Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

billege · 11-08-2006, 04:23 PM

Though this thread now has many points on it, and some of them are valid – many are off topic fluff – so I thought I’d drop my 2 cents in at this point.

Going back to the original poster’s question, rather than continuing the discussion of smoking bans (which is where most of you immediately veered – like a NASCAR crowd following the smoke) let’s move to the question of why smoking is such an interesting discussion to have.

The discussion is interesting because it touches on American political philosophy, which is “Do what I say, at the point this gun.”

Now, I know most of you won’t get that, but I’ll try s’plain this.

What is a law? A law is an edict by government. Laws demand something of those affected by it. It could be an action people have to take, or the lack thereof. Governments choose to back up laws with enforcement. Enforcement is the gun, and I mean that literally. Think about where our laws ultimately get their power from…the barrel of a gun. Sure, that’s not the first thing that’s pulled out, but hang with me here – you’ll learn something philosophical and practical about the system we live in.

To relate this back to smoking, I’ll use the theoretical breaking of our recently passed Ohio statewide smoking ban.

Let’s say I go to a bar and light up a smoke. There are two possibilities:
There will be civil disobedience, and the bar’s responsible parties will not ask me to put it out.

or,

The bar’s responsible parties will ask me to put it out, or move to the allowed area.

My choices are:
Put it out or move, or
Continue smoking.

Depending on how far I’m willing to take this, ultimately, men with guns will come and enhance my compliance with various laws I’m held responsible to.

The same forces come into play with all of our laws. You will first be subject to whatever penalties come in paper form; maybe a fine, something like that. Keep in mind, all these laws end up at the same method of enforcement: Men and Women with Guns.

Play that as far out as you want…you can go to jail…and if you don’t obey that, and try to escape, men with guns. Please don’t disagree with me on this point, because it’s not arguable. It’s fact. If you can’t see it, think it through. Men with guns are the ultimate tool our society has to force your compliance. Enough disobedience, in any area, brings the gun.

While you’re considering this, note carefully I didn’t pass a value judgment on this method; I said that’s how it is. I didn’t say if it’s right or wrong.

Now that we’ve thought about the nature of laws, let’s all compare how we think about “laws” in the abstract to what their real nature is. Examine what you’ve always thought a law to be. Most of us imagine laws functioning in a strange sort of abstract kind of way. We seldom imagine that passing something like a smoking ban really does mean we’re saying (as a society):
“You, other citizen, will not do this. If you do that, ultimately, men with guns will MAKE you stop.”

Now let’s re-examine the smoking discussion and why it, like most of our current discourse, is so non-productive.

Non smokers have not taken a reasonable line on smoking. They have said “You will not do this, because we say so.”

There have been no enactments of any of the reasonable compromises I’ve heard suggested. One suggestion I’ve read, I think in here, was that of a “smoking license” administered much like a liquor license. Reasonable people might talk about how this has ups and downs for both sides of the issue. Reasonable people might work through their differences and find a way to live together, one step closer to harmony.

Maybe a “smoking license” wouldn’t be the ultimate answer; it could be some totally brilliant compromise that I’m unable to think of. My point is, that this debate (and American debate at this time in history) is not reasonable.

The majority of you are participating in that totally inane and absurd, point-by-point deconstruction of opposing arguments. That is not debate. Very few TFP members are participating in reasonable debate. That goes for this thread, and many others.

Non-smokers, the obvious majority, are abusing their philosophical and moral responsibilities by refusing to consider the wants or needs of their fellow Americans. (This is where you post about smokers not respecting your rights, as if two separate wrongs make a right.)

This is not how a healthy society functions. This is bad. And we are all part of it.
We MUST change.

We must ask each other why we’re not looking for a compromise. We must ask why we don’t even bother. We must ask why we’re so willing to point the gun. We must ask why we’re so willing to aim it at our fellow citizens.

We must ask:
Why won’t we let smokers make their own choices?
Why are we so willing to strip yet more rights from individuals?
Why aren’t we talking about ways this could work for everyone?
Why aren’t we willing to come together?

What is wrong with you, America?

