“If he doesn’t do those things–required by laws that enforce standards for health and safety and fair business practices. What makes you think a ban on smoking is any different?”

I don’t think I did say there was a fundamental difference. Your beloved laws are indeed examples of the same pathology that I am referring to. I’m not sure how I can be clearer than I have already been. I continually represent how things SHOULD be and you continually use arguments based on how things currently ARE – which is a new type of informal logical fallacy – fallacy of argument from the STATUS QUO. If you think you are somehow answering my arguments – you are mistaken.

As for Ayn Rand, call her what you will, she was a philosophical genius who made important contributions to the field. If you (or any of us) could achieve 1/10 as much, we would be very accomplished indeed. Once you have studied her ideas and understood them deeply, it is difficult not to feel pity or contempt for many people. Pity for those who have never been exposed to her ideas. Contempt for those who clearly see her ideas as a threat to their own way of thinking and viewing the world. You yourself may not be in this last category, but it makes me wonder.

David:

The restaurant owner has to keep his food stored below a set temperature, he has to keep his premises free of vermin, he has to store his stock in a way that doesn't present a fire hazard, have kitchen smoke hoods and grease traps and sinks in certain places and fire exits marked in certain ways. He has to pay his employees a minimum wage and post his menu where required by laws. If he doesn't do those things–required by laws that enforce standards for health and safety and fair business practices.

What makes you think a ban on smoking is any different? The restaurant owner, to use your example, does not have an unlimited right to treat his property any way he pleases or to leave the conduct of his business there as a matter solely between himself and his customers.

What is it about that you don't understand? Please don't tell me you have abandoned reality for the strange and abstracted universe of Ayn Rand. That stuff is best left where you found it, in junior high school.

I don’t light up, I don’t smoke, but of course I can see the potential for harm here (even though it is overblown), and, for the purposes of argument, I will grant there that some harm is occurring. But I think you are missing MY point by continually referring to past decisions when it comes to rights and the constitution. This is certainly relevant to any lawyer who wants to challenge the laws but it not as relevant for the philosophical purpose of determining what is right and wrong in the first place. Do you see the difference? I understand that we have to deal with the real world of current laws, but first, we must come to a decision as to what types of laws we should be supporting and why and what is the foundation for laws in the first place.

I support a person’s right to his/her own life – including the right to what is created and acquired by that person’s effort. People should have the right to pursue their own happiness, so long as they don’t, by force or fraud, interfere in someone else’s right to do so. I seek a system that, as much as possible, respects this basic position. This means creating a system that protects individual rights and forbids individuals from physically forcing or defrauding others. Rights, to the degree possible, should be designed with this goal in mind and should, in most cases, make clear who has the right to what. When rights are stated clearly, this reduces the reliance on courts and makes business and life flow much more smoothly. By eliminating contradictions among rights, the same benefits are obtained.

A basic tenet that stems from this approach is the recognition that no right should be created that forces another person to provide the benefit (since this creates an inherent conflict among rights). Thus, you have a right to keep yourself alive, but not the right (in most circumstance) to force someone else to keep you alive. You have the right to acquire healthcare, but not the right to force someone else (i.e – Medicare, Medicaid, EMTALA laws) to provide it. You have the right to pursue a job, but not the right to force someone else to hire you.

Now the case of smoking in a restaurant must be distinguished from general cases of air pollution and from gun ownership. We can easily see that the property owner (owner of the restaurant) has the right to control their own property and decide who comes there and who doesn’t. Those who frequent the restaurant, including the employees, are also free to stay or to go- but have no right to the restaurant – that is – have no right to dictate the terms under which they will be served – including smoke exposure.

