Just another tobacco thread ...
- Thread starter Jimmy M.
- Start date
Suddenly everyone cares about property rights lawl...
I was trying to make the same point as you are... people associate "rights" with the constitution but they shouldn't. When the word 'rights' get used, the undereducated start blabbering on about 'guaranteed rights' that don't really exist... for example the 'right' to clean air (doesn't exist legally), or the 'right' to smoke or the 'right' to run your business any way you want.
You say that I don't understand property rights, but I think I understand them better than you, because I understand that there's no special 'bill of rights for property owners' that spells out what he can do with his business. People think he has rights that set him apart from other citizens, like he gets a guaranteed right to sell what he wants, or make whatever rules he wants. Others think he at least has the same rights as a citizen on his own private property. Maybe you think his business can have an exception to city ordinances for example.
It's simply not true. He doesn't have any specific special rights.
A property owner can't say "It's my property, so I can choose not to hire black people or women to work on it. They're free to get jobs somewhere else." He can't say "It's my property, so I can serve nasty diseased food that might make you sick. If you know that risk coming in, you can't complain. It's your choice to eat here anyway, or your choice to take your business elsewhere." He can't say "yes, there's a city or state ordinance that says strippers have to wear G-strings, but it's my business. I can make my own choice about what they wear. If there's a market demand for 'clean' strip joints, someone else can open that business and those customers can go there."
My point is that people act like this is some big special violation of rights and that it's the first time it's ever happened to business owners. In reality a business owner has lots of little restrictions. Every day he has to bend to state and city ordinances. It's legal to watch porn in my own home, but I can't put it on the TV at the pool hall. I can spit in my own kitchen, but he can't spit in his. I can be visibly drunk and I can have all the smoke I want in my own home, but he can't at his business.
Suddenly smokers start pretending to care about 'property rights' when before the bans they could give two shits about the topic. To be fair, at least one other poster in the thread was a nonsmoker but was still bothered by it. But I think he's not seeing that these kinds of conflicts between law and business are pretty routine, and the time to start arguing about them was 100 years ago.
-------------
lol, not sure how you got guns or violence into this thread. I never said anything about your position reflecting any violence. I think we got enough to argue about, let's stick to smoking.
btw: my point about the 'you can live somewhere else' is that it's shitty to be voted off the island whether it's on a large scale (you have to move to another state or city) or a small scale (you have to play at another pool hall).
chefjeff said:
I was trying to make the same point as you are... people associate "rights" with the constitution but they shouldn't. When the word 'rights' get used, the undereducated start blabbering on about 'guaranteed rights' that don't really exist... for example the 'right' to clean air (doesn't exist legally), or the 'right' to smoke or the 'right' to run your business any way you want.
You say that I don't understand property rights, but I think I understand them better than you, because I understand that there's no special 'bill of rights for property owners' that spells out what he can do with his business. People think he has rights that set him apart from other citizens, like he gets a guaranteed right to sell what he wants, or make whatever rules he wants. Others think he at least has the same rights as a citizen on his own private property. Maybe you think his business can have an exception to city ordinances for example.
It's simply not true. He doesn't have any specific special rights.
A property owner can't say "It's my property, so I can choose not to hire black people or women to work on it. They're free to get jobs somewhere else." He can't say "It's my property, so I can serve nasty diseased food that might make you sick. If you know that risk coming in, you can't complain. It's your choice to eat here anyway, or your choice to take your business elsewhere." He can't say "yes, there's a city or state ordinance that says strippers have to wear G-strings, but it's my business. I can make my own choice about what they wear. If there's a market demand for 'clean' strip joints, someone else can open that business and those customers can go there."
My point is that people act like this is some big special violation of rights and that it's the first time it's ever happened to business owners. In reality a business owner has lots of little restrictions. Every day he has to bend to state and city ordinances. It's legal to watch porn in my own home, but I can't put it on the TV at the pool hall. I can spit in my own kitchen, but he can't spit in his. I can be visibly drunk and I can have all the smoke I want in my own home, but he can't at his business.
