Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FoolThemAll
See, I dispute that he's doing that. I don't see any actual rights violations in a restaurant owner allowing people to smoke on his private property. No one has a right to the products of a smoke-free restaurant. Hell, no one has a right to the products of a restaurant, period. (Other than restaurant owners, of course.)
|
Well, i don't see any actual rights violations in a restaurant owner not being allowed to let people smoke during business hours.
Quote:
|
The former rights are based upon the right to property. The latter right is based upon... nothing. There's nothing equal about the right to modify your own property and the 'right' to modify someone else's property without permission.
|
The right to property? Is that where you can do whatever you want on your own property or is that where you have the right to own whatever property you want? As far as i know, neither of them exist.
Quote:
|
No, but the fact that non-smokers are free to avoid the harm caused by said activity does make it something that you should always be able to do.
|
Public defecation: we could all avoid the harm caused by it so we should always be able to do it. Tell me what's wrong with that sentence.
Quote:
|
Well, sure. It's not like there's never been an unjust law before. But this thread has basically become a debate concerning the quality of this law. We get that it's a law, the question is this: is it a good law? Still looks like a solid no to me.
|
I imagine your tune would change if you had asthma.
Quote:
|
If society tells me that I don't have the right to smoke on my own property, then that's not society getting rid of the right, that's society violating the right. The right's still there. The right to property and free movement wasn't partially nonexistent when slavery was legal, it was partially violated (no, I'm not comparing the magnitudes, that would be silly).
|
It really all depends on who you let define your rights. Even on your own property you can't do whatever the hell you want.
Quote:
|
Sure it does. A lot more weight. One's based in the right to property, the other's based in nothing.
|
Well, in practice, the right to property doesn't really mean all that much. This is where we agree to disagree.