyway, that's your decision.

I suggest you go to only restaurants whose cleanliness you trust, and which are non smoking.

----------


## Deborah K

> Patriotic citizens should realize that the right to breathe trumps the right to indulge in a drug addiction.    You say I should stay at home so I can breathe, isn't it much more practical for that 20% to stay at home so they can toke?
> 
> Pass legislation with an exemption for business owners who want to make smoking bars.   As I said, most would not go back now, but I'm sure a few would.
> 
> As for the "untapped market" --- no, now bar and restaurant owners realize that the majority of the market would prefer not to deal with smokers at all.   Business went up after smoking was banned.   The niche market is with the minority, the nicotine addicts.



Why does the gov't need to be involved in this at all?  Another option would be community pressure on certain restaurants to disallow smoking, while allowing it in other restaurants, but letting the community deal with the issue using boycotts, letters to the editor, talk radio, pickets, community debates and discussions, etc. 

The problem we have in society today, is that most people don't make issues like this  a priority in their lives, no one cares about their communities anymore, or their neighbors for that matter.  Instead they delegate it to willing and corrupt gov't officials to deal with it.....

...yeah I know, we're too busy living our lives (watching TV shows) and trying to make ends meet (because we're so in debt). <tongue in cheek>


....you get what you settle for....

----------


## Meatwasp

> The laws are on the books and they are a logical extension of laws that have been on the books for decades.   Again, do you want to repeal all health laws concerning restaurants and bars?   No one has gone there...


Yes! The market will thin the bad ones out. I worked in restaurants and the inspectors came and stopped everything whether bad or not. For example  the hot dog stand I worked in used frozen skin milk with their scope of ice cream. to make malts The malts were super good , nice and thick then the government made them put whole milk out of little milk cartoons in the malts  and they were watery and not like the old ones. Of course the price went up and business went down.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Meatwasp

> Ever gotten food poisoning from soup in a restaurant?
> 
> It's pretty common and most people think they have the stomach flu.
> 
> Ever gotten food posioning from a sliced meat sandwich?
> 
> Also very common.
> 
> In both cases the place can look clean as a whistle, but their sanitation can put you in the hospital.
> ...


If you are so scared of eating out make your own sandwiches and meals. Bake your own bread, raise your own chickens, raise your own gardens.

----------


## ARealConservative

> Property owners have no right to offer their services to the public if those services are not safe for public use.


shouldn't the individual ultimately decide what is safe and what is not though?

driving - is it safe?

bungee jumping?

surfing?

boxing?

just how far will you carry this flawed logic?

----------


## rpfan2008

> I also ran into some who said I didn't belong here because I believe children under the age of 18 are due certain duties and protection by the state if their parents fail in their obilgations.



Yes, in an ideal world.
No, in the real world.

Profiting in Foster Care & Pedophilia

They get money to cease children. And the amount is higher for special needs children thats why they use psychotropic drugs on those kids to make them sick. 


Georgia senator lost seat after battling CPS




> She shared that mainstream media outlets have refused to look at her story or others like it and that she has not been able to locate an attorney who is willing to stand up against such a machine.


YouTube - Nancy Schaefer exposes the EVIL CPS

----------


## Kraig

> I think your priorities are a bit backward...   We need to elect government officials that are not corrupt, that is where the focus should be on this board.   Government has the responsibility of protecting our rights, let's make sure they live up to that responsibility.
> 
> It takes a lot more effort to launch a million little public relations campaigns than to stand up for your rights and demand good government from those you elect, and don't forget to demand honest elections so you can know that peopole are put in office by the voters, not the ones who control the machines.
> 
> I still maintain that my right to breathe and the rights of 80% of the people to go to a public establishment and breathe clean air is more important than your right to maintian your drug addiction in public.


Then go beg the government to fix this for you, for all the good it will do.

...and the right to private property trumps both.  Oh but as usual you prefer to deal with a straw man than our arguments, no one here has said anything about the "right to maintain a drug addiction in public".

PRIVATE BUSINESSES ARE NOT PUBLIC

----------


## FunkBuddha

> I know the studies, but you haven't disproved my statement.   The majority of people exposed to second hand smoke do not suffer any ill effects from it.


When I was little I would ride around in the back seat of my grandparents 1978 Plymouth Brougham on long trips around the southeast with him smoking cigars and her smoking cigarettes the entire time. We would've looked Jamaicans if the windows had been rolled down.

It stunk to high heaven... I can still smell the tobacco infused leather... I never suffered from allergies or emphysema or asthma. It was only when I moved to a big city 50 miles away that I started having problems with allergies.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## LibertyEagle

If a business owner has decided that he/she is going to allow smoking inside his place of business, then it is YOUR decision of whether to enter said business.  No one is forcing you to do it.  So why do you want to use government force to stomp all over the rights of the PRIVATE business owner?  Or, do you not think you are accountable for your own choices?

Did you read the article yet?  I added it to my sig.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Then the citizens of Georga need to educate themselves more and  demand a better CPS system.    The "libertarian" attiitudes I've been exposed to on this board would have helped defeat that well meaning legislator.


Better CPS?  There should be NO CPS at all.  Problem solved.

----------


## Todd

> Please show me a Constitutional foundation for the argument that the right to life and health is trumped by the right to private property.
> 
> Smoking in public is merely the maintencance of a drug addiction.  The only reason that it is argued more agressively is that the addicts can't face up to their own addiction.   They don't argue about all of the other restaurant health codes and the legal foundation is the same.


I thought the right to private property included the right to our bodies and health, in that it is the ultimate private property?  Maybe someone could expound on that?

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Meatwasp

> I am not scared of eating out because the approprate health laws are in place and these incidents don't happen often.   My point (which you didn't seem to get) is that you can't protect yourself, the government has to step in and make sure these establishments are safe for the public.
> 
> I still don't eat lukewarm soup in a restaurant though, I send it back.


This is my last word for you. Total  responsibility is total freedom. And the more you do for yourself the freer you will be. believe me I know.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Yep, kids unlucky enough to be born to abusive and responsible parents should be gassed so as not to cost the taxpayers more money than they should.  That way they can't breed either.