Suddenly smokers start pretending to care about 'property rights' when before the bans they could give two shits about the topic. To be fair, at least one other poster in the thread was a nonsmoker but was still bothered by it. But I think he's not seeing that these kinds of conflicts between law and business are pretty routine, and the time to start arguing about them was 100 years ago.
-------------
lol, not sure how you got guns or violence into this thread. I never said anything about your position reflecting any violence. I think we got enough to argue about, let's stick to smoking.
btw: my point about the 'you can live somewhere else' is that it's shitty to be voted off the island whether it's on a large scale (you have to move to another state or city) or a small scale (you have to play at another pool hall).
CreeDo said:
Your last paragraph makes my point, so I don't understand the rest of your post as it contradicts this point.
The rest that you posted above has already been refuted by my previous arguments. That you just avoid those arguments does nothing to refute them. But, being the mild-mannered person I am, I'll try again, again using the USC, Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So, it is you who are advocating the use of violence* to force others to make their properties conform to your and your gang's wishes, even though you have no moral justification for controlling others' property choices. You have no right to vote to control others or their properties. Repeating previous takings as justification is NOT a defense of current ones.
It is YOUR position, not mine, that initiates violence, thus my indentification of that. You could simply control your property, your body, and remove it from harm, but you refuse this freedom, choosing instead mob violence against those who don't willingly provide you with the exact environment you want.
Jeff Livingstron
* Just why would an innocent businessman follow a law that harms him even though he has hurt no one else? To avoid something more costly....what is that?...oh yeah... more violence against him! (examples: fines, takings, re-zoning, jail, licensing, etc.) Unjust laws MUST be initiated by violence or else they are not followed. Initiation of violence cannot be tolerated in a civilized society.
lol, I carefully read and point out the flaws in your arguments and you come back with "you ignore my points and I refuted everything you said!" Then you say some of the wackiest shit I've seen since since I last watched cheech and chong.
I'll try to use shorter, simpler, and smaller words.
You say: "u cant just 'vote people off the island' with ur mean laws! it goes against liberty!"
I say: "isn't forcing people to go to other pool halls to avoid smoke 'voting them off the island' too?
You say: "you dunno what ur saying about the constitution and rights!"
I say: "Neither of those words belongs in this argument. Nothing written in any legal document spells out rights to smoke or rights of a business owner. Oh, but you disagree! You found a relevant quote in the constitution (which has nothing to do with this argument)!
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
That phrase is so vague, anyone can twist it to mean anything they want. I can say "they were thinking of obvious rights like the right to have clean air everywhere". You can say "no, they were thinking of obvious rights like a business owner's rights to set his own policies about things like smoking." Some other guy can say "they were thinking about our right to look at any porn we want, even if it has little kids in it" ... some other guy can say "that phrase is talking about the right to open casinos anywhere".
Can you understand now why I keep trying to steer us away from arguments about 'rights' and 'constitution'? But you keep circling back to them like a fly butting his head against the glass over and over, wondering why he can't get outside.
Your last point, if I understand it, is:
"the state is forcing a stupid law on business owner! and u support that law! and if he doesn't agree with that law he gets jail and fines! That is like VIOLENCE against him! U r support violence against another person! I m not! POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC, UR SIDE = UNREASONABLE AND VIOLENT AND MY SIDE = REASONABLE AND PEACEFUL, THERE4 MY SIDE MUST BE THE RITE 1!!!!"
Forgive me if I misunderstand any part of that point. I don't speak 'stupid' and sometimes I need a translator for the more delicate passages.
Honestly I've been wasting upwards of an hour a day in this thread and it's starting to wear on my patience. I don't understand how anyone can be careless enough about their health to smoke at all, much less rude enough to smoke around other people who are bothered by it, not to mention rude enough to suggest the nonsmokers (who are the majority) should find another place to play pool just to humor the smoking minority. You're asking us to travel to another building when we're just asking you to step outside before lighting up? And yet you talk as if you're being bullied? lol, horseshit.
I'm gonna force myself to quit this thread, because it's developing into an unhealthy habit for me and may be bothering other people
I'll try to use shorter, simpler, and smaller words.
You say: "u cant just 'vote people off the island' with ur mean laws! it goes against liberty!"
