Gary Supports a Smoking Ban in Private Restaurants

[Krugminator2]

Here are a couple of fun quotes from 2011 that I took out a link from this Rolling Stone article. http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...er&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=snsanalytics


Smoking ban, can't see why anyone would hesitate on the Civil Rights Act.

Q: What did you think of Rand Paul’s initial statements about the Civil Rights Act, that the government should not tell private businesses they can’t discriminate? That’s consistent with libertarian views, right?

A: When he made those statements, I thought to myself, “This is probably why I’m a Republican, because maybe I would not toe the (libertarian) line.” I’d like to think I would have signed the civil rights bill and wouldn’t have had any issues with it.

Q: You thought about this because of what Paul said?

A: Yes. As a result of his statements, I found myself engaged in discussions over just that notion. I was trying to think of examples where I would have sided with the notion that government does have a role in that capacity. Something analogous is smoking in restaurants. I was opposed to the government mandating that restaurants not allow people to smoke, believing it becomes the customer’s choice whether they go in or not. But then, I thought, what about the employees? Aren’t they hostage to a smoking environment, even if they don’t smoke?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Heh. Okay. Where ya wanna go with this, Krug?

I maintain that policy does not and cannot define Individual Liberty. When policy starts to define the terms of Individual Liberty, you're left with a Government-over-Man scenario. I maintain that principles define the terms of Individual Liberty. Which stimulates a Man-over-Government scenario. Yeah or naw? What say you?

 

[euphemia]

I can't be unbiased here. I despise smoking.

I think this is a local and state issue, not a national one.

 

[Suzanimal]

I can't be unbiased here. I despise smoking.

I think this is a local and state issue, not a national one.

It's very local. Up to the business owner.

 

[phill4paul]

It's very local. Up to the business owner.

As easy as saying "This is a smoking establishment do you have a problem with that?" Yes = no hire. No = hire.

 

[spudea]

Its funny. The milton friedman video you shared in the other thread regarding Gary Johnson and CO2 has the exact same Libertarian logic I tried to use recently regarding smoking bans. But I got criticized by ego-anarchists saying I didn't understand Libertarianism.

"Individuals should be held responsible for costs that they impose on others." - Milton Friedman

"The only case for government, is when it is not feasible for market arrangements to make individuals pay, compensate others for any harm they impose on them." - Milton Friedman

It's also funny, that after you posted that video, not a single post after that attempted to address the points raised by Milton Friedman.

 

[Krugminator2]

Its funny. The milton friedman video you shared in the other thread regarding Gary Johnson and CO2 has the exact same Libertarian logic I tried to use recently regarding smoking bans. But I got criticized by ego-anarchists saying I didn't understand Libertarianism.

"Individuals should be held responsible for costs that they impose on others." - Milton Friedman

"The only case for government, is when it is not feasible for market arrangements to make individuals pay, compensate others for any harm they impose on them." - Milton Friedman

It's also funny, that after you posted that video, not a single post after that attempted to address the points raised by Milton Friedman.

They are completely different issues. There is a 0.00% chance Milton Friedman would support a smoking ban in private facilities. Read the quotes you just posted.

In the case of a private restaurant, there is a market arrangement. You have someone who owns a building and workers and patrons have the option to enter or nor enter. No one is forcing them. If someone gets exposed to second hand smoke, they are VOLUNTARILY choosing to bear that cost. That is the definition of a market arrangement.

You don't have a market arrangement with the air or water because no one owns the air or water. If you burn coal and it pollutes and it creates acid rain, that is cost that people can't voluntarily avoid.

As an aside, Milton Friedman was against the Civil Rights Act because of the private property violations it created.

 

[Suzanimal]

Its funny. The milton friedman video you shared in the other thread regarding Gary Johnson and CO2 has the exact same Libertarian logic I tried to use recently regarding smoking bans. But I got criticized by ego-anarchists saying I didn't understand Libertarianism.

