How many have we lost
- Thread starter mr8ball
- Start date
Hell, why not.Jimmy M. said:They smoke cigars FROM THEIR FEET?!?
You climb mountains daily, u become limber.
Being on the retail/service side of this business, also a non-smoker.
Are people really just quitting pool because of no smoking? I mean
honest to god, i"m selling my cue and glove and going home to smoke!
I can see it now, a basement full of guys fri night sitting around seeing
how many packs they can run! I"ll spot you two packs of camels race to ten!
Are people really just quitting pool because of no smoking? I mean
honest to god, i"m selling my cue and glove and going home to smoke!
I can see it now, a basement full of guys fri night sitting around seeing
how many packs they can run! I"ll spot you two packs of camels race to ten!
hang-the-9 said:
Do people really quit playing pool because they can't smoke in pool halls? That's amazing to me that so many people would walk away from a game they love to play regularly because they can't smoke while playing.
Back when they banned smoking indoors in NY, I was a regular smoker at the time. I vividly remember all of us outside of Amsterdam Billiards, huddling under the small overhang during snowstorms, laughing at ourselves and our addiction. But also recognizing how much better it was inside. We all smoked much less because of it, not to mention how much more visible the balls were on the pool tables!
Neither myself nor any of those people would have actually choosen to quit the game because of it...
I'll just say that since I've moved back to Georgia, there are many things I miss about Colorado (where I moved from) - and right at the top of that list is Colorado's statewide smoking ban.
And - smoking bans don't stop smoking. They simply relocate it.
I won't even get into the whole "if you quit smoking, your health would improve and you would feel better" end of things.
And - smoking bans don't stop smoking. They simply relocate it.
I won't even get into the whole "if you quit smoking, your health would improve and you would feel better" end of things.
pern13
Registered
yes i agree the economy is getting bad,but here in ohio where i work at a poolhall the smoking ban has definitely hurt business. the reason i can say this is the owner of the poolhall has said to h*ll with the law. he owns the business not the state! since he started letting people smoke inside again business has been improving. we tell everyone that comes in that we allow smoking and that if they are not comfortable with that they may wan't to go someplace else. it has been three months since we started allowing smoking again and knock on wood only one person has stated that they will not be back. in the meantime if you're in here fire them up at least untill the fines get to high.cuejoey said:
avmaster said:Now that is called FREEDOM.....Good on you guys.... We the People own this Country.....Not the @#$% Government......
"Git 'er dun!!"..........................
That place Pern is talking about happens to be Club Billiards in Dayton, Ohio. If you agree and are in the area, come on in and light 'em up! LOL
Sounds good! LOL
Jimmy M. said:I know you're a trained professional [Libertarian Evangelist], so I am expecting great answers to my questions, but I'll ask them anyway.
In the case of property rights and property ownership where land is involved, who enforces these property rights? They must be enforced. Not only am I asking who enforces them, but who gives anyone the right to "own" land? The land was there long before you, I, the current "property owner", the land developers, the builders, et cetera, got to it.
Somewhere along the line, that land was acquired through force, and that ownership was enforced, most likely, by way of the threat of physical violence. So now the land is "owned", it's sold, bought, sold some more, developed, built on, yada yada yada, and now you, the current "owner", purchases it. Who enforces your ownership of that property? What if I decide to show up with 100 guys with machine guns and take your property? Who is going to tell me that I can't do that? In the perfect Libertarian world, without government, who is going to stop that? You're going to go get 200 guys with machine guns to come and re-claim it? That certainly doesn't sound very orderly to me. Surely me and my group of gun-toting amigos would be arrested, or shot, by one of our existing government agencies, and you, the land owner, would have your property back; an arrangement that I don't believe would be so opposed by the land owner. So assuming I am correct in the above scenario, "some" government intervention is okay, right? If "some" government intervention is okay, then who determines which government intervention is acceptable and which is not? (uh-oh! Here comes that pesky "vote" thing again)
Perhaps I don't completely understand the Libertarian ideals and "no government" is an exaggeration on my part? If so, I apologize. But, also, if that's the case, then my question still stands. If some government intervention is acceptable, then who determines which government intervention is not?
There were a bunch of Southerners in the 1860's that had some "property rights" revoked after the civil war. Was that wrong too?
So, knowing that you've probably encountered these questions before, I expect nothing less than well a thought out response that will make my questions seem irrelevant and/or just plain misguided. As an evangelist, you'd disappoint me otherwise.
imo (flame retardant
Great questions, Jimmy M....and ones that have been and are still being debated by libertarians (note small "l" is used when describing philisophical libertarianism and large "L" is used when describing the Libertarian Party) for decades.
I'm not the best one to ask these types of questions as I've not delved into the details enough to explain it accurately. The reason why is I treat these much as I treat the concepts of God, singularity, and infinity: I can't know it and thus I don't care enough about it to continue to analyze it in anymore detail. But I'll give you what I've got and some sources, OK?
As for land, there is a group called Georgist, named after a guy named Henry George, who advocated land rents as the only legit form of funding any government. Here's an excerpt from this website:
http://www.schalkenbach.org/who-was-henry.html
...George wrote his extraordinary treatise a hundred years ago. His ideas stand: he who makes should have; he who saves should enjoy; what the community produces belongs to the community for communal uses; and God's earth, all of it, is the right of the people who inhabit the earth. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "The earth belongs in usufruct to the living."
This is simple and this is unanswerable. The ramifications may not be simple but they do not alter the fundamental logic.
There never has been a time in our history when we have needed so sorely to hear good sense, to learn to define terms exactly, to draw reasonable conclusions. As George said, "The truth that I have tried to make clear will not find easy acceptance. If that could be, it would have been accepted long ago. If that could be, it would never have been obscured."
We are on the brink. It is possible to have another Dark Ages. But in George there is a voice of hope.
...George wrote his extraordinary treatise a hundred years ago. His ideas stand: he who makes should have; he who saves should enjoy; what the community produces belongs to the community for communal uses; and God's earth, all of it, is the right of the people who inhabit the earth. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "The earth belongs in usufruct to the living."
This is simple and this is unanswerable. The ramifications may not be simple but they do not alter the fundamental logic.
There never has been a time in our history when we have needed so sorely to hear good sense, to learn to define terms exactly, to draw reasonable conclusions. As George said, "The truth that I have tried to make clear will not find easy acceptance. If that could be, it would have been accepted long ago. If that could be, it would never have been obscured."
We are on the brink. It is possible to have another Dark Ages. But in George there is a voice of hope.
I haven't read George's works but just of them. Interesting way of looking at the problem, imho. But again, when I reach the fuzzy edges of exactly HOW it would work, I back off because I can't know it for sure and don't want to get too locked-in to something that might later prove false. I prefer to allow those involved in whatever details of it in their lives to proceed with more details of such things. I'd just muck it up if not directly involved, if that mankes sense.
Rothbard and others say that property comes from taking something from nature and turning it into something that people value. Examples would be turning iron into a hammer, or hemp into a hammock, or a tree into a pool cue. I forget his take on land but he's commented on it.
The south's problems with slavery now seem obvious: you can't own another person. But back then, negro slaves were considered BY GOVERNMENT as legal property. I emphasize "by government" just to remind the reader that just because govt is in charge doesn't magically make their decisions moral or right. And because of this stupid, uneconomical, immoral, and stupid policy, nothing but trouble came of it.
And finally, as to who enforces property rights,* could depend on several things. One solution proposed in various forms is that of Private Protection Agencies. These would be structered much like insurace companies are, with customers paying ongoing fees and the company providing compensation and protection of various types, much as the cops (attempt to) do now. David Friedman has written much on this, as have others. Here's a link to David's ideas:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html
I'll stop for now. Thank you for responding.
Jeff Livingston
* Rights, as a concept is often questioned by anarchists. For who give "rights" or from where do they come? And are they real or are they really just agreements between parties to NOT inititate harm? This is another question that seemingly goes on forever, imho, so I tend to stay away from the event horizon of it.
Last edited:
For those who didn't want to wade throught my last post and its links, here's a story from Friedman's site of how private agencies might setup law and solve property differences:
Th gist of it is that laws are economic goods, too, and can be treated as such by the marketplace.
Jeff Livingston
...I come home one night and find my television set missing. I immediately call my protection agency, Tannahelp Inc., to report the theft. They send an agent. He checks the automatic camera which Tannahelp, as part of their service, installed in my living room and discovers a picture of one Joe Bock lugging the television set out the door. The Tannahelp agent contacts Joe, informs him that Tannahelp has reason to believe he is in possession of my television set, and suggests he return it, along with an extra ten dollars to pay for Tannahelp's time and trouble in locating Joe. Joe replies that he has never seen my television set in his life and tells the Tannahelp agent to go to hell.