I say: "isn't forcing people to go to other pool halls to avoid smoke 'voting them off the island' too?
You say: "you dunno what ur saying about the constitution and rights!"
I say: "Neither of those words belongs in this argument. Nothing written in any legal document spells out rights to smoke or rights of a business owner. Oh, but you disagree! You found a relevant quote in the constitution (which has nothing to do with this argument)!
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
That phrase is so vague, anyone can twist it to mean anything they want. I can say "they were thinking of obvious rights like the right to have clean air everywhere". You can say "no, they were thinking of obvious rights like a business owner's rights to set his own policies about things like smoking." Some other guy can say "they were thinking about our right to look at any porn we want, even if it has little kids in it" ... some other guy can say "that phrase is talking about the right to open casinos anywhere".
Can you understand now why I keep trying to steer us away from arguments about 'rights' and 'constitution'? But you keep circling back to them like a fly butting his head against the glass over and over, wondering why he can't get outside.
Your last point, if I understand it, is:
"the state is forcing a stupid law on business owner! and u support that law! and if he doesn't agree with that law he gets jail and fines! That is like VIOLENCE against him! U r support violence against another person! I m not! POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC, UR SIDE = UNREASONABLE AND VIOLENT AND MY SIDE = REASONABLE AND PEACEFUL, THERE4 MY SIDE MUST BE THE RITE 1!!!!"
Forgive me if I misunderstand any part of that point. I don't speak 'stupid' and sometimes I need a translator for the more delicate passages.
Honestly I've been wasting upwards of an hour a day in this thread and it's starting to wear on my patience. I don't understand how anyone can be careless enough about their health to smoke at all, much less rude enough to smoke around other people who are bothered by it, not to mention rude enough to suggest the nonsmokers (who are the majority) should find another place to play pool just to humor the smoking minority. You're asking us to travel to another building when we're just asking you to step outside before lighting up? And yet you talk as if you're being bullied? lol, horseshit.
I'm gonna force myself to quit this thread, because it's developing into an unhealthy habit for me and may be bothering other people
Hi Creedo. Quitting now might not be such a bad idea. It will never end. The bottom line is, business owners "own" the right to do business according to the law. No matter the business, there are laws governing it. However, with your selection of debate partners, that is a point that will continue be garbled and lost in all of the tit-for-tat nonsense. It's a good debate tactic, really; if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t. Heh. I made this very point in another thread and Jeff started hitting me with references to Dostoevsky. It was actually pretty funny. In fact, I printed some of that conversation and passed it around to some of the people at my office. We all got a pretty good laugh out of it. I guess I should say, "thanks". Office life can be a bit boring some times without some form of humor.
The good news is, if you live in a state where indoor smoking is allowed, and that's the way you like it, then you still have a chance to vote, start petitions, or whatever you want to do, to try to keep it that way. If you live in a state where indoor smoking is not allowed, and you like it that way, you can just be happy knowing that you can go wherever you want now and not have to breathe anyone else's smoke. If you live in a state where you don't agree with the smoking law, then I don't know what you can do other than "choose" to deal with it, become some sort of activist for your cause, or move to a state where you agree with the law. Or you can just choose to b*tch about it in a billiards forum where your voice can REALLY be heard.
The bottom line is, business owners "own" the right to do business according to the law. No matter the business, there are laws governing it. However, with your selection of debate partners, that is a point that will continue be garbled and lost in all of the tit-for-tat nonsense. It's a good debate tactic, really; if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh*t. Heh. I made this very point in another thread and Jeff started hitting me with references to Dostoevsky. It was actually pretty funny. In fact, I printed some of that conversation and passed it around to some of the people at my office. We all got a pretty good laugh out of it. I guess I should say, "thanks". Office life can be a bit boring some times without some form of humor.The good news is, if you live in a state where indoor smoking is allowed, and that's the way you like it, then you still have a chance to vote, start petitions, or whatever you want to do, to try to keep it that way. If you live in a state where indoor smoking is not allowed, and you like it that way, you can just be happy knowing that you can go wherever you want now and not have to breathe anyone else's smoke. If you live in a state where you don't agree with the smoking law, then I don't know what you can do other than "choose" to deal with it, become some sort of activist for your cause, or move to a state where you agree with the law. Or you can just choose to b*tch about it in a billiards forum where your voice can REALLY be heard.
