Smoking banned on open air patios starting Jan 1 2015

[MatttthewGeorge]

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.

Yes, although I would probably change a few minor things/words here or there, that is my essential argument. I would be interested in hearing what else you think falls under premise #1 besides individual rights. Not necessarily because I wish to counter however I do wish to understand your point of view.

[Craig]

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).

It's not a sliding scale because you have to measure a level of sound, it's a sliding scale because you're not supporting total autonomy. Your position falls on the scale, albeit only one notch in from the right.

[boney]

Yes, although I would probably change a few minor things/words here or there, that is my essential argument. I would be interested in hearing what else you think falls under premise #1 besides individual rights. Not necessarily because I wish to counter however I do wish to understand your point of view.

I think there are a lot of things that could potentially take the place of individual rights in those premises.....justice, utility, ultimate consequences, autonomy, hedonism, the social contract, theological doctrine, reproductive success, virtue and on and on. I personally don't give primacy to any of them because none of them can be implemented without exception (not by my own analysis, by far smarter people and philosophers throughout time). Arguing for and against those points varies based on political, economic, religious, social and other parameters as well. I grab a little bit of everything from here and there in my own moral thought (balancing an infinite number of sliding scales) which I know is just as theoretically problematic as hitching my wagon to one horse.

If I had to make an argument for banning smoking on patios, I'd probably argue that it's reasonable from a health perspective and roll it into the wider implications under the social contract, balancing fairness/justice in all involved parties and explicitly knowing that I'm indeed limiting the freedom of the restaurant/bar owner and his property rights.