[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
orion wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
If you don’t love it – cigarette smoke in bars that is – you can leave it, motherfuckers.
Bar owners have no say in how their property is used just so a few busy-body, do-gooders can feel better while they poison their bodies with alcohol.
Ironic?
People who whine about cigarette smoke should stay home and quit fucking up everyone else’s freedom to fuck up their own bodies. No one forces someone to go to a bar and drink.
What a bunch of whiny, no minded losers you liberals are.
So smoking should be allowed in all public places? And airplanes?
Not in public places.
Everywhere else, ask the owner.
What do you consider a public place, and what do you consider “everywhere else?”[/quote]
A public place is where you absolutely, positively have to go to. Like police stations, places where you get your drivers licenses and so on.
Basically buildings operated by the government. They take money from the non smokers so they should respect their wishes.
Restaurants, bars, etc are privately owned. They may be open to the public, but they belong to someone who makes the rules.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
… people forced to deal with it like waiters and bartenders who might not smoke themselves.
How are they forced to deal with it? They are not forced to be a bartender or waitress. Every job has its dangers, If they don’t like it, they can change jobs.
You could say that for anything. Because coal mining is dangerous does not mean that they shouldn’t make it as safe as possible. Because welding shops are dangerous does not mean that there should be no safety precautions.
Because bartenders work at a bar/resturaunt, they shouldn’t have to deal with smoke. Neither should the patrons, the majority of which are not smokers. [/quote]
Of course you can say that about anything. That’s why I said “every job has its dangers.” Level of risk should be a factor when choosing a profession.
I just don’t understand the argument for smoking bans. If people cared so much, there would have been a move towards smoke-free bars without government intervention. Like I said earlier, a few smoke-free bars open in Milwaukee a couple years ago without being forced to do so. If people are so adamant about smoke-free establishments, why hasn’t this happened on a larger scale? It’s because people really don’t care that much.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
… people forced to deal with it like waiters and bartenders who might not smoke themselves.
How are they forced to deal with it? They are not forced to be a bartender or waitress. Every job has its dangers, If they don’t like it, they can change jobs.
You could say that for anything. Because coal mining is dangerous does not mean that they shouldn’t make it as safe as possible. Because welding shops are dangerous does not mean that there should be no safety precautions.
Because bartenders work at a bar/resturaunt, they shouldn’t have to deal with smoke. Neither should the patrons, the majority of which are not smokers.
Of course you can say that about anything. That’s why I said “every job has its dangers.” Level of risk should be a factor when choosing a profession.
I just don’t understand the argument for smoking bans. If people cared so much, there would have been a move towards smoke-free bars without government intervention. Like I said earlier, a few smoke-free bars open in Milwaukee a couple years ago without being forced to do so. If people are so adamant about smoke-free establishments, why hasn’t this happened on a larger scale? It’s because people really don’t care that much.[/quote]
What bar would realistically take the chance of losing profits in order to do something for the safety of the public?
I never, ever saw one in NJ, and never in NY either before they banned it. There’s so many bars around here that people would just not go if they couldn’t smoke in there.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
What bar would realistically take the chance of losing profits in order to do something for the safety of the public?
[/quote]
Those businesses with owners who actually like to keep their profits.
I never, ever saw one in NJ, and never in NY either before they banned it. There’s so many bars around here that people would just not go if they couldn’t smoke in there.
The free market does not fix everything.[/quote]
No, it is completely unable to force anyone to do anything.
That is why the idea of “powerful” corporations is such a joke.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
What bar would realistically take the chance of losing profits in order to do something for the safety of the public?
Those businesses with owners who actually like to keep their profits.[/quote]
Funny, because in the hundreds of years of America having bars, a minuscule amount decided to do this.
As always, your “logic” is proved false by history. So is the anarchist way I guess.
I never, ever saw one in NJ, and never in NY either before they banned it. There’s so many bars around here that people would just not go if they couldn’t smoke in there.
The free market does not fix everything.
No, it is completely unable to force anyone to do anything.
That is why the idea of “powerful” corporations is such a joke.
[/quote]
If there is a government, corporations become inordinately powerful through campaign funding. If there is no government, they’ll become inordinately powerful through private armies ala Blackwater.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Funny, because in the hundreds of years of America having bars, a minuscule amount decided to do this.
[/quote]
Is it my fault your government prevents the courts from doing their job?
Surely, if a person can prove that a business owner caused him harm he should have no problem seeking justice in the MOST FREEST, FAIREST, AND LIBERTY LOVING COUNTRY OF ALL TIMES? Right!?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
There’s so many bars around here that people would just not go if they couldn’t smoke in there.
