Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: smoking  (Read 12501 times)

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2010, 08:32:06 pm »

The "right" to breath clean air is a positive liberty and isn't generally a libertarian idea.  I my opinion there really isn't such thing as positive liberties.  It's just a friendly way to refer welfare programs and nanny state laws.

Exactly what I don't want. But then if we don't have a right to clean air, does that OK any polluter to dump anything into the air we must breathe? Say, someone builds a trash-burning plant in your backyard, and stinks up your entire neighbourhood.

Is it not part of the Libertarian principles to have a minimalist government that protect us from each other? Usually such "protection" gets carried way too far and then becomes a means to take away freedoms rather than just what's needed. Obviously,that's not what I want.
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #16 on: July 05, 2010, 08:37:17 pm »

You mean a protection from retaliation for harrassing others?

They are harassing me with their smoke! And I wish to retaliate with my squirt pistol!
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

lobstah

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 244
    • my music
Re: smoking
« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2010, 08:59:08 pm »

oh geez. yeah, we should send thugs with guns to stop a business owner from running his business the way he wants  ::)
Logged

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: smoking
« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2010, 09:15:08 pm »

Law Property Rights and Air Pollution - Murray Rothbard  -   http://mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: smoking
« Reply #19 on: July 05, 2010, 09:46:49 pm »

You mean a protection from retaliation for harrassing others?

They are harassing me with their smoke! And I wish to retaliate with my squirt pistol!
But are you willing to endure whatever action they feel justified?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: smoking
« Reply #20 on: July 05, 2010, 09:49:21 pm »

The "right" to breath clean air is a positive liberty and isn't generally a libertarian idea.  I my opinion there really isn't such thing as positive liberties.  It's just a friendly way to refer welfare programs and nanny state laws.

Exactly what I don't want. But then if we don't have a right to clean air, does that OK any polluter to dump anything into the air we must breathe? Say, someone builds a trash-burning plant in your backyard, and stinks up your entire neighbourhood.

Is it not part of the Libertarian principles to have a minimalist government that protect us from each other? Usually such "protection" gets carried way too far and then becomes a means to take away freedoms rather than just what's needed. Obviously,that's not what I want.

Under the determination that you've laid out. It would be easy to move oneself, but not real estate.
Logged

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2010, 06:05:52 am »

oh geez. yeah, we should send thugs with guns to stop a business owner from running his business the way he wants  ::)

It's not the business owner I have problems with. It's being able to drive with my windows down without being inundated by the cigarette smoke of other drivers. Especially when they dangle their cigarettes out of their windows, and flick their butts onto the road.

The Smoking issue has been a long-standing pet peeve of mine.  Drivers who smoke flick their butts on the road, despite the fact they all have ashtrays in their cars. What, did the ashtray develop a malfunction?

I'm all for freedom, of course, and despise government intervention  as much as any of you -- probably even more so, since I've had some, shall we say, rather unsavoury experiences with it in the past (and present).

This speaks to the bigger issue of how do we get along with each other as free agents without having to run back to mommy government to do something. If we do not have some level of common curtsey and respect, then we'll have breakdowns and the "mass holes" will snicker at us.

And so I only engage in hyperbole to illustrate a point. A point I think is being missed.   :-\
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

greap

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1009
  • What we have here is a failure to communicate
Re: smoking
« Reply #22 on: July 06, 2010, 08:05:20 am »

So, if you consider the CO2 of other breathers to be offensive, how do you cope with being around anyone at all? Do you live in a cave somewhere, or on a mountaintop? Or do you order everyone around you to hold their breath as you walk by?

And do you hold your own breath, since your own CO2 might offend someone?

Now you see the absurdity of attempting to regulate air-pollution. Polluters causing demonstrable harm can be dealt with via the legal system, including smokers if you think you can make a case. Government does demonstrable harm when it involves itself in this area and lowers the quality of air for everyone.

All kidding aside, do you not consider my right and desire not to smell and inhale cigarette smoke to be a valid one? I used to work at a company where smoking was allowed, and ventilation was poor. I came home everyday reeking and smelling of cigarette smoke. Not to mention what damage the smoke was doing to my lungs, a non-smoker.

