Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,754
It's an old saying...IIRC the first time I heard it or read it was around the time of the Waco murders.
LOL at Brooklyn's "Retard Ray".
I thought they got hit with the stupid stick, myself.
Smoking laws, your thoughts
- Thread starter ks.studentforliberty
- Start date
It's an old saying...IIRC the first time I heard it or read it was around the time of the Waco murders.
LOL at Brooklyn's "Retard Ray".
I thought they got hit with the stupid stick, myself.
phill4paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 46,967
It's an old saying...IIRC the first time I heard it or read it was around the time of the Waco murders.
LOL at Brooklyn's "Retard Ray".
I thought they got hit with the stupid stick, myself.
Wow. Can't believe I haven't ran across that. I joined the internet in 2003 so may have missed the memes. Also just lived in the back hills of Virginia through 2007.
Watched Waco while doing a plumbing job. Remember it solidly. The customer and I just watched dumbfounded when the fires erupted. I still drive by that same complex and look at the apartment door and remember the event weekly. Surreal it seemed.
DisillusionedPatriot
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2010
- Messages
- 199
The biggest problem with smoking bans is that they infringe upon property rights. This is important because a society that does not honor property rights is untenable. It is built upon the shakiest and most illegitimate of foundations and constitutes a violation of the social contract between government and citizens. John Locke carried this belief so far as to write, "Government has no other end but the preservation of Property" (The Second Treatise on Government, 1690). Rousseau agreed: "It should be remembered that the foundation of the social contract is property; and its first condition, that every one should be maintained in the peaceful possession of what belongs to him" (A Discourse on Political Economy, 1758).
Property rights certainly include the right to be free in possession of one’s property. This right is unjustly infringed upon today through eminent domain. Such policies create a two-tiered system in which one category of individuals is not able to make final decisions regarding their property and a separate category of individuals are able to make such decisions for themselves, and others. This of course is not a person’s only right regarding their property.
Property rights must also necessarily entail the right to use; the practical benefit of owning items usually disappears if those things cannot be used. This means, however, the right to any use, not merely those such as other individuals find proper or ideal. After I have paid the full price on some purchase, and it enters into my full possession, I may do whatever I like with it. I may use it, sell it, or destroy it as fits my needs and whims. Ownership of land brings also the right to do whatever a person likes upon their land.
This means truly that they may make of or do whatever they choose with that space, so long that it does not interfere with anyone else’s rights. The same principle by which another man may rightly tell me that I cannot smoke inside his home, or that allows him to force my exit if I do anyway, ensures that I and my guests can smoke in my home, or refuse him entry until he recites the Constitution on my doorstep while smoking a cigarette. The same applies to businesses.
Business owners may make all decisions regarding their establishment, except in such cases as they violate the natural rights of others. It is no more legal or just to say that smoking is prohibited inside buildings than to claim that all buildings, indiscriminately, must allow smoking in all instances whatsoever. Furthermore, the acceptance of one would permit the other, since a government which usurps the power to make decisions regarding other’s property may one day extend its grasp or reverse the objects of its oppression. The only way to protect all businesses from illegitimate government interference is to allow each maximum rights on their own property. A city could easily have two bars, or restaurants, or movie theaters, one which permits smoking, and one which is strictly non. There could even be a third category, with some smoking sections, some non-smoking. And then… here’s the kicker… people could choose! If people hated smoking, that bar might go out of business. Or maybe the owner will get wise and convert part of it to no-smoking. No matter how it works out, the free market will have guided the decision. This means not only that everybody's rights can be preserved, but that the outcome is likely to please the highest number of people.
It is only by preserving each individual’s absolute right to freedom regarding his own property that anyone can be safe. Any infringement on property rights, however small, is an open and direct attack upon all American citizens. Either all men draw their rights from the same innate source, or there are no inalienable rights. Rights must be held inviolate. If any individual is threatened, then all are unsafe, for they would be subject to the whims of tyrants and brutes.
Property rights certainly include the right to be free in possession of one’s property. This right is unjustly infringed upon today through eminent domain. Such policies create a two-tiered system in which one category of individuals is not able to make final decisions regarding their property and a separate category of individuals are able to make such decisions for themselves, and others. This of course is not a person’s only right regarding their property.
Property rights must also necessarily entail the right to use; the practical benefit of owning items usually disappears if those things cannot be used. This means, however, the right to any use, not merely those such as other individuals find proper or ideal. After I have paid the full price on some purchase, and it enters into my full possession, I may do whatever I like with it. I may use it, sell it, or destroy it as fits my needs and whims. Ownership of land brings also the right to do whatever a person likes upon their land.
This means truly that they may make of or do whatever they choose with that space, so long that it does not interfere with anyone else’s rights. The same principle by which another man may rightly tell me that I cannot smoke inside his home, or that allows him to force my exit if I do anyway, ensures that I and my guests can smoke in my home, or refuse him entry until he recites the Constitution on my doorstep while smoking a cigarette. The same applies to businesses.
Business owners may make all decisions regarding their establishment, except in such cases as they violate the natural rights of others. It is no more legal or just to say that smoking is prohibited inside buildings than to claim that all buildings, indiscriminately, must allow smoking in all instances whatsoever. Furthermore, the acceptance of one would permit the other, since a government which usurps the power to make decisions regarding other’s property may one day extend its grasp or reverse the objects of its oppression. The only way to protect all businesses from illegitimate government interference is to allow each maximum rights on their own property. A city could easily have two bars, or restaurants, or movie theaters, one which permits smoking, and one which is strictly non. There could even be a third category, with some smoking sections, some non-smoking. And then… here’s the kicker… people could choose! If people hated smoking, that bar might go out of business. Or maybe the owner will get wise and convert part of it to no-smoking. No matter how it works out, the free market will have guided the decision. This means not only that everybody's rights can be preserved, but that the outcome is likely to please the highest number of people.
It is only by preserving each individual’s absolute right to freedom regarding his own property that anyone can be safe. Any infringement on property rights, however small, is an open and direct attack upon all American citizens. Either all men draw their rights from the same innate source, or there are no inalienable rights. Rights must be held inviolate. If any individual is threatened, then all are unsafe, for they would be subject to the whims of tyrants and brutes.
DamianTV
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2007
- Messages
- 20,677
ks.studentforliberty
Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2010
- Messages
- 7
I think the main reason that it makes me so mad is that it is still legal in state run casinos. Also whenever the state needs money they just raise the tobacco tax but its hard to make money when you continue to make it more of a hassile for people to smoke.
Dr.3D
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 30,314
Wanna wear a hat, change religions. Don't want to wear a hat, change to the other religion. Pretty simple isn't it?
Of course then there may be two churches of the same religion that do opposite things and one wears hats and the other doesn't. Again, it's pretty simple there too.... just go to the church you like best.
When you find a church that allows smoking, let me know.
There should be no smoking laws that effect private business.It should be up to each individual business owner to determine what is best for business. If I own a bar , am I going to allow smoking ? Yes. If I own a restraunt would I have a smoking area ? Yes. A day care center ? No.