CreeDo said:lol, I carefully read and point out the flaws in your arguments and you come back with "you ignore my points and I refuted everything you said!" Then you say some of the wackiest shit I've seen since since I last watched cheech and chong.
I'll try to use shorter, simpler, and smaller words.
You say: "u cant just 'vote people off the island' with ur mean laws! it goes against liberty!"
I say: "isn't forcing people to go to other pool halls to avoid smoke 'voting them off the island' too?
You say: "you dunno what ur saying about the constitution and rights!"
I say: "Neither of those words belongs in this argument. Nothing written in any legal document spells out rights to smoke or rights of a business owner. Oh, but you disagree! You found a relevant quote in the constitution (which has nothing to do with this argument)!
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
That phrase is so vague, anyone can twist it to mean anything they want. I can say "they were thinking of obvious rights like the right to have clean air everywhere". You can say "no, they were thinking of obvious rights like a business owner's rights to set his own policies about things like smoking." Some other guy can say "they were thinking about our right to look at any porn we want, even if it has little kids in it" ... some other guy can say "that phrase is talking about the right to open casinos anywhere".
Can you understand now why I keep trying to steer us away from arguments about 'rights' and 'constitution'? But you keep circling back to them like a fly butting his head against the glass over and over, wondering why he can't get outside.
Your last point, if I understand it, is:
"the state is forcing a stupid law on business owner! and u support that law! and if he doesn't agree with that law he gets jail and fines! That is like VIOLENCE against him! U r support violence against another person! I m not! POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC, UR SIDE = UNREASONABLE AND VIOLENT AND MY SIDE = REASONABLE AND PEACEFUL, THERE4 MY SIDE MUST BE THE RITE 1!!!!"
Forgive me if I misunderstand any part of that point. I don't speak 'stupid' and sometimes I need a translator for the more delicate passages.
Honestly I've been wasting upwards of an hour a day in this thread and it's starting to wear on my patience. I don't understand how anyone can be careless enough about their health to smoke at all, much less rude enough to smoke around other people who are bothered by it, not to mention rude enough to suggest the nonsmokers (who are the majority) should find another place to play pool just to humor the smoking minority. You're asking us to travel to another building when we're just asking you to step outside before lighting up? And yet you talk as if you're being bullied? lol, horseshit.
I'm gonna force myself to quit this thread, because it's developing into an unhealthy habit for me and may be bothering other people
CreeDo said:
I used the Constitution because it is a document that is easily researched to see what the writers of it meant. Not you or I, but the writers of it. Their "whys' are part of history and easily researched to know exactly what they meant by their carefully chosen words. The meaning of the ninth is simple and brilliant. But I'll not use that anymore since you upset yourself about it so much. Sorry to bring up the rulebook of the govt. I just thought it would help understanding, but....
CreeDo said:
But that is what happened.
CreeDo said:
It is not the size or spelling of the words, but the meaning.
Having a choice of pool hall environments (or not) is NOT "forcing people to go to other pool halls to avoid smoke..." It is the business owners' decision to make his hall as he sees fit and if the customers don't come, he will fail. After all, he, not you, is the owner. He might be stupid for his choices, but force?...no, he provides just the opposite: choice.
Now, getting together with people who don't even go there and voting to have the govt make the pool hall owner change his business ways IS forced-backed because he has no choice against that gang. And his customers might like it as he had it. What of their choices?
CreeDo said:
It is not stupid to respect property rights. It is stupid to reject property rights if you want your own property safe from crime. I won't continue down this path anymore as you upset yourself so much about my comments on it.
Maybe this will help...It is a simple animation that takes only about 5 minutes. It is for people who want to know about the concepts of self-ownership and what those mean and how they integrate into peaceful living. Plus the music is very soothing and may help you to park your emotions while it explains the concepts of liberty.