And you believe that CPS stops children being born to abusive parents?  

Tell me, Paula, who is it that stops CPS when they send children to abusive foster parents?  No one likes for children to be abused, Paula.  The question is how this is best dealt with.

----------


## Feenix566

> That's why our legislators are supposed to be "leaders"....


I don't need a leader. I don't think you do, either. We're both capable of thinking for ourselves.




> Before smoking bans establishment owners had the false perception that it would cost them businss to ban smoking.   Now most of them would NOT go back to permitting smoking, they realize that that perception was wrong.


So let's lift the ban, then.  Most restaurant owners would keep it prohibited, right?




> As for the rights of the few against the rights of the many.   It's also the type of right.   I can not see how the health of 80% of the people in this country can be less important that the ability of 20% to satisfy a drug addiction.    And yes, that should supercede the right of anyone who operates a public establishment.   He also does not have the right to jeopardize the health of the 80%.    So smokers should lobby legislators for a special smoking license so that a facility can permit smoking if they warn non-smokers at the door, perhaps make available a comprehensive pamphlet on the dangers of passive smoke, and prohibit minors.
> 
> I wouldn't object to that.


I live in New Jersey, which banned smoking in all restaurants and bars a few years ago. I've always been against the smoking ban. My major concern with it has always been the fact that it applies everywhere. Why does it have to apply to every single bar and restaurant in the area? That also includes strip clubs and shady bars. I don't frequent strip clubs much, but from the ones I have been to, I can tell you that almost everyone who does go there would rather not have smoking banned. So you've got a whole building full of people who want to smoke, but can't. There isn't a single person there who supports the ban. So who is the law protecting?

I'd be happy to get on board with a law that allows people to smoke in bars, but requires smoking bars to post huge warning signs about it. I'd even prefer a "smoking license" law to no smoking at all.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I am not scared of eating out because the approprate health laws are in place and these incidents don't happen often.   My point (which you didn't seem to get) is that you can't protect yourself, the government has to step in and make sure these establishments are safe for the public.


So, in your mind, the government should be the deciders for what we should put in our bodies and how we should live our lives?  Furthermore, the government should dictate to private property owners what they can and can't do on their own private property and tell them who they can and cannot have on their property.  Do I have that right, Paula?  If I do, it's looking like you believe in democracy, rather than the republic our Founding Fathers gave us and socialism, as opposed to free market capitalism.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well, something that would help is better oversight of CPS by the medical and mental health professionals in the community,  and more funds to do their job properly.
> 
> Maybe we could repeal the sex offender laws and take the money spent on enforcing them and use it to improve and oversee CPS.   If fewer children are abused we will have fewer abusive adults in 15 years.


So basically, you believe in social engineering?

Who watches the watchers, Paula?

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## FunkBuddha

> Ever gotten food poisoning from soup in a restaurant?
> 
> It's pretty common and most people think they have the stomach flu.
> 
> Ever gotten food posioning from a sliced meat sandwich?
> 
> Also very common.
> 
> In both cases the place can look clean as a whistle, but their sanitation can put you in the hospital.
> ...


And we really trust to government over a private organization like Consumer Reports or Underwriter's Laboratories to do a good job of handling this?

----------


## pinkmandy

> Please show me a Constitutional foundation for the argument that the right to life and health is trumped by the right to private property.
> 
> Smoking in public is merely the maintencance of a drug addiction.  The only reason that it is argued more agressively is that the addicts can't face up to their own addiction.   They don't argue about all of the other restaurant health codes and the legal foundation is the same.


What a thread.

Okay, you don't have a guarantee to life or liberty if you don't have the right to private property. If you cede the right to private property to 'government' (which can be and do anything these days) then what other rights do you really have? Are you really free if govt is telling you what you can do and where you can do it? 

And the health argument makes no sense to me. You're saying you have a 'right' to force other people to not do things that *might* endanger your health and that the job of govt is to pass laws that curb their activities for your benefit? And that's 'freedom'?

Okay then. How about cleaning supplies? Bleach, detergents, air fresheners, disinfectants are all VERY dangerous. Do you know the stats on cancer rates for stay at home moms for instance? Should the govt step in and forbid the sale of all these products or should people educate themselves and make smarter decisions? Do you have kids? Would it be okay if CPS came to your house to make sure you didn't have toxic and dangerous products in your home? That would be okay according to your argument above- your kids' health is more important than your right to your home and what's in it. If you have Tide, Lysol, Pine Sol, etc. then you are endangering your kids' health. Even if they aren't open, they are outgassing in your home. 

Now what else is in your home that could harm the kiddos? Is there formaldehyde in your wood? Carpeting? What kind of shampoo do you use? I mean, if we want government protecting the rights to be healthy then we have a lot of work to do. 

When it comes to health, you have the right to pursue good health. But you don't have the right to legislate what others do because you don't want to take responsibility for your own health. It's pretty easy to modify your own activities to ensure your own health and take the personal responsibility to look out for yourself. 

And if all of that isn't enough for you to understand what happens when 'govt' starts looking out for your health, maybe this excellent documentary will be an eye opener for you:

http://www.twilightearth.com/2009/05...l-documentary/

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Original_Intent

> So basically, you believe in social engineering?
> 
> Who watches the watchers, Paula?


So LE are you understanding why someone may have told Paula she doesn't belong here?

I mean, there is always hope, but Paula is a statist of the worst type, has no love or even understanding of freedom and personal responsibility.

And she completely ignores any attempt to educate her, just keeps repeating the same tired mantras in defense of statism. Dictatorial totalatarianism all the way.

----------


## Todd

> And we really trust to government over a private organization like Consumer Reports or Underwriter's Laboratories to do a good job of handling this?


Yes..One might ask themselves why the fed should be trusted in this capacity over these guys.  I for one have rarely been duped by Consumer Reports.

