tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1550860273683392756..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: On So-Called “Sin Laws”Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-2447706294739148242010-04-25T15:10:46.738-04:002010-04-25T15:10:46.738-04:00Obviously smoking is being held to a different and...<i>Obviously smoking is being held to a different and irrational standard.</i><br /><br />You concede that smoking directly impacts anyone near it so its more rational to say that indirect impacts are the same?<br /><br />You're just copping out but don't want to admit it.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72720061041148100322010-04-24T22:00:17.549-04:002010-04-24T22:00:17.549-04:00I couldn't care less if the state had the supp...<i>I couldn't care less if the state had the support of everyone or of no one. The truth of a proposition is not contingent upon its popularity.</i><br /><br />But majority support matters here. How hard is that to understand? You can sit there and fill the room with all the hot air you want, but at the end of the day, how laws get passed or things like smoking bans get placed matters on its popularity. I agree that it does not follow that x is true because so many people think its correct, but there is also reality - like taking so many votes for a measure to pass. Welcome to reality.<br /><br /><i>Again, the issue is "does a restaurant owner have a right to control his restaurant as he sees fit?" I say that he has the right to do so, regardless of how many people disagree, because his restaurant is, first and foremost, the product of his mental and physical labour.</i><br /><br />A restaurant owner has no 'rights'. No more 'rights', that is, than anyone else just because he or she decides to open up a business. A product of his mental and physical labour? Puh-leez. A restaurant (a successful one, anyway) is a product of many people working together - from the staff to the location to the continued patronage, not to mention the things we've discussed that aids it in its success (like benefiting from being in a city). Because someone sits down one day and decides they want to do this, they all the sudden are not special and do not gain 'rights' that may exclude him or her from having to comply with that citys' or states' referendums.<br /><br />I have no interest in reading and responding to the rest of what you wrote, I stopped when you try to accuse me of diversion when you then spooge all over the place with your libertarian nonsense. <br /><br />What you're doing is working backward - today private enterprise may have the resources to do things better than government - that may indeed be the case in some areas, others not so, but I'm not interested in being told that the private sector was ready - resources in hand - to take on projects like the railway or highway systems in the past. Revising history will not help you.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66558309023768881802010-04-24T18:08:26.505-04:002010-04-24T18:08:26.505-04:00That is why government should not meddle with inte...That is why government should not meddle with interest rates. Now, on to credit exchange standards. As a note, its the Fed's interest rate meddling that does the real damage. The following government scheming is foul, but its not as economically detrimental as the Fed's conduct.<br /><br />The government, ever since the Carter administration, has made it an objective to increase the supply of mortgage loans, passed the market supply of mortgage loans, particularly for ethnic minorities. According to many within the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, people have a "right" to housing. <br /><br />Through a number of legislative instruments, including the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, the federal goverment tried to increase the supply of mortage loans by forcibly reducing the conditions upon which mortgage loans are exchanged. The forcible reduction of conditions took several forms, but I'll focus on one. For example, the government prohibited racial discrimination in the distribution of mortgage loans by institutional lenders. Now, institutional lenders extend credit in accordance with a potential borrower's creditworthiness. Creditworthiness is measured by assessing a potential borrower's income, both in its size and its consistency, past performance in fulfilling debt obligations, quantity of savings, criminal background, etc. These variables co-operate to form a potential borrower's credit rating. <br /><br />Unfortunately, the credit ratings of whites have always exceeded the credit ratings of minorities, for a variety of reasons (none of them being racial in a physiological sense). Thus, historically more mortgage loans have been distributed to whites than to minorities. As stated, institutional lenders exchange credit only with those who are creditworthy. They must, otherwise they will incur unnecessary credit risk if they extend credit to those who are not creditworthy. Credit risk puts the business solvency of an institutional lender in question.<br /><br />However, the historic asymmetric distribution of mortgage loans between whites and non-whites gave opponents of institutional lenders a fortuitous opportunity to publically miscontrue the asymmetry as racism and, furthermore, to give a spurious justification for greater government intervention into the mortgage loan market. Now, lending in accordance with mathematically analyzed assessments that yielded a racially unbalanced distribution of mortgage loans became discrimination and therefore illegal. Thus, mortgage loans found themselves in the hands of those who were not creditworthy.