Smoking banned on open air patios starting Jan 1 2015

[midlife crisis]

Considering the impetus and endgame of the smoke free Ontario act et al, and that the argument can readily be made that alcoholic beverages are more of a public scourge than tobacco, is there any hypocrisy in the strong positions being taken on a forum populated by dedicated consumers of alcoholic beverages?

Agreed. Be careful what you wish for, those of you who are eager to ban private behaviour that causes you offence. Look, as a lifelong non-smoker of course I'm happy that there is no longer smoking in bars, on airplanes, etc. But an open-air patio??! Let's be serious. The potential adverse health effects are nil. At this point you are simply arguing that your right to not be offended trumps the smoker's right to smoke.

[MatttthewGeorge]

"In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently, not culture of the earth, no navigation, nor the use of commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

I'm not too sure I understand what you are driving at here. It is my limited understanding of Hobbes that his point was that man would always give up some personal freedom's for safety and that this safety can only come from government. As I've stated before, I am pro-government. I reject the term libertarian as that term includes pro-government, limited government, no government (anarchism), anarco-communism and so forth. I refuse to be associated with anarchists.

As to the giving up of personal freedoms for safety, again I have no problem with this, if a person gives up some of their freedoms voluntarily. However I do have a problem with taking freedoms away from those who do not wish them to be. To put it to an example, I would personally and gladly pay for heath care voluntarily, however I do not feel morally justified in making my neighbour pay for heath care if they do not wish to do so.

[Charchuk]

You mentioned that you're pro-government. You also mentioned that you don't condone the use of force. What happens if the candidate that you vote for in an election doesn't win? Wouldn't you technically be forced to accept the candidate against your will because the majority decided on it? Wouldn't any form of government become a contradiction in your views?

[boney]

But that's their problem--they didn't exercise their liberty hard enough!!!



If there's one thing I've learned from years of reading internet message boards, it's that no one is going to convince the libertarian that his views have serious ethical, environmental, economic, social, and pragmatic flaws, and that libertarians aren't going to convince everyone else that liberty should trump all.

+1

Individualists and libertarians always roll out the "if we don't stop THIS erosion of freedom, which freedom will be next!?!", which is a very black and white, slippery slope invoking argument that completely fails to grasp the complexity of modern society and the legal framework in which we live. Ideally, laws exist to protect the individual and society, but there are, of course, always difficult to reconcile conflicts and protecting the individuals does not always protect society. Choosing a definitive side based on ridged principles and forcing every issue into that pre-defined box is folly.

Socialists and communists always rolls out the "it's for the greater good" and "you don't understand modern society" which completely fails to grasp the fact that in order to have that society the socialist must force everyone else into it. The socialist will legalize thief and tells those they steal from that it's for their own benefit. Ideally, laws exist to protect the individual, for without individuals there would be no society.

Well, that's quite unnecessarily polarized, isn't it? A false dichotomy built on a staw-man argument. Liberty or death! Or thieving commies! Or dirty socialists! Or other such nonsense. It's not an either-or proposition and can't be compartmentalized in that fashion. This is a complex question. It's not a cop-out to say that the requiesence of freedoms is contextual on the benefits of society and that benefit vs cost is on a constantly shifting sliding scale.

You've said that forcing people to give up freedoms is "immoral". So, you are clearly speaking about philosophical morality. Philosophers have tried to come up with a unifying theory of morality for more than 3000 years and no such unifying theory has ever rigerously stood up to logistical challenge.....that certain premises universally result in certain conclusions. Why? Because morality is complex and there are always, always, always exceptions that contradict conclusions, making you reassess your original premises. That's what I'm referring to in terms of the futility of trying to fit every real life situation into some theoretical black or white box. It never works.

[Belgian]

Ahh Socialism VS its inbred third cousin, Communism. Not the same, and North Americans are in practice not so anti-socialist as they think they are. In Europe intelligent socialism is an effective way to keep the powers that be from selling out our basic interests to unbridled corruption.

The United Nations World Happiness Report 2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe where the Nordic model of social democracy persists, with Denmark topping the list. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption. -Wikipedia

Well Social Democracy anyway, more libertarian VS a more restrictive socialism. These are all words to me unless I see examples in action. Words are less important than ideas.

[lister]

Yes I understand that my idea would be big and scary. Imagine that we'd have to pay for our own health care, our own schools, our own roads. Imagine we wouldn't be able to tell people what to do with their property, with their businesses, with their lives. Imagine that instead of enslaving everyone to your vision, everyone was free to carry out his or her own vision.

You're really living in the wrong country...

[MatttthewGeorge]

Individualists and libertarians always roll out the "if we don't stop THIS erosion of freedom, which freedom will be next!?!", which is a very black and white, slippery slope invoking argument that completely fails to grasp the complexity of modern society and the legal framework in which we live. Ideally, laws exist to protect the individual and society, but there are, of course, always difficult to reconcile conflicts and protecting the individuals does not always protect society. Choosing a definitive side based on ridged principles and forcing every issue into that pre-defined box is folly.