----------


## Deborah K

> I think your priorities are a bit backward...   We need to elect government officials that are not corrupt, that is where the focus should be on this board.   Government has the responsibility of protecting our rights, let's make sure they live up to that responsibility.
> 
> It takes a lot more effort to launch a million little public relations campaigns than to stand up for your rights and demand good government from those you elect, and don't forget to demand honest elections so you can know that peopole are put in office by the voters, not the ones who control the machines.
> 
> I still maintain that my right to breathe and the rights of 80% of the people to go to a public establishment and breathe clean air is more important than your right to maintian your drug addiction in public.



Uhh...first of all....I don't smoke...so you can stop with your presumptions right now!

Secondly,  there's nothing "backwards" about my thinking on this. The role of gov't shouldn't have anything whatsover to do with non-smoking restaurants .  Do some research on the original intent of gov't by the founders.

----------


## FunkBuddha

> No, WE THE PEOPLE should be the deciders.  And we should do so as a community who has elected responsible government to pass laws for the betterment of the people and the government as a whole.
> 
> It's not about tearing government down - it's about creating a more responsive and responsible government to replace the mess we have now.


dreamer....

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Feenix566

How accountable to the people is the government, really? Paula, you obviously have an interest in politics. Can you tell us off the top of your head the name of the person who represents you in your state legislature? Do you know how that person got the position? Do you know how much money he or she spent on the campaign? Do you know where his or her campaign contributions came from? Do you know how many votes decided the election? Do you know who counted the votes? How accountable is this person to you, really?

You can either rely on that person to protect you from cigarette smoke and every other thing that can possibly be harmful to your health, or you can rely on yourself and turn around before you walk into a restaurant that allows smoking. Which option sounds more reliable?

----------


## Original_Intent

> When private property owners offer public services and access to their property for a fee they have a responsibility to protect the public and government has a responsiblity to make sure they do it.


You continue to amaze me. I seriously didn;t think someone could get their brain to work in this manner. It is clear you really do believe this stuff you spout, it completely boggles my mind how anyone could.

----------


## pinkmandy

> When private property owners offer public services and access to their property for a fee they have a responsibility to protect the public and government has a responsiblity to make sure they do it.


So every business in the country should be regulated by the government? That's not really a free country, you realize that right? 

Imo, this mentality is exactly what's wrong in this country. When people grow to expect the govt to take care of everything, so they take responsibility for nothing, we get a population of people incapable of taking care of themselves and making sound decisions. Remember Katrina?

----------


## Feenix566

> So LE are you understanding why someone may have told Paula she doesn't belong here?
> 
> I mean, there is always hope, but Paula is a statist of the worst type, has no love or even understanding of freedom and personal responsibility.
> 
> And she completely ignores any attempt to educate her, just keeps repeating the same tired mantras in defense of statism. Dictatorial totalatarianism all the way.


Take it easy there, killer. This is a forum for open and civil debate. Paula is debating in a civil manner. She has as much right to free speech as any of us.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## FunkBuddha

> When has either one of those organizations visited a restaurant?
> 
> If such a service were to become available then it might be superior, we all know that public health inspectors get bought off.
> 
> Still, you doged the argument.   Should we repeal the laws we do have that offer a generally adequate measure of protection?   Is not the legal basis for the non smoking laws exactly the same?


Hmmm. Perhaps because they can't compete with government when government has the power of taxation to fund it's ventures. A private business like CR or UL has to be profitable, government does not. Private business cannot compete with government when government has the unlimited resource of taxation.

Yes, get rid of the laws. They are unnecessary.  Private businesses will fill the demand. Restaurants that poison and/or kill their customers won't last long.

----------


## Feenix566

> Shouldn't "Libertarians" understand that their own liberties can only be preserved by defending and protecting the rights of ALL of the people and that can only be done by sound government that truly derives its power from the consent of the governed....  ALL of them, not just the noisy ones.


Yes. That's why we're standing up for the rights of restaurant owners.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## pinkmandy

> What a thread.
> 
> Okay, you don't have a guarantee to life or liberty if you don't have the right to private property. If you cede the right to private property to 'government' (which can be and do anything these days) then what other rights do you really have? Are you really free if govt is telling you what you can do and where you can do it? 
> 
> And the health argument makes no sense to me. You're saying you have a 'right' to force other people to not do things that *might* endanger your health and that the job of govt is to pass laws that curb their activities for your benefit? And that's 'freedom'?
> 
> Okay then. How about cleaning supplies? Bleach, detergents, air fresheners, disinfectants are all VERY dangerous. Do you know the stats on cancer rates for stay at home moms for instance? Should the govt step in and forbid the sale of all these products or should people educate themselves and make smarter decisions? Do you have kids? Would it be okay if CPS came to your house to make sure you didn't have toxic and dangerous products in your home? That would be okay according to your argument above- your kids' health is more important than your right to your home and what's in it. If you have Tide, Lysol, Pine Sol, etc. then you are endangering your kids' health. Even if they aren't open, they are outgassing in your home. 
> 
> Now what else is in your home that could harm the kiddos? Is there formaldehyde in your wood? Carpeting? What kind of shampoo do you use? I mean, if we want government protecting the rights to be healthy then we have a lot of work to do. 
> ...



No comment? 

Is government responsible for keeping you healthy or not?

----------


## rpfan2008

> Yep, kids unlucky enough to be born to abusive and responsible parents should be gassed so as not to cost the taxpayers more money than they should.  That way they can't breed either.


So only way of helping those 'unlucky' kids is to have a industry that steals 'lucky' kids too and make money out of exploiting them? Is that what you just said?

So what is your solution to stop discrimination against autistic kids?... make every kid autistic?

You made this thread for fun, didn't you?

----------


## Feenix566

> Another likely scenario - the whole sector will die down.
> 
> People won't be sure what's safe or where they should go so they'll quit going to restaurants.


I don't agree that this scneario is likely. But even assuming that it happens, in that scenario, people will spend their money on something else. That will lead to economic grown in other areas.