There are a number of issues here:
1. Things that you find offensive (such as the smell of cigarette smoke) are not grounds for laws, you being offended doesn't violate any right. You preventing someone from offending you does violate their rights. What if I am offended by the shirt you are wearing on a particular day, should you have to take it off because I don't like it?
2. If you enter somewhere that is clearly a smoking environment you have chosen to take that risk, as was seen prior to the smoking ban bars and restaurants did exist which catered to non-smokers, I used to frequent non-smoking restaurants precisely because IMHO it ruins the taste of food but that was a personal choice.
3. As pointed out previously if you can prove demonstrable harm, and with adult second hand smoking you might have some trouble with that, then the legal system already provides a recourse for you.

But apparently you, like all the smokers there, did not have the courtesy to not smoke inside where all the non-smokers are.

Don't be foolish enough to tarnish all smokers with the same brush. People can be courteous or not, smoker or not. Infact most of the radical anti-smoking people I have found to be the absolute worst with this.

So, how do you want it? Do you wish to give us non-smokers some courtesy and respect? Or would you rather have mommy government swoop in to protect my lungs from your smoke -- and maybe get a little overzealous in the process? I would much rather have the former. What's your choice?

I would prefer you to mind your own business and stop trying to tell others what they can and can't do with their lungs.
Logged
_____________________________________________________________

greap

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1009
  • What we have here is a failure to communicate
Re: smoking
« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2010, 08:07:32 am »

Is it not part of the Libertarian principles to have a minimalist government that protect us from each other? Usually such "protection" gets carried way too far and then becomes a means to take away freedoms rather than just what's needed. Obviously,that's not what I want.

No it's not. The justice system exists to clean up after a crime not to protect people from each other, thats your own job.
Logged
_____________________________________________________________

Bazil

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1027
  • not the spice and not the country
Re: smoking
« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2010, 08:12:45 am »

not true.  It all depends on who was there first.  Did the polluter homestead his right to pollute, or did the non-polluter homestead his right to breathe a certain quality of air.

I don't believe in that at all.  I think it's wrong to pollute other people's property without their permission, but you can pollute you own property or let someone else pollute your own property no problem.  Where things get fuzzy is the whole public property thing.


Exactly what I don't want. But then if we don't have a right to clean air, does that OK any polluter to dump anything into the air we must breathe? Say, someone builds a trash-burning plant in your backyard, and stinks up your entire neighbourhood.

Is it not part of the Libertarian principles to have a minimalist government that protect us from each other? Usually such "protection" gets carried way too far and then becomes a means to take away freedoms rather than just what's needed. Obviously,that's not what I want.


I agree with you there.  I think when you are on your own property you have every right to not breath crap coming from other people's property.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2010, 08:22:27 am by Bazil »
Logged
"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is!"- The government | "Politicians are like diapers, they need to be changed often, and for the same reasons!" -  a friend

Sovereign Curtis

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 485
  • I <3 PorcFest
Re: smoking
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2010, 08:34:04 am »


On the other hand, I am a non-smoker, and I consider that I have a right to breathe smoke-free air. I see smokers dangling their cigarettes from their car windows, fouling up the otherwise clean air I wish to enjoy with my windows down and my sun roof opened.



Wow. You most certainly do NOT have a Right to breath any kind of air.

You have the ability to somewhat regulate what you breathe, but you have NO Right to leverage the VIOLENCE of The State against a People only hurting themselves...

And if you're worried about the air quality while driving down the road, I suggest you ignore the cigarette dangling out the window in front of you,

and instead focus on the exhaust pipe pointed at you...
Logged
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them.
I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."

slayerboy

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 47
Re: smoking
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2010, 08:39:04 am »

I do my best to stand far away from business doors as much as I can while I smoke as to not annoy people.  I recognize not everyone wants to breathe in smoke, but when you are out in public you have no expectation of anything except people acting responsibly and non-violent.  Dangling the cigarette out of my truck window is nothing compared to what my truck is putting out in emissions, as Curtis said. 
Logged

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #27 on: July 06, 2010, 10:25:47 am »


On the other hand, I am a non-smoker, and I consider that I have a right to breathe smoke-free air. I see smokers dangling their cigarettes from their car windows, fouling up the otherwise clean air I wish to enjoy with my windows down and my sun roof opened.


Wow. You most certainly do NOT have a Right to breath any kind of air.