"Individuals should be held responsible for costs that they impose on others." - Milton Friedman

"The only case for government, is when it is not feasible for market arrangements to make individuals pay, compensate others for any harm they impose on them." - Milton Friedman

It's also funny, that after you posted that video, not a single post after that attempted to address the points raised by Milton Friedman.

Haven't we been over this before? What do you not understand about private property?

 

[specsaregood]

This is probably why I’m a Republican, because maybe I would not toe the (libertarian) line.

Whew, that was close. Good thing he isn't a Libertarian. lol

 

[69360]

Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. All these threads about some pet issue you don't like with Johnson are counterproductive, he isn't going to be potus, we all know that. He is at least a decent person and not a criminal like Clinton and Trump. His candidacy advances a decent 3rd party and you all should support him for that reason alone

 

[Natural Citizen]

Nobody is saying he is the perfect candidate. All these threads about some pet issue you don't like with Johnson are counterproductive, he isn't going to be potus, we all know that. He is at least a decent person and not a criminal like Clinton and Trump. His candidacy advances a decent 3rd party and you all should support him for that reason alone

And therein lies the major malfunction. He's not going to be president. What he's accomplishing is stimulating the wrong message of Liberty.

These are not pet issues. These are fundamentals. The arguments I'm reading are contrary to and aggressive toward the fundamental supporting principles of the right to Life and Individual Liberty itself.

Normally I wouldn't care. But his message is aggressive toward the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty from under the banner of Liberty. And that's what makes his rhetoric dangerous. Elections? Please. That's at the bottom of the totem pole at this point.

I mean, here's guy who said that it was his contention that it was acceptable to send men from the government with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their principal means of securing their right to Life and Liberty fully. He's a guy that said that he'd consider signing off on an official illegal transfer of power from The People to a King.

And you're going to sit here and tell us, oh, well, do it for a third party? I've got news for you, the establishment party has basically expanded by way of the Libertarian Party this cycle. And it was absolutely predictable that they would given the major Third Party and Independent turnout during the 2014 Mid-Term. There's no way they didn't see it and there was no way they weren't going to react. And here we are. We're promoting a candidate who openly professes the positions I've mentioned above...and in Liberty, no less.

It's no accident that all of these establishment politicians are flocking to the Libertarian Party. No accident at all.

Best case you could make would be vote for the L Party just to maintain ballot access but I can't and won't do it based on principle alone. I'll go with Castle on principle.

 

[spudea]

Haven't we been over this before? What do you not understand about private property?

If you recall, my market based solution was private ownership of the air. Thus business owners can be held responsible for shitty air quality imposing harm on their patrons and employees. I'm not here to rehash that debate.

Let us resume the hate on Gary Johnson, please continue everyone.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Its funny. The milton friedman video you shared in the other thread regarding Gary Johnson and CO2 has the exact same Libertarian logic I tried to use recently regarding smoking bans. But I got criticized by ego-anarchists saying I didn't understand Libertarianism.

"Individuals should be held responsible for costs that they impose on others." - Milton Friedman

"The only case for government, is when it is not feasible for market arrangements to make individuals pay, compensate others for any harm they impose on them." - Milton Friedman

It's also funny, that after you posted that video, not a single post after that attempted to address the points raised by Milton Friedman.

They are completely different issues. There is a 0.00% chance Milton Friedman would support a smoking ban in private facilities. Read the quotes you just posted.

In the case of a private restaurant, there is a market arrangement. You have someone who owns a building and workers and patrons have the option to enter or nor enter. No one is forcing them. If someone gets exposed to second hand smoke, they are VOLUNTARILY choosing to bear that cost. That is the definition of a market arrangement.

You don't have a market arrangement with the air or water because no one owns the air or water. If you burn coal and it pollutes and it creates acid rain, that is cost that people can't voluntarily avoid.

As an aside, Milton Friedman was against the Civil Rights Act because of the private property violations it created.

The namesake of the monstrous Keynesian economist is correct.

Property rights violations are by definition involuntary.

