>>You are in favor of private property rights unless the owner allows people to engage in activities like smoking on his property that you don't like.<<
not even close. nice straw man, though. ;-)
i do believe that a subset of private property rights should be regulated, though. specifically, those properties that serve the public. my guess is that this is low single digits of all private property, so your statement is about 1900% too broad.
that's a lot of straw you need to remove. -lol-
i believe you also believe that such public establishments should be subject to regulation, too. for example, restaurants shouldn't be able to put rat food into dinner. we both agree that type of thing should be regulated so it doesn't happen. see, we both agree in some level of regulation. you merely draw the line before smoking while i draw it after smoking.
free markets don't exist and never have. the powerful always do their best to regulate markets for their own advantage. this means someone else is at a disadvantage and, therefore, the market isn't free.
the end result of long drawn out strawman argument is...
>>To me, this indicates you are like the typical left/right wing politician or activist that believes he knows what's best for others, is willing to expand and use the state to implement his own economic, social, and security values but is also willing to vigorously fight against his political opponents that try to do the same.<<
the pro rat poison restaurant lobbyist could say the same thing about you. -lol-
>>However, I am not an anarchist. When people of sound mind all agree on something, IMO there is nothing wrong with laws that restrict behavior, activity etc...<<
and you are the one who decides everyone with a sound mind is?
why, because you are what you just accused me of - someone who knows better than others?
>>I am opposed to left wing and right wing democratic gang rule. IMO, that's not freedom and that's not why this country was founded.<<
i agree.
to follow up on a previous point you made...
>>despite the fact that I don't always agree with the activities some people engage in, the results of that freedom, and the fact that I sometimes might be mildly inconvenienced because things aren't be done my way.<<
smoking outside of public establishments is a minor inconvenience, especially when it protects the health of tens of thousands of workers. why do you not mind minor inconveniences to yourself, but argue so aggressively against minor inconveniences to others? something seems askew here.
btw, i'm not for banning smoking altogether. people are free to smoke, even though the consensus among reasonable people is that it is terrible for one's health.
the reality is that we are both for regulating private enterprises that serve the public. you believe they should be regulated when people of sound mind all agree on something - but only when you decide who has a sound mind. isn't it amazing how all those sound minded people all agree with you?
>>I know it's just a matter of time before totalitarians and fascists like you<<
so everyone who supports a ban on smoking is a fascist? do you *really* think people of sound mind would agree with your view?
you don't get out much, do you? |
