Liberals versus Capitalism

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Sean@WMS

That arguement is always pressed. But that's like saying miners knowling apply to work in a very dangerous enviroment, so why bother with safety standards.

The argument has never held up in any legislature ( to the best of my knowledge ).

As representative governments have evolved over time, the representatives of the people have increasingly demanded safer working conditions for their constituents since the begining of the industrial revolution. This is just another chapter in that history, really.

You should see the movie "I, Robot". It shows the end result of the safety argument.

And, before you go violating the rights of people, you have to show what right you have to do so.

Simply saying "this is good, let's make it a law and force everybody to comply with our morality" isn't going to cut it.

[Sean@WMS]

Originally Posted by m42

Interesting answer.

Employees knowingly apply to work in those environments.

On the other hand, I somewhat agree with you, though this argument never works either . . . . but it would seem to me that if an establishment wanted to be a "smoking" establishment, and their employees consented ( and signed all kinds of disclaimers and ended up with really expensive health insurance options -- given that employers are often obliged to provide some form of health insurance to their employees ), then why shouldn't that be allowable? Or say, take it the the level of a cooperative business ( so the "employees" are share owners of the business )?

There's obviously a market for this sort of thing in a true free market economy.

Honestly, if there were such an establishment in my zone, I'd go there with my brother-in-law who's a smoker, while also patroning other smoke-free establishments with my wife, who's not a smoker and prefers a smoke free place.

[Sean@WMS]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You should see the movie "I, Robot". It shows the end result of the safety argument.

And, before you go violating the rights of people, you have to show what right you have to do so.

Simply saying "this is good, let's make it a law and force everybody to comply with our morality" isn't going to cut it.

I totally appreciate your sentiment here . . . but here's the rub:

Rights are granted via governing bodies typically with some kind of contitution ( history here for pretty much all Western govenment these days starts with the Magna Carta ). So, the essential ( and perhaps idealistic ) concept here is that the "rights" of the people, are granted by "the people" through their representatives who ultimately make these decissions on behalf of their constituents.

That is there is no one who goes vialating any other one's "rights." And there is no "simply saying . . ." anything; nothing is simple here. What's more "our morality" is not the issue; the issue is law ( which only sometimes is moral ), and the "our" is "us" in the end, as we are represented by the people we elect to write the laws.

[John Scott]

Rights are granted via governing bodies typically with some kind of contitution ( history here for pretty much all Western govenment these days starts with the Magna Carta ). So, the essential ( and perhaps idealistic ) concept here is that the "rights" of the people, are granted by "the people" through their representatives who ultimately make these decissions on behalf of their constituents.

You're speaking of a process. The process however has to be based on principles. And a governing body in itself is not a guarantee that a law will be valid or "right". I could set up a governing body and issue laws until I'm blue in the face, and if they aren't valid then I have no right to demand that anybody obey those laws.

That is there is no one who goes vialating any other one's "rights." And there is no "simply saying . . ." anything; nothing is simple here. What's more "our morality" is not the issue; the issue is law ( which only sometimes is moral ), and the "our" is "us" in the end, as we are represented by the people we elect.

Morality does appear to be the issue. Or more specifically, one group imposing their morality by force on others. Simply because you elected somebody to enforce your morality doesn't mean it's valid. It just means it's law. If the majority passed a law saying that Blacks should be enslaved, would that law be valid just because the majority passed it?

[m42]

Originally Posted by Sean@WMS

On the other hand, I somewhat agree with you, though this argument never works either . . . . but it would seem to me that if an establishment wanted to be a "smoking" establishment, and their employees consented ( and signed all kinds of disclaimers and ended up with really expensive health insurance options -- given that employers are often obliged to provide some form of health insurance to their employees ), then why shouldn't that be allowable? Or say, take it the the level of a cooperative business ( so the "employees" are share owners of the business )?

That is entirely possible, but that should be up to the restaurant owner, not the government.

The employees could just as easily apply to work in a nonsmoking environment.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by m42

That is entirely possible, but that should be up to the restaurant owner, not the government.

The employees could just as easily apply to work in a nonsmoking environment.

Freedom of choice is not a valid option in a welfare state. The socialist / welfare state gets to decide everything because the state pays for everything.

[m42]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Freedom of choice is not a valid option in a welfare state. The socialist / welfare state gets to decide everything because the state pays for everything.

Very true.

I am not advocating a welfare state. I'm stating that if a businesses owner wishes to share their business or earnings, it should be the business owner's choice and not the government's.