<br /><br />Its no surprise that, subsequently, an awful amount of black and Hispanic people have defaulted on their mortgage loans and have been removed from their homes (again, igniting claims of racism and racial discrimination).Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17395038521726858212010-04-24T18:05:31.850-04:002010-04-24T18:05:31.850-04:00Darek W: Why would you go someplace for a burger t...Darek W: Why would you go someplace for a burger that allowed smoking if you don't like smoke? As you note, the majority dislikes smoking, meaning without regulations there would be (and were, prior to smoking bans) ample freely chosen non-smoking restaurants. <br /><br />Because the secondary harms to third parties from drinking aren't immediate does not change the fact the harmful effects are real. Restricting alchohol comsumption to within the home would prevent harms far greater than the harms of second hand smoke. <br /><br />Obviously smoking is being held to a different and irrational standard.C. Van Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09918883799053031223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-83824872438490834242010-04-24T17:33:34.459-04:002010-04-24T17:33:34.459-04:00...(continued) As entrepreneurs acquire more credi......(continued) As entrepreneurs acquire more credit and demand more factors, more entrepreneurs enter the market to produce factors for sale and, thus, both the length and width of production increases.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the ultimate cause of the boom in the factor market - the initial increase in the supply of credit - is fraudulent. The problem with increasing the supply of credit by merely printing money electronically is because the only sound way to increase the supply of credit is by increasing the supply of *savings.* When people save, they demonstrate that they are more future-oriented. When an increase in the supply of credit comes from an increase in savings, the credit supply increase comes from an increase in future-orientedness from savers.<br /><br />However, fraudulence is built into an economic structure of production if its fueled by an increase in the credit supply by counterfeiting money (as is the case with the Fed). The kind of production that's fueled by an increase in the supply of credit is the kind tailored towards the production of goods that satisfy the demands of more *future-oriented consumers.* When such production is fueled by a savings-caused increase in the supply of credit, i.e., fueled by consumer future-orientedness, then the production ends up producing goods that satisfy consumer demand. However, when such production is fueled by counterfeiting, where consumers have *not* exhibited greater future-orientedness, then the production ends up producing goods that do not satisfy consumer demand, i.e., producing more future-oriented goods for less future-oriented people.<br /><br />Needless to say, less future-oriented consumers do not want more future-oriented goods, so they decrease their demand for more future-oriented goods and continue spending their wages on less-future-oriented goods. Those entrepreneurs producing more-future-oriented goods find that demand for their goods becomes insufficient, precipitating into a recession where businesses have to be liquidated, labour relinquished, and real estate and capital goods sold at a discount. The recession is the necessary liquidation process by which the mal-investments caused by artificially credit expansion are eliminated.Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27551105919714603152010-04-24T17:33:34.460-04:002010-04-24T17:33:34.460-04:00I would gladly elaborate on the issue of the gover...I would gladly elaborate on the issue of the government and the current recession.<br /><br />The current economic contraction was made necessary by the artificial credit expansion engaged in by the Federal Reserve system, the central banking system created by an act of Congress in 1913.<br /><br />Under the tutelage of Alan Greenspan, the Fed artificially reduced interest rates (it does so through a complicated process but it essentially does it by lowering the Fed funds rate) all throughout the 2000s. The interest rate is the price of credit. According to the law of demand, as the price of credit, or the interest rate, falls, the quantity of credit demanded rises. This is the case because as the price of credit falls, it enters the price ranges of more credit demanders or borrowers. This is precisely what happened in the mid 2000s (and continues today as the Fed funds rate is next to 0%).<br /><br />The problem comes with how the Fed goes about reducing interest rates. It does so literally by manufacturing money. In the olden days it had to order the Bureau of Printing and Engraving to print new bills and it wrote paper checks. Now the Fed reduces interest rates by calling upon the New York branch to write electronic checks which it uses to buy debt instruments (bonds, bills, and notes) issued by the Treasury Department. The Fed buys these Treasury instruments (claims to future payment) with money that it literally makes electronically, from nothing, ex nihilo.<br /><br />By producing more credit, the Fed increases the supply of credit. As the supply of credit increases, the price of credit falls. As the price of credit falls, the quantity of credit demanded rises. Entrepreneurs make up the bulk of those who increase the quantity of credit demanded at the lower interest rates. Entrepreneurs need financial capital with which to acquire factors of production (land, labour, and capital goods). These factors allow them to produce goods that consumers wants, be they citizens on the street or other businesses. So, if financial capital becomes cheap, entrepreneurs will acquire more of it. As entrepreneurs who acquire cheap credit use it to purchase factors of production, they simultaneously increase the demand for factors of production, particularly capital goods. As the demand for factors increases, the price of factors increases. This explains why commercial real estate and capital goods become so unusually expensive during bouts of artificially economic growth...(to be continued)Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42964644392398185952010-04-24T16:47:40.225-04:002010-04-24T16:47:40.225-04:00Darek W writes,