----------


## FunkBuddha

> I'm sorry,   I thought that was the purpose of this board.  To educate people on the real purpose of government and try to get a grass roots movement going that would start to clean things up.


My purpose is to fight the growth of government and minimize the size and scope of government because I recognize that a government that is big enough to give you everything you want it is big enough to take away everything you have. Government is the anti-thesis of freedom. To believe that it can be everything to everybody if we can just get a few good people in there is naive.




> If people care more about maintaining their personal drug addictions in a public place and risking the health of others than learning about what is really going on and what has happened in the past (an attempt at Fascist corporate takeover of the White House) that shows that ignorance is just as abundant on this board as it is in most places in our societey.


Once again, private business != public place. I hate to break the news to you though sweetie, the attempt at a Fascist takeover was successful and it wasn't by the Tobacco industry. 

You're the one arguing with a pack of libertarians, minarchists, and anarcho-capitalist over whether or not the state should regulate private businesses. Couldn't your time be better spent educating the masses about our Fascist state? These ain't sheep here, lady... These is wolves.

----------


## FunkBuddha

> Another likely scenario - the whole sector will die down.
> 
> People won't be sure what's safe or where they should go so they'll quit going to restaurants.


Ok, this is just retarded.

----------


## pacelli

> I am not scared of eating out because the approprate health laws are in place and these incidents don't happen often.   My point (which you didn't seem to get) is that you can't protect yourself, the government has to step in and make sure these establishments are safe for the public.
> 
> I still don't eat lukewarm soup in a restaurant though, I send it back.




YouTube - Cooking FAIL

----------


## pinkmandy

> No, WE THE PEOPLE should be the deciders.  And we should do so as a community who has elected responsible government to pass laws for the betterment of the people and the government as a whole.
> 
> It's not about tearing government down - it's about creating a more responsive and responsible government to replace the mess we have now.



The senator said he plans to campaign with House Democrats in the months leading up to the November election. The Democrats mission, he said, is not for larger government, but is for a responsive, and efficient and honest government that is listening to the voices of the American people.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=33275

----------


## Deborah K

> I'm sorry,   I thought that was the purpose of this board.  To educate people on the real purpose of government and try to get a grass roots movement going that would start to clean things up.
> 
> If people care more about maintaining their personal drug addictions in a public place and risking the health of others than learning about what is really going on and what has happened in the past (an attempt at Fascist corporate takeover of the White House) that shows that ignorance is just as abundant on this board as it is in most places in our societey.
> 
> Shouldn't "Libertarians" understand that their own liberties can only be preserved by defending and protecting the rights of ALL of the people and that can only be done by sound government that truly derives its power from the consent of the governed....  ALL of them, not just the noisy ones.


Paula, as I mentioned I'm not a smoker but I defend the right to smoke.  This is about priniciple, and the original intent of the founders.  The main reason this country is in the mess that it's in is because we have lost our focus regarding the intended purpose of the gov't which is to solve problems if at all possible on the level where they originated.  The goal was to have as little gov't intervention as possible leaving the control to communities.  

Don't you realize that you can't do anything anymore without gov't knowledge and/or approval?  Think about that.  Where is the freedom in that?

----------


## pinkmandy

> Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion.  Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world.  The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else.  States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud.  For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers.  This reflected the founders belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King. 
> 
> Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive.  If nothing else, government action requires taxes.  If taxes were freely paid, they wouldnt be called taxes, theyd be called donations.  If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion.  So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.





> Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics.  If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us.  We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule.  We must resist any use of the word freedom to describe state action.  We must reject the current meaningless designations of liberals and conservatives, in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.
> 
> Every politician on earth claims to support freedom.  The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.


~ Ron Paul

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst020705.htm

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Deborah K

> I think I posted two threads on this board this morning to see if rational discussion was possible here and if people were attending to the issues that must be attended to in order to preserve democracy in this country.
> 
> The answer seems to be that this board gives a limited amount of information but is not a source for constructive discussion with reasonable people who have the capacity to form a non-partisan coalition to reform the government.


No constructive discussion with reasonable people????  Preserve democracy???

Paula, we were founded as a republic NOT a democracy.  You really need to do some research.  A lot of people on this forum used to think about things the way you do.  You are here because you are a critical thinker and that is a good thing.  Don't throw away the information that has been provided to you in this thread.  Read the links people posted, carefully examine the words.  You will experience cognitive dissonance as we all did before we came to realize that we've been duped in this country into believing government intervention into our lives can be a good thing.

----------


## pinkmandy

> I think I posted two threads on this board this morning to see if rational discussion was possible here and if people were attending to the issues that must be attended to in order to preserve democracy in this country.
> 
> The answer seems to be that this board gives a limited amount of information but is not a source for constructive discussion with reasonable people who have the capacity to form a non-partisan coalition to reform the government.


We aren't here to *preserve a democracy* aka tyranny of the majority or statism. We're here to restore the republic which means individual liberty without government interference.  

Might want to read my quotes above from Ron Paul. Hence why this forum is ronpaulforums.

----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## FunkBuddha

> I think I posted two threads on this board this morning to see if rational discussion was possible here and if people were attending to the issues that must be attended to in order to preserve democracy in this country.


Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. --Not sure who to attribute this to.




> The answer seems to be that this board gives a limited amount of information but is not a source for constructive discussion with reasonable people who have the capacity to form a non-partisan coalition to reform the government.


I'm all for non-partisan reform. As long as by reform you mean shrink. Passing laws against private business is not shrinking.

----------


## FunkBuddha

> Most of the people on this forum aren't going to accomplish a damn thing.


Riiiiiiight.... You have no idea what people on this forum have already accomplished.

----------


## Meatwasp

Okay guys I think we jackhammered her on the venture of private verses government. If she hasn't got it by now there is no hope for her, but yet again  this may all helped to have her decide we are right. lol

----------


## Deborah K

> Most of the people on this forum aren't going to accomplish a damn thing.


I'm not among them.  What is your objective?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. --Not sure who to attribute this to.


Ben Franklen, "Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner, Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote."

