tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15037609.post5868645475182866954..comments2023-10-01T16:53:17.274+01:00Comments on Cicero's Songs: Freedom up in Smoke?Cicerohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02090838836212624633noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15037609.post-45981835730696109102009-03-24T23:26:00.000+00:002009-03-24T23:26:00.000+00:00Bishop HillPeople going to pubs go there with "fre...Bishop Hill<BR/><BR/><I>People going to pubs go there with "free, voluntary and undeceived consent and participation". Therefore the harm principle is not breached.</I><BR/><BR/>See, told you so! Liberalism without the common sense, or indeed, sense of the common good.KelvinKidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01118042006400401585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15037609.post-57634503832292336442009-03-24T13:53:00.000+00:002009-03-24T13:53:00.000+00:00All too often missing in the discussion of smoking...All too often missing in the discussion of smoking is that to discharge your body's wastes, from any orifice of your body, is an act of assault if you compel others to participate in its effects without their consent. Exhaled cigarette smoke, even if gaseous, is no more acceptable to be forced on others than the solid waste of picking one's nose. Bodily wastes are usually repugnant to others.Francishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229059771891072991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15037609.post-8340479730681157802009-03-23T17:55:00.000+00:002009-03-23T17:55:00.000+00:00CiceroTwo things to say there:i)Surely you're joki...Cicero<BR/><BR/>Two things to say there:<BR/><BR/>i)Surely you're joking! You haven't been able to switch on the telly for thirty years without someone sounding off about it. <BR/>ii)If you can find a couple of people who claim not to know about it, does that suddenly allow another liberty to be shot down in flames? Our freedoms are in severe danger if such a high level of proof is demanded before we can take advantage of them. I dusted off my <A HREF="http://bishophill.squarespace.com/bill-of-rights/" REL="nofollow">Bill of Rights</A> the other day and wrote in a clause called "The Assumption of Liberty" (pace Randy Barnett) with precisely this sort of thing in mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15037609.post-32379816306249727102009-03-23T16:24:00.000+00:002009-03-23T16:24:00.000+00:00Bishop Hill- welcome indeed. The wrinkle on your w...Bishop Hill- welcome indeed. The wrinkle on your wrinkle on the harm principle is the question as to whether the risks of passive smoking are explicitly understood and undertaken, and I am not sure that they were. <BR/><BR/>I guess it is quite clear how difficult it was to take the decision to support the smoking ban, and indeed by what a very narrow margin.Cicerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02090838836212624633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15037609.post-62588809384320261832009-03-23T16:20:00.000+00:002009-03-23T16:20:00.000+00:00Also I forgot earlier, Tristan, I would still stan...Also I forgot earlier, Tristan, I would still stand by the Liberal Democrats was being on the "political wing of the libertarian axis", simply because politics is the art of the possible, and much of the Libertarian agenda, while consistent and often admirable, is simply neither electable nor enactable under current conditions.Cicerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02090838836212624633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15037609.post-53149293398267136702009-03-23T16:00:00.000+00:002009-03-23T16:00:00.000+00:00KelvinkidDo you have something to support your ass...Kelvinkid<BR/><BR/>Do you have something to support your assertion that the air is held in common? My understanding was that the common law holds that it belongs to the property owner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15037609.post-38130820022424044932009-03-23T15:55:00.000+00:002009-03-23T15:55:00.000+00:00The other point is that you have only set out half...The other point is that you have only set out half of the harm principle. Mill explains it more fully <BR/><BR/>"But there is a sphere of action in which society, as distinguished from the individual, has, if any, only an indirect interest; comprehending all that portion of a person's life and conduct which affects only himself, or, if it also affects others, only with their free, voluntary, and undeceived consent and participation. When I say only himself, I mean directly, and in the first instance: for whatever affects himself, may affect others through himself; and the objection which may be grounded on this contingency, will receive consideration in the sequel."<BR/><BR/>People going to pubs go there with "free, voluntary and undeceived consent and participation". Therefore the harm principle is not breached.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15037609.post-3903250991875352142009-03-23T15:43:00.000+00:002009-03-23T15:43:00.000+00:00On libertarianism and liberalism - I'd argue that ...<I>On libertarianism and liberalism - I'd argue that libertarianism is consistent liberalism</I><BR/><BR/>Tristan, I would argue that Libertarianism is Liberalism with the common sense taken out.<BR/><BR/>Your argument here <I>Secondly, smoking is banned in private spaces. A pub is private property, its just private property where people are free to go unless the landlord says they cannot. </I> is entirely disingenuous. The air in any space is held in common. If smokers smoke in it they pollute it and deny its use by others. The science indicates that the danger of passive smoking is real. Smokers can go outside to smoke and on their return can use the area without harming anyone. Or they can be even more sensible and voluntarily give up.KelvinKidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01118042006400401585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15037609.post-61957077815874934872009-03-23T13:52:00.000+00:002009-03-23T13:52:00.000+00:00Hi Tristan. Well as always you emerge to keep me o...Hi Tristan. Well as always you emerge to keep me on the straight and narrow! I think the difference between our positions is the issue of just how dangerous smoking actually is- in sum, I think it is pretty dangerous, and you are not convinced. If you take your view of the dangers, then yes I think you are right to interpret things that way. As to the issue of the Pub as private space, then I again concur, but the problem is that there is a legal tort at issue: if a landlord permits activity that is knowingly dangerous and some people are hurt, then he/she is personally liable. Therefore I would say that the issue of public access to private spaces, which is a key point in most libertarian argument is somewhat compromised.<BR/><BR/>Your points are fair, but it rests on your view of the science, and the consensus has been that smoking is so dangerous to others that it should be restricted. If you don't beleive that, then your position is correct.Cicerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02090838836212624633noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15037609.post-54894307109731233062009-03-23T13:14:00.000+00:002009-03-23T13:14:00.000+00:00There's two problems - firstly the risks of passiv...There's two problems - firstly the risks of passive smoking are over stated by ideologically anti-smoking crusaders - to the extent that it is hard for me to form an opinion of what the real risks are.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, smoking is banned in private spaces. A pub is private property, its just private property where people are free to go unless the landlord says they cannot.<BR/><BR/>Nobody is forced to go there, if there's smoking allowed then they can choose not to go.<BR/>This is legislation to protect people from themselves dressed up as protection from others.<BR/><BR/>The argument that people have no choice but to work in a pub also holds no water.<BR/>If there is no other work then that is a result of hundreds of years of distortions in the market enforced by the state (see Kevin Caron's work on this).<BR/><BR/>On libertarianism and liberalism - I'd argue that libertarianism is consistent liberalism (as Benjamin Tucker said, he was a consistent Manchester man).Tristanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15395992764678278326noreply@blogger.com