"The government does attempt...Darek W writes,<br /><br />"The government does attempt to place restrictions and regulations, but when you have an industry powerful enough - like coal or oil, among others - to lobby government officials, which circumvents public interests, than you have polluters paying to pollute - but they're making profit. That you seem to ignore this (I say this because I don't think you've never found a case in which I have described) is very telling."<br /><br />Well, that's *corporatism,* not capitalism. Corporatism is a social system where the government fails to protect private property rights, usually in the interest of large corporations and private enterprises. On the other hand, capitalism is a social system where the government recognizes and protects private property rights. Under genuine capitalism, there would be no lobbying since the government would be legally unable to extend corporate welfare in the form of special privileges, grants, or subsidies.<br /><br />Darek W writes,<br /><br />"Nope. It tries to do just that. But when private enterprise develops resources that out-maneuver public support, democracy is a catch phrase and fascism is fashionable."<br /><br />??? I think that this is more of a cliched response then an argument. I don't know what it means.Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15324163836826419392010-04-24T16:39:45.565-04:002010-04-24T16:39:45.565-04:00Darek W writes,
"Yet in your next post to me...Darek W writes,<br /><br />"Yet in your next post to me, you agree that those who pollute another's body or private property should be punished... Frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about here - or rather, your position is clearly not well thought out with this contradiction present."<br /><br />*Sigh* <br /><br />This is what I have been arguing thus far: One has the right to pollute upon one's private property and one does not have the right to pollute upon another's private property unless the polluter has the person's permission.<br /><br />If factory X pollutes upon your private property without your permission, the factory is in the wrong and you should be able to sue for damages. If factory X pollutes upon its own property without polluting upon your private property, you have no justification for suing him. Furthermore, if a restaurant owner allows cigarette smoking within his private property, you have no right to sue him. Ok. This is a lucid, dummyproof position.Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51758785914379243862010-04-24T16:32:16.640-04:002010-04-24T16:32:16.640-04:00Darek W writes,
"Not only is the problem tha...Darek W writes,<br /><br />"Not only is the problem that your control over your material product disregards the possibilty of unintended consquences unto others, its exactly why private interests - when used as motivation as a model for public policy, is inefficient and negligent in comparison to government - which is publicly accountable"<br /><br />Disregard unintended consequences? Did I not say that, for example, if a private factory pollutes upon another's body or property so much to constitute a rights violation, that the government should step in and levy compensatory damages upon the factory in question and require the factory to clean up the plaintiff's property?<br /><br />How ironic. It is private firms who have been historically accountable to those whom they serve, while the history of government is a history of chronic unaccountability. What happens if a private firm fails to satisfy consumer demand? Consumers stop patronizing that firm, then the firm either loses money, goes bankrupt, or goes "under." What happens if a government fails to satisfy consumer demand? It *does not* go out of business, because it obtains its revenue through taxation, through the coercive expropriation of monetary assets. Private firms have an incentive to properly and to continually satisfy consumer demand because their survival is contingent upon properly and continually satisfying consumer demand. This does not apply to government as it is whatsoever. The survival of government is not contingent upon its performance, since its ability to tax assures its continued existence. Thus, the market incentivizes performance by linking it inextricably with survival. By contrast, there is little connection between the survival and the performance of a government since the government can use other means, taxation, to easily maintain its existence.Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80838117818873248452010-04-24T16:32:16.641-04:002010-04-24T16:32:16.641-04:00Darek W writes,