[/quote]
Wait, so smokers will make the choice whether or not to go in a bar based on the smoking policy, but non-smokers won’t? See – people just don’t care that much about this.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
What bar would realistically take the chance of losing profits in order to do something for the safety of the public?
Those businesses with owners who actually like to keep their profits.
Funny, because in the hundreds of years of America having bars, a minuscule amount decided to do this.
As always, your “logic” is proved false by history. So is the anarchist way I guess.
[/quote]
The average risk of a nonsmoker to get lung cancer is below 1%.
Passively inhaling smoke increases that by 20-30%, which would still below 1%.
Could grown up people possibly decide whether they wish to risk an increased cancer risk by 0,1-0,3% ?
I never, ever saw one in NJ, and never in NY either before they banned it. There’s so many bars around here that people would just not go if they couldn’t smoke in there.
The free market does not fix everything.
No, it is completely unable to force anyone to do anything.
That is why the idea of “powerful” corporations is such a joke.
If there is a government, corporations become inordinately powerful through campaign funding. If there is no government, they’ll become inordinately powerful through private armies ala Blackwater.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
There’s so many bars around here that people would just not go if they couldn’t smoke in there.
Wait, so smokers will make the choice whether or not to go in a bar based on the smoking policy, but non-smokers won’t? See – people just don’t care that much about this. [/quote]
You didn’t address the real point- without a ban, no bar would have banned it. Non-smokers wouldn’t have the option.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
There’s so many bars around here that people would just not go if they couldn’t smoke in there.
Wait, so smokers will make the choice whether or not to go in a bar based on the smoking policy, but non-smokers won’t? See – people just don’t care that much about this.
You didn’t address the real point- without a ban, no bar would have banned it. Non-smokers wouldn’t have the option.[/quote]
My point is that if it were important enough to non-smokers, smoke-free bars would be everywhere. Again, people don’t care.
[quote]malonetd wrote:
Again, people don’t care.[/quote]
Or maybe bar owners have figured out that more people who smoke go to bars than those who do not smoke. Seems like an obvious answer to me, but what do I know? I neither own a bar or smoke.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Surely you don’t advocate completely unregulated and unrestricted “rights” to gun ownership.
Surely you don’t know me very well, or else you wouldn’t need to ask this question.
I believe the only firearms regulation the federal government should be involved in is ensuring that the arms manufactured and sold in the United States are structurally sound and reliable, and that the ammunition is accurate and free from defects.
Other than that, I agree with the commonsense gun laws enacted by Vermont and Alaska, and look forward to the day when other states follow suit.[/quote]
Yep. Guns are the greatest liberator in the history of the world. If the tax collector is greated by someone with a 12 gauge, then taxes are a lot more likely to be fair.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
…and on an unrelated note, my city council unanimously voted to outlaw smoking in bars. Go fuck yourself America. I would move somewhere else, but there’s nowhere else to go.
mike[/quote]
I think you’d be surprised to find out how many people who’ve been in the military actually agree with you, Mike.
We’re fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq for what reason, exactly? I dunno. Can anyone here tell me? I guess it’s in our national interests if the Sunnis and Shi’a start offing one another, but it should have been obvious that that was going to happen from the beginning, which rules out Iraq II being a just war.
Anyways, my sister just got a new billet that makes it likely she’ll go to Afghanistan to help try to civilize the Pashtuns - a sisyphian task, if there ever was one. A couple of her close friends have recently died there.
As my pastor recently put it (he’s a former naval officer, btw), “Sending your kids into the military is like offering them to Molech.”
I understand what the point was suppose to be. My point was the cartoon really fails to make this point, since it lists silly examples of “rights” that are being taken away.
Silly rights?
Sister busted for not wearing a seat belt: none of the government’s business.
Brother busted for smoking a joint: none of the government’s business.
Mother busted for carrying a gun: infringement of her right to keep and bear arms.
Family business destroyed by imminent domain: violation of equal protection, and the rights of life, liberty and pursuit of property.
Family home seized for back taxes: violation of right to be protected against illegal search and seizure, not to mention taxation without representation. Unless, of course, one really, really feels that he is represented in government commensurate to the amount he is taxed.
I agree with you on the seat belt thing and imminent domain to a point, but although I don’t like how either in practice actually work I don’t see these as clear cut instances of the state abusing it’s power.
[/quote]
Why not? What does it take to get a statist like you to admit abuse? Where do you draw the line? BTW, it’s “eminent” not “imminent”.