Really? So you're saying it's OK for me to pump the air you have to breathe full of pollutants?

Quote


You have the ability to somewhat regulate what you breathe, but you have NO Right to leverage the VIOLENCE of The State against a People only hurting themselves...


Whoa! Don't get the two confused. When I speak of "rights", I am not necessarily alluding to state enforcement, which I stand firmly against anyway. I am talking more about mutual respect for each other. I acknowledge your rights not to have your air you have to breathe filled with my pollutants. And I can only hope you acknowledge my rights to the same.

The problem comes when there is a disagreement. And the last thing I would want to do is tug on mommy government's apron crying "Johnny's putting crap in my air!"

I think we are civilized adults who both love freedom and can resolve it without resorting to the violence of "mommy".

Quote

And if you're worried about the air quality while driving down the road, I suggest you ignore the cigarette dangling out the window in front of you,

and instead focus on the exhaust pipe pointed at you...

Well, with the strict inspection laws, I should notice nothing coming out of that tailpipe -- though some individuals have an issue with their engines burning oil, etc.

I consider my car my property, my travelling packet of sovereignty. With the nice weather we have right now, I want to be able to actually enjoy it. By letting down my windows and rolling back the sun roof.

And, BTW, it has been shown that 2nd-hand smoke can cause problems. So the smoker is not only doing his own lungs in, but mine as well. Which is why Mommy Government has taken it upon herself to "Jump Right In" and hit all of us with draconian smoking laws.

What I seek is a solution to the dispute that does NOT involve tugging on the apron like so many spoiled brats whining about "Johnny hit me!" Because that's what our country has become -- a bunch of whiny brats, where the government becomes the substitute for their mommies.

The Japanese take a different approach -- they actually DO work out issues without resorting to "mommy" -- but they were raised that way. And funny that their number of lawyers per capita is MUCH lower than ours.

If we don't respect each other, then nobody else will respect us either.
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: smoking
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2010, 10:34:44 am »

not true.  It all depends on who was there first.  Did the polluter homestead his right to pollute, or did the non-polluter homestead his right to breathe a certain quality of air.

I don't believe in that at all.  I think it's wrong to pollute other people's property without their permission, but you can pollute you own property or let someone else pollute your own property no problem.  Where things get fuzzy is the whole public property thing.


so you don't believe in property rights then/  If I set up a business that pollutes the air around me, yet it only causes significant damage in the immediate 5 mile radius, and all the other land in that area is unowned, and then someone homesteads this previously unowned land, that homesteader, homesteaded the land WITH ITS CURRENT STATE OF POLLUTION, he would have no right to demand the polluter stop, only that he not increase the rate of pollution by a significant amount.  If he wanted the pollution stopped, he would have to pay the polluter.
Logged

FreedomFred

  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 226
    • Freedom Fred's Exposition on Freedom
Re: smoking
« Reply #29 on: July 06, 2010, 10:46:05 am »


So, how do you want it? Do you wish to give us non-smokers some courtesy and respect? Or would you rather have mommy government swoop in to protect my lungs from your smoke -- and maybe get a little overzealous in the process? I would much rather have the former. What's your choice?

I would prefer you to mind your own business and stop trying to tell others what they can and can't do with their lungs.

I don't care a rat's ass what you do with your lungs. I do care if what you're doing to your lungs you are also doing to my lungs. Then it becomes MY business.

If I enter a smoking establishment, then yes, I agree with you. I know the risks going in. Same if I choose to work at a place where smoking is allowed. But I'm talking just being outside, either walking or driving. I don't feel as though I have to stay cooped-up indoors or walk around with a bubble or gas mask just to keep my lungs clear of smoke.

And I am NOT one to run to mommy government over a dispute of this nature, but there are many out there that ARE so inclined. And then when mommy reacts, we are ALL slapped down.

So smoke all you want -- I really don't care. Just don't do it in my house; don't do it in my car; and it would also be nice if the smokers who toss their lit butts onto the road would instead use their ashtrays. That's what they are there for.

And if you dangle your cigarette out of the window and it blows into my car, I find that discourteous. When your smoke enters my lungs against my wishes is where the problem begins. And if this simple concept is too much to grasp and understand, then we're lost before even getting started.
Logged
http://freedomfred.com
Freedom is NOT optional!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up