"What you are ignoring is th...Darek W writes,<br /><br />"What you are ignoring is the fact that all of those government programs provided things that were recipricated by public support. If you're insinuating that the private sector was there at all times, from the railroads to the moon, to provide a hand, the first to the idea, willing to do those things instead, but it was that damn government which forced us out like the mafia... well, frankly, the burden is on you to make this make sense."<br /><br />Yes, the private sector is always ready to satisfy consumer demand. You cannot indict market participants for being too greedy in earning profits and simultaneously criticize them for allegedly lacking the initiative possessed by government to serve consumer wants. Where there is a demand, there will be entrepreneurs waiting to satisfy that demand.<br /><br />The market coordinates the satisfaction of consumer demand through the price system. If the demand for good X is high and the supply of good X is low (a situation where consumer demand probably is not being properly satisfied), the price will be correspondingly high. As the price of good X increases, the quantity of good X supplied will increase. How? As the price of good X rises, more money can be made from producing and distributing it. Investors and entrepreneurs (greedy as they are) are in it to make money. Ergo, as the price of good X rises, investors will lend financial capital to entrepreneurs who will use it to acquire factors of production (land, labour, and capital goods) to produce and distribute good X. If the demand for a good increases, the price of that good will increase, attracting financier and entrepreneurial attention. Thats how the market works to satisfy consumer demand. If the demand for railways is high (as you imply it was) then the price would have risen. As the price rose, investors and entrepreneurs would have noticed (again, they are among our most selfish citizens) and would have organized the production of railways (and would have made a windfall in the process if they were among the first to respond to the unsatisfied consumer demand - those who respond first, make the most). <br /><br />So not only can the market coordinate to satisfy consumer demand - the market provides incentives for the rapid satisfaction of consumer demand by rewarding those who satisfy consumer demand the fastest and in the most efficient and innovative way. This is, as they say, economics 101.Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40334047317289759862010-04-24T15:19:34.882-04:002010-04-24T15:19:34.882-04:00Darek W writes,
"No. Thats a very poor analo...Darek W writes,<br /><br />"No. Thats a very poor analogy. If you're a milkman, you rely on a hell of a lot of government subsidy in order for you to do business - from where that milk comes from to how that milk gets processed, to how it gets distributed. This narrow-mindedness (frankly, its what it is) is precisely what is wrong with Randian views (though I will concede I've only ever read 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead')."<br /><br />You've chosen to argue besides the point. The point is that you cannot give special credit to the government for offering a service like road access when the government *forcibly prevents* all others from offering road access as well. Instead of arguing to the point, you have chosen to emphasize aspects of the *current* nature of milk production and distribution, i.e., a diversionary tactic. It doesn't matter if the analogical good in question is milk or widgets or pornography, the hypothetical proposition I offered stands: If the government is the sole provider of good X and excludes everyone else from competing with it to provide good X, then no special credit may be lent to the government for providing good X (the one exception is the administration of justice, which is a necessary condition for the existence of a market to begin with).<br /><br />Regarding the alleged narrow-mindedness of the "Randian' method - again, demonstration is distinct from assertion. <br /><br />"This is a bit of a 'cry me a river' argument, if I can say so. We could live in a world where our economy worked differently, but it doesn't. We have these things because we needed them and the best way to get them done was through government programs - not through private enterprise. Who ever stepped up to offer us a national highway system? railway system? Why did they fail? The resources and dynamical capabilities of a centralized state is second-to none next to private enterprise - I challenge you to show me wrong historically."<br /><br />It certainly is not true that we have government controlled roads, transportation, and sewer systems because, as you say, "we needed them and the best way to get them done was through government programs - not through private enterprise.' The whole corpus of free-market economics is based upon, among other things, a demonstration that the private firms can provide goods more efficiently and of better quality than the government. We have government controlled roads, transportation, and sewer systems precisely because the government would not have it any other way. And who can legally challenge the authority of the state in this respect, since the government holds a monopoly of the use of retaliatory force? What would happen if a group of investors tried to finance the construction of a new road to satisfy consumer demand? Or finance the construction of a new sewer system? Or transportation goods. A thousand multi-letter commissions and bureaucracies would descend upon them and obstruct any such undertaking. This is common knowledge.<br /><br />As far as private attempts at providing goods now monopolized by the state - there is a library of examples from money production, to roads, to mail delivery. Check the Ludwig von Mises Institute which has thousands of free books and papers on this and related subjects.Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9624177394105310322010-04-24T15:19:34.883-04:002010-04-24T15:19:34.883-04:00Darek W writes,
