On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 08:35 AM, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:
What part of "Don't impose your ideals on others" do you not understand?
Yes, someone may chose to smoke at a time which is convenient for you, but why should you be able to dictate that to someone else? Mind your own fucking business - even if it's just hypothetical.
I kind of agree, to a point, but then you (and others) do the same with imposing your own ideals to others, don't you ? As long as people interact, they'll have to impose stuff to others. I'm imposing my ideals (in this case, forbidding to smoke to people who want to) ? You do yours (annoying people who don't like smoke, because you want to smoke). I don't usually annoy smokers when they do. If I'm annoyed by it, I just move. Unless I can't, that is. But you just act as if *your* ideals were *obviously* the right ones. I reject that idea. They might, and they sure are popular here. But you do impose them all the same.
The solutions to your problems lie in the "Schelling points" many in open societies have established for dealing with others: -- non-initiation of force -- territorial boundaries, aka property rights Pollution in general, whether of rivers or lakes or the air, is a complicated issue. It's more important to establish the fundamental principles widely applicable and helpful in creating a free and open society than it is to quibble about second hand smoke from 20 meters away. There's a saying in American law: "Hard cases make bad law." Meaning, cases where there are multiple, conflicting, nuanced issues tend to make for unclear or contradictory law. As for smoking, this is clear-cut when property rights are clear-cut: it should not be the function of the state to tell a restaurant owner what his smoking or non-smoking policies should be. Harmon Seaver's rants about breathing in second-hand smoke on public streets do not apply in this case, as anyone is free to enter or not enter a restaurant, or a bar, or a bookstore, or ride on a jet, or on a bus, or work in a company, all of which may or may not allow smoking by their own rules. Harmon's second-hand smoke example does not apply in _any_ of the above cases, all of which are based on the obvious property rights of the owners and the freedom of choice of customers to abide by the rules or not. Establishing this, even if smoking were then to be restricted on "public" streets, would be a positive development. --Tim May "The State is the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." --Frederic Bastiat