I only recently discovered these forums, so please forgive me if this subject has already been mooted, but: It seems strange to see such strong support woven throughout the forum for smoking tobacco in public.
Smoking in public is not an unqualified right or freedom because it can interfere with the natural right of others to be unmolested in public. Walking down a street, sitting in a public park, etc., tobacco smoke reeks, irritates, and pollutes the clothes and hair of third parties that have not necessarily given their consent to be dusted in smoke.I assert that one has no more of a right to smoke in public than one does to walk around in public with a fuming tear gas canister. Please address this equivalence in any counterarguments.(NB: I'm not disputing the right of private properties to permit smoking that doesn't waft onto the property of others.)
No, it is not a right. But the ironic thing is that laws against smoking in privately owned establishments have pushed it out into the sidewalks.
http://www.comebackalive.com/phpBB2 Travel, Adventure Travel, Arguments, Recipes.
Public lands are not natural. In an anarchist society, there would be no "public" lands. As such, the issue of "public" smoking would not be an issue.
What is a right is for property owners to decide whether or not to allow smoking on their premises.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Spideynw:Public lands are not natural. In an anarchist society, there would be no "public" lands. As such, the issue of "public" smoking would not be an issue.
Yes, there was barely any public land before the late 19th and 20th century megastates.
One might well argue that issues of proportionality and scale make all of libertarian 'rights' more or less meaningless, technically forbidding breathing. Some might argue that nothing is a 'right' except a positive right. The practical answer is that people will, or will not, practice/tolerate public smoking. This ultimately depends upon their personal values and concepts of legitimization.
I believe most arguments over rights could be easily resolved by some acknowledgement that they have no extra-personal meaning and are thus not really binding on anyone. Only actual physics is binding, there is no teleology of phenomena.
dbooksta: I only recently discovered these forums, so please forgive me if this subject has already been mooted, but: It seems strange to see such strong support woven throughout the forum for smoking tobacco in public.
I'd be curious to know where you got that impression from. I like all things smoking, and this crowd always struck me as being mostly non-smokers...
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: dbooksta: I only recently discovered these forums, so please forgive me if this subject has already been mooted, but: It seems strange to see such strong support woven throughout the forum for smoking tobacco in public. I'd be curious to know where you got that impression from. I like all things smoking, and this crowd always struck me as being mostly non-smokers...
I can't speak for the rest of the people here, but I am a chain smoker.
RJ Moore II: I can't speak for the rest of the people here, but I am a chain smoker.
I am one of those annoying people who always bum cigarettes from chain smokers then talk about how successful I have been in the past at quitting.
Sorry.
I smoked 50+ cigarettes a day, every day until February 08. Quit cold turkey. Doing good so far. Only had 1 cigarette since.
Very good.
I am a bit of a masochist I think since I kind of enjoy nicotine withdrawl (I go through it every day since I do not smoke at work ever). But your's must have been debilitating for a while....50??!!!. I smoked only about 10 a day and I spend a good deal of time now twitching and salivating (luckily I do not use this forum to try to charm women.)
I used to have 20 unfiltered a day. Now I mostly only smoke pipe tobacco, hookah and cigars, though I do still tend to chain smoke cigs when I'm drinking.
Anyways, the second hand smoke scare is pseudo science hooey. And if people don't like the smell they can find other places to go; the world's a big place. A world with strong private property would probably be accomodating enough to both parties methinks.
I quit a bunch of times. The most recent, is because with the depression, I simply cannot afford it. It was nearly a $15 USD habit per day, although I did have access to cigarettes in the Agora for a steep discount.
Spideynw: Public lands are not natural. In an anarchist society, there would be no "public" lands. As such, the issue of "public" smoking would not be an issue.
I'm not so sure about that, an anarchist society could very possibly develop commonly owned or unowned spaces on the borders between private land, that would serve as a road or trail for people to travel through by.
Public land would be that land which does not generate enough return to encourage/sustain its maintenance as a private sphere, presumably. 'Unowned' is probably a better description.
Is there no presumption of "right of way," or freedom to travel? People aren't free if they can be hemmed in with private property, nor can you then molest them on a right of way just because it sits on your property.
I generally have a cigar at least once a week... haha
Harksaw: Spideynw: Public lands are not natural. In an anarchist society, there would be no "public" lands. As such, the issue of "public" smoking would not be an issue. I'm not so sure about that, an anarchist society could very possibly develop commonly owned or unowned spaces on the borders between private land, that would serve as a road or trail for people to travel through by.
Roads need someone to take care of them or they won't be worth travelling on for long. If you're talking about a small group of people (such as a neighborhood) who pay for the care of the streets therein, it still isn't public land. They would decide on their own rules for that area.
dbooksta: Is there no presumption of "right of way," or freedom to travel? People aren't free if they can be hemmed in with private property, nor can you then molest them on a right of way just because it sits on your property.
This is a good question. I think it's called forestalling, and I believe Walter Block has addressed it. If you own the inch of land around someone else's property, you could technically prevent them from leaving their home legally...or charge them a toll.
But I think this arises from a misconception of property rights. Land cannot simply be claimed in a libertarian view of property rights. It must either be homesteaded, or purchased from someone who homesteaded it. For it to be homesteaded, labor must be applied to create some useful purpose out of the land. Clearly, preventing someone from leaving their property is not a useful societal function for land and it could not be considered homesteaded.
Furthermore, property rights exist in three dimensions. Can you legally forbid airplanes from flying over your home? Even if someone actually fenced you into your property, you would have every right to build a bridge over their fence. Or tunnel under it. The US-Mexican border comes to mind.
Forestalling could only become a major problem if its practice was actually given defense by the state. It's pretty clear the public, and especially those who are being forestalled, would not tolerate such an unproductive, anti-social, and extortionist practice.
Finally, one could argue that such a practice is equivalent to kidnapping.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
It also conflicts with easements individuals generally have. If property is acquired without the appropriate easements to guarantee right of entry/exit, then their own stupidity is to be blamed.
To darkness I condemn you...
I believe Right of Way is a common (and natural) law principle. In effect, if you are justified in travelling from point A to point B, no owner(s) of land in between can exclude you in such a way that you are forced to take an excessively circuitous route. Neither can they charge a toll, build obstructions, or insist that you build a bridge or tunnel to avoid setting foot on their land. A wall of tear gas would also be an unjustifiable obstruction. And I would argue that a row of smokers along a right of way would be as well.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap