Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Constitutional Issues Smoking in Public and Whose Rights are they?

Nope. You missed it, Irked.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

The concept of natural and pre-existing Rights did not originate with me, Phil. It has not only a long history of thought behind it, but the US Constitution itself is written in a manor recognizing the pre-existance of Rights. Rights must already exist before a written restriction against their infringement or violation can make any sense.



No, it is not. I already have. And the only thing you have "tried in vain" to do since recognizing that you started something you could not finish, is to try to hide that fact -- and in doing that you have been busier than a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest.:-)



Oh really?:-) Apply that to the claim that willing parties have a right to enter into same-sex marriage. There is no such right stated in the Constitution. You say there are no natural laws governing anything in the US. We have a written Constitution and that is the final word on the matter? Really?

I show you two wide-open doors, Phil. The Constitution does not grant Rights, it recognizes their pre-existence and even enumerates a few of them. We then look at a second really, really cool thing about what was going on in the heads of the Founding Daddies -- the nineth Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") We are discussing Rights here, Phil, and that has precious little to do with the Constitution. So, if same-sex marriage is eventually shown to indeed be a Right, it will come from a concept of natural and pre-existing Rights because anything else would be nothing more than a privilege granted and easily rescinded by the state.

Like I have written before, you can either have your cake or you can eat it, but not both, and there are no free lunches. Don't like the smoke in my bar? Respect my property rights and go to a non-smoking bar where you will be happier, my customers will be happier not offending you, and I will be left in peace to enjoy my life and my property.
Yours,
Issodhos

Aside from your again employing the fallacy of vicious abstraction by taking my words out of context, slavery is a well-recognized affront to the concept of natural Rights and does not require criminalizing for that to hold true. Your use of an apples and oranges argument indicates that you are reaching almost as much as the originator of this thread.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Issodhos, your demeaning manner is not appreciated. You speak in circles, validating one proposition by its mirror and calling it a conclusion.

You have no basis for your argument so you state it emphatically, much like our current President who thinks if he speaks with emphasis we will not notice he is not wearing any pants.

You throw in the kitchen sink and it won't make your argument any more convincing. There is no such thing as a right to do what you want with property just because your name is on a deed. The entire system upon which such a notion is based exists only because the public has deemed it to be the best system we have figured out. there is no such thing as a natural law of property, the rights and obligations of property have varied greatly over time and place. They undego changes even today.

You may not like it, but it is happening and nothing you say will do much to affect it. We do not live in a country that ends at the Alleghenies and we have way more than 1 million inhabitants. It is time you update your thinking to match todays realities, not some fantasy that never existed.

Now, there you go again, Irked, stumbling all over that "forced" thingie. The owner of a restuarant who allows his patrons to smoke in his establishment does not wait for you or others to pass by, put a gun to your head, force you into his restuarant where you begin inhaling hefty amounts of tobacco smoke; he does not then chain you to a bar stool to breath in hours of tobacco smoke, nor does he block you from leaving whenever you please (assuming you paid any bill you may have generated), or stop you from going to a smoker-free restuarant down the street. He does not even try to get the state to use its legalized violence to force you to cease doing business with the fellow down the street and return to his place of business. No, he accepts that you are free to not engage in a voluntary exchange of goods and services with him -- for whatever reason. Should you not also conduct yourself accordingly?
Yours,
Issodhos

That's just my point! No one is literally "forcing" anyone to eat trans fat down at the club--everyone there from the chairman to the waiter are free to come and go as they please, they just don't get to stay in our little club if they don't. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.

I found out awhile ago that I could run a really good steam boiler, providing energy for all my heating needs, burning tires--a fuel people are willing to give me for free. But, of course, the collectivist goon squad threatened to fine and punish me should I attempt to make my plan a reality!

It's endless, the number of things I am denied to do on my own private property in association with like minded people. I've noticed that the goons are quite intent on denying people the right to run small scale chemical production from their homes. They even deny people from collecting various natural substances and storying them where ever they should wish on their own private property.

It's disgusting, it's endless and it needs to be countered at every turn. Each one of these incursions on the rights of individual's and their use of their property must end. Attacking the smoking ban is a step in the right direction, but it's efficacy is heavily undermined by conceding a plethora of individual rights at every turn.

Isn't it interesting how satire goes so flat when you are on the defensive, Irked? We are not discussing burning tires or running chemical factories out of your home, are we?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Spare me the pot-kettle-black routine, Phil, and don't try to bully me.
Yours,
Issodhos

I'm discussing smoking and rights. I see the assault on my right to smoke as just a small piece of the collectivist goal of denying me all of my individual and property rights. That others may take a more myopic view of things is most assuredly their right.

I used to enjoy a good smoke with my beer while watching my favorite NFL team wax the opponents. Now, I and thousands of others are denied this right because of some whiny people threatening the owners with fines if they do not comply with a smoking ban at the stadium. I've petitioned my local owner to defy this draconian law and once again have smoking allowed in the stadium. So far, the pressure from the nanny-people has proved too great. If the whiny, nanny-people (spouting that nonsense about second-hand smoke) don't want to go to the football game because I'm enjoying a good smoke, they can go out and start their own football league--leave mine alone!

These prohibitions always start in a small way. I truly believe that our Constitution was written to halt the government from starting to issue actions that are not good for the communities. All over the world, we have seen people, who refuse to determine their own individual laws turn to the higher authorities for their rules and regulations so they do not have to worry about them.

It started with the churches, drooling at the chance to set laws for their members and oozed into the cities, counties, states and federal government.

I have argued for years about having people live under their own moral values and work to be models of integrity instead of working to force these laws and values on others. I got into a screaming match on another forum trying to get these prohibitions out of the federal government and bring them home where they belong and where they will work!

I was asked to list these natural Rights that I insisted were valid as these people needed a list of what they must not do! Two of the most avid believers in natural Rights here at Reader Rant let me dangle. I assumed they were simply full of it!

This is the mind set of the majority of Americans. Their families have given up setting values; the schools never understood what these values represent; the government is thrilled to be able to set these values in cement when it means legal prohibitions issued from the government.

This is not a political issue but an issue of people who refuse to learn and teach the values of individual freedoms taught instinctively. I have written about teaching on instinctive values but people need them all written down for them as their instincts are lost through lack of use. Baaa! Baaa!

In my opinion, this is where the dumbing down of America got its roots. For generations Americans have given over their core values to the government leaving the children of these Americans searching for strong authority and never finding it within their own minds.

From strong Revolutionary Independents fighting against oppression from any government, we have become sheep too eager to look to Big Daddy for their rules.

I find hypocrisy even among those who want their natural rights here at Reader Rant unable to stand up for them when it hit them personally on the other forum. Of course there is no getting away from the fact that Reader Rant is 10 times the size and full of intelligent posters and the other forum is a rehearsal to try out their ideas. In my world this is simply grandstanding.

To me, individual freedoms must be introduced on all levels of people, even the fools who continue to look to the bible for their rights. Many have no concept of freedom and will always look to some authority to tell them what they must not do!

I'm seeing Reader Rant filling up with such people. Where are the strong ranters who can live by their own individual freedoms? You will not stop until every damn thing on this planet carries the seal of approval by the Federal Government. I guess it is easier than figuring out these things on your own.

No, folks, in our U.S. Constitution, there is no list of things Americans must not do. Our 50 states are trying very hard for their own list of prohibitions because obviously the people cannot figure out right from wrong and need the list.

This is of no interest to me. I want to be around individuals not sheep.