Why not? Because it’s easy to imagine justification for the government putting these sorts of rules into place, that’s why. That’s opposed to something like government censorship of speech, which I cannot easily imagine any sort of justification for. For example, if it wasn’t for eminent domain (sorry, in my haste I blindly copied Varqanir spelling before) no massive infrastructure projects would ever have gotten off the ground and we’d all be stuck living back in the 1800’s. While I agree that eminent domain is often abused now a day’s and that private companies have far too much control over its use, it’s far from clear that actions of eminent domain are always wrong…
So do I… but that only brings us back to my original point that the cartoon’s use of this as an example of how our rights are being taken away is silly.
Your interpretation of the second amendment is question begging at best. For example, you claim that the government should not be allowed to regulate the sale of firearms at all and that anyone should be allowed to have them. What about convicted criminals? Known murderers? I hardly think someone with a known history of clear criminal violence should be allowed to own a gun. If that is the case, then it is in fact acceptable for the government to regulate the sale of firearms, since we both agree some people–known murderers and convicted violent criminals–shouldn’t be allowed to own them. Clearly then the issue is no where near as clear cut as you think, and some regulation is required… Since SOME regulation is required, the real question is how much. I tend to think that less regulation is better, so if you take your ideological goggles off you’ll find we’re probably much closer on this issue then you think.
But in any case the idea that the very existence of firearm regulation constitutes a violation of your rights–and hence that we should get worked up over any old person being arrested for breaking those regulations–is silly.
We could argue this sort of point all day… but two points: (1) the idea that the government can confiscate your property if you do not pay your taxes does not entail that you are merely a “renter” paying “rent”. Taxes aren’t rent. You pay taxes, at least idealistically, out of some sense of civic duty to pay for the services that the government renders for you–you know, like those school thingy’s you probably don’t like sending your kids too. Besides, as you guys like to point out, if you didn’t want to pay taxes you didn’t have to buy the house, no? (Sound familiar? If you didn’t want to breath in smoke you didn’t… ) Anyway, (2) In some sense you are just a “renter”, get over it. The modern idea of being a citizen is a lot better then the idea of being a subject… no?
That’s funny, I didn’t say anything of the sort… You merely wrongly inferred that because I hold particular limited views in a few cases that I must also hold more general radical views of the same flavor. It must be those ideological goggles again.
It’s “minuscule”, not “miniscule”.
Now your just making up a straw man… I never said I got to define what sorts of government regulation are acceptable. My calling things like needing modest permits to own a firearm, having to pay property tax, being made to wear a seat belt, etc. “minuscule” instances of governmental law and regulation was in comparison to countries like China, Iran, North Korea and the old Soviet Union, whose “gargantuan” instances of governmental law and regulation include(d) active censorship of the news and internet, systematic violent suppression of peaceful protests and the outlawing of political dissent and religion.
Now you may claim that this comparison is just a relativist cop out to hid the “real” fact that even the relatively mundane actions of the US government are gargantuan. If you want to push that line though, just what sorts of governmental law and regulation are acceptable? It would seem that by your standards virtually none are… Really I’m at a loss though that you would even call something like a seat belt law a gargantuan violation of your rights.
Again your putting words in my mouth. When did I ever “swing the pendulum completely to the other arc and imply that governmental law and regulation should in effect be unfettered by the basic ideas of individual liberty”? Was that when I said that I could see reasonable justification for things like set belt laws, or when I said that I can see reasonable restrictions on own ownership that keep guns out of the hands of known violent criminals?
I do think that above all else government regulation should keep individual liberty in mind, but I fail to see how seat belt laws are a big deal…
Oh please, stop the fear mongering.
How about you take off the ideological goggles, stop trying to pin me as some crazy statist who thinks your too dumb to take care of yourself and who needs an all knowing government to take care of you, and actually approach things objectively.
I think there are many things wrong with the US government and that at some levels major reform is needed. I’m not a fan of the current system at all. I mentioned this in another post in this thread…
Besides, can’t you just admit that the examples listed in the cartoon really are silly? Why didn’t the cartoon talk about real issues like how the patriot act has eliminated your right to habeas corpus, or how our government is pursuing a disastrous economic policy for the benefit of a few? Really, there weren’t bigger issues then seat belts and smoking laws that the cartoon could complain about? REALLY??
[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< [Cue boiling frog in water story] >>>[/quote]
Absolutely right and this is by far the hottest the water’s ever been. Some people will have the meat rolling off their bones and still be bubbling an enthusiastic “yes we can”
