Re: Quarantines may be justified
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:47:49AM -0400, Sunder wrote:
Point is that street, and that air is not your property, it's shared property - and hence not subject to your whims, likes and distates, but upto the community to decide its usage. If a large enough population who uses said street wishes to smoke there, then the whims of a small minority of who are offended by second hand smoke should not force the rules to be changed.
You've got it exactly backwards -- it's only a small (and decreasing as well) portion of the population that smokes, and it's the majority who don't want to breath the second-hand smoke. That's why the mayor of NYC is able to get away with banning smoking in bars and restaurants. Get over it -- public smoking is going to be banned everywhere, plenty of cities have already banned it in restaurants, public buildings, etc. It's only a matter of time before it's also banned on the street, and there are already proposed laws being considered to do just that. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:50:14AM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Get over it -- public smoking is going to be banned everywhere, plenty of cities have already banned it in restaurants, public buildings, etc. It's only a matter of time before it's also banned on the street, and there are already proposed laws being considered to do just that.
And because the majority (or the state) is for it, it must be right? Admit it: you're a statist when it suits you. Why are you here? -Bill
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 01:12:56PM -0500, Bill O'Hanlon wrote:
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:50:14AM -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Get over it -- public smoking is going to be banned everywhere, plenty of cities have already banned it in restaurants, public buildings, etc. It's only a matter of time before it's also banned on the street, and there are already proposed laws being considered to do just that.
And because the majority (or the state) is for it, it must be right?
Admit it: you're a statist when it suits you. Why are you here?
Bullshit -- it's about the basic right to having your own personal space and to not be assaulted by others, something that some knee-jerk rightwingers don't get. Everyone has a right to use whatever drug they want, they don't have a right to force others to partake of it. Nothing could be more simple. But because we have a number of people in this society who don't get it, and who are too selfish and inconsiderate of others to observe common courtesies, we get laws to spell it out for them. It's like drunk driving laws, zoning laws, etc. Yes, you can drink all you want, but no, you can't then drive. Yes, you have a right to private property, but no, you can't allow the house to fall down or do something else with it that adversly affects my property value. There's always going to be at least a minimal state that lays out these sort of restraints, it's the only way large numbers of people can live in close proximity to one another. Which, BTW, is what the thread started with -- the fact that the state has to have some powers to deal with seriously infectious diseases. And likewise that it has to have some power to restrain those who don't respect the rights of others. I think that some of the people here have some fantasy that the state will totally wither away and there will be no restraints on anyone's behavior except economic ones. Or else believe in some equally fantastized society where everyone will just willingly respect others and all will live in peace and harmony -- which is absurd, especially given the fact that for whatever reason, young people are increasingly oblivious to the rights of others and very much unconcerned with anything but thier own gratification. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
On Thu, 1 May 2003, Harmon Seaver wrote:
I think that some of the people here have some fantasy that the state will totally wither away and there will be no restraints on anyone's behavior except economic ones. Or else believe in some equally fantastized society where everyone will just willingly respect others and all will live in peace and harmony -- which is absurd, especially given the fact that for whatever reason, young people are increasingly oblivious to the rights of others and very much unconcerned with anything but thier own gratification.
"young" is a point of view too. Did you care much more about anything but yourself when you were 1 year old? Of course not, and I don't think that view expands all that fast for most people. By the time we're ten, we know the rest of the world is out there, but who cares? The basic view is "how does it affect *me*?" Nobody cares about the rights of others, they only care about themselves. Which is why we end up with stupid laws. Being able to abstract what we want to others always involves the assumption that others are like us. That's why politicians are so good at name calling, they know they lie cheat and steal, so they blame the other guy for doing the same thing. Jumping up a level of abstraction to figure out how we really can all be different and still get along is a very hard chore. This list is a microcosim of the whole world - it's weird, it's different and it has more than enough town fools. Some temples burn incense all day long - that's "smoking" too. Is a zoning law going to interfere with first amendment rights of religion? Maybe. Airports are always initially built far away from cities, and then people move in around them and complain about the noise. It's the same thing - you try to solve the problem, but it comes back later anyway. Being able to draw lines and say where and when things are allowable makes more sense than banning behavior. If some societies decide smoking in public isn't allowed, that's one solution. Other societies might choose to draw the line in children's parks. The point is the group that decides has to live with its decisions - and we can argue all we want about how stupid the decisions are, but we still gotta convince the voters to change their minds. And until it directly actually affects them, most people just won't care. Freedom is too abstract, until it's *your* door that gets kicked down in the middle of the night. Especially if you happen to be smoking ganja. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
participants (3)
-
Bill O'Hanlon -
Harmon Seaver -
Mike Rosing