States Ban Smoking With Children In Car

[Wesker1982]

Libertarians believe that you have the freedom to whatever you want so long as your freedoms does not infringe on the freedoms of others.

You have the freedom to eat extremely unhealthy food but your kids have the freedom to not have to eat extremely unhealthy food. If you want to eat extremely unhealthy food then eat it away from your kids. Don't only provide extremely unhealthy food to your kids forcing your kids to suffer the consequences of your habits.
.

see my post on unhealthy food

I also think you and the others who support this law should read Rothbard's chapter on children's rights in "Ethics of Liberty".

Chapter 14 http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf
Audio: http://mises.org/media/2047

 

[tjeffersonsghost]

Please clarify. Are you suggesting that one should not smoke in an enclosed car with children present?

Or, are you suggesting the power of the state should step in and at the barrel of a gun stop anybody who smokes in an enclosed car with children present?

I'm suggesting both. You as a parent who cares for your kid shouldn't smoke in an enclosed car. That kid has the freedom of a long and healthy life if he/she so chooses and shouldnt have to bear the consequences of someone elses actions.

And yes if the state feels that the freedoms of that child is being infringed on then the state should step in and protect the freedoms of that child. I would expect the same of the state if an entity was putting harmful waste on my property. I have the freedom to not have someone elses pollution in my space and the state should protect my freedom.

 

[tjeffersonsghost]

see my post on fast food

I also think you and the others who support this law should read Rothbard's chapter on children's rights in "Ethics of Liberty".

Chapter 14 http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf
Audio: http://mises.org/media/2047

I dont need to read Rothbard's opinion and parrot his thoughts. I like the man but Im a free thinker a think for myself . You either believe in freedom, or you don't. Either the kid has the freedom to not have to suffer someone elses consequences or he don't. Either I have the freedom to walk in my backyard without stepping in pollution from a neighbor or I don't.

 

[Wesker1982]

It doesn't hurt to see another viewpoint, especially if you think there is only one libertarian perspective on it.

I am still curious to what you say about parents feeding their kids extremely unhealthy diets.

 

[tjeffersonsghost]

It doesn't hurt to see another viewpoint, especially if you think there is only one libertarian perspective on it.

I am still curious to what you say about parents feeding their kids extremely unhealthy diets.

I apologize, I shouldnt of said "libertarian pov" I should of said in my pov. No one has a monopoly on any particular ideology and especially me who although leans libertarian I dont agree with all of the povs.

That being said I get my ideology from the same as being pro life. I think that fetus should have a chance to live. I think the same thing about a child. That child shouldnt have to suffer because of someone elses habits or mistakes. I guess one could make the libertarian argument that its the nature of the beast and its natural selection.

On the food front I would be a hypocrite if I said I didnt feed my kids junk. I do but I also feed them health stuff. Moderation is the key, just like everything else.

 

[Perry]

oUT OF THE THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED AND NINTY TWO LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY(sorry caps) that I'm concerned about eliminating this one is about number three hundred and seventy two thousand nine hundred and forty two.

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

How does this shit happen in the same legislative cycle in multiple states and countries?

AF let me know when you are ready for imports. Specie only

 

[dannno]

You have the freedom to eat extremely unhealthy food but your kids have the freedom to not have to eat extremely unhealthy food. If you want to eat extremely unhealthy food then eat it away from your kids. Don't only provide extremely unhealthy food to your kids forcing your kids to suffer the consequences of your habits.

My parents fed me unhealthy food growing up and I've since changed my ways. There was not much I could do, I tried to augment my diet when I was a kid but it was impossible. What was I supposed to do, go buy my own food? I tried to get my parents to feed me a different diet, that wouldn't last long if at all.

That doesn't mean my parents should have been held criminally liable. I ended up moving out and making my own decisions about what to eat and am much healthier for it.

 

[Wesker1982]

That child shouldnt have to suffer because of someone elses habits or mistakes.

Why don't you apply this to unhealthy food? Why limit it to second hand smoke?