CreeDo said:
I don't smoke, but you read that carefully in my previous post, so you knew that when you posted the above, didn't you? I don't blow smoke into others' face. I am in the health care business. I suggest nonsmokers (who are the majority) don't use force to change someone else's business. In fact, I'm using self-defense techniques here on AZ against such violence. Pool hall owners can use all the help they can get.
I asking you to let property owners control their own property. That is all. If you don't like the way they do it, you are free to go elsewhere to smoke, not smoke, play pool, watch porn, gamble, eat trans fats, shoot a gun, drink gin, smoke a Cuban cigar, etc. You are not free to use threats of violence to make them comply to YOUR choices anymore than they are free to use threats of violence to make you comply to THEIR choices.
Thanks for taking the time to respond...this discussion is very helpful for those reading it, I'm sure.
Jeff Livingston
Jimmy M. said:Hi Creedo. Quitting now might not be such a bad idea. It will never end.
The good news is, if you live in a state where indoor smoking is allowed, and that's the way you like it, then you still have a chance to vote, start petitions, or whatever you want to do, to try to keep it that way. If you live in a state where indoor smoking is not allowed, and you like it that way, you can just be happy knowing that you can go wherever you want now and not have to breathe anyone else's smoke. If you live in a state where you don't agree with the smoking law, then I don't know what you can do other than "choose" to deal with it, become some sort of activist for your cause, or move to a state where you agree with the law. Or you can just choose to b*tch about it in a billiards forum where your voice can REALLY be heard.
Thanks for spreading Dostoyevsky's (and my!) writings. His words are important, even though laughed at by those not familiar with his basic principles of crime. His work has done much in that area. You're welcome for relieving your job boredom.
You guys get to trot out "it's the law, voted in by the majority" as your main defense for controlling others' businesses. But when I bring up THE law of the land, suddenly no one wants to talk about that. Can one have it both ways?
I use AZ to spread this message as it is a targeted audience that leans towards freedom in lifestyle. If you have any better ideas for spreading the message of liberty, please let me know...really. I've been doing this in a miriad of ways for over 25 years now and am always looking for new techniques to help others understand this simple survival concept.
Here's something that you and your co-workers can use to relieve about five minutes of boredom. It is relaxing and informative:
http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.html
Jeff Livingston
chefjeff said:
It doesn't have the same uplifting effect on office morale as your posts in that last "smoking" thread that I made reference to. I'll stick to passing the more "lighthearted stuff" around to my co-workers
I'm still not sure where property rights come into this argument though. Like, the pool room owners, in most cases, OWN their tables, right? So they could do whatever they want with those tables (unless they want to use them for some other illegal activity - like dropping them off a building onto someone's head). They could chop them into bits and that would be fine. What is it that they OWN that their property rights are violated by an indoor smoking ban? Even if they own the building, you can't just buy a building then open whatever type of business that you want to open there. You still need the necessary permits to do business. Ahhh ... now we're getting somewhere. You purchase those permits/licenses/whatever "as is". You can't purchase them then change them to your will. In effect, you are purchasing the right to conduct your business. I could continue here, but do I really need to go on? You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. I KNOW you know how it works. I think you're just beating a dead horse because you have some insatiable lust for debate. I wouldn't mind being your debate partner from time to time but this one is dead. If it were a fight, they would have stopped it already (sjm, Las Vegas, 2007).
Next!
Edit: I just thought I'd add that, if I owned a bar and I honestly believed that a statewide smoking ban were going to hurt my business, I would probably be pissed off if such a ban were passed. However, without being in the situation myself, I still think that I could be rational enough to know that "property rights", while the argument might sound good to some, aren't really being violated. The right to conduct business, according to the law, isn't a piece of "property" that you can do with as you please.