I concur that this is not the current reality.

[thegamerslink]

I have to say something about the driving on public roads thing here....I haven't been allowed to drive since the latter part of 2001......it is a not a right to drive but something that is either earned or something that is bestowed to someone who does not impose an impending or overly possible danger to others.....in my case I have been battling seizures and dimentia...not a good thing to mix with driving a vehicle, officially my drivers license was never taken away but I never drove out of personal responsibility, had I drove and gotten caught then I would have been totally liable, or if the doc found out would have had my license yanked....they have since expired and I have never renewed them as law states I have to go at least 6 months with no episodes I'm thinking more like a year myself.......

The legislation getting through on the behalf of the employees....well I can see the logic to that argument but at the same time as m42 said you are removing the right to cater to patrons from the business owner....when interviewing and hiring those that work in these places it is freely disclosed what the conditions are, and if it is a problem then instead of persecuting the owner the employee should take it upon themselves to move to a position that they are better suited. As a business owner I had the sole right of who I did and didn't hire and wasn't under any pressure as to why I decided to hire one person on top of another...that is my business not yours.....My business was open before the smoking ban took place...I was a computers repair and sales store....I didn't allow smoking in the store because of my customers but that was my choice....after business hours I allowed smoking back in the repair center but we had air purifiers going etc...the store didn't smell like smoke the next day......bottom line is it was my choice not a law that forced me to do it.....

[Sean@WMS]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You're speaking of a process. The process however has to be based on principles. And a governing body in itself is not a guarantee that a law will be valid or "right". I could set up a governing body and issue laws until I'm blue in the face, and if they aren't valid then I have no right to demand that anybody obey those laws.

I agree. The principles are typically laid down in a constitution -- a contract establishing the powers of the state and rights of its citizens, balance of powers, how to address grievenaces ( such as yours here ), etc.

Morality does appear to be the issue. Or more specifically, one group imposing their morality by force on others. Simply because you elected somebody to enforce your morality doesn't mean it's valid. It just means it's law. If the majority passed a law saying that Blacks should be enslaved, would that law be valid just because the majority passed it?

All true. Slavery was indeed legistlated here in America, the UK, and many other "modern" nations. America was one of the last to relent. But, you see, that's just the thing. It's about law, and how law is performed ( lobbied, legislated, voted upon, and enacted, and then potentially challenged through the judiciary ). The "majority" doesn't pass any of this; the legislature does, via the power of their constituents.

It's not at all a perfect system . . . . but it apparently works better than the alternatives.

Frankly, even the ancient Greeks saw that pure democracy would lead to pure chaos. So they only let high class/caste folks have a say, lest the "hoi poloi" ruin everything. The Romans upped it a notch by introducing a senate and some groundwork on a balance of powers in government. The Magna Carta introduced "rights" above the power of a king and started the move to a parlimentary form of governance. The American Constitution picked up on all of this history and then some, with a balance of powers between three branches ( executive, judiciary, and legislative ) and then quickly realized the need to add amendments defining certain "rights" of the people.

The fundamental concept here was supposed to be that no one group could possibly enforce its will over others . . . . though, as history is our testament, we can clearly see that this isn't always the case.

My arguemnt is not against your position. It's just to be realistic about how things actually do work . . . for better, and sometimes for worse.

I might just add that America has only one unique contribution to the history and practice of philosophy: Pramatism. Though few are actually familiar with this tradition of philosophy, it plays itself out every day -- for better and for worse -- in the American culture -- going back to its beginnings. And frankly, our American political culture is a living example of pragmatism in action . . . but more often, recently, for worse than for better, sadly. Maybe the only other contemporary philosophies that are as or more value neutral are Frech Postmodern and Deconstructionist philosophies. Of the three, I prefer pragmatism.

[Sean@WMS]

Originally Posted by m42

That is entirely possible, but that should be up to the restaurant owner, not the government.

The employees could just as easily apply to work in a nonsmoking environment.

Well, oddly enough, it's apparently not possible, at least here in California.

For example, some young entrepreneurs in a college town just a few miles up the road from me wanted to start a hookah lounge -- just a place to sip tea, gossip, and enjoy some nice tobacco and "kick it."

The only "employees" were the business owners.

Now that I just think goes over the top! I'd LOVE to patron a place like that. And why shouldn't they be able to start such an establishment?

Here's where is all get's too irrational and draconian, down right fundamentalist, IMHO.

But what's really happening here?