This is the non-contradictory state of rights that we are trying to achieve. By attempting to do the opposite, you eliminate the benefit and create unending conflicts and the elimination of property rights. Once you eliminate the principled opposition to this sort of thing, the sky is the limit. I might be a man in a bubble that is 10 feet wide, and I ask, no, I demand that the restaurant owner create a door that is 10 feet wide for my access. All of the restaurant’s food must be processed by microwave to eliminate any germs that might be introduced into my food and a portion of the restaurant will need to be cleared of tables so I will have a place to eat. Ridiculous you say? Witness the demand (not request), now enshrined into law (the American with Disabilities Act), for wheelchair access to any ‘public’ location. Once the principle is violated, you see, it is then only a matter of time and effort for someone to take advantage of it. The contradiction between rights created by these laws is lost on many.

I think industrial pollution, spewed into the air and affecting everyone who breaths, is a different case. It cannot be avoided and it flows onto your own property and most anywhere you care to go. Certainly this needs to be addressed in a different manner – and regulation of the amount of pollution is warranted.

I’m not sure where I come down on battle tanks! I think if someone has a nuclear bomb in the middle of the city – then it is a clear massive threat – and cannot be allowed. This goes for all such massive weapons. Where do I draw the line? I’m not sure – as always, I’m looking for a principled answer and haven’t found one yet in this instance.

Incorrect David. You are missing my point. I have given you an example how the goverment interprets our constitution “ie our Bill of Rights”.
The second amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”. The feds have interpreted this via stating that we DO NOT have a right to a fully automatic assault rifle (by the way the NRA disagrees and has lost challanges). Similarly, state/local governments have interpreted that property rights are not violated if the banning of smoking is on private property open to the public. This too has been challanged and always upheld to my knowledge. As far as your statement that ” I could see limiting these clear threats to your neighbors (with respect to owning a machine gun)”. Can you NOT see the threat to your neighbors who happen to be sitting in the next booth when you light up? This isn’t 1964, why do you think the risks are so “overblown”?

…ah….I guess. I’m really not a constitutionalist so I’m not sure how you ‘follow my reasoning’ to this conclusion. I could see limiting these clear threats to your neighbors – haven’t really thought about exactly what principles would be involved with regard to personal safety, but I’m sure I could come up with some if you really want to go in this direction.

But in any case, I think you are getting bogged down in someone else’s constituational concerns. My concern is with identifying and applying clear principles upon which a proper society can base its laws (a la Ayn Rand). You also focus on how politically feasible my proposals are, rather than the rightness of them, which are separate issues, but clearly one is more important than the other.

Anonymous said “I do believe there is a company in Michigan that disallowed employees smoking, even off premises. And fired those who did not comply, citing health care costs. Why is it okay if companies do it?”

That is the whole point. These are private decisions between company owners, employees, and customers. I want to leave it in private hands – others want to force the government into making these decisions. Now a company could readily say they don’t want their employees to smoke – and make that part of their contract – I think that would be fine. If they try to implement it retroactively (contract already signed) then employees could claim violation of their contract, if they had a long-term contract – so there could be a legitimate dispute in these circumstances – one that could be addressed in the courts if need be.

The real long-term answer is to dis-associate employment with health insurance. Tax laws go a long way to linking the two – address that and companies would no longer care about your health insurance because they wouldn’t be paying for it.

What is at issue is that:

1. cigarette smoke is now showing good evidence that it is toxic and carcinogenic, to both the smoker and to others not smoking who breathe the smoke and,

2. banning smoking reduces serious health problems associated with that toxicity and,

3, there is a significant public interest in reducing those serious health problems as the state is bearing a significant portion of the costs of the treatment of those problems, the incidence of which is reduced when smoking is banned. Further, there is no compelling and contrary public interest in permitting smoking to remain unregulated.

If you can see where there is a reason to treat release of cigarette smoke into human-occupied environments any differently than release of DDT or dioxin, I’d like to hear it. From what I can see, the root justification is the same.

The objections seem to be little more than “we’re used to doing this so don’t-tread-on me.”

WRT to Dr Hsieh’s “nanny state on steroids” theory – PI lawsuits with ridiculous damage awards and lack of individual responsibility have gone quite a way toward providing us with quite a nanny state as is.

No, it’s also about the rights of employees. If you can indemnify all owners who exposes their workers to smoke then go right ahead.