Last edited:
Jimmy M. said:It doesn't have the same uplifting effect on office morale as your posts in that last "smoking" thread that I made reference to. I'll stick to passing the more "lighthearted stuff" around to my co-workers
I'm still not sure where property rights come into this argument though. Like, the pool room owners, in most cases, OWN their tables, right? So they could do whatever they want with those tables (unless they want to use them for some other illegal activity - like dropping them off a building onto someone's head). They could chop them into bits and that would be fine. What is it that they OWN that their property rights are violated by an indoor smoking ban? Even if they own the building, you can't just buy a building then open whatever type of business that you want to open there. You still need the necessary permits to do business. Ahhh ... now we're getting somewhere. You purchase those permits/licenses/whatever "as is". You can't purchase them then change them to your will. In effect, you are purchasing the right to conduct your business. I could continue here, but do I really need to go on? You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. I KNOW you know how it works. I think you're just beating a dead horse because you have some insatiable lust for debate. I wouldn't mind being your debate partner from time to time but this one is dead. If it were a fight, they would have stopped it already (sjm, Las Vegas, 2007).
Next!
Edit: I just thought I'd add that, if I owned a bar and I honestly believed that a statewide smoking ban were going to hurt my business, I would probably be pissed off if such a ban were passed. However, without being in the situation myself, I still think that I could be rational enough to know that "property rights", while the argument might sound good to some, aren't really being violated. The right to conduct business, according to the law, isn't a piece of "property" that you can do with as you please. (emphasis is ChefJeff's)
Ref your last sentence in your edit: Yes it is...or should I say, it would be better if it was. If not, you do NOT own the property, someone else does. If you have full responsiblity for the problems, BUT NOT FULL CONTROL, you don't own anything. To the degree that this happens, you're a slave to someone else.
So, to give up more control while still being held responsible, means that pool halls are increasingly vulnerable to attack by the control-freaks and their supporters. Think how easy it is to put a hall out of business by using the "good for society" or "voted by the majority," or "new use of this place will create more tax money for the children" techniques that transfer control from the person who is responsible to those who refuse responsiblity but take control anyway. The control-freaks get the goods, pool gets the shaft...again...and again. Byrne wrote a whole chapter in one of his books on this.
Now, as for the licensing requirements....This argument has been repeated here, yet never rationally justified. Licensing is another form of violent control. And it does little or nothing for safety of the customers. It is used mostly to protect established businesses from new competition. So, the licensing argument falls as flat as the anti-smoking arguments. If you want to get into that, we can...much study has been done in this area. It is the same principle, just a different subject.
But again, why insist on everyone following those "a" point laws if "THE" law is conveniently dismissed as irrelevant? Doesn't that seem hypocritical to cherry-pick laws in order to justify controlling others and their properties? But I'll leave that argument to the statists here, if they want to jump in.
Control of others takes many forms, some very hidden, such as licensing, permits, zoning, etc. that, on their face, seem to be a good idea. After all, who wants to eat tainted food or drink bathtub gin? But these things rarely happen,* not because of bureaucrats doing good, but because of profit. Businesses are in it for the money. Keeping customers coming back is the goal. Food poisining, in this case, isn't good for acheiving that goal, so the incentives make it so the owners keep it safe.**
Thanks for not giving up on me, Jimmy,
Jeff Livingston
* These bad results still happen with licensing laws, but the govt (now in control) doesn't take responsiblity, for example, for their lack of inspections, yet still gets to call the shots for the "owners" and their customers.
**Some customers want an unsafe environment, which is an example of the subjective nature of value. Some want smoking and second hand smoke, lowlife characters hanging out, gambling, etc. and will willingly pay for a place that caters to them. Some, as Jack Kevorkian demonstrated, even want to die and are willing to pay for someone to help them do just that. Therefore, the 'one size fits all' mandates create problems for some that didn't before exist. Free businesses overcome these differences and make money doing it, so they tend to continue supplying us with these subjective value choices. The ability to chose among many values is good.
chefjeff said:
I'm not debating the justification for licensing requirements. I'm merely stating that, in this country, that is the way it is. You require some form of licensing to do business in this country. Whether it's right or wrong is something that could be debated and disagreed upon until the end of time.
Very well said and I couldn't agree more!MrLucky said:I applaud the day this happens! I fell sorry for the addicted smokers that cannot seem to break this nasty and unhealthy habit but perhaps a ban is what will help save their lives by forcing them away from the seduction of the money hungry Tobacco Corporation LobbiesI certainly know that it will make my pool hobby much more enjoyable and safer !