"The state is not the Randia...Darek W writes,<br /><br />"The state is not the Randian bogeyman you'd like to think it is. If I support - to the level of the nation, state, county, city, whatever, a measure to ban smoking - its complicit. The 'demand' of the state is a demand by a majority of people (assuming my support fell into the majority) - a demand which is executed by an organized body we call government. Its not some independent, unnacountable mafia unit."<br /><br />I couldn't care less if the state had the support of everyone or of no one. The truth of a proposition is not contingent upon its popularity. It does *not* follow that an act by the state is permissible as long as it receives majority support. As far as the state being a "bogeyman" is concerned, that's the proposition under consideration here. Its one thing to say that the state is a false threat with respect to smoking - its another to demonstrate that the state is a false threat with regard to smoking.<br /><br />Darek W writes,<br /><br />"The problem is - in the restaurant/smoking scenario - that you're arguing on the waning side (not that you are necessarily a smoker). Smoking was once very popular, but now, because of what we know, it is not. Things change; hence the nature of reform. The 'freedom' to smoke is reformed given new information of what smoking does."<br /><br />I often pride myself on being the underdog. But nevertheless, I don't particularly care that the number of smokers has decreased. Again, the issue is "does a restaurant owner have a right to control his restaurant as he sees fit?" I say that he has the right to do so, regardless of how many people disagree, because his restaurant is, first and foremost, the product of his mental and physical labour. To prevent a man or woman from reaping the full benefits of his or her labour is, among other things, morally reprehensible, in my opinion. Again, the mere popularity of a practice should have no bearing upon whether the government should prohibit it or not. That is majoritarianism of the kind that had Socrates murdered. The harmfulness of smoking is not a relevant issue, since the mere harmfulness of a practice is not a sufficient condition for its prohibition. If I force you to inhale cigarette smoke by dragging you into my establishment by the collar, then I have initiated the use of force. But if you decide, on your own, as an adult, to walk into my smoking establishment, no coercion exists.Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-51758126317718799492010-04-24T14:52:05.273-04:002010-04-24T14:52:05.273-04:00The restaurant is private property, and when you a...<i>The restaurant is private property, and when you agree to enter the premises you agree to abide by the rules of those who control the private property. </i><br /><br />Damn private property if it causing harm unto others. And no - I don't have the same zeal you do towards property rights.<br /><br />You rely on others whether you acknowledge it or not. The restaurant owner relies on patronage and public support (as mentioned above). He or she is not exempt to the law or granted any rights, simply because they own property, to harm others.<br /><br />Calling it coercion is a stretch, but it is in the same vein as 'coercing' the state to establish certain laws. You do not live on an island because you own a restaurant.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11619630598798982492010-04-24T14:01:43.128-04:002010-04-24T14:01:43.128-04:00Darek W writes,
"If I go to a place for a bu...Darek W writes,<br /><br />"If I go to a place for a burger, I don't want second-hand smoke on the side - especially if most people there are not smoking. If I get it, I'm involuntarily subjected to it, no?"<br /><br />No. You are not involuntarily subjected to second hand smoke in this scenario *because* no one forced you to patronize the above burger establishment. Its as simple as that. As long as you choose to eat within a restaurant that tolerates second-hand smoke, it is *you* who exposes yourself to second-hand smoke. You subject yourself to second-hand smoke, or better yet, you allow the owner of the restaurant to subject you to second-hand smoke. Either way, you act voluntarily and you are not subject to coercion in any way.<br /><br />The restaurant is private property, and when you agree to enter the premises you agree to abide by the rules of those who control the private property. <br /><br />Ironically, it is *your* proposal which would introduce the coercion. I gather you would have the government use force to abolish smoking within restaurants.<br /><br />As a side note, I also think that the government should criminalize drunk driving, as long as it controls the roads.Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-60799517367680305272010-04-24T02:10:58.393-04:002010-04-24T02:10:58.393-04:00If a private enterprise pollutes upon another'...<i>If a private enterprise pollutes upon another's body or private property, so much so as to constitute a right's violation, then the government should punish the private enterprise in question by levying compensatory damages upon it and require the private enterprise to conduct a clean up. That the government very often does *not* do this is its fault, not the fault of the private enterprise or of capitalism. </i><br /><br />The government does attempt to place restrictions and regulations, but when you have an industry powerful enough - like coal or oil, among others - to lobby government officials, which circumvents public interests, than you have polluters paying to pollute - but they're making profit. That you seem to ignore this (I say this because I don't think you've never found a case in which I have described) is very telling.<br /><br /><br /><i>In this case, the government commits what Walter Block calls the "sin of omission." It fails to do what it should do, i.e., protect individual rights (as I conceive of them, of course) including private property rights.</i><br /><br />Nope. It tries to do just that. But when private enterprise develops resources that out-maneuver public support, democracy is a catch phrase and fascism is fashionable.<br /><br /><i>Now, I argue that the past couple of years demonstrates the "sin of commission" on the part of the government. In particular, it shows why the government should neither artificially reduce interest rates nor forcibly reduce credit exchange standards.</i><br /><br />What? Sorry. Please expound on this further. This is not even wrong, as it stands.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52255348706153066492010-04-24T01:58:36.140-04:002010-04-24T01:58:36.140-04:00to Michael Labeit (continued)