Socialists and communists always rolls out the "it's for the greater good" and "you don't understand modern society" which completely fails to grasp the fact that in order to have that society the socialist must force everyone else into it. The socialist will legalize thief and tells those they steal from that it's for their own benefit. Ideally, laws exist to protect the individual, for without individuals there would be no society.

Well, that's quite unnecessarily polarized, isn't it? A false dichotomy built on a staw-man argument. Liberty or death! Or thieving commies! Or dirty socialists! Or other such nonsense. It's not an either-or proposition and can't be compartmentalized in that fashion. This is a complex question. It's not a cop-out to say that the requiesence of freedoms is contextual on the benefits of society and that benefit vs cost is on a constantly shifting sliding scale.

I see, you can say that individualists and libertarians fail to grasp modern society, but when I say that socialists and libertarians fail to grasp that in order to have their modern society they must force everyone into it, then I'm making a polarized argument.

Calling my thinking a "false dichotomy built on a staw-man argument" is incorrect. There is no third or fourth choice here. Either we have a society build on the protection of individual rights or we do not. Your "sliding scale" of the balance between the individual and society may make it seem like there are more than two options, but any point on your scale means to deny some or many individual rights to the benefit of society. To those who do not wish to have their rights denied you say "too bad, it's for the greater good" instead of saying "then be free to do as you please without the protections we are offering." Your "sliding scale" is all or nothing, it says do as we say or leave/die, no matter where on the scale we happen to be.

[Craig]

The sliding scale is always there though. Even with your views it exists: freedom to do what you want so long as you don't infringe on others freedoms. Not only is that part of the scale itself, with one end being total anarchy where you are free to rape and pillage as you see fit and the other end being, I dunno, sleeping in one of those pods in the Matrix or something, but implementing that would obviously involve sliding scales all over the place.

For example, you're free to do what you want on your property, right? But you can't infringe on somebody else's property. How do you deal with noise? Is it OK to make as much noise as you want in your house, even if it makes it really loud in someone else's? If the answer to that is no, then you've got a sliding scale where someone has to pick an acceptable level of noise that can be generated. But what about industrial noise? We can't just stop making cars and such, can we? Now you need industrial zoning and the like, which is another step on the sliding scale.

[MatttthewGeorge]

You've said that forcing people to give up freedoms is "immoral". So, you are clearly speaking about philosophical morality. Philosophers have tried to come up with a unifying theory of morality for more than 3000 years and no such unifying theory has ever rigerously stood up to logistical challenge.....that certain premises universally result in certain conclusions. Why? Because morality is complex and there are always, always, always exceptions that contradict conclusions, making you reassess your original premises. That's what I'm referring to in terms of the futility of trying to fit every real life situation into some theoretical black or white box. It never works.

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. - Ayn Rand (Galt's Speech, Atlas Shrugged)

Now that I'm thrown out the Ayn Rand bomb, let the haters hate.

[dale cannon]

As to the giving up of personal freedoms for safety, again I have no problem with this, if a person gives up some of their freedoms voluntarily. However I do have a problem with taking freedoms away from those who do not wish them to be. To put it to an example, I would personally and gladly pay for heath care voluntarily, however I do not feel morally justified in making my neighbour pay for heath care if they do not wish to do so.

Hey, I like this idea! Customized liberty tailored to the beliefs, desires and whims of each and every citizen of the world. Perhaps everyone could complete a self-certified, legally binding questionnaire in which they elect those rights and freedoms which they choose to forfeit, and those which they choose to retain. The individual would be free to amend their individual contract with society at their own discretion, to accommodate their ever-changing circumstances.

This could really work.

[jrenihan]

Calling my thinking a "false dichotomy built on a staw-man argument" is incorrect. There is no third or fourth choice here. Either we have a society build on the protection of individual rights or we do not. Your "sliding scale" of the balance between the individual and society may make it seem like there are more than two options, but any point on your scale means to deny some or many individual rights to the benefit of society. To those who do not wish to have their rights denied you say "too bad, it's for the greater good" instead of saying "then be free to do as you please without the protections we are offering." Your "sliding scale" is all or nothing, it says do as we say or leave/die, no matter where on the scale we happen to be.

I'm genuinely curious as to whether you support taxation for the purpose of funding an army, police force and court system. Typically those are the critical aspects of civil society than even staunch libertarians want, because they view them as necessary to protecting property rights and bodily integrity. Your uncompromising support for absolute autonomy over property suggests that you do not support taxation for those purposes, but you have also said you support the existence of government over anarchy, so I am curious how you justify that level of taxation, if you do at all.
Your argument strikes me as an argument for anarchy, not limited government.
Ren

[boney]

I see, you can say that individualists and libertarians fail to grasp modern society, but when I say that socialists and libertarians fail to grasp that in order to have their modern society they must force everyone into it, then I'm making a polarized argument.

