0 members (),
9
guests, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,629
Members6,305
|
Most Online294 Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,031
member
|
member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,031 |
That is, to say the least, a penetrating analysis of the obvious! I think that if a business is livcensed (sic) by the city or state, for example to serve alcohol, a controlled substance, the state has the right to protect both patrons and employees from second hand smoke. By what sophistry does one jump from the requirement for the licensing of an establishment to sell alcohol - said licensing being primarily a revenue measure - to an implied duty to protect patrons and employees from second-hand smoke? Setting aside for the moment the defensibility of such a claim, would the licensing to sell alcohol also imply a duty to protect patrons and employees from trans fats? No, I am serious! If smoke, why not trans fat? The fallacy of false induction. Fortunately I have more power than you. And, as Lord Acton so weightily notes, power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
Life should be led like a cavalry charge - Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 503
journeyman
|
journeyman
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 503 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
It escapes me how people downstream of me have more of a "right" to tell me what to do with and on my property than people downwind of me have. But, then, I get easily lost in the arguments of liberals and relativists. No such claim was made, Irked.;-) Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
Ron, just when it was going so well, too.
The alcohol licensing is for much more than revenue, to take that specific. There are all sorts of regulations of who can have one, where it is located, etc.
As for employees, the state has an absolute right to pass laws to protect workers. Now if you challenge that, we are back in the 17th century and I don't care to go there.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
Good one, iss! ![[Linked Image from aximsite.com]](http://www.aximsite.com/boards/images/smilies/icon_rofl.gif) Yes, it's a mighty mob, isn't it? Attacking those smokers with cancer, denying them the right to infest other people with their emphysema, preventing them from engaging in the "legal" activity of sucking up their toxic, addictive, smoldering Substance and blowing it back out for everyone else to "enjoy". Your desire to distract from the topic is understandable. Neither you, Phil, nor anyone else has been able to present a principled argument as to why an owner of a property should not be the one to decide if smoking is going to be allowed by others on his property -- Phil's primary example being a bar or restuarant. As I suggested to Phil, Stereoman, it is time you presented some sort of principled reason why you think you have the right to go onto another person's property and tell him he and his guests must not smoke or you will see that they face the violence of the state. If you cannot then I guess this discussion has come to a close. Yours, Issodhos P.S. Legal? What makes it legal? Could it be legal because legislatures, bowing to the "might" of the tobacco lobbyist "mob", succumb to their assertion of the natural "right" of smokers to pollute those who happen to be downstream downwind? This may be why natural Rights seem more difficult for some to grasp than for others. You seem to be approaching them from the wrong direction. It is legal because it could not begin as not legal in a natural and original state. It only becomes not legal when it is made so by a political or social body which criminalizes it -- being, in your example, done by a "legislature".
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,826 Likes: 3
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,826 Likes: 3 |
posted by Issodhos Too late to complain now. I have stated my argument as to why I consider property Rights to be natural; I have stated why I think the owner of a property has the Right to decide what legal activities may take place on his property; and I have pointed out why that does not interfer with the Rights of those who may not approve of an owner allowing smoking on his property. posted by Issodhos Perhaps in other things, Stereoman, but not in this case. Irked has completely missed the fact that in a system where property Rights are honored, any damage or transgressing against the property of others by the operation of copper mines and factories would be subject to civil action resulting in either a cessation of damaging action, compensation, or acquital based on pre-existing circumstances.
Currently, politicians determine how much damage to downstream properties is acceptable and, in the real world, those politicians are usually owned or leased by the owners of the copper mines.;-) Yours, Issodhos
How eager they are to be slaves - Tiberius Caesar
Coulda tripped out easy, but I've changed my ways - Donovan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
OP
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
issodhos, you cannot answer the question with "natural rights" since those exist only because you have said they exist. You ask for a "principled" reason for state regulation of what happens on private property and apparently disregard what others have said.
health and safety.
The ball is actually in your court. give us a single "principled reason" for the rights you claim. And please, exactly what are those rights? I have tried in vain to drag the answer from you to no avail.
I only see one right regarding property in the Constitution and I stated it at the beginning. There are no natural laws governing anything in the US. We have a written Constitution and that is the final word on the matter. Where is yours?
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646 |
As I suggested to Phil, Stereoman, it is time you presented some sort of principled reason why you think you have the right to go onto another person's property and tell him he and his guests must not smoke or you will see that they face the violence of the state. I never claimed to have such a right. Why should I be required to justify it with a "principled reason"? It only becomes not legal when it is made so by a political or social body which criminalizes it -- being, in your example, done by a "legislature". Quite so. But my thinking goes well beyond that, friend. Our colleague, the good Senator from Minnesota, provided us with the example of chattel slavery, which, as you say, only became not legal when it was made so by legislation. That seems to me rather academic.
Steve Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love, to respect and be kind to one another, so that we may grow with peace in mind. (Native American prayer)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,031
member
|
member
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,031 |
... The alcohol licensing is for much more than revenue, to take that specific. There are all sorts of regulations of who can have one, where it is located, etc.
As for employees, the state has an absolute right to pass laws to protect workers. Now if you challenge that, we are back in the 17th century and I don't care to go there. Let's see...I did not say solely for revenue, did I, but primarily for it. And nothing you have offered here dispels that, much less does it in any way illuminate your claim as to a duty to protect workers and patrons from secondary smoke. I believe that the historical record of safety laws is spotty and often ineffective - otherwise there would have been little need for OSHA/MSHA. Also, the doctrine of assumed risk has applied to defend the employer from the arbitrary and impossible burden of absolute safety. But still you make no valid point for why a placed licensed to dispense alcohol is somehow transfigured into one that must protect people from their own knowing and presumptively willful acceptance of the risk - especially of patrons who voluntarily enter therein and who are presumptively aware that smoking is going to happen and they are going to be exposed to second-hand smoke. To repeat what Issodhos has said before, you have yet to make a principled point in defense of your assumed arbitrary right to dictate to a bar/restaurant owner, who deals with patrons who voluntarily enter - not required, not compelled - and who offers hire to persons who knowingly seek the job and presumptively understand what goes on therein, that he may not permit/forbid the smoking of tobacco solely on his own determination. Lastly, I would still like you to answer my previous parallel question - would that the same presumed duty under alcohol licensing to protect patrons and employees from second-hand smoke extend to protecting them from exposure to trans fats.
Life should be led like a cavalry charge - Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,826 Likes: 3
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,826 Likes: 3 |
posted by Ron G Lastly, I would still like you to answer my previous parallel question - would that the same presumed duty under alcohol licensing to protect patrons and employees from second-hand smoke extend to protecting them from exposure to trans fats. I was totally unaware of this! There is a movement afoot to ban the practice of forced trans fat consumption? That totally puts a knot in the VC club's practice of having all who wish to come to the meetings must consume a minimum of 50 grams of trans fat per hour.
How eager they are to be slaves - Tiberius Caesar
Coulda tripped out easy, but I've changed my ways - Donovan
|
|
|
|
|