----------


## Goldhunter27

> Most of the people on this forum aren't going to accomplish a damn thing.

----------


## pinkmandy



----------


## PaulaGem

..

----------


## Dr.3D

> The predominate climate on this board is ignorance and intolerance.
> 
> For your information - a republic does nothing to guaranty freedom.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic


Please watch this little video so perhaps you will understand more about what a republic is.

YouTube - The American Form of Government

----------


## pinkmandy

> The predominate climate on this board is ignorance and intolerance.
> 
> For your information - a republic does nothing to guaranty freedom.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic



You don't get it. Any of it. And you don't seem to be trying. We'd love to help you but you don't seem to be open to that? You seem to be here to push some socialist agenda? You sound more like Obama than Ron Paul to be honest. Quoting wiki to show you know all about our republic is a huge fail. Calling us intolerant and ignorant while claiming you are here to work with us to preserve 'democracy' (lol- the opposite of our goals) while showing your own intolerance because you seem to think the govt should be out regulating anything you don't agree with...wow. 

So supporting the freedom of people to decide what to do on/with their own private property is 'intolerant'? And not trusting the government to protect our rights (which they have systematically taken away, time and again, throughout history) is ignorant?

----------


## Deborah K

> The predominate climate on this board is ignorance and intolerance.
> 
> For your information - a republic does nothing to guaranty freedom.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic


If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is...

----------


## Meatwasp

Me thinketh she is just trying to push our buttons. Ignore her. LOL

----------


## Deborah K

> Me thinketh she is just trying to push our buttons. Ignore her. LOL


I don't think so.  I think she is sincere in her beliefs, misguided though they are.  She refuses to be pulled out of her comfort zone (cognitive dissonance).  But because she is a critical thinker, this will nag at her.  We have planted seeds.  She will be intent on disproving us by trying to back her argument up with facts, and once she realizes that she can't, she will either go through the difficult but necessary metamorphosis, or she will firmly plunge her head back in the sand.  I'm bettin' she morphs.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The predominate climate on this board is ignorance and intolerance.
> 
> For your information - a republic does nothing to guaranty freedom.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic


No it doesn't.  That's why the individual citizens must reject unjust government, throw off the shackles of tyranny, and find a better way for themselves.

----------


## Deborah K

Paula please watch this tutorial:

YouTube - (1/2) The Truth about Big Government

YouTube - (2/2) The Truth about Big Government

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't think so.  I think she is sincere in her beliefs, misguided though they are.  She refuses to be pulled out of her comfort zone (cognitive dissonance).  But because she is a critical thinker, this will nag at her.  We have planted seeds.  She will be intent on disproving us by trying to back her argument up with facts, and once she realizes that she can't, she will either go through the difficult but necessary metamorphosis, or she will firmly plunge her head back in the sand.  I'm bettin' she morphs.


Perhaps.  I seem to be making a little progress with the statists I know.  (I turned my mom-a McShame supporter-onto RP's writings this morning to help her understand what's going on, FYI )

----------


## LibertyEagle

> No it doesn't.  That's why the individual citizens must reject unjust government, throw off the shackles of tyranny, and find a better way for themselves.


Of course it should be noted that hb does not see eye-to-eye with Ron Paul on this issue.  Ron Paul advocates the return of the constitutional republic that our founders designed for us.

----------


## Meatwasp

> I don't think so.  I think she is sincere in her beliefs, misguided though they are.  She refuses to be pulled out of her comfort zone (cognitive dissonance).  But because she is a critical thinker, this will nag at her.  We have planted seeds.  She will be intent on disproving us by trying to back her argument up with facts, and once she realizes that she can't, she will either go through the difficult but necessary metamorphosis, or she will firmly plunge her head back in the sand.  I'm bettin' she morphs.


Ha ha that struck me funny as heck. You are so right.

----------


## BillyDkid

> Do libertarians believe in any state control over behavior of its citizens?


Nothing to be confused about.  It is the state's job to protect our rights, so yes, the state has a role in preventing each of us from interfering with the rights of others.  The smoking in a restaurant thing is a red herring.  No one is obligated to eat or work at a restaurant that allows smoking.  A restaurant is private property and the state has no business saying what may be done on private property - so long as nothing is being done to interfere with the rights of others.  Go on youtube and find both The Philosophy of Liberty and Collectivism versus Individualism.  Both of those videos pretty much such up the basis for libertarian philosophy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Of course it should be noted that hb does not see eye-to-eye with Ron Paul on this issue.  Ron Paul advocates the return of the constitutional republic that our founders designed for us.


He and I agree insofar as that is good step towards eliminating the State and restoring liberty.   Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered to support the campaign.

----------


## Omphfullas Zamboni

Paula,

Ron Paul is a "States Right's Conservative" meaning that, if you wanted, you could have a smoking ban in your state.  You could have universal health care, top-notch public infrastructure, more funding for health inspectors or CPS workers, the works.

The common ground you may have here is that everybody--States Right's Conservatives, Libertarians, minarchists, and voluntarists--all want to cease the stranglehold of the Federal Government.

Have a great day.

Sincerely,
Omphfullas Zamboni

----------


## GBurr

Smoking does not take away your right to breath. Smoking is merely an action that *can* take away your right to breath. This is just like a rope or a knife can be used to take away your right to life. The only way smoking takes away your right to life is if a smoker comes in contact with you. You can avoid smokers. Smoking will not harm you unless you go and seek it out. Just like cars won't hit you unless you go and stand in the road. Should we ban cars on roads because you might get hit? 

This is a simple issue. 
All you need to do is avoid smoking establishments. 

As with any *private* property you should avoid it if it will harm you. 

People with back injuries shouldn't ride roller coasters.
People shouldn't go on property with dogs that may bite.
There are any number of things that certain people cannot do because of physical ailments. You can't go into smoking establishments. Oh well. Those establishments are not aggressors. They will only hurt them if you seek them out, just like a dog won't hurt you if you stay on your side of the fence. 