What you are ignori...to Michael Labeit (continued)<br /><br />What you are ignoring is the fact that all of those government programs provided things that were recipricated by public support. If you're insinuating that the private sector was there at all times, from the railroads to the moon, to provide a hand, the first to the idea, willing to do those things instead, but it was that damn government which forced us out like the mafia... well, frankly, the burden is on you to make this make sense.<br /><br /><i>We have the right to guide our lives in accordance with our own independent judgment and to control the material product of our mental or physical laboour - meaning, we have the right to do these things in the absence of forcible interference as long as we do not initiate the use of force against others.</i><br /><br />Not only is the problem that your control over your material product disregards the possibilty of unintended consquences unto others, its exactly why private interests - when used as motivation as a model for public policy, is inefficient and negligent in comparison to government - which is publicly accountable<br /><br /><i>Is there a contradiction between recognizing the harmfulness of smoking (I've never smoked, ever) and simultaneously recognizing one's right to establish a restaurant that permits in-door smoking? I don't think so. I think you'll see that I do not endorse asymmetric freedom.</i><br /><br />Yet in your next post to me, you agree that those who pollute another's body or private property should be punished... Frankly, I don't think you know what you're talking about here - or rather, your position is clearly not well thought out with this contradiction present.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33503589659607312832010-04-24T01:56:59.464-04:002010-04-24T01:56:59.464-04:00Michael Labeit
If the state takes it upon itself ...Michael Labeit<br /><br /><i>If the state takes it upon itself to provide everything and forcibly prevents private enterprises from competing to provide those same goods, would it be sensible then to acquiesce to the demands of the state?</i><br /><br />This is what I was talking about when I made my first comment on this thread to Michael. The state is not the Randian bogeyman you'd like to think it is. If I support - to the level of the nation, state, county, city, whatever, a measure to ban smoking - its complicit. The 'demand' of the state is a demand by a majority of people (assuming my support fell into the majority) - a demand which is executed by an organized body we call government. Its not some independent, unnacountable mafia unit.<br /><br />The problem is - in the restaurant/smoking scenario - that you're arguing on the waning side (not that you are necessarily a smoker). Smoking was once very popular, but now, because of what we know, it is not. Things change; hence the nature of reform. The 'freedom' to smoke is reformed given new information of what smoking does.<br /><br />The acquiescence here is for those who fall in the latter category - namely those who are free to harm themselves, but not others.<br /><br /><i>If I'm a milkman and I'm the sole provider of milk to you but only because I forcibly exclude milkman competition in my neighborhood by harrassing and coercing the other milkman, are you going to show me deference because I deliver milk to you? This is what government does with regard to roads.</i><br /><br />No. Thats a very poor analogy. If you're a milkman, you rely on a hell of a lot of government subsidy in order for you to do business - from where that milk comes from to how that milk gets processed, to how it gets distributed. This narrow-mindedness (frankly, its what it is) is precisely what is wrong with Randian views (though I will concede I've only ever read 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead').<br /><br /><i>The same applies to government roads, government transportation, and government sewer systems. There is no reason why private roads or sewer systems or buses and trains could not operate effectively.</i><br /><br />This is a bit of a 'cry me a river' argument, if I can say so. We <i>could</i> live in a world where our economy worked differently, but it doesn't. We have these things because we needed them and the best way to get them done was through government programs - not through private enterprise. Who ever stepped up to offer us a national highway system? railway system? Why did they fail? The resources and dynamical capabilities of a centralized state is second-to none next to private enterprise - I challenge you to show me wrong historically. <br /><br />Not that private enterprise can never help - see the history of ATT.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-5196560233877551592010-04-23T16:10:11.937-04:002010-04-23T16:10:11.937-04:00C. Van Carter,
