Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pigglet
i'm pretty sure that a private business falls under a number of different regulations than a private home, foolthemall. i guess you would disagree with those distinctions?
|
Depends on the distinction. The inability of the property owner to decide whether there's smoke on his property? No, I don't agree with that one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
It is not automatically OK for an employer to endanger the health of his employees just because there may be other options.
|
It is if the employee agrees to it.
Quote:
|
If it's not the government's job to protect us then I suppose you support getting rid of all government health, safety, and food inspectors?
|
Nah. They're still good for ensuring that the place of business is exactly as the owner claims it is.
Quote:
|
I don't know where you got that. I never said they have a right to a job. They don't. But when they do have a job they have a right to perform the duties expected of them without being exposed to harmful conditions.
|
Apologies, but this position seems just as odd to me. Would you support the right of the owners to fire anyone who complains about harmful conditions? Since they don't have a right to that job? That's a compromise I could actually get behind, but I somehow doubt you're similarly receptive.
The right you're suggesting exists, in the absence of the right to a job, is both nonsensical and useless. Unless, of course, people have the right to a job once they have the job, is that it?
Quote:
|
Private property that the owner invites the public to access operates under very different rules than regular private property. If it's accessible to the public it has to have certain safety features in place- - -good fire escapes, fire suppression if it's a certain size, etc. The government can, will, and should regulate the conditions in that building so that the general public, when they enter that building, is not exposed to needless danger.
|
Well, I agree that the general public should be ensured easy, safe exit from the building. And really, fire precautions make sense as a whole, because fires can lead to external costs. Give me an external cost and I'll back legally mandated prevention.
Quote:
|
Well. . .That's crazy. Sorry, but it is.
|
Well. . .That's a useless comment. Sorry, but it is. You'll excuse me if I don't take your word for it.
Quote:
|
Why? They're not allowed to protect the citizens according to your argument, why should they be allowed to enforce honesty.
|
They're not allowed to protect the citizens from voluntary choices. Being deceived is not a voluntary choice.
Quote:
|
See, this is where you guys either don't understand our position, or are purposely misinterpreting it. We should not ban fast food. Some have called for a ban on fast food and junk food and they're idiots. If you eat a big mac, it's not going to hurt me in any way even if you do it right next to me in a tiny room. If you smoke a cigarette, it will hurt me.
|
Will me eating jizz pizza - hypothetically, you understand - hurt you in any way if I do it next to you in a tiny room? Because that's what the 'ban fast food' idea was in response to.
Quote:
|
Tell me why you feel you have the right, and are justified, in hurting everyone around you.
|
Not everyone. Just everyone who assented to the harm by stepping foot on property that allows smoking. See, it doesn't sound so crazy when you state it in an honest way.