Liberals versus Capitalism

[Thanol]

Over here in Ohio we like to limit people's rights: no touching strippers, smoking in public areas, or gay marriage or civil unions. Notice a trend?

[m42]

Originally Posted by Thanol

Over here in Ohio we like to limit people's rights: no touching strippers, smoking in public areas, or gay marriage or civil unions. Notice a trend?

The level of physical interaction between a stripper and a patron is often directly proportional to the amount of cash the patron is willing donate to the stripper's coke habit, her kids college fund, and/or her acting lessons.

The other two/three are just absurd.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by m42

The level of physical interaction between a stripper and a patron is often directly proportional to the amount of cash the patron is willing donate to the stripper's coke habit, her kids college fund, and/or her acting lessons.

I've known a lot of strippers. Dated one even, and most are more interested in money than coke.

[m42]

Hahahaha. I stand corrected.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Consent. People consent to smoke and accept those risks. They consent to be in a smoke filled restaurant. People do not consent to be fed potentially deadly food.

Please go back and reread the question. I wasn't asking about the patrons. I was asking what the difference is for the restaurant owner. There's no difference between forcing them to ban smoking and forcing them to be clean. Why is one OK with people like you and the other is not? Makes no sense. Either you're FOR infringing the owner's rights or you are NOT.

Originally Posted by John Scott

There are far more Whites than Blacks. Majority rule. Let's use Zap's logic and enslave them Blacks.

Nice of you to assume all whites want the blacks enslaved. Any other huge logical leaps you'd care to share with us?

Originally Posted by John Scott

Shit dude, the majority rule was recognized as tyranny of the masses - people like you who want to legislate your morality on others - and that's why the founding fathers created a *drum roll please* constitution.

Majority rule is still the order of the day. If you doubt it, take a look at how your government works.

And, the constitution ceased to be binding the moment it became so easily circumvented by the Patriot Act.

[John Scott]

Please go back and reread the question. I wasn't asking about the patrons. I was asking what the difference is for the restaurant owner. There's no difference between forcing them to ban smoking and forcing them to be clean. Why is one OK with people like you and the other is not? Makes no sense. Either you're FOR infringing the owner's rights or you are NOT.

Pretty obtuse statement. Forcing a restaurant to be clean doesn't deprive patrons of their freedom. Smoking bans do.

Nice of you to assume all whites want the blacks enslaved.

Nobody made that assumption. It's not about what they want, it's about rights. You think that if that majority rule in itself establishes a right to infringe on minority rights.

Majority rule is still the order of the day.

No, not at all. The constitution prevents a lot of majority ideals from becoming reality. Thank god for that.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Forcing a restaurant to be clean doesn't deprive patrons of their freedom. Smoking bans do.

1. Forcing a restaurant to be clean infringes on the owner's right to run his/her business as they see fit.
2. A smoking ban inside the restaurant doesn't deprive the smoker of the right to smoke. They are perfectly free to step outside for 5 minutes while they have a smoke, leaving the customers inside to enjoy a smoke free meal. Everyone wins. What's so difficult about stepping outside for 5 minutes?

Originally Posted by John Scott

It's not about what they want, it's about rights. You think that if that majority rule in itself establishes a right to infringe on minority rights.

Take a good look around you. That's pretty much how our society is set up.
Crazy Billy likes to get drunk on Saturday nights and run around downtown Manhattan in the nude, but the majority of the rest of us have taken that right away from him because that's the way we want things to be.
Crazy Billy gets locked up when he tries to do that.

[John Scott]

1. Forcing a restaurant to be clean infringes on the owner's right to run his/her business as they see fit.

True. It should be voluntary. In Japan, it is voluntary for the most part. People don't patronize dirty restaurants - free market capitalism in action.

Americans however like the governments to employ a large percentage of the population. So they waste millions of tax payer dollars inspecting restaurants.

2. A smoking ban inside the restaurant doesn't deprive the smoker of the right to smoke. They are perfectly free to step outside for 5 minutes while they have a smoke, leaving the customers inside to enjoy a smoke free meal. Everyone wins.

Are you insane? Seriously, if you aren't being sarcastic, you're bonkers. Okay, not bonkers, you just believe that freedom is worth very little, and you cherish the ability of a majority to force their morality on others. Pretty sickening, considering all the heroic men who died fighting for freedom.

If I want to smoke while I eat a steak at my local restaurant, I do so. It's called freedom.

Why not step outside? That's stupid. If that wasn't stupid, several thousand restaurants and bars would still be in business.

People do not pay to be inconvenienced while they drink and dine.

Take a good look around you. That's pretty much how our society is set up.

Collectivism is, in a constitutional democracy, supposed to be impeded by the constitution. Democracy tends toward collectivism by definition. So individualist minded drafters of the constitution implemented several rules to guarantee individual rights.

Read John Locke. He was the most influential thinker on the early Americans.

Liberty is being denied.

Crazy Billy likes to get drunk on Saturday nights and run around downtown Manhattan in the nude, but the majority of the rest of us have taken that right away from him because that's the way we want things to be.

Public indecency? You've never been to Mardi Gras? You've never been to a Gay Rights parade? No, for the most part, they don't get locked up. They only get temporarily arrested when they do so in a time or place that is likely to expose to themselves to un-expecting people, which is considered a violation of the rights of bystanders.

See how that works? People should be free to do what they want, as long as they don't violate the freedom of others. Now, my smoking in a restaurant, whose rights does that violate? Anybody there is there aware and consenting to the smoke. It does not pose an imminent threat to anybody.

