Liberals versus Capitalism

[Atom]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

If it's a what I would call normal, and I know that is very subjective to each individual, but in the normal family it would or should be more of a benign dictatorship type structure.

Interesting. *attempts to draw parallels*

[Atom]

Originally Posted by John Scott

It's not right versus wrong.

I think you're referring to a different "it" than I was, but that's ok. Mine was just stating the obvious. Yours is actually more interesting.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Right versus wrong is a morality. The social contract doesn't work on morality.

Ok. If you had to choose one word to most accurately describe what it does work on, what would it be?

Originally Posted by John Scott

Legislating morality is the beginning of a totalitarian state.

I suspect it's logical to throw legislating in. What would be legislated in a socialist state?

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Nobody's banned you from anywhere. You've made a choice to not go into a restaurant, which you are free to go into.

OK. Let's not talk ban. Let's talk choice. Maybe I have a slim hope of getting through to you that way.

I'm free to go into the restaurant, but I have to put up with smoke to do it.
Just as the black man is free to ride the bus, but he has to put up with riding at the back to do it.

Didn't think I'd have to spell it out so plainly, but so be it.
Please tell me that you don't see a similarity there.

Originally Posted by John Scott

You do in fact endorse racism when you endorse majority right to deprive minority of rights.

Talk about straw men.
One does not equal the other. You should know better.
And, again, if you don't like the concept of majority rule, you can always renounce your US citizenship and naturalize to a country like North Korea or China.

Originally Posted by John Scott

You care so much that you feel the need to legislate away their freedom. That's a lot of caring. Now are you going to reimburse the the owners of the restaurants that went out of business for the financial losses that you caused by supporting law that deprived them of freedom and caused their businesses to go out of business? Oh, don't care that much eh? Socialist at heart are ya?

What a load of crap! If a restaurant's financial health is dependant upon allowing smokers to smoke in their building and not the quality of their food, then perhaps the business fails because of their terrible business plan?
Are you now going to tell us about how poorly the airlines are doing because people can't smoke on flights? What about a sudden dip in ridership on the NY subway system? Weedless Wednesday must be the culprit there, huh?
If we know what's good for us, we'll start allowing smoking in hospitals because we don't want any of them to go under. We'll need them to cure us of cancer in a few years.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

OK. Let's not talk ban. Let's talk choice. Maybe I have a slim hope of getting through to you that way.

I'm free to go into the restaurant, but I have to put up with smoke to do it.
Just as the black man is free to ride the bus, but he has to put up with riding at the back to do it.

Didn't think I'd have to spell it out so plainly, but so be it.
Please tell me that you don't see a similarity there.

What did you spell out? Your logic is non-existent. Nobody has a right to go into any person's property. They negotiate that right. You don't have a right to dictate the terms that you will go onto another person's property. Saying you have a right to visit another person's property and that propert owner doesn't have a right to smoke on his own property, nor does he have the right to allow his friends to smoke, is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Zap

I'm free to go into the restaurant, but I have to put up with smoke to do it.
Just as the black man is free to ride the bus, but he has to put up with riding at the back to do it.

If it's a privately owned vehicle, then the owner should be able to allow whoever he wants in. Blacks, women, men, Jews, cripples, gay or whoever.

If it's a publicly owned vehicle, then there can be no discrimination. They all have an equal right.

Perhaps you think restaurants are publicly owned? Perhaps you think your collectivist communist utopia has been realized. It hasn't. The person who paid for the property owns it and with that he has the right to determine who can and cannot smoke on his property.

When you violate that right and impose your own morality on the property owner, you've tossed the social contract - and the protections it affords you - out the window.

Originally Posted by Zap

Talk about straw men.
One does not equal the other. You should know better.
And, again, if you don't like the concept of majority rule, you can always renounce your US citizenship and naturalize to a country like North Korea or China.

What that supposed to be an argument? If you want to debate, provide some reasoning, or stay out of the politics forum.

Majority rule doesn't allow the oppression of the minority? Is that Canadian logic? That's like saying White Supremacy doesn't promote White supremacy.

And I can renounce my US citizenship? Kind of stupid thing to say. I'd lose my right to enter the US and see my kids who live there, and even after renouncing US citizenship I'm still obligated to pay US taxes for ten ****ing years.