The problem that you have is that you see private business as public places. This is extremely prevalent in our society. Since most businesses aren't small places that are run by the business  owner you start to think that the business is their for your convenience. You begin to believe that the business is there for the public. 

In actuality businesses have one purpose. They are there to serve their owner. It just so happens that businesses serve their owners best when they are serving their customers well. 

A business is private property just like a home. The owner should be allowed to do what he pleases with his property. If you don't like what happens at his property then you don't have to go on his property.

----------


## MelissaWV

It's unlikely this will get read by the OP... but it's worth a post.

As LibertyEagle pointed out, there is a broad spectrum of thinking on this board.  Some are pure anarchists, many are minarchists, etc.

An important part, though, of being liberty-minded and intelligent in any debate is to think through your own assertion and look for hypocrisy.  Those restaurants that you are concerned about, full of unsuspecting children... what is it they serve?  Trans-fats?  MSG?  Caffeine?  High-fructose corn syrup?  Is the bar selling alcohol?  If it's summer, are there some offensive-smelling clients?  Is the restaurant close to, say, a construction site where lots of workers come in dirty and swearing and getting their germs all over the tables?

How about the bathrooms, Paula?  The restaurant may serve wonderful, clean food, but is the bathroom dirty?  Is there more than an acceptable level of filth on all the handles?  We should really have those faucets that don't have handles, mandated in every bathroom, no?  Doors that swing; no locks allowed... those are the most sanitary.  We also need the water from the tap to be warm.  How warm?  That should be mandated, also.  What % of antibacterial effectiveness should be required in the soap?  The Government will need to figure that out, I suppose.

If you think that's making light of things, please reconsider.  Even with all the regulations we have in place, you get people doing what those kids did with the Domino's pizzas they were assembling.  As you stated, no matter how clean a place looks, you can still get sick from the food.  A place can be spotless, and someone who didn't wash their hands handles your salad.  Now, you'll notice that if they figure out who did it, and it was an accident, there are generally not criminal charges.  The person might be fired.  If the offense is serious enough in our society, the person might be sued.  It's a civil matter.

If you hear a place is dirty, do you go?  If you hear a place offers a family-friendly (no cursing or filthy people or beer or televisions showing violent sports or smoking sections) environment, do you go?  

There are generally two points that sort of start to make sense with the smoking ban thing:

1. The workers!  If this is the focus, and if we are to keep regulations (realistically, we're not going to be rid of them anytime soon), then let's focus on what's really being complained about.  Have a requirement for air quality.  Measure it.  Perhaps a smoking restaurant can figure out a way to keep its table-level air quality acceptable.  Would that be okay, or is it just your objection to the "filthy drug habit" that drives you at this point?

2. The children!  We go back to what I've already said.  I have been to restaurants where people were cursing.  I have been to fine dining establishments that didn't have high chairs.  It's up to the person dining out with the child to pick an appropriate place.  Some places are unsafe in myriad ways, and should be avoided.  A place that is excessively smoke-filled is one, but I'm sure you can come up with a dozen examples.

Also, I agree on something, but it's much worse than you feared.  100% of people who inhale second-hand smoke die.  It's terrible.  Of course, 100% of people who never inhaled any second-hand smoke died, too.

----------


## pinkmandy

> I don't think so.  I think she is sincere in her beliefs, misguided though they are.  She refuses to be pulled out of her comfort zone (cognitive dissonance).  But because she is a critical thinker, this will nag at her.  We have planted seeds.  She will be intent on disproving us by trying to back her argument up with facts, and once she realizes that she can't, she will either go through the difficult but necessary metamorphosis, or she will firmly plunge her head back in the sand.  I'm bettin' she morphs.


Good points. The sand eventually starts to chafe.

----------


## Dr.3D

Well, either Paula has changed her mind or she has decided not to communicate.  If you will look back at all of the her postings in this thread, you will note she has retracted nearly all of them.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Paula apparently doesn't think much of us.




> Originally Posted by *PaulaGem* 
> Well, I'm outta here. I hope someone else takes over this subject because it's important, but there is no middle ground here, there is no help for the country here.
> 
> I hope Mr. Paul this is not a general representation of the followers of Mr. Paul. He deserves better.





> Originally Posted by *PaulaGem * 
> The predominate climate on this board is ignorance and intolerance.
> 
> For your information - a republic does nothing to guaranty freedom.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

----------


## Dr.3D

> Paula apparently doesn't think much of us.


Too bad she doesn't acknowledge Dr. Paul as being a doctor.

----------


## Ninja Homer

Paula, I'd agree with you that people have a right to breath clean air in public places.  Where I'd disagree with you is your definition of "public places".  Almost all restaurants and bars are privately owned, which means they are not public places.  If somebody owns it, and can kick you out, then it's a private place, even if it's "open to the public."

I agree with a smoking ban in public places such as schools, courthouses, etc.  But that's as far as a smoking ban should be able to go.

When the smoking ban in Minnesota took effect some time ago, many small bars took a big hit from it, and many of them went out of business.  I'm not talking big chain bar-restaurants like TGI Fridays or Applebees, I'm talking little crusty dive bars... real bars.  The type of place you wouldn't take your kids even if there wasn't any smoking or drinking, where the people-watching is better than any movie, the 3-for-1 happy hour drinks are stronger than you'd make for yourself at home, and the all-you-can-eat-taco-tuesday is the best thing you've ever eaten, although probably worse for you than the second hand smoke that billows out the door every time somebody opens it.  Now most of those awesome places are gone.  Some have been converted to tiki bars, or sushi bars, or whatever the trend of the week is, and some have turned into Starbucks or Subways, but many still stand empty.  Functional businesses, some of them established as long ago as anyone can remember, turned to $#@! because some people just couldn't fathom the idea that maybe, just maybe, some people enjoy smoking at a bar, and if they couldn't do that, they'd rather just stay home or get together with their friends and throw house parties every weekend.  And now the anti-smoking nazis rejoice because they can go out and enjoy their $#@!ty TGI Fridays or Applebees food and pay way too much for crappy drinks, all without even a whiff of smoke (except those bastard people who smoke right outside the door) then go home and sleep soundly knowing that their government loves them and is keeping them safe... they never liked those crusty dive bars anyway.

