Tuesday, March 07, 2006
It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C. S. Lewis
Comments:
<< Home
I will share with you my argument, which was a comment of mine on Right off the Shore some time ago.
My support of the smoking ban has nothing to do with the "good of the victims," but instead is about the rights of the non-smokers. For all I care, anyone can sit in their home or on the sidewalk and smoke themself into a grave.
Here you go:
The smoking ban is about freedom.
Ask yourself, why is it illegal to kill someone? It is about freedom. You are free to kill someone, but that person is also free to live... this presents a conflict of freedoms where they cannot both coexist. So, this is where it becomes the job of the government to step in and determine which freedom has more worth or value. In this case, the government has determined that an individual's freedom to live outweighs another individual's freedom to kill a person. As crazy as it sounds, that truly is the root for laws against murder(no - not the ten commandments).
Similarly, when I go out to a public bar or restaurant, I have a freedom to inhale clean air and not actively be giving myself lung cancer. Similarly, you have a freedom to smoke a cigarette at that same establishment. These two freedoms conflict, and cannot coexist. In years past, the government deemed your freedom to smoke as holding greater weight than my freedom for clean air. However, as science continues to prove even more how dangerous second-hand smoke is, and as there is a societal shift because of older generations really starting to get hit by lung cancer (got my grandma); various governmental bodies have begun to rule that my freedom to breath clean air now exceeds your freedom to smoke.
Furthermore... When people use the "what's next" argument they simply don't understand the complexity of this issue. It is not about dictating random things you like or don't like. It is about serving as a moderator or referee between two conflicting freedoms.
My support of the smoking ban has nothing to do with the "good of the victims," but instead is about the rights of the non-smokers. For all I care, anyone can sit in their home or on the sidewalk and smoke themself into a grave.
Here you go:
The smoking ban is about freedom.
Ask yourself, why is it illegal to kill someone? It is about freedom. You are free to kill someone, but that person is also free to live... this presents a conflict of freedoms where they cannot both coexist. So, this is where it becomes the job of the government to step in and determine which freedom has more worth or value. In this case, the government has determined that an individual's freedom to live outweighs another individual's freedom to kill a person. As crazy as it sounds, that truly is the root for laws against murder(no - not the ten commandments).
Similarly, when I go out to a public bar or restaurant, I have a freedom to inhale clean air and not actively be giving myself lung cancer. Similarly, you have a freedom to smoke a cigarette at that same establishment. These two freedoms conflict, and cannot coexist. In years past, the government deemed your freedom to smoke as holding greater weight than my freedom for clean air. However, as science continues to prove even more how dangerous second-hand smoke is, and as there is a societal shift because of older generations really starting to get hit by lung cancer (got my grandma); various governmental bodies have begun to rule that my freedom to breath clean air now exceeds your freedom to smoke.
Furthermore... When people use the "what's next" argument they simply don't understand the complexity of this issue. It is not about dictating random things you like or don't like. It is about serving as a moderator or referee between two conflicting freedoms.
Thanks for that. I get your position. The crux of the matter perhaps rests on whether a restaurant is a public space or a private business. You argue the former, I prefer the latter.
I would argue a hybrid... it is a private business open to the general public. If they chose to not be open to the general public, then that would nullify my argument... but it would raise a whole new litany of others.
Your house and a bar are both privately owned, but your house is not open to the general public. When you decide to offer a service or product and open yourself up to the public, you are then going to be held to a different standard than a private space like a home.
That said, you point out why there is an indefinite disagreement on the issue. If two sides cannot agree to simple definitions, they cannot then carry on a debate on the undefined definitions no matter how well-intentioned each side may be.
Post a Comment
Your house and a bar are both privately owned, but your house is not open to the general public. When you decide to offer a service or product and open yourself up to the public, you are then going to be held to a different standard than a private space like a home.
That said, you point out why there is an indefinite disagreement on the issue. If two sides cannot agree to simple definitions, they cannot then carry on a debate on the undefined definitions no matter how well-intentioned each side may be.
<< Home