Representatives have passed into law on behalf of their constituents, but their constituents are thinking "restaraunt" and even "bar" . . . but NOT thinking about and establishment marketing to folks who really would like to go kick it "Middle Eastern" style and sip tea, gossip, and smoke.

Honestly, as Muslims don't drink ( typically ), is this tantamount to xenophobia, racism, and ethnocentricism?

[m42]

Originally Posted by Sean@WMS

Well, oddly enough, it's apparently not possible, at least here in California.

For example, some young entrepreneurs in a college town just a few miles up the road from me wanted to start a hookah lounge -- just a place to sip tea, gossip, and enjoy some nice tobacco and "kick it."

The only "employees" were the business owners.

Now that I just think goes over the top! I'd LOVE to patron a place like that. And why shouldn't they be able to start such an establishment?

Here's where is all get's too irrational and draconian, down right fundamentalist, IMHO.

But what's really happening here?

Representatives have passed into law on behalf of their constituents, but their constituents are thinking "restaraunt" and even "bar" . . . but NOT thinking about and establishment marketing to folks who really would like to go kick it "Middle Eastern" style and sip tea, gossip, and smoke.

Honestly, as Muslims don't drink ( typically ), is this tantamount to xenophobia, racism, and ethnocentricism?

You asked if it was possible not if it was the current state of affairs.

I doubt many people reading this thread will disagree with your assessment that such behaviour is illogical.

[Sean@WMS]

Originally Posted by m42

You asked if it was possible not if it was the current state of affairs.

I doubt many people reading this thread will disagree with your assessment that such behaviour is illogical.

Saddly, it is all too logical

What I said was "irrational and draconian, down right fundamentalist"

That is, it is the way it is becasause there is enough logic in our finanacial system to justify it . . . but it is still irrational and draconian, down right fundamentalist, IMHO.

( SubText: reason and logic are not the same )

[m42]

Originally Posted by Sean@WMS

Saddly, it is all too logical

What I said was "irrational and draconian, down right fundamentalist"

That is, it is the way it is becasause there is enough logic in our finanacial system to justify it . . . but it is still irrational and draconian, down right fundamentalist, IMHO.

( SubText: reason and logic are not the same )

You are needlessly arguing over semantics.

All definitions from m-w.com


illogical

Text: not using or following good reasoning <the illogical claim that playing basketball makes people taller because one sees so many tall players> <illogical people are likely to believe every sensational claim on TV>
Synonyms fallacious, invalid, irrational, nonrational, unreasonable, unreasoning, unsound, weak


irrational

Text: not using or following good reasoning <it's irrational to think that you can continue to consume an excess of calories and not gain weight> — see illogical


logic

Text:the thought processes that have been established as leading to valid solutions to problems <I tried to use logic to figure out the solution to the puzzle>
Synonyms reason, reasoning, sense
Related Wordscogency, coherence, rationality, thought; analysis; deduction, induction

It was your statement, I'm not going to tell you what you meant. I can tell you only what I've perceived. My perception does not have to agree with your intended meaning.

Therefore, I stick by my original assessment that it is illogical to abolish a citizen's God given right to choose.

[Sean@WMS]

Originally Posted by m42

You are needlessly arguing over semantics.

All definitions from m-w.com


illogical

Text: not using or following good reasoning <the illogical claim that playing basketball makes people taller because one sees so many tall players> <illogical people are likely to believe every sensational claim on TV>
Synonyms fallacious, invalid, irrational, nonrational, unreasonable, unreasoning, unsound, weak


irrational

Text: not using or following good reasoning <it's irrational to think that you can continue to consume an excess of calories and not gain weight> — see illogical


logic

Text:the thought processes that have been established as leading to valid solutions to problems <I tried to use logic to figure out the solution to the puzzle>
Synonyms reason, reasoning, sense
Related Wordscogency, coherence, rationality, thought; analysis; deduction, induction

It was your statement, I'm not going to tell you what you meant. I can tell you only what I've perceived. My perception does not have to agree with your intended meaning.

Therefore, I stick by my original assessment that it is illogical to abolish a citizen's God given right to choose.

I hear you.

On the "meant" factor, all I meant is that this line of reasoning is all too "logical" from a legal perspective -- perhaps I should rephrase that as "logistical" -- it's all about positioning to win.

It's not exactly "illogical", because it IS logical in a legal paradigm.

Honestly, I think we are actually agreeing with each other.

If I thought I could add any value to this thread, I thought I could help ferret out some of the nuances that are real in the discussions our representative engage in on our behalf.