----------


## georgiaboy

at first i saw this thread as a lost cause.  now i see it as one of the best reasons for RPF to exist.

what a wealth of reasoning, just within one thread.

group hug, y'all!

----------


## rpfan2008

^ beware of 'hugs'

----------


## Andrew-Austin

lol, I could tell that people liked this thread, its always nice when someone throws you a soft ball so you can hit it out of the park.  

Not sure how it grew to 18 pages though, not willing to read all that. 




> at first i saw this thread as a lost cause.  now i see it as one of the best reasons for RPF to exist.
> 
> what a wealth of reasoning, just within one thread.
> 
> group hug, y'all!





> You belong here if you want to massively reduce the size of the Federal government.
> 
> Most libertarians are too simplistic to see the inherent flaws in their philosophy. Just humor the self righteous variety - as this site is full of those kind - but don't question your role in the movement because of their flawed thinking.


That is weird, I've never seen you try to outline the 'inherent flaws' in libertarian philosophy.

----------


## pinkmandy

> Too bad she doesn't acknowledge Dr. Paul as being a doctor.


I don't think she understands this movement or Dr. Paul (who does not compromise on liberty, hence the nickname Dr. No). So in the event she comes back or wants to learn more I'll suggest http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

More specifically, I'd recommend the Freedom and Personal Liberty page:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=7

I also think this may happen more and more as many are just discovering Dr. Paul. I've had many run-ins with partially informed people- there are many out there now who suddenly 'love' Ron Paul because of something they heard him say on MSM (usually about big govt or the economy) but I'm not convinced they have actually researched him or truly get the core principles of individual liberty and limited government. But hey, it's a start! 

I've had convos w/many who like what he says, sometimes, but don't know WHY he says the things he does. They don't get that everything is based on freedom which also means that are people are free to do things you may find distasteful. They are accustomed to choosing their political faves by the MSM telling them who is hot, who is not or because someone gave a speech and said some things they like. The choices they are normally given are typically politicians who vote based on which way the wind is blowing at the moment, not on solid principles that withstand the test of time. 

It's one thing to say you like freedom and limited govt, it's another to embrace what that really means and to be willing to take the personal responsibility to live free and respect the rights of others to do the same.

----------


## MsDoodahs

> It's one thing to say you like freedom and limited govt, it's another to embrace what that really means and to be willing to take the personal responsibility to live free and respect the rights of others to do the same.

----------


## Kraig

lol well there hasn't been a thread like this in awhile!

----------


## LibForestPaul

> Don't forget that the government should outlaw peanut products to protect people with severe peanut allergies.


Please, don't...just don't...you know that statement will make sense to some nanny-police sheeple

----------


## AgentOrange

Well, it looks like Paula has gone and deleted her arguments as well. I don't think anyone commented on the fact that Paula stated in this thread that she has brain-damage. Let's not be too hard on her--it can be extremely hard for brain-damaged people to incorporate new information (I have a co-worker who is brain-damaged, she remembers past stuff just fine, but has a very hard time processing new information.) With my co-worker, it takes a looooooong time to process new information, but she eventually does. Hopefully this will be the case with Paula and eventually she'll be able to process and understand the basic concepts of freedom. Basic concepts of freedom are not taught in schools, and they certainly aren't trumpeted in the media, so undoubtedly all the arguments here were brand new for her.

----------


## angelatc

> I agree with a smoking ban in public places such as schools, courthouses, etc.  But that's as far as a smoking ban should be able to go.


All Paula had to say was that it is an issue that should be decided by the individual states, and we would have conceded she has a point.

----------


## angelatc

> Originally Posted by PaulaGem :
> Please show me a Constitutional foundation for the argument that the right to life and health is trumped by the right to private property.


I don't know why she deleted her arguments.  But I would like to know where the "right to health" is in the Constitution.

----------


## MelissaWV

> I don't know why she deleted her arguments.  But I would like to know where the "right to health" is in the Constitution.


One can argue to some extent, and it's often taken way too far, that the right to one's own property and privacy extends to one's person and covers things like "protecting" the people from certain pollutants.  The problem is that no one stops to consider that, when you can take reasonable steps and alternatives to protect yourself from that pollution, the rest of the nation does not have an obligation to sanitize themselves for your benefit.

Peanuts were used earlier as an example.  Should peanuts be banned from places just because many people do have severe peanut allergies?  There are already safety labels on foods that, although they might not contain peanuts, are processed in factories where peanuts and peanut dust may be present.  Perhaps a restaurant could post quite plainly that they have those disgusting, communal barrels of peanuts around.  We can also go another step further:  if there were enough residents of an area that were concerned over the peanut issue, they could ask the restaurant to reconsider having the peanuts out and about.  The sanitary concerns of having a shared bucket of anything on a table might be brought up.  Then it would be up to the owner to think of an alternative or avail himself of the peanuts altogether.  Maybe peanuts brought out as a form of appetizer instead of bread?  There is a lovely place I recall used to have soft pretzels to start the meal instead of traditional bread and it was very popular.  Restaurants become famous when they cater to their audience's whims, and take their concerns into account.

The irony of the argument comes into play when you realize these same people who want the "right to health" to dictate that no one smoke anywhere around them at any time... they are the same who look down their noses at "drug addicts" and want pot to remain as illegal and evil as heroin or cocaine.  Oh well.

----------


## PaulaGem

But don't let the facts bother you.

----------


## PaulaGem

Peanuts are banned -

They can't be used in any food without being clearly labeled as an ingredient.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Peanuts are banned -
> 
> They can't be used in any food without being clearly labeled as an ingredient.


*sighs*  The peanut example is about restaurants that leave peanuts out to eat.  Most of them are still in the shell, and cracking these peanuts open plus having them out on the tables causes peanut dust, which can trigger allergies.  

No, this isn't banned everywhere... yet.

