RE: Capitalism and economic struggles
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. -- Vincent Penquerc'h
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
On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 09:20:16AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
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.
Yes, and we're going to always have anti-pollution laws as a result, just as we'll always have laws against rape, murder, burglary, etc. And men with guns to enforce them.
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.
From 20 meters away is not much of a problem, 2 meters is. One meter even more so -- and totally unaviodable at this point, unless you just don't go out. When you are walking down a sidewalk, say, it's impossible to avoid, and at close range. So the public streets, parks, etc, will eventurally have the same smoking bans as public buildings.
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.
I wouldn't be surprised to see NYC coming up with a license for special "smoking parlors", which might also serve food and drink. Especially once they ban smoking on the street. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
I actually don't impose my ideals. I do however urge others to accept and adopt them. Point in case, you have assumed that I smoke. I actually don't, and never have (past the odd one or two cigarettes that I've tried back when I was young, and found I didn't like.) That in and of itself should give you an inkling of why I believe my ideals are correct. Incase it's not, consider this: I'm not imposing, I'm asking. I don't have a law book to thump, nor a gun to point at you, nor a cop waiting to arrest you if you disagree with what I say. Nor am I asking for such laws to prevent or limit others in similar ways. On the other hand, some trolls around here, wish to do just that, in order to impose their ideals on all of us (in various cities.) ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ <--*-->:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD. \|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Fri, 2 May 2003, Vincent Penquerc'h wrote:
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.
participants (4)
-
Harmon Seaver -
Sunder -
Tim May -
Vincent Penquerc'h