The agent points out that until Tannahelp is convinced there has been a mistake, he must proceed on the assumption that the television set is my property. Six Tannahelp employees, all large and energetic, will be at Joe's door next morning to collect the set. Joe, in response, informs the agent that he also has a protection agency, Dawn Defense, and that his contract with them undoubtedly requires them to protect him if six goons try to break into his house and steal his television set.
The stage seems set for a nice little war between Tannahelp and Dawn Defense. It is precisely such a possibility that has led some libertarians who are not anarchists, most notably Ayn Rand, to reject the possibility of competing free-market protection agencies.
But wars are very expensive, and Tannahelp and Dawn Defense are both profit-making corporations, more interested in saving money than face. I think the rest of the story would be less violent than Miss Rand supposed.
The Tannahelp agent calls up his opposite number at Dawn Defense. 'We've got a problem. . . .' After explaining the situation, he points out that if Tannahelp sends six men and Dawn eight, there will be a fight. Someone might even get hurt. Whoever wins, by the time the conflict is over it will be expensive for both sides. They might even have to start paying their employees higher wages to make up for the risk. Then both firms will be forced to raise their rates. If they do, Murbard Ltd., an aggressive new firm which has been trying to get established in the area, will undercut their prices and steal their customers. There must be a better solution.
The man from Tannahelp suggests that the better solution is arbitration. They will take the dispute over my television set to a reputable local arbitration firm. If the arbitrator decides that Joe is innocent, Tannahelp agrees to pay Joe and Dawn Defense an indemnity to make up for their time and trouble. If he is found guilty, Dawn Defense will accept the verdict; since the television set is not Joe's, they have no obligation to protect him when the men from Tannahelp come to seize it.
What I have described is a very makeshift arrangement. In practice, once anarcho-capitalist institutions were well established, protection agencies would anticipate such difficulties and arrange contracts in advance, before specific conflicts occurred, specifying the arbitrator who would settle them.
In such an anarchist society, who would make the laws? On what basis would the private arbitrator decide what acts were criminal and what their punishments should be? The answer is that systems of law would be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are produced today. There could be competition among different brands of law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars...
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libert...hapter_29.html
The agent points out that until Tannahelp is convinced there has been a mistake, he must proceed on the assumption that the television set is my property. Six Tannahelp employees, all large and energetic, will be at Joe's door next morning to collect the set. Joe, in response, informs the agent that he also has a protection agency, Dawn Defense, and that his contract with them undoubtedly requires them to protect him if six goons try to break into his house and steal his television set.
The stage seems set for a nice little war between Tannahelp and Dawn Defense. It is precisely such a possibility that has led some libertarians who are not anarchists, most notably Ayn Rand, to reject the possibility of competing free-market protection agencies.
But wars are very expensive, and Tannahelp and Dawn Defense are both profit-making corporations, more interested in saving money than face. I think the rest of the story would be less violent than Miss Rand supposed.
The Tannahelp agent calls up his opposite number at Dawn Defense. 'We've got a problem. . . .' After explaining the situation, he points out that if Tannahelp sends six men and Dawn eight, there will be a fight. Someone might even get hurt. Whoever wins, by the time the conflict is over it will be expensive for both sides. They might even have to start paying their employees higher wages to make up for the risk. Then both firms will be forced to raise their rates. If they do, Murbard Ltd., an aggressive new firm which has been trying to get established in the area, will undercut their prices and steal their customers. There must be a better solution.
The man from Tannahelp suggests that the better solution is arbitration. They will take the dispute over my television set to a reputable local arbitration firm. If the arbitrator decides that Joe is innocent, Tannahelp agrees to pay Joe and Dawn Defense an indemnity to make up for their time and trouble. If he is found guilty, Dawn Defense will accept the verdict; since the television set is not Joe's, they have no obligation to protect him when the men from Tannahelp come to seize it.
What I have described is a very makeshift arrangement. In practice, once anarcho-capitalist institutions were well established, protection agencies would anticipate such difficulties and arrange contracts in advance, before specific conflicts occurred, specifying the arbitrator who would settle them.
In such an anarchist society, who would make the laws? On what basis would the private arbitrator decide what acts were criminal and what their punishments should be? The answer is that systems of law would be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are produced today. There could be competition among different brands of law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars...
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libert...hapter_29.html
Th gist of it is that laws are economic goods, too, and can be treated as such by the marketplace.
Jeff Livingston