Craig Mac
_____________________
They stink? :wink:
One cigar smells more than about 1,000 cigarettes.
My cigars don't stink any worse than the construction worker I sat next to the other day....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They stink? :wink:
One cigar smells more than about 1,000 cigarettes.
If murder were legal that would be fine. The person would know that was the case and could choose to frequent that establishment or not. The inverse of your argument would be an owner could say, even though murder is legal it is not allowed here. That would be his right as the property owner. Just like he can say today, no shoes, no shirt, no service or no gang colors etc.
Who made them legal?
(Choosing to skirt legitimate questions only detracts from your argument(s))
Grogger, I thought my last statement about leaning to the libertarian side would indicate that I am against making drugs illegal at a federal level. If a particular state or local government wants to make a particular drug illegal that is fine. And no this does not contradict my argument about banning smoking. Property rights issues go to the heart of the difference between living in a Republic like we do and living in a communist state. Property rights are an inalienable right, taking a drug is not.
And no this does not contradict my argument about banning smoking. Property rights issues go to the heart of the difference between living in a Republic like we do and living in a communist state. Property rights are an inalienable right, taking a drug is not.
And remind me who determines what is, and what is not, an inalienable right? Did you say that it was God?
Yes sir, just as the founders believed.
What they believed and what they put in the Constitution were not one-and-the-same if memory serves...
The comment about no shoes, no shirt, no service is up to the owner of the establishment because it is not a law. No smoking is a law. The voters in here (Austin) had the ability to vote and it passed easily (IIRC). Are you saying the voters don't have the right to pass laws? I own my car and don't see any reason I should not be able to drive as fast as I wish. But there is a law against that. I can't walk down the street nude as there is a law against it (although in Austin it is legal for both men and women to be topless in public).
The short answer to the question of smoking in a rerstaurnat is a law can be passed to make it illegal. Restaurants have many laws they must follow and they do not have the right to not follow laws because of private property. They may own the property but if they choose to open their doors to the public they will have to follow the laws. Nobody is forcing them to be open to the public it is a choice they make. You may own your home but you may not have a meth lab in it. Private property is not the argument hat will ever win when it comes to a business that is open to the public. At the point in time you open your doors to the public you lose many of the private property rights. There are laws that tell you how hot or cold food has to be kept, how hot dishes have to be washed at, hair netting, and many other sanitation, health and public policy issues.
scott_d, I tried the round about approach trying to get where you started. I should know better.
The point I was TRYING (terribly) to make is that laws limit our rights every day ... and those laws are passed by the government, be it at a local, state, or federal level. Any attempt to argue that private property is an inalienable right handed down by God that government has no right to pass laws on is ridiculous.
That is not completely true. While the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence shouldn’t be confused with each other I can much more easily point to the basis of property rights in the Constitution than you can the right to privacy. But yet I am guessing you would argue till you are blue in the face that you have a right to privacy.
Here it was on the ballot and voted on. As for voters being able to vote to take away property and give it to someone else (I assume you are not including taxes) that is when you take arguments to silly levels.
Does the public or government have the right to make any laws? That is what you are really asking. If the answer is no then the constitution is thrown out as well as the bill of rights and every other law of the land. If the answer is yes then the question is how far can they go. Currently they can take your property and give it to someone else (emminent domain). But there are laws that restrict what laws can be passed and how they are enforced. ANd there are ways to challenge the laws that are passed.
As to the smoking bans, the question is does a smoker have the right to do something that has a detrimental impact on others or do the others have the right to restrict the smoker's right to smoke in certain places. You can do many things in your own home that you can't do i public. I would suggest that smoking is one of those things that you are free to do but not do when it has an impact on others such as in a restaurant (you are also free to have sex (either alone or with another) in the privacy of your home but not in the restaurant while I am eating).
My cigars don't stink any worse than the construction worker I sat next to the other day....
Scott, often these bans are not voted on by the public they are passed at the city council level, etc.
No, I am not saying that the public doesn’t have the right to pass laws. I am saying that there are certain “laws†that should not be legal to pass.
Would you be ok if a majority of the citizens voted to take your house or business away and give it to someone else?
The idea behind instituting a republic instead of a democracy was that the majority don’t necessarily rule.
But the difference we have is that I am not looking at this from the smoker’s perspective but instead from the property owner’s perspective. I just don’t see the logic of saying someone has right to frequent an establishment assuming they aren’t being excluded due to gender, race, etc.
And who elects the city council? We are a representative democracy, not a direct one (though someone should remind the population of California about that fact).
There are. That's what the Supreme Court is for.
You've obviously not heard of Kelo v. City of New London.
We are a republic and a democracy, the two are not mutually exclusive.