First, you have to care. The fact is, libertarians will ever assert that all public regulation and all public use of "private" property and all taxation for public services - including education, police, fire, etc, - are a "taking", and should either be prohibited or paid for. There is no "public purpose" in the minds of property rights types and the only role of the public sector is to protect those rights and nothing more. Furthermore, most of these same people don't care what it costs us to provide those services to protect them and their property, but woe betide any who would charge them for services or rules that would serve the vast majority of people in society.
"Public health" does not exist in the minds of such people. Private everything is the only acceptable configuration: private schools, private health protection, private police, individual rights and property rights over any of society's needs and wants. "Community" is, in the minds of such people who feed off the fat others' hard work and taxes, merely a drain on their individual rights, their persons, their pocketbooks, their rights. This is all the Constitution was designed to do, they will say. There is no provision in the Constitution for anything but protection of the individual from the government and all others who would impose laws, rules and regulations that would make them part of the larger society. Thus, there is little sense in arguing with such a mindset that smoking bans serve their interests as well as everyone else's, because, they will say, smoking bans are public intrusions on private choices - despite the fact that private choices create no choices for the rest of society, in this case 80%. In all these things, libertarians are misnamed. They are, at their core, anarchists. They may be anarchists of the right, but they are as destructive in large numbers as anarchists of any other stripe: neither cares about anyone but themselves. It is the height of public narcissism. Taken to its logical end, such a mindset would have us living in a wilderness with no public streets and highways, traffic controls, sewers, water systems, police forces, fire departments, elections, schools, emergency medical facilities, military, air traffic control, and on and on. They all just want to be left alone. Never mind that to be left alone means everyone else pays for anything public they could not live without, despite their protests. How lonely they often must feel. Smoking bans are merely the hot topic of the moment. Taxes and education and other public vs. private issues will ever be the other arenas of their discontent. But they'll not be persuaded that they are part of society's solutions to societal problems. First, you have to care. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul PS: Dave Brauer asks: what is the regional solution? Without regional government, there is no regional solution, certainly none with legal standing. The region is made of counties and cities which must enact real laws for real jurisdictions. All discussions for Metro solutions are academic and mere diversions and distractions. -- on 6/25/04 12:20 PM, Michael Atherton wrote: > > Ken Jorissen wrote: > >> But it is not only a property rights issue. It is a public health issue as >> well and the current majority seems to be deciding that the public health >> costs outweighs the property rights issue in this case. >> > If secondhand smoke only affects those who have chosen to be exposed how is > it a "public" health issue? I can't see that it is unless you are going to > allow government to make private health decisions for individuals on issues > that have no effect on the general public. A very very steep, slippery, and > dangerous slope. Don't forget that legally, abortion is considered a private > health decision. Do we want government making these types of decisions for > individuals? > > I believe that providing ventilated rooms for smokers in private > establishments is a reasonable regional solution (That will probably never > be agreed upon by consensus. I also think that some non-smoking advocates > may be correct in suggesting that the emphasis on regional solutions may > just be diversionary.) > > Please explain why smoking rooms, that would insure that non-smokers are not > exposed, are not a reasonable compromise. > > 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
