Restaurants, bars should have say in whether to be smoke-free

just so people know, while i do not think it is relevant to the issue, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life.

Mark you are wrong,
Having sex is not legal in public places. Smoking is.

Get your facts straight,
According to this libertarian perspective, private property is private property. A bar is not a public place.

Mark:

A private place should be able to decide who comes in and who doesnt. Lets say a bar opened up that did not allow black people; what would be the result? Huge protests from both blacks and whites and the bar would lose all of its business and be forced to change policy or shut down. This is another example of when the free market would solve the problem.

And mass orgy places? Sure if its all consenting adults I do not see a reason why those should be illegal.

Tim:

Americans shouldnt need the government to protect them from themselves. What I mean is that all these building regulations are ridiculous…its another case where free market would solve the problem. Is it in the bar owners best interest to build a faulty facility? Unsanitary? Its nothing a private organization could not do. For example I could start “eric’s judgement sanitiation” or something, and my company would go and inspect a restaurant to make sure all the food and everything is sanitary. And perhaps the consumer would trust my company and would not eat there unless it was “eric approved”. This is just one vague example, but I hope you understand my point.

eric:
That whole free market thing worked so well in the south. I am sure they would have become a completely integrated society by themselves in the year 2030. We do so well here in Michigan with our very diverse cities.

Did Mark just try to conflate smoking and slavery?

Really?:
Not slavery, but in the south they used to have businesses that were restricted to one race. The free market did not stop that.

alumn05- if the majority voted to take your child away because they believed you were not being a good parent or to institute one of your parents because they were no longer productive (if you have neither child nor parent please just realize this hypothetical) then would it be a good thing because the people have spoken, right? Sure this is an extreme example, but where do you draw the line when it comes to right of majority? The majority positions have no right to take away rights from minorities positions, and that is what you are implying.

if the majority voted to take your child away because they believed you were not being a good parent

Where have you been? They already do this.

Eric- I understand your argument and you are right that private groups could perform many functions that the government currently performs. My point wasn’t to say that this is the right way to do things, my point was that private property is subject to many governmental regulations that are similar to the smoking ban proposed here.
Other Eric- The letter said “The government has no right to invade my personal property and tell me what I can or cannot do in the facility that I bought..” That simply isn’t a true statement, 250 word limit or not. I wasn’t criticizing him for missing a nuance I was criticizing him for stating an absolute, “no right”, that is absolutely false. It looks like Eric and a few other understood my point. Do you have any thoughts on the topic?

tim- this is my beliefs in principle, not what actually happens. if it was up to me, if i own a piece of land or a store or anything, i believe anything should be permitted on that property that i wish as long as it only involves consenting adults who do not harm anyone else; from orgies to meth parties to political fund raisers…whatever the owner prefers.

Eric- I guess I read that portion of your letter to be more of a statement of fact than one of belief. At least you are consistent.
Really?- “The free market did stop that. Government intervention…”
Well, so the government did step in. Also I don’t think a private restaurant can refuse to serve black people.
Phil Letten- If you don’t like Michigan’s smoking ban, move to a new state. See how well that silly argument works.

Alumm05- just because the majority want something does not mean it is ok! What if the majority wanted to take away one your hobbies that few others enjoy. Hypothetical: you collect stamps, but annoy some people who dont. They vote to make owning multiple stamps illegal…

Alumn05,
As Eric pointed out, just because the majority wants something does not mean it is ok. Also, this bill would not be put to a vote by the general public, so most of your comment is irrelevant.

An interesting side note: The bill as passed by the State House has an exemption for casino gaming floors. Apparently they’re OK with smoking there because they tax the hell out of casino revenues.

Benjy and Eric- since you are both saying that we should just let capitalism and the market figure it out, are you saying that capitalism always gets things right?

While I cannot speak for Eric, I would say that in no point in our separate arguments have we stated that capitalism is the end-all-be-all of political (certainly not medical) thought. But, Jason, I think you, and he and I, would agree that absolutisms cannot be applied to such an issue.

My overall opinion is that more govenrnment regulation leads to more restrictions on individual liberty. And eventually these separate restrictions on individuals will be compounded to decrease the liberty of everyone. I am not a smoker, Eric has stated that he isn’t, and I assume you are not. But eventually these unneccesary laws will affect something that you care about.

As a side note, I appreciate Agent5 for offering the only legitimate (in my opinion) argument FOR this bill. I disagree for a few reasons, but he/she does raise a compelling point that I would be willing to discuss.

Benjy- My point wasn’t that you actually think capitalism solves everything, just that your argument could be turned around and easily applied to what you and Eric had said. I do agree that what you are arguing isn’t the usual weak slippery slope argument and I do appreciate your point. I generally like to believe that society, or maybe the Supreme Court,recognizes when the government goes too far, but I have less faith in voters than I used to.