If I go to a place for a burger, I...C. Van Carter,<br /><br />If I go to a place for a burger, I don't want second-hand smoke on the side - especially if most people there are not smoking. If I get it, I'm involuntarily subjected to it, no? "Well, go someplace else for a burger." is your response, but most people <i>don't smoke</i> (anymore). If we didn't know about the health risks associated with smoking and we were back in the 1930s, you'd have something here. But we do, and I'm being to subjected to cigarette smoke because <i>someone else</i> wants the freedom to do so.<br /><br />If there were no laws or restrictions against drunk driving or being intoxicated in public, perhaps you'd have a good analogy - but those are charges that have restrictions as well. The government in fact limits the amount you can drink, should you drive. I don't see the government doing the same with cigarettes.<br /><br />The drinking to smoking argument also fails in that if <i>I</i> am consuming a beer, I'm not <i>at the same time</i> effecting the persons' health next to me as I'm drinking it. The actions you're talking about that may be aided by the fact that someone is drunk are triggered by other varying factors - not just the alcohol.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18898689398207891072010-04-23T15:25:12.008-04:002010-04-23T15:25:12.008-04:00Darek W writes,
"...Whats more profitable is...Darek W writes,<br /><br />"...Whats more profitable is always considered above anything else and generating the most profit is always the same as being efficient (like making millions while polluting). Not to mention, private businesses cannot be held accountable in the same way government agencies and programs can.<br /><br />The past couple years should serve as a sharp reminder of this."<br /><br />If a private enterprise pollutes upon another's body or private property, so much so as to constitute a right's violation, then the government should punish the private enterprise in question by levying compensatory damages upon it and require the private enterprise to conduct a clean up. That the government very often does *not* do this is its fault, not the fault of the private enterprise or of capitalism. In this case, the government commits what Walter Block calls the "sin of omission." It fails to do what it should do, i.e., protect individual rights (as I conceive of them, of course) including private property rights.<br /><br />Now, I argue that the past couple of years demonstrates the "sin of commission" on the part of the government. In particular, it shows why the government should neither artificially reduce interet rates nor forcibly reduce credit exchange standards.Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1796492351025955202010-04-23T15:12:27.250-04:002010-04-23T15:12:27.250-04:00Darek W writes,
"What I feel this argument f...Darek W writes,<br /><br />"What I feel this argument fails to consider is what that property is inherently bound by. Is it in a city? Will most of its patrons be using roads to get there? Buses or subways? Will that restaurant rely on the cities' sewage and waste disposal systems?...<br /><br />If something like a restaurant is going to benefit by what the state provides, it can put up with what the state decides - especially when legislated by popular support - the same popular support that you are trying to get in your restaurant."<br /><br />Darek,<br /><br />If the state takes it upon itself to provide everything and forcibly prevents private enterprises from competing to provide those same goods, would it be sensible then to acquiesce to the demands of the state?<br /><br />Sure, restaurant patrons most likely use city roads. However, the city largely prohibits the ownership and construction of roads by private enterprises. If I'm a milkman and I'm the sole provider of milk to you but only because I forcibly exclude milkman competition in my neighborhood by harrassing and coercing the other milkman, are you going to show me deference because I deliver milk to you? This is what government does with regard to roads.<br /><br />The same applies to government roads, government transportation, and government sewer systems. There is no reason why private roads or sewer systems or buses and trains could not operate effectively.<br /><br />"Also, theres a strange notion of freedom being floated around here... You seem on the one hand to acknowledge the harmfulness of smoking and on the other complaining that you don't have the freedom to setup an establishment that allows people to smoke...<br /><br />'Freedom for me and not for you' is not freedom at all."<br /><br />I haven't been shy when it comes my conception of rights and freedom. I argue, a la Ayn Rand, that a right is a moral sanction to the performance of a specific action within society. We have the right to guide our lives in accordance with our own independent judgment and to control the material product of our mental or physical laboour - meaning, we have the right to do these things in the absence of forcible interference as long as we do not initiate the use of force against others.<br /><br />Is there a contradiction between recognizing the harmfulness of smoking (I've never smoked, ever) and simultaneously recognizing one's right to establish a restaurant that permits in-door smoking? I don't think so. I think you'll see that I do not endorse asymmetric freedom.Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38168505531924409522010-04-23T14:49:05.018-04:002010-04-23T14:49:05.018-04:00Darek W: No one is involuntarilly "subjected&...Darek W: No one is involuntarilly "subjected" to second hand smoke. The government does not prevent people from engaging in activites far more risky than being around smokers, including smoking itself.<br /><br />The 'second hand' consequences of drinking (drink driving deaths, assaults, rapes) are far worse than than the second hand effects of cigarette smoke, and those harmed by them are harmed involuntarily. It would be more rational public policy to tolerate smoking in private establishments, while only allowing drinking in private homes.<br /><br />Scott: OSHA sets permissible exposure limits (PEL's) to a variety of hazardous substances. If you believe the government there is "no safe level" of exposure to second hand smoke. Which is absurd, but then government claims about SHS are not based on science. The Anti-smoking movement is motivated by extortion and moralism.C. Van Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09918883799053031223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64699418740545602762010-04-23T14:39:15.657-04:002010-04-23T14:39:15.657-04:00NewEnglandBob,