If a person consents to being subjected to something (whatever: smoke, cyanide, a punch in the face) it isn't a property rights violation.

This (unlike the CO2 tax) is not debatable; Gary's clearly in the wrong here.

I gave him an A- in my evaluation, might have to drop it down to a B+.

...Trumpllary are both at F- though, so nothing changes as to my vote.

 

[PursuePeace]

It's very local. Up to the business owner.

exactly.

 

[phill4paul]

Gary Johnson is a SWJ. And a bit of the SJW. He won't get any vote from me. God forbid he place well and and the L.P. seeks out more candidates like him.

 

[donnay]

People call this man a Libertarian?

It's time for the Libertarian party to regroup.

 

[69360]

Gary Johnson is a SWJ. And a bit of the SJW. He won't get any vote from me. God forbid he place well and and the L.P. seeks out more candidates like him.

More candidates like Johnson wouldn't be the end of the world. He is a least honest, decent and means well. So what if he doesn't pass some people's silly purity tests. More candidates like Clinton and Trump are the end of the world.

 

[69360]

And therein lies the major malfunction. He's not going to be president. What he's accomplishing is stimulating the wrong message of Liberty.

These are not pet issues. These are fundamentals. The arguments I'm reading are contrary to and aggressive toward the fundamental supporting principles of the right to Life and Individual Liberty itself.

Normally I wouldn't care. But his message is aggressive toward the fundamental principles of Individual Liberty from under the banner of Liberty. And that's what makes his rhetoric dangerous. Elections? Please. That's at the bottom of the totem pole at this point.

I mean, here's guy who said that it was his contention that it was acceptable to send men from the government with guns to force Individuals and groups of Individuals to relinquish their principal means of securing their right to Life and Liberty fully. He's a guy that said that he'd consider signing off on an official illegal transfer of power from The People to a King.

And you're going to sit here and tell us, oh, well, do it for a third party? I've got news for you, the establishment party has basically expanded by way of the Libertarian Party this cycle. And it was absolutely predictable that they would given the major Third Party and Independent turnout during the 2014 Mid-Term. There's no way they didn't see it and there was no way they weren't going to react. And here we are. We're promoting a candidate who openly professes the positions I've mentioned above...and in Liberty, no less.

It's no accident that all of these establishment politicians are flocking to the Libertarian Party. No accident at all.

Best case you could make would be vote for the L Party just to maintain ballot access but I can't and won't do it based on principle alone. I'll go with Castle on principle.

Nothing wrong with Castle, he and his party are just going nowhere. With Johnson and the LP, they are mostly good and making waves. Double digit polls and a mostly ok platform are steps in the right direction.

 

[phill4paul]

More candidates like Johnson wouldn't be the end of the world. He is a least honest, decent and means well. So what if he doesn't pass some people's silly purity tests. More candidates like Clinton and Trump are the end of the world.

If it weren't for my "silly purity tests" I might as well be voting for Trump or Clinton.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

People call this man a Libertarian?

Pro-Liberty Positions:

• end the fed, return to gold standard
• balance the budget through spending cuts
• replace all existing taxes with single FairTax
• abolish Dept. of Education
• opposes all business subsidies
• opposed TARP
• opposed auto company bailouts
• opposes Keynesian stimulus spending
• opposed Obamacare
• opposed the Medicare Part D expansion under Bush
• favors cutting social security, medicare, and medicaid
• opposes labor unions
• wants to eliminate the minimum wage
• opposes immigration restrictions/deportation
• favors tree trade, opposes tariffs
• opposes governmental regulation of internet
• opposes PATRIOT Act and NSA spying
• opposed Iraq and Libya Wars
• opposes involvement in Syria Civil War
• opposes involvement in Ukraine Civil War
• favors immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan
• favors cuts in defense spending
• supports 2nd Amendment
• opposes War on Drugs
• favors legalization of assisted suicide

Anti-Liberty Positions

• favors extension of the Civil Rights Act to gays
• favors smoking ban in private venues

Close enough