Capitalism and economic struggles

[Tim May]

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