Capitalism and economic struggles

[Harmon Seaver]

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