And the next thing you say demonstrates your intellectual impairment better than anything you've said in this thread.

Originally Posted by Zap

you can always renounce your US citizenship and naturalize to a country like North Korea or China.

Hard to not laugh. Here you are promoting collective morality, and here I am opposing it. And you, in your ignorance, suggest that I should go to a communist country.

The hilarious thing is that communism is the mother of collectivism. It's the final destination of the Collectivist Express.

Originally Posted by Zap

What a load of crap! If a restaurant's financial health is dependant upon allowing smokers to smoke in their building and not the quality of their food, then perhaps the business fails because of their terrible business plan?

Your stupidity abounds. I've managed restaurants in Tokyo and in Seattle. And the quality of food is rarely a deciding factor. The atmosphere is. Particularly in establishments that allow drinking.

But wait, you've got a come back for that as well. If they ban alcohol, and thousands of bars go out of business, you'd say "well, if they depended on alcohol for financial health, and not the quality of their food, it must be a terrible business plan".

Do you see exactly how stupid that is? You don't do you. Because you think people go to restaurants for food, when in fact they go for the overall experience.

Originally Posted by Zap

Are you now going to tell us about how poorly the airlines are doing because people can't smoke on flights? What about a sudden dip in ridership on the NY subway system? Weedless Wednesday must be the culprit there, huh?

Straw men dropping out of your ass left and right. To be honest, I'm disappointed. I seriously didn't think you were as intellectually impaired as you obviously are.

Do airlines suffer because of smoking bans? I'm sure they do. Several times I've driven on long trips because I didn't want to be forced into smokeless irritation for several hours. I don't see myself flying back to the US regularly because the prospect of 10 hours without a cigarette doesn't appeal to me.

And yes, I know a lot of other people just like me.

So yes, the airlines are losing money. But I think it was the best they could do. Having two planes - one smokeless, one smoke-filled - go to each destination doesn't make financial sense, IMO. And when we really have to fly, we put up with it.

Eating out, on the other hand, isn't a necessity. I eat out every day, at restaurants that allow smoking. If Japan passed a law banning smoking at restaurants, I wouldn't go. Why would I spend money to make myself irritable?

Originally Posted by Zap

If we know what's good for us, we'll start allowing smoking in hospitals because we don't want any of them to go under. We'll need them to cure us of cancer in a few years.

If a hospital is privately owned, and wants to allow smoking on their premises, that should be their choice. In Japan, hospitals do have smoking areas. What are you going to do? Let me guess, you're having a fit right now? You can't stomach the idea of the Japanese refusing to impose your morality on their citizens? Ha.

Don't go complaining when the government denies you freedoms. If the majority approves, by you're own logic you are obligated to bend over and lube up.

[Zap]

If nothing else, John, you're entertaining.
But the drama... oh the drama.

I was hoping for something a little more high brow from you.
I won't make that mistake again.

It's a shame, too, because you tend to put forth a decent arguement here and there and make a person think, but there are so many insults to wade through to get to them.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Zap

If nothing else, John, you're entertaining.
But the drama... oh the drama.

I was hoping for something a little more high brow from you.
I won't make that mistake again.

It's a shame, too, because you tend to put forth a decent arguement here and there and make a person think, but there are so many insults to wade through to get to them.

Translated, this reads "I can't offer any intellectual arguments in defense of my totalitarian collectivism, so I'll just complain about your insults".

[Zap]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Translated, this reads "I can't offer any intellectual arguments in defense of my totalitarian collectivism, so I'll just complain about your insults".

Actually, it reads more like...

When debate is met with insults and bullying tactics, the debate is over.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Zap

If nothing else, John, you're entertaining.
But the drama... oh the drama.

I was hoping for something a little more high brow from you.
I won't make that mistake again.

It's a shame, too, because you tend to put forth a decent arguement here and there and make a person think, but there are so many insults to wade through to get to them.

Right on.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Brian

Right on.

So says the Liberal parrot.

I got Hayek, Friedman and Isaiah Berlin. You got an intellectually defensible argument in favor of collectivist totalitarianism?

Nah? I didn't think so.

[m42]

Originally Posted by Zap

If we, as humans, want to live, we have to breathe, drink and eat. We don't have to smoke.

