Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
I can argue from the "ought" perspective too. I "ought" to be able to enjoy a meal at a restaurant without some dimwit exposing me to carcinogens. The majority of Americans, who are non smokers, "ought" to be able to dictate that they want publicly accessible places to be smoke free, even if the petulant minority doesn't like it.
|
No, that's telling private property owners what they ought to do with their property when the public has the option of not accepting the invitation to use their private property. And you aren't justified in doing that.
Quote:
|
Employee gets sick from inhaling too much cigarette smoke. Restaurant employees generally don't have much, if any, health insurance, so he has to go to the public hospital and get treatment that's paid for by the taxpayers. There's your external cost.
|
Frankly, that's only an external cost because the government made it one. Reductio ad absurdum, there again goes the road down to banning fast food. Let's stick with natural direct external costs, not indirect artificial ones. Otherwise, the government would have a way to justify banning
any unhealthy activity. Understand the distinction?
Quote:
|
So am I. The only drugs that should be illegal are the ones that effect more than the user when they are used as intended.
|
Not when the harm is confined to private property. Which is what a restaurant is.
Quote:
|
If you really want to smoke, do as I would and go somewhere where you won't bother everyone else with your habit.
|
1. Again, I don't really want to smoke. I've never smoked.
2. Nah, that's okay, I prefer the 'leave my private property if you don't like it' option.
[quote]Correct, because it's already true. The hope is that if we repeat it in just the right way, you'll figure that out
It's not true. It's blatantly obvious that there's no force and that there is a choice.
Quote:
|
You make this sound so easy.
|
It may not be easy. At all. But it is a choice. There's no force.
Quote:
|
Well yeah, actually it does cut it. If the public is invited to be somewhere, that place needs to be a safe place for the public to be.
|
No, the public does not need to be safe wherever it chooses to go. That would pretty much empty out Detroit. The public does need to be aware of risks associated with any particular location. The public should be able to make an informed choice. Beyond that, let them do what they want to.
Quote:
|
Or we could just make the environment safe to begin with and not have to worry about it. Again, you're in the less-than-25% minority and you are trying to dictate against the wishes of the majority.
|
The majority has no business telling me what to do with my property when none of their rights are forcibly violated by my actions. It may have the means, but it does not have any moral justification.
Quote:
|
I think yesterday's nationwide voting on various gay marriage bans is atrocious but I'm apparently in the minority. I have to accept that and move on, even though that really IS a human rights issue, whereas yours is a minority convenience issue.
|
It's both. It's a matter of convenience and a matter of rights. If there's no involuntary violation of your rights, then you have no business dictating an alternate course of action. It may be trivial in your view, it's still none of your business.
Quote:
|
Analog called it at the beginning. This argument is a bunch of smokers who want to smoke in public despite knowing they are hurting everyone around them with their habit. It's not only an indefensible argument, it's inexcusable as well.
|
What's indefensible is the notion that private property accessible to the public is somehow public property. It's neither indefensible nor inexcusable to insist upon the right to partake in harmful activities on your own property.
You've shown so far that you can only get a semblance of a defense for your position when you (A) falsely classify restaurants as public property and (B) falsely claim that employees have no choice in the matter.