On the food front I would be a hypocrite if I said I didnt feed my kids junk. I do but I also feed them health stuff.

So whats the difference between feeding your kids junk once a while and kids breathing in second hand smoke once in a while?

Would it matter to you if feeding your kid junk food was worse than second hand smoke?

You just admitted that sometimes you subject your kids to unhealthy things. Do you think the government should step in?

By feeding your kids junk sometimes, you are basically saying that it is OK to subject your kids to unhealthy situations sometimes provided that they are generally well taken care of. Why can this logic not also be applied to second hand smoke?

 

[Fr3shjive]

Why don't you apply this to unhealthy food? Why limit it to second hand smoke?




So whats the difference between feeding your kids junk once a while and kids breathing in second hand smoke once in a while?

Would it matter to you if feeding your kid junk food was worse than second hand smoke?

You just admitted that sometimes you subject your kids to unhealthy things. Do you think the government should step in?

By feeding your kids junk sometimes, you are basically saying that it is OK to subject your kids to unhealthy situations sometimes provided that they are generally well taken care of. Why can this logic not also be applied to second hand smoke?

I dont think blowing smoke in your child's face is the same as feeding them unhealthy food. Will they both kill you in the long run? Yes, but eating food, healthy or unhealthy, does actually serve the purpose of giving the child some nourishment. Smoking in the face of a child, on the other hand, serves absolutely no purpose except to kill him/her.

I really dont think you can compare unhealthy food to smoking.

What one may consider unhealthy food another may consider completely acceptable, thats debatable. I dont think anybody would argue that smoking is acceptable.

 

[Wesker1982]

I really dont think you can compare unhealthy food to smoking.

Yeah you are right. Eating McDonalds regularly is way worse than second hand smoke once in a while.

What one may consider unhealthy food another may consider completely acceptable, thats debatable

Right. But when you see someone with a morbidly obese kid its really not debatable that the parents are subjecting their kids to health risks.

I dont think anybody would argue that smoking is acceptable.

I don't think anyone would argue that feeding your kid McDonalds 30 days straight 3 times a day is acceptable either. Does that mean it should be illegal to do so?

Yes, but eating food, healthy or unhealthy, does actually serve the purpose of giving the child some nourishment.

So would you support giving a child a few glasses of red whine a day because it provides some nourishment?

 

[Romulus]

I dont think blowing smoke in your child's face is the same as feeding them unhealthy food. Will they both kill you in the long run? Yes, but eating food, healthy or unhealthy, does actually serve the purpose of giving the child some nourishment. Smoking in the face of a child, on the other hand, serves absolutely no purpose except to kill him/her.

I really dont think you can compare unhealthy food to smoking.

What one may consider unhealthy food another may consider completely acceptable, thats debatable. I dont think anybody would argue that smoking is acceptable.

This.

2 distinct differences.

Food serves a purpose - it is a need.
Tobacco smoke is a toxin - a recreational drug.

And toxic harmful drugs can and ought to be regulated in regards to exposure to children.

 

[Wesker1982]

Second hand smoke is bad. Violence is bad. Which is worse?

I don't smoke nor do I have kids so this law doesn't affect me.
It's the principle that's at hand here.

A law is just an opinion backed by a gun. Would you be willing to pull the trigger on the cigarette smoker who is pulled over and tries to defend him/herself? Why do you think violence is the best way to solve society's problems? Surely, you must admit, that there are other ways to protect children outside of government (like, say, better parenting)? Surely, you don't think the government should step in and provide the role of parents?

Collectivism fails every time, even if it's supposedly "for the common good". Why not think outside the box and find out if there are other ways to solve this problem besides government force?

This post pretty much got ignored except the part about what is or isn't public property. This is what it really comes down to.

Would any supporters of this law be willing to walk up to a parent in a car smoking with a kid and try to make them stop? Would you be willing to pull a gun on them to make them stop?

I doubt anyone answered yes. The question then is: if it is not ok for you to do it, why is it ok for a paid gang with fancy uniforms and badges to do it?