BTW, I'm a smoker, but I don't expose my kids to it anywhere (including my home) and it's nice to know that I can take my kids to a restaurant that won't kill them.

You seem fine with allowing the government to control the minutiae of people’s lives. Every law enacted sets a precedent. How long before the government comes into your home and tells you that you can’t smoke? Or bans all unhealthy foods because a significant percentage of the population is unable to eat anything in moderation? Do you like your ribeye? What happens when they forcibly remove your kids because your smoking is a health risk… or a bad influence? Where do you draw the line?

The smoking ban is a blatant violation of the private property rights of a citizen. Do unto others. Do people enter your house and tell you what you can and cannot do? Would you want them to? Why would you wish to violate someone else’s right to operate their property in a manner of their choosing?

It won’t kill you to avoid taking your kids to restaurants that opt not to enforce a no-smoking policy. It will hurt you to help relinquish everyone’s right to choose.

Stop meddling in other people's lives and learn to just live your own.

[Atom]

My memory is really terrible in some areas. Very annoying. What is the social contract, again? And why is it described using the word "The"?

[Atom]

The problem with jumping the gun in debating, is that what comes after is meaningless.

It should be more a scientific approach.

[Zap]

Originally Posted by m42

You seem fine with allowing the government to control the minutiae of people’s lives. Every law enacted sets a precedent. How long before the government comes into your home and tells you that you can’t smoke? Or bans all unhealthy foods because a significant percentage of the population is unable to eat anything in moderation? Do you like your ribeye? What happens when they forcibly remove your kids because your smoking is a health risk… or a bad influence? Where do you draw the line?

Governments do control our lives. Take a look around you sometime.
You can't even go to the store to pickup milk and bread without being told what streets you can take, how fast you can drive there, whether or not you're even allowed to drive there, how much it's going to cost you to drive there, where you can park while you're in the store. They even control (by way of income taxes and sales taxes) how much milk you can buy.
This is the system most of us live under. If you don't agree with it, change it or move.
I also don't buy into the "sky is falling" idea you put forth. The idea that if we ban smoking in restaurants then we won't be allowed to smoke in our homes or have our children removed from our home because we smoke seems ridiculous to me. A little bit over the top. I see a big difference between the two.

Originally Posted by m42

The smoking ban is a blatant violation of the private property rights of a citizen. Do unto others. Do people enter your house and tell you what you can and cannot do? Would you want them to? Why would you wish to violate someone else’s right to operate their property in a manner of their choosing?

There is a difference between running a restaurant business, expecting members of the public to frequent your establishment and sitting on your couch at home, minding your own business. You don't see a difference between the two?

Originally Posted by m42

It won’t kill you to avoid taking your kids to restaurants that opt not to enforce a no-smoking policy. It will hurt you to help relinquish everyone’s right to choose.

It won't kill a smoker to step outside for 5 minutes either. I should know. I do it myself.

Originally Posted by m42

Stop meddling in other people's lives and learn to just live your own.

Does your non-interference policy extend to restaurant inspections?
Would you do away with those because they infringe on the owner's right to operate their restaurant as they see fit?
Do you also believe (as John does) that drunk drivers should have the right to drive drunk, so long as they are on private property?
Anything less would be infringing on their right to practice their craft.
What about Crazy Billy, the naked guy in downtown Manhattan. John prefers the private property defence. Just in case you do, let's put naked Billy on the balcony of his second floor apartment in downtown Manhattan shouting obscenities at God. Wouldn't want to interfere with his rights either? What about when he starts masturbating? Would you infringe on him then?

Everyone draws a line somewhere. Don't pretend like you wouldn't.

[Atom]

Post #1

Originally Posted by John Scott

Our Liberal totalitarian friends are jumping up and down celebrating driving almost 200 restaurants out of business in the Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Bloomington, MN area alone.

Nationwide, the number is no doubt in the tens of thousands.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/...ut-out-of.html

%Post #2

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

That is so right it's sad. The bottom line, I always figured, and thought that if a business wanted to be smoke free or a business wanted to allow smoking would/should be an issue in a free country that the business owner would decide. ...

I agree. How sad are we to allow such nonsense? I just don't get it. How do we get that freedom back?