On Friday, June 25, 2004, at 09:26 AM, Victoria Heller wrote:
The smoking ban controversy IS a property rights issue. It
boils down to a conflict between the "Nanny State" and "Private Property
Rights".
So the assertion is bans attack property rights, whether smoking or anything else. And this would be in regard to the ability to possess, buy or sell the property, but most particularly about the right to use the property in any way the owner wishes.
Would there be any issue if the owner of contiguous property were making meth-amphetamine and selling it for example?
Presumably in a free market, the manufacture and sale of meth-amphetamine would be allowed on private property.
Regulating people out of business is a government "taking" - equivalent to
the abuse of eminent domain powers. Such acts on the part of government
require "just compensation" to the harmed parties.
And a ban on meth would amount to government "taking."
The regional solution is to do nothing. Let free markets and freedom of
choice prevail.
Sounds like San Francisco in 1849, or maybe Milton Friedman's beloved Hong Kong before the avian flu hit. You can bet your booties they banned.
Laura Waterman Wittstock MIGIZI Communications, Inc. 3123 East Lake Street Minneapolis, MN 55406 612.721.6631 ext 219 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.migizi.org http://laurawatermanwittstock.blogspot.com/
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
