Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (114117)	6/22/2008 11:43:19 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

skeeter, >surely, you do not argue that all public safety regulation of restaurants be taken away based on "private property" issue.< >again, you are all for public safety regulation, just the regulation level you want.<< Absolutely not. On some matters virtually everyone of sound mind agrees; including the owners. So no freedom is violated. You will not find a single restaurant owner, property owner, customer etc... that thinks rats and rat droppings near the food is a good idea etc... It's on matters like these that regulations (or private oversight) certainly apply to prevent irresponsibility etc.. from endangering people or causing economic loss. >we already discussed the "choice" of consumers and you failed to list a single restaurant that was non smoking in your "free" environment.< This is an entirely irrelevant point because we are discussing private property rights and freedom not the results of those free markets and private property rights. But to explain it.... The decline in smoking and negative public perception of second hand smoke has been a very slow process. The second hand smoke issue is really only about 10 years old. So the "demographics and public attitudes" that would have made it "sensible" to open a smoke free establishment have only started to emerge. The fact that it didn't happen on a wide scale 20 or more years ago is quite sensible economically. I'd be willing to bet that there were some though. Either that, or non smokers are not that smart because there certainly would have been a niche for it. Perhaps the era of smoking and non smoking sections delayed the development. Aside from that, it is clear that government can give incentives to encourage whatever business behavior it deems superior without inhibiting freedom. I am generally against government incentives that meddle with markets; but I would have seen no big downside to giving a tax break for smoke free establishments until market forces reached a point where they were no longer needed. That would have solved the problem for everyone. Don't even bring up CA. I think that state literally has the biggest collection of idiots ever amassed on earth. If it wasn't for the weather and natural beauty that will endlessly attract and keep some percentage of people capable of rational thought and with good resources, the state would eventually sink into a social and economic abyss. It may anyway. Either that or some people might turn into a pillar of salt. ;-)