Yes, products made in factories where peanuts are processed, or which incorporate peanuts/peanut products as an ingredient, must be clearly labeled.  I already stated this.

----------


## MRoCkEd

> Peanuts are banned -
> 
> They can't be used in any food without being clearly labeled as an ingredient.


That doesn't mean they are banned. Clearly identifying a restaurant as one that allows smoking seems far more reasonable than banning it across the board.

----------


## specsaregood

> Peanuts are banned -
> 
> They can't be used in any food without being clearly labeled as an ingredient.


Now you are just being silly.

----------


## angelatc

> But don't let the facts bother you.


I missed that you said it should be decided on a municipal level.  I would agree with that. 

The thing about Ron Paul is that he is able to separate his personal ideologies from his belief in the Constitution.

----------


## CountryboyRonPaul

The Government does not exist to be your chaperone through life.

This mentality is the reason we have so many frivolous lawsuits, it's the reason everyone in this country walks on eggshells.

It's the reason Insurance companies charge so much, it's the reason why Health care is so expensive.

Instead of people taking responsibility for the cards life deals them, there is always someone else who can be blamed... and Insurance is needed to cover such blame.

You had an asthma attack in a restaurant? It must be the restaurant's fault.

Soon all restaurants will have to ban smoking just to get insurance policies.

Then you can live your life knowing you've made the world a little safer for the 1% of Americans who are actually at risk from 2nd hand smoke.

But you know what? Everyone is forced to tread a little more carefully each time you find a new boogie man to ban. 

Instead of going to restaurants that willingly choose to prohibit smoking, you have made a choice to impose your needs on everyone else.



^
This rant does not necessarily reflect the views of Ron Paul or anyone else on these forums...

----------


## DamianTV

> So I guess that means that the majority should always be catered to, and the minority's rights should not be protected? You do realize that this is what happens in anarchy/mob rule, right?


That is like saying if the ethnic herritage of a persons background doesnt comprise at least 50% of the population that said person should not be entitled to any rights what so ever.  True statement about the anarchy/mob rule.  Take away a persons ability to choose and essencially it takes away that much more of a persons freedom.

----------


## tonesforjonesbones

What about the right to LIFE..is that health? I dunno?  If you go into a bar and there is smoking ..nobody is forcing you to stay and nobody is forcing you to smoke...but if there is a law passed...it forces the folks who do smoke not to be able to smoke.  I see it the same way with prayer.  If there is a group prayer..nobody is forcing you to pray..you can abstain from prayer..but if there is a law passed...the praying people have now been compromised...they are not allowed to pray because YOU don't want to pray and their rights have now been infringed upon.  TOnes

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What about the right to LIFE..is that health? I dunno?  If you go into a bar and there is smoking ..nobody is forcing you to stay and nobody is forcing you to smoke...but if there is a law passed...it forces the folks who do smoke not to be able to smoke.  I see it the same way with prayer.  If there is a group prayer..nobody is forcing you to pray..you can abstain from prayer..but if there is a law passed...the praying people have now been compromised...they are not allowed to pray because YOU don't want to pray and their rights have now been infringed upon.  TOnes


Therein lies another of the evils of the State. Thanks for sharing, Tones. ~hugs~

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Paula,
> 
> First of all, you need to understand that there are all kinds of people on this forum.  Some are anarcho-capitalists, in that they believe everything should be left up to the market and that there should be no government; there are also constitutionalists here, traditional conservatives and I'm sure a whole lot of others too.
> 
> Don't let anyone tell you you don't belong, because if they're saying that to you, the spotlight should probably be turned on them instead.
> 
> As far as smoking in private businesses is concerned.  Let me ask you a question, Paula.  Do you believe that the government has the right to tell you who you have to allow in your house and whether they can smoke or drink?  I'm betting the answer is no.  *If you believe that, why should the government be telling you who can be in your place of business* (your private property) or whether they can smoke?  I mean, if you as a customer do not want to be around smoke, you have the right to go someplace else.  In fact, if there were enough people like you who didn't want to be around any smoke, it would be a fabulous business opportunity to open up a place of business to cater to those people.


Oh this is good, coming from the fervant anti-immigration, police state border advocate 

Similarly why do you believe that the Government can tell a business who they can hire and who they can allow onto their private property?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Oh this is good, coming from the fervant anti-immigration, police state border advocate


There you go, mixing the ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION of our country with legal immigration.  They are quite different, but then you knew that.  Police state border?  Where exactly did I advocate that?




> Similarly why do you believe that the Government can tell a business who they can hire and who they can allow onto their private property?


The government should absolutely not tell you what Americans or those otherwise here legally, that should be on your private property.

Here's the big difference between us on this issue.  I believe in national sovereignty.  You do not.  Nor do you acknowledge the fact that we simply cannot assimilate an entire country into our own in one swell swoop and hope to end up with anything remotely resembling the country that we had before.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> There you go, mixing the ILLEGAL ALIEN INVASION of our country with legal immigration.  They are quite different, but then you knew that.  Police state border?  Where exactly did I advocate that?
> 
> 
> The government should absolutely not tell you what Americans or those otherwise here legally, that should be on your private property.


 Well then, if an outside force can tell you who can be on your property, then it's not really private property is it?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Well then, if an outside force can tell you who can be on your property, then it's not really private property is it?


It's never been ok to house criminals and that is what ILLEGAL aliens, are.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> It's never been ok to house criminals and that is what ILLEGAL aliens, are.


I'll get right on that. I'll also make sure to bring that up whenever the underground railroad gets mentioned.

----------


## Brooklyn Red Leg

Wow, this was a nice stroll down memory lane. How on Earth could I have ever forgotten the oh-so-debatable Paula Gem.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Hey LE, you are conspicuosly quiet....No rebuttal for my last post?

----------


## constituent

> It's never been ok to house criminals and that is what ILLEGAL aliens, are.



LE, would you consider yourself a strict constructionist as it concerns the U.S. Constitution?

What about Ron Paul?  Is he a strict constructionist?

----------


## Reason



----------