11-08-2006, 04:23 PM	#134 (permalink)
billege Watcher Location: Ohio	Though this thread now has many points on it, and some of them are valid – many are off topic fluff – so I thought I’d drop my 2 cents in at this point. Going back to the original poster’s question, rather than continuing the discussion of smoking bans (which is where most of you immediately veered – like a NASCAR crowd following the smoke) let’s move to the question of why smoking is such an interesting discussion to have. The discussion is interesting because it touches on American political philosophy, which is “Do what I say, at the point this gun.” Now, I know most of you won’t get that, but I’ll try s’plain this. What is a law? A law is an edict by government. Laws demand something of those affected by it. It could be an action people have to take, or the lack thereof. Governments choose to back up laws with enforcement. Enforcement is the gun, and I mean that literally. Think about where our laws ultimately get their power from…the barrel of a gun. Sure, that’s not the first thing that’s pulled out, but hang with me here – you’ll learn something philosophical and practical about the system we live in. To relate this back to smoking, I’ll use the theoretical breaking of our recently passed Ohio statewide smoking ban. Let’s say I go to a bar and light up a smoke. There are two possibilities: There will be civil disobedience, and the bar’s responsible parties will not ask me to put it out. or, The bar’s responsible parties will ask me to put it out, or move to the allowed area. My choices are: Put it out or move, or Continue smoking. Depending on how far I’m willing to take this, ultimately, men with guns will come and enhance my compliance with various laws I’m held responsible to. The same forces come into play with all of our laws. You will first be subject to whatever penalties come in paper form; maybe a fine, something like that. Keep in mind, all these laws end up at the same method of enforcement: Men and Women with Guns. Play that as far out as you want…you can go to jail…and if you don’t obey that, and try to escape, men with guns. Please don’t disagree with me on this point, because it’s not arguable. It’s fact. If you can’t see it, think it through. Men with guns are the ultimate tool our society has to force your compliance. Enough disobedience, in any area, brings the gun. While you’re considering this, note carefully I didn’t pass a value judgment on this method; I said that’s how it is. I didn’t say if it’s right or wrong. Now that we’ve thought about the nature of laws, let’s all compare how we think about “laws” in the abstract to what their real nature is. Examine what you’ve always thought a law to be. Most of us imagine laws functioning in a strange sort of abstract kind of way. We seldom imagine that passing something like a smoking ban really does mean we’re saying (as a society): “You, other citizen, will not do this. If you do that, ultimately, men with guns will MAKE you stop.” Now let’s re-examine the smoking discussion and why it, like most of our current discourse, is so non-productive. Non smokers have not taken a reasonable line on smoking. They have said “You will not do this, because we say so.” There have been no enactments of any of the reasonable compromises I’ve heard suggested. One suggestion I’ve read, I think in here, was that of a “smoking license” administered much like a liquor license. Reasonable people might talk about how this has ups and downs for both sides of the issue. Reasonable people might work through their differences and find a way to live together, one step closer to harmony. Maybe a “smoking license” wouldn’t be the ultimate answer; it could be some totally brilliant compromise that I’m unable to think of. My point is, that this debate (and American debate at this time in history) is not reasonable. The majority of you are participating in that totally inane and absurd, point-by-point deconstruction of opposing arguments. That is not debate. Very few TFP members are participating in reasonable debate. That goes for this thread, and many others. Non-smokers, the obvious majority, are abusing their philosophical and moral responsibilities by refusing to consider the wants or needs of their fellow Americans. (This is where you post about smokers not respecting your rights, as if two separate wrongs make a right.) This is not how a healthy society functions. This is bad. And we are all part of it. We MUST change. We must ask each other why we’re not looking for a compromise. We must ask why we don’t even bother. We must ask why we’re so willing to point the gun. We must ask why we’re so willing to aim it at our fellow citizens. We must ask: Why won’t we let smokers make their own choices? Why are we so willing to strip yet more rights from individuals? Why aren’t we talking about ways this could work for everyone? Why aren’t we willing to come together? What is wrong with you, America? __________________ I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence: "My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."