Jim Bernstein wrote: > Now I understand! In Vicky's World (run by conservatives of course) > there are no ordinances, no laws because "people will do what > they want to do - whether you like it or not". > > In Vicky's World it seems, all activities would be allowed to exist > unfettered because, after all, there is nothing we can do because > "people will do what they want to do"! The people who would > limit - but not prohibit - those activities to certain places and > times are just a bunch of leftists or hypocrites because people have > "desires which create markets and all of the laws in the world won't > change that." > > Of course if we apply Vicky's World reasoning to other common > vices and enterprises we will end up with a ruthless anarchy > which both liberals and traditional conservatives generally agree > means the end of civil society.
Not to speak for Vicky, but maybe for Vicky's World: A Libertarian philosophy does not imply anarchy, it just states that if you do no harm to anyone else, then the government has no right to intrude on your privacy. To show that such a philosophy can be logical and consistent, here is mine. Please feel free to point out flaws offline. 1) Axiom of Rights. Every individual has the right to live their lives as they see fit, as long as their actions do not interfere with the right of others to do the same. 2) Axiom of Responsibility. Every individual has the responsibility of following and being aware of when they are violating Axiom 1. 3) Axiom of Government. Governments are created by individuals to insure that Axioms 1 & 2 are adhered to and to promote the General Welfare. 4) Axiom of Disobedience. In the event that Government does responsibly enforce the first three axioms an individual may on their own responsibility violate any Governmental dictum. > The decision to prohibit smoking in bars and restaurants in > Minneapolis is a public health policy question - it is not > about "rights" since smoking is not a right by any definition > and the City of Minneapolis does have the authority to make > and enforce such an ordinance. Let's concede these points: 1) Smoking is unhealthy. 2) Secondhand smoking maybe unhealthy. 3) Tobacco companies make profits from people's unwise choices (I would argue that the same is true of automobile companies). 4) Banning smoking is not likely to significantly impact the profits of most restaurants and bars. 5) The claim that 80% of residents favor a smoking ban is not valid (that statistic was generated by a misleading survey question). Now, as I understand it, the current proposals to limit smoking include a provision that would insure that non-smokers are not affected by people's unwise decision to smoke in public. So? What's the problem here? I think that the answer is now clear. Smoking prohibitionists are not only interested in protecting employees and non-smokers, they want to save smokers from themselves. As with all similar movements throughout history, they have seen the Righteous Path and are here to help us out of our misery. Do I really need to identify all of the historical injustices propagated by such movements? I think that we need only remember that witches and homosexuals were burned (the usage of the word "fagot" stems from this practice) in order to "save" them. [Interesting to note that the Catholic Church now has a new report stating that far fewer people were murdered in the name of God than had previously been though. What a relief!] One thought for R.T., if smoking rooms are permitted there will most likely be far fewer people smoking by doorways and polluting the fresh air. A benefit for me since I can't hold my breath as long as I use to. 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
