Andy Driscoll wrote: > Short of a ban, no business that allows smoking can protect > employees from second-hand smoke.
I don't believe this to be a true statement. Although, it may not be possible for businesses to protect employees from all smoke, it may be possible to reduce the risk of smoke to negligible levels. > Libertarians want no "government" intrusion into private > lives. "Government" is us. Government is not us, we are us. Government is a bureaucracy that is influenced to some degree by a democratic process (don't forget who "won" the last election), which is itself significantly influenced by wealthy contributors and political parties (which are not necessarily democratic). > We are the government. That is the truism that separates us > from many other systems, including the dictatorships the current > administration is committed to supplanting with "our" form of > "democracy." I won't go there on this list, except to note irony > in this argument against "government" - which, in a democratic > republic, is representative of the majority of those voting. At a minimum a democracy represents a bare majority of the electorate, which in the U.S. is a fraction of the populous. Some of the Framers recognized this problem and insisted on the establishment of a Bill of Rights to protect those of us who are not part of the We. The assumption that all of We are the government is a false one. > If you believe in democracy, you'd best believe, too, that > public policy and the responsibility for protecting the public > health and safety of all citizens, not just those who "choose" > certain behaviors that threaten the public health and/or safety > is precisely the role of the government we elect. If you believe in the founding assumptions of this country you'd best believe that other people are entitled to pursue happiness in whatever way their see fit, so long as it doesn't directly impact your right to do the same. > If you choose to open a business to the public at-large, you're > licensed to protect that public from diseases growing out of > your patrons - human waste, cooked and raw food, storage facilities, > dispensing equipment, electrical codes, plumbing codes. It's all > subject to inspection and citation for violations. I agree. > The air is no different from anything we eat or drink, > whether its pollution comes from owners or customers. > It's up to government to protect the public from air > contamination just as it is from contaminated food > and water when public accommodations "choose" not to > do it themselves. Air, water, food and drink is no > different from traffic control, where traffic signs and > laws and rules govern our behavior so those who "choose" > to ignore the public health and safety by their operation > of vehicles are cited for violations, sometimes jailed. > We are a city, a state and a nation of laws which keep > order and protects us - sometimes from our human failings. By this argument everyone who drives a vehicle with an internal combustion engine should be cited for polluting the air and negatively impacting those around them. There would be no gas stations, few power plants, and very little industry. > You want anarchy? Go somewhere else. Who said anything about anarchy? I was arguing for the protection of individuals rights. Me is not We. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