Calling my thinking a "false dichotomy built on a staw-man argument" is incorrect. There is no third or fourth choice here. Either we have a society build on the protection of individual rights or we do not. Your "sliding scale" of the balance between the individual and society may make it seem like there are more than two options, but any point on your scale means to deny some or many individual rights to the benefit of society. To those who do not wish to have their rights denied you say "too bad, it's for the greater good" instead of saying "then be free to do as you please without the protections we are offering." Your "sliding scale" is all or nothing, it says do as we say or leave/die, no matter where on the scale we happen to be.

By saying that there is no third or fourth choice and setting the rejection of your argument as a de facto endorsement of thieving socialists is the exact definition of a false dichotomy built on a straw-man argument. Your explanation above does nothing but reinforce your polarized compartmentalizations. I'd challenge a ridged socialist in the same way I'm challenging you. I'm not anti freedom. I'm not anti society. The only thing I am is an advocate for recognizing complexity and hard thinking about morally difficult, nuanced problems. That's all.

As for the Ayn Rand quote, I don't hate Ayn Rand and you can like whoever you like. It's not my particular world-view (which I haven't actually stated), but that's OK. I have nothing personal against you or your views, we just choose different moral paradigms to believe in.

[boney]

Maybe I'm not thinking about this the right way in terms of where we are disagreeing. I'm now trying to think a bit more about your analysis of the sliding scale argument and how wherever the sliding scale is, someone loses out because they loose their freedoms. Maybe it comes down to both our initial premises. Let me map it out. Tell me if I'm misinterpreting things.

Here's how I imagine you are forming your argument.....

Premise 1: There is a single most important moral principle or quality and it can readily be identified.

Premise 2: Protection of individual rights is the most important moral principle.

Premise 3: Society must be built on the most important moral principle

Conclusion: Society should be built on the protection of individual rights

Corollary: If society is not built on the protection of individual rights, it is constructed in an immoral fashion

So, if this is your argument, then I can see how a sliding scale is irrelevant because it's all or nothing. Is that your argument or am I totally off base?

My thoughts are that I don't buy Premise 1, 2 or 3, There isn't a single most important moral principle, protection of individual rights, therefore, isn't the singular defining point of morality and thus you can't build society on that single moral ideal. What I'm talking about is an almost an infinite number of sliding scales, which is why negotiating society is so difficult. If we disagree on Premise 1 alone, we are pretty far apart and no compromise will be had. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Interesting stuff. Obviously, I have no problems banning smoking on patios. Ha.

Slow work day.

[Tapsucker]

back on topic...

I suspect the social engineering behind this is already mostly done. Bar owners know their demographics and if most of their customers prefer a smoke free atmosphere, then they will provide that. If these laws were repealed, I bet very few places would start to allow smoking again.

Back when NYC was the first major city to ban smoking in bars, I know a guy who owned a few neighbourhood pubs in NYC. His industry was screaming that the sky would fall on Jan 1st when the laws took effect. He was visiting Toronto later that year as Toronto was debating the same. He told me he watched his business drop off for about two months and then bounce back to normal. The two months happened to have been very cold winter months when business had slowed in the past anyway.

His theory was that local bars are the living rooms of people in tight urban apartments and they are less likely to give up that social space than to give up smoking. As he put it, if they are willing to pay a bar's markup to come here rather than drink at home on the cheap, then they are willing to make some other adjustments.

The people who he said were most impacted by the smoking ban were his staff who could no longer smoke on the job. Funny thing, he himself was a smoker and when we'd go out in Toronto, he always preferred non-smoking areas.

I also think it was funny that "get out of my face" NYC was the first to pull this off. Most people would have guessed a left coast jurisdiction would have done it. Although LA followed soon after.

[MatttthewGeorge]

I'm genuinely curious as to whether you support taxation for the purpose of funding an army, police force and court system. Typically those are the critical aspects of civil society than even staunch libertarians want, because they view them as necessary to protecting property rights and bodily integrity. Your uncompromising support for absolute autonomy over property suggests that you do not support taxation for those purposes, but you have also said you support the existence of government over anarchy, so I am curious how you justify that level of taxation, if you do at all.
Your argument strikes me as an argument for anarchy, not limited government.
Ren

I do support taxation for those purposes, and those purposes only, however said taxation would come from sales tax and not property or income tax (or inheritance tax, and so on). While a society where people voluntarily paid for the proper functions of government would be my preferred choice, I would have concerns that funding via this source only would not be enough. While a sales tax is not moral, per se, it is the most moral of all taxation due to the relative freedom of choice involved.

I would also put forth that I do not have an "uncompromising support for absolute autonomy over property" because this would suggest that people can do what they want on their property regardless of other property owners, whereas what I am suggesting is that people can do what they want on their property as long as it does not violate the rights of other property owners. So for example I would be for a law that limits noise. (And no I don't believe this type of law is a "sliding scale" as someone has suggested. Science can/is used to find what an acceptable level of noise).