Eric- I’m going to assume that you want to revoke the portion of the civil rights act that impacts private business and not the entire act. I do think you underestimate the prevelance of racism. Not too long ago, Denny’s settled a $56 million dollar lawsuit for racist business practices that included making black wait longer for tables and food. I do think economics is a bigger source of segregation than overt racism. However, how we solve that problem is way beyond me.
I’m not well read enough on free markets and capitalism to debate you or Benjy on the subject. My feeling is that the free market will often get things right, but in some cases may move to slowly in which case the government has needed to step in. Do you think the civil rights act/ fair housing acts were always unnecessary intrusions or were they needed at some point? Do you think the free market would have addressed these issues in a timely manner? I would be interested in any studies/books that you have read. Not to challenge you, but rather to become more informed on the issue.

tim

i define a “right” as something you inherently have that can only be taken away from you, not something that can be given to you. If you accept this definition, rights include clearn air to breathe, the right not to have someone infrigne upon your life goals, etc…education, healthcare, etc are not right. Someone needs to pay for your education, teach your classes, etc…someone needs to pay your doctor, treat you, pay for your medicine, etc…A government only responsiblity is to protect your inherent rights. If you want something to be given to you, i.e something that I do not define as a right, than it is your/your family’s responsibility to acquire it. THis may mean not having some of these things all the time, or it may mean going to private charities (churches generally do a very good at job this), etc.

AS for the dennys people, they should have left, called a lawyer, submitted a press release and threaten to go public with it (without government interference) and they could have gotten a nice payday. Or they could have gone public and if the claims were true then you would have people picketing in front, newspapers claiming the restaurant to be rasict, anyone who went inside would be booed, etc…

As for the driver accidents, again, there could be, in theory at least, hospitals set up by churches or private organizations for those who need immediate, expensive treatment. Rememebr than when someone goes to a hospital for dier care, they are not receiving it for free. THe taxpayers are taking the cost and some of those taxpayers may have p refereed that money to go somewhere else. What if the driver was drunk? What if he is old and on his death bed regardless? What if he was coming from a bank robbery? There are many moral dillemas that arise when deciding to give ER treatment to anyone…

Right to health? Its up to you. The majority of Americans eat garbage and do not exersize. That is their choice, but when they are 45 and have health problems they have no reason to come to the government asking for money for expensive surgeries and medicines. Cold hearted? Perhaps. Rational? Definitely. People make daily life choices and must face the consequences, whether good or bad.

Private Hospitals/charities (do) would receive money through donors. If I am wealthy one day, i am sure I would donate some money to hospitals.

The poor die and the rich live? Really? That is what you think my argument is about? I propose that people are responsible for their actions and must accept the consequences of a) driving drunk, b) robbing a bank, etc. The elderly one is quite a moral dillema, as i think the two i just mentioned do deserve to die as opposed to me (taxpayers) paying for their care. The situation with the elder is something happening in Britain right now where there are not enough funds to go around for everyone and they must make decisions. I am glad I am not the one telling someone that we dont have care for their grandpa because the state is bankrupt.

No more naive than your thinking that the government can afford to pay for 300 million American’s health care by printing more money and causing greater inflation, or by taxing us more and hurting the economy.

The key for healthcare is that if it was left entirely to the free market then prices would have to lower, or people would not purchase it. When the government buys it, they do not care what the prices are, necessarily. The companies will charge what they want and the government will pay what they ask, under a national health care plan.

smoking ban is another example of the government over reaching and holding our hands like little kids through life; taking away yet another choice, if you would.

fundamentally it’s a repulsive proposition.

however, i like the ends! smoke free is so nice.

THANKS CHAMPION

to tim:
“Obviously increased taxes would be the only way to pay for a nationalized system of health care. We both agree that the current system doesn’t work, but disagree on what change should occur.”

Forced taxation is a form of stealing; taking earned monies and redistributing it against the owner’s wish. Stealing is bad. Therefore, increased taxation is bad.

“You say free market health care would result in lower rates… so that means you think Medicare and Medicaid are to blame for the current high price? Other than those two, isn’t insurance presently a free market?”

Again, my argument is more about principle than about practicality, as I think principles and morality are more important that anything. But, as I see it, if health insurance is too expensive, then dont buy it. if no one buys it, they will obviously go out of business or lower their price.

“I disagree that people would not purchase health care if they thought the free market price was too high. What is that based on? Anyone not on Medicare or Medicaid is free to go without insurance right now, but few voluntarily choose to do so. The risk of being injured and being faced with tens of thousands of dollars of bills, which would barnkrupt most people, is simply too high.”

By definition, if people are purchasing something, then the price is not too high.

“I already pay taxes to support Medicare/Medicaid and additional money comes out of each of my paychecks for my own insurance. So any increase in tax would be decreased by the savings I would get from no longer paying for my own health insurance. So unless my taxes increased by about $90 a month, I would have just as much money to spend as before.”

Good for you, it may not be like that for everyone else.

“I think the bigger issue with socialized health care is related more to the quality of care that we would receive and less about the money”

quality, as experience proves (namely education) increases the more deregulated it is and more it is left up to individuals not the gov’t/

people don’t die on the streets b/c they can’t afford health insure, by the way. people die on the streets b/c they made bad decisions long before health insurance was an issue.

also, “taxation with representation…ain’t so hot either!” (funny line i read in Forbes magazine a few months ago.