It should be obvious (even to you)...NewEnglandBob,<br /><br />It should be obvious (even to you) that a government should not perform certain acts merely because its officials are elected by a majority to perform those acts. Anyone is capable of conceiving a scenario where the government should not do what the people want it to do.<br /><br />I gather from your reaction to my proposition regarding government and traffic that you are not too familiar with economics. Allow me.<br /><br />According to the laws of demand and supply, when the price of a good falls, the quantity of that good demanded by consumers rises and the quantity of that good supplied by producers falls. The reasoning is simple. As the price falls, it falls within the price ranges of more consumers and departs the price ranges of more producers. Now, the market always establishes prices that equate the quantity of a good demanded with the quantity of a good supplied, since incentives exits within the market to correct imbalances between the quantity demanded and the quantity supplied.<br /><br />However, the government can seize goods and impose its own non-market prices upon them. This is the case with roads, an industry monopolized by the government. Our government sets the price of road access artificially low, i.e., below the market price (if there was one). As a result, the quantity of road access demanded rises (while the government generally maintains the quantity of road access supplied). Thus, the quantity of road access demanded exceeds the quantity of road access supplied, causing a shortage - traffic. <br /><br />"where is there anywhere in the world private roads that everyone can use that work better than those SUPPLIED BY THE PEOPLE via their governments."<br /><br />There's a tremendous lack of private roads *because* governments prohibit the production of private roads. Dude, the non-existence of private roads due to government intervention is not a mal-effect of private roads - its a mal-effect of government. How can you simultaneously criticize private roads for not operating well and champion the government monopolization of roads which eliminates the necessary condition for the very existence of private roads?<br /><br />Good riddance. If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Might I remind you that the nastiness began with your post.Michael Labeithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00349645174207955086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54195779142341216632010-04-23T10:39:14.316-04:002010-04-23T10:39:14.316-04:00"should the government do all those things?&q..."should the government do all those things?"<br /><br />Yes, it is what people elected the government to do.<br /><br />"can private enterprises do those things more efficiently"<br /><br />Some things - yes; many things - an emphatic NO.<br /><br />"the government actually causes traffic by artificially reducing the price of road access, causing a road access shortage"<br /><br />That is a statement of pure nonsense - where is there anywhere in the world private roads that everyone can use that work better than those SUPPLIED BY THE PEOPLE via their governments.<br /><br />"Don't talk about arranging murders, especially when your own character is this () close from commiting suicide"<br /><br />This shows that you are a troll and an asshole - I will no longer respond to such stupidity from you. Go ahead and rant your stupidity that I will not see. You have deadened this thread with your nonsense and I am out of here.NewEnglandBobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07190715223856189053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50568804908097714242010-04-23T10:06:56.579-04:002010-04-23T10:06:56.579-04:00"can private enterprises do those things more...<i>"can private enterprises do those things more efficiently" </i><br /><br />No. They generally can't. Whats more profitable is always considered above anything else and generating the most profit is always the same as being efficient (like making millions while polluting). Not to mention, private businesses cannot be held accountable in the same way government agencies and programs can. <br /><br />The past couple years should serve as a sharp reminder of this.Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35517513400074750322010-04-23T02:41:26.308-04:002010-04-23T02:41:26.308-04:00Several people have argued that smoking bans in re...Several people have argued that smoking bans in restaurants and bars are unreasonable because people who "don't like" cigarette smoke can just go somewhere else. <br /><br />The problem is not that people don't like cigarette smoke. The problem is that second-hand cigarette smoke is a genuine health hazard. So what's the difference between smoking and other kinds of hazardous activities that the government regulates? For example, OSHA has strict regulations regarding construction work in places open to the public. Should OSHA abandon those rules just because people can avoid areas under construction?<br /><br />Note also the key phrase "open to the public." A place can be privately owned and still be open to the public, and opening a private property to the public carries certain kinds of legal baggage -- as it should.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11332828263550581927noreply@blogger.com