If you aren't willing to resort to violence in defense of the kid, then whatever action that is taking place that you feel is wrong is not severe enough to justify violence. This logic doesn't change if you pay a group of people to do it.

Not to mention it also helps expand the police state even bigger than it already is. What is more dangerous to your kids future liberty? Junk food, second hand smoke, too much sun (can cause skin cancer you know!), sitting too close to the tv, or a totalitarian police state?

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised "for the good of its victims" may be the most oppressive."

Also,

Put down the gun, and then we'll talk.
http://www.lostlibertycafe.com/index.php/2009/11/14/the-gun-in-the-room/

 

[tjeffersonsghost]

Are you pro life or pro choice?

 

[Romulus]

Second hand smoke is bad. Violence is bad. Which is worse?

A ticket or a fine is not violence. It's a regulation backed up by penalty, like all laws. Pentaltys vary. Yes if you disobey laws, like any law there is a chance for violence against you. This is at the peril of the individual officer.

If you don't protect life of the innocent, then the future of liberty does not stand a chance. Look at who supports true liberty. 15% of us? We need to protect the freedoms of minors, and that's the freedom from authority. A child does have a right to be protected from authority. Just as adults have the same right.

Do you have a child? Would it be ok if a stranger went up to him or her and blew smoke right in their face? Deliberately? Over and over again?

Is it ok for you to serve your own minor alcohol?

 

[Krugerrand]

...
Do you have a child? Would it be ok if a stranger went up to him or her and blew smoke right in their face? Deliberately? Over and over again?

Is it ok for you to serve your own minor alcohol?

First of all - YES it is okay to serve your own minor alcohol! It is nobody's business but the parents. Why is it any body else's concern if a 14 year old has a glass of wine with dinner. It happens all over the world all the time. That you bring it up is a great point to the government should not overstep a parents authority. They are the people responsible for the child and responsible to make the decisions affecting the child. It does not take a village.

This isn't about what strangers can do. This is about who gets to make the decisions of the well being of the child ... the parent or the state. I say the parent. There are constantly controversial decisions: diet, exercise, vaccines, medical procedures, spanking, sending to bed without dinner, forcing to eat everything on a plate.

Let the parents be the parents.

 

[Krugerrand]

A ticket or a fine is not violence. It's a regulation backed up by penalty, like all laws. Pentaltys vary. Yes if you disobey laws, like any law there is a chance for violence against you. This is at the peril of the individual officer.

A ticket is a threat of violence. Penalties are threats of violence for somebody who disagrees with them.

 

[Krugerrand]

Are you pro life or pro choice?

Please explain relevance to discussion.

 

[Romulus]

First of all - YES it is okay to serve your own minor alcohol! It is nobody's business but the parents. Why is it any body else's concern if a 14 year old has a glass of wine with dinner. It happens all over the world all the time. That you bring it up is a great point to the government should not overstep a parents authority. They are the people responsible for the child and responsible to make the decisions affecting the child. It does not take a village.

This isn't about what strangers can do. This is about who gets to make the decisions of the well being of the child ... the parent or the state. I say the parent. There are constantly controversial decisions: diet, exercise, vaccines, medical procedures, spanking, sending to bed without dinner, forcing to eat everything on a plate.

Let the parents be the parents.

Yes but are suggesting that its ok for parents to get their 6 yr old drunk?

I live in the boonies, and you'd be appalled at how some of these hicks 'parent' their kids. The kids are prisoners to an abusive authority and it does not bode well for the future of our society.

And again, if anyone thinks its ok for me to blow smoke in their kids face, please say aye.

 

[Wesker1982]

If you don't protect life of the innocent, then the future of liberty does not stand a chance.

Comparing protecting a kid from second hand smoking to protecting their life is a big exaggeration. Using this logic we could justify the outlaw of unhealthy food to protect an innocents life.

Would any supporters of this law be willing to walk up to a parent in a car smoking with a kid and try to make them stop? Would you be willing to pull a gun on them to make them stop?

The question then is: if it is not ok for you to do it, why is it ok for a paid gang with fancy uniforms and badges to do it?