[thegamerslink]

John that was an excellent! way of putting it all in a nice tidy to the point explanation. Although unfortunately the Zap's of the world won't ever recognize the Constitution or anything else for that matter that prevents them from being able to force feed their views and opinions on the rest of the population. And once they do get their way they move on to find another one to enforce.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

People should be free to do what they want, as long as they don't violate the freedom of others. Now, my smoking in a restaurant, whose rights does that violate?

A non-smoker's right to dine in a smoke free environment.

Your right to smoke is no more or less important than my right to a smoke free place to dine.
Your solution (simplified) is to force me to go elsewhere.
My solution (also simplified) is to force you to go outside to smoke.

Someone's rights are about to be taken away. Whose?
Would you suggest that the minority rules here? That might make sense in a dictatorship, not so much in a democracy.

You see, boys (yes, you too, gamerslink), you can't have your cake and eat it too. You may want to believe that allowing smoking in restaurants doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but you're deluding yourselves. One way or the other, someone's rights are going bye bye and the "Zaps of the world" understand this. So, best case scenario is to find some sort of compromise (which can't be done in this case) or to go with the majority.

Using the logic I've seen here, neither one of you would want to infringe on the "rights" of...

1. A drunk driver, so long as they don't hurt anyone.
2. Crazy Billy to wiggle his penis wherever he sees fit, so long as he doesn't touch anyone with it.
3. A stalker who does nothing more than follow you around.
4. Someone planning any crime that never comes to fruition.

As long as they aren't infringing on our rights, let them be, right?
Sorry, but I respectfully disagree.

[thegamerslink]

You're trying to lump freedom of choice in with crime. I don't quite understand why you think it's anywhere near the same ballpark.....A restaurant should have freedom of choice of how they want to provide for their customers....customers should have the freedom of choice what restaurant to go to....you as a non-smoker should have the freedom of choice to either go to a restaurant that allows smoking or not go to the restaurant. That's the power of the consumer, if enough non-smokers tell a restaurant owner they don't like the smoking, either by not going, or verbally, then that owner would decide what is more important to them financially......you are wanting to remove all freedom of choice so that you don't have to worry with it, called laziness in some circles, in others it's called socialism.

[Atom]

Is the classic family unit a socialist system?

[thegamerslink]

I don't understand the connection of your question with the topic?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

A non-smoker's right to dine in a smoke free environment.

Nope. Nobody has banned smoke free restaurants. Do you not have a brain? Tell me how you reach that conclusion. Tell me, Zapper, how your brain functions in order to reach the conclusion that allowing smoking-allowed restaurants to exist somehow precludes the very existence of smoke-free restaurants?

Now I'm going to tell you something. It may come as a shock to you. You may fall off your chair and hit your head as your brain refuses to process this information. You have been warned. Here goes:

In Japan, both smoking and smoke-free restaurants exist. Shocker, eh? Your mind is probably numb now. You're confused. Maybe you've assumed the fetal position, lost all ability to cope with reality, and are crying for your mother. But it's true. Smoke free and smoking restaurants exist. Free choice. A hard concept for a non-intellectual Leftwing parrot to grasp, I know, but it's the truth.

Your right to smoke is no more or less important than my right to a smoke free place to dine.

Exactly. That's why I don't go forcing smoke-filled restaurants on you. If I outlawed smoke free restaurants, you could complain. As it stands, you only get to stand and applaud my grasp of basic common sense.

Your solution (simplified) is to force me to go elsewhere.

No. My solution is freedom. Nobody's forcing you to go elsewhere. Nobody is saying you must smoke, or must not smoke.

My solution (also simplified) is to force you to go outside to smoke.

No, yours is violation of freedom.

Someone's rights are about to be taken away. Whose?

Nope.Nobody's rights are being violated by allowing restaurants and patrons the freedom to choose whether or not they will enjoy smoke with their beers and food.

If somebody forced you to dine at an individual's place of business, that would be a violation of your rights, whether they were smoking or not. Nobody forces you to dine anywhere, so there is no deprivation of rights.

You want to deny smokers that choice. You want to deny non-smokers that choice. You want to force your choice on everybody.

Would you suggest that the minority rules here? That might make sense in a dictatorship, not so much in a democracy.

You really don't get freedom do you? You don't even know what classic liberalism is, do you? Laissez faire is a concept beyond your totalitarian mind. If you don't force your morality on others, you're just not a man anymore. You need to be able to force others - to subject others to your morality. Insecurity paralyzes you when you think of freedom. People being free to make their own choices, to you, is a revolting concept.

You see, boys (yes, you too, gamerslink), you can't have your cake and eat it too. You may want to believe that allowing smoking in restaurants doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, but you're deluding yourselves. One way or the other, someone's rights are going bye bye and the "Zaps of the world" understand this. So, best case scenario is to find some sort of compromise (which can't be done in this case) or to go with the majority.

Nope. You don't understand the concept of freedom. You have probably never read Hayek or Milton Friedman or even John Locke. In fact, you haven't even read John Rawls.

There are two intellectually sound sides to the argument. One is classic liberalism. That's laissez faire freedom, exemplified by John Locke, Hayek, Milton Friedman and expounded eloquently by Isaiah Berlin with his positive and negative liberty.

The other is anti-liberal totalitarianism.

Your concept of "majority rule" is not intellectually tenable. No intellectual would promote the concept of majority depriving minority of rights simply on the basis of being a majority. They wouldn't because of the obvious reductio ad absurdum that awaits. Like, 2 guys in an elevator being given the right to decide that the woman in the elevator, being the minority, then is obligated to fulfill the base desires of the majority.

It comes down to your mistaken assumption that people are going to be forced to dine at smoke-filled bars. Obviously a very wrong assumption. Nobody is forced to dine anywhere. That leaves the deprivation of freedom in one location - within the legislation that deprives smokers of the ability to dine at smoke-filled bars and restaurants.