Harm's a two way street

townhall.com ^ | 11/19/03 | Walter E. Williams

[kattracks]

The largest losers of America's anti-tobacco crusade aren't tobacco companies and smokers, it's the American people who are incrementally giving up private property rights. You say, "Hold it, Williams, I agree that people have the right to smoke and harm themselves, but they don't have the right to harm others with those noxious tobacco fumes!" Let's look at it, because harm is a two way street.

If you're allergic to tobacco smoke or just find its odor unpleasant, and I smoke in your presence, I harm and annoy you. However, if I'm prohibited from smoking a cigarette in your presence, I'm harmed because of a denial of what I find a pleasurable experience.

There's an obvious conflict. One of us is harmed. How can it be resolved? There are several ways. You might consider the harm I suffer trivial compared to yours. You could organize a sufficiently large number of people and lobby lawmakers to enact smoking bans in bars, restaurants and workplaces. Alternatively, I might consider the harm you suffer trivial, and organize a bunch of people and lobby lawmakers to mandate that smoking be permitted in bars, restaurants and workplaces.

Let's think about this for a moment. If you owned a restaurant, and did not allow smoking, wouldn't you find it offensive if a law were enacted requiring you to permit smoking? I'm guessing you'd deem such a law tyranny. After all, you'd probably conclude, it's your restaurant, and if you don't want smoking it's your right. Similarly, I'd deem it just as offensive if smoking were allowed in my restaurant and a law were enacted banning smoking in restaurants.

The totalitarian method to resolve the conflict is through political power and guns. In other words, the group with the greatest power to organize government's brute force decides whether there'll be smoking or no smoking in restaurants. Totalitarians might justify their actions by claiming that bars, restaurants and workplaces deal with the public, and thus the public should decide how they'll be used. That's nonsense. Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it public property.

The liberty-oriented method to resolve conflict is through the institution of private property. In fact, conflict resolution is one of the primary functions of private property, namely it decides who gets to decide how what property is used in what way. Put another way: Who may harm whom in what ways? In a nutshell, private property rights have to do with rights held by an owner to keep, acquire and use property in ways so long as he doesn't interfere with similar rights held by another. Private property rights also include the right to exclude others from use of property.

Under the liberty-oriented method of private property, as a means to conflict resolution, we'd ask the question of ownership. If the owner wishes his restaurant to be smoke-free, it is his right. Whether a smoker is harmed or inconvenienced by not being allowed to smoke in his restaurant is irrelevant. Similarly, if a restaurant owner wishes to permit smoking, it is his right, and whether a nonsmoker is harmed or annoyed is also irrelevant. In the interest of minimizing possible harm either way, it might be appropriate for restaurant owners, by way of a sign or other notice, to inform prospective customers of their respective smoking policy. That way, customers can decide whether to enter upon the premises.

In today's America, the successful anti-tobacco campaign has become a template for conflict resolution through the forceful imposition of wills through the political system. It's part of a continuing trend of attacks on private property rights. Private property rights are the bulwark for liberty, and should be jealously guarded and not be sacrificed for the sake of expediency.

©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Contact Walter E. Williams | Read Williams's biography

[John Valentine]

Walter, Walter, Walter.

There is no way that a smoker prevented from smoking in the presence of a non-smoker is harmed in anything close to the sense in which a non-smoker is harmed by a smoker smoking in hes presence.

T suggest otherwise is to intentionally close ones eyes to the absolute physical harm done by the smoke and favor of dishonestly truning the harms into merely psychological or preferential ones.

There are legitmate arguments for protecting the rights of smokers. This is not one of them.

Someone of the stature of Waalter Williams should know better.

[SAJ]

Sigh.

Yet another illiterate.

Dr. Williams' argument, sir, was about property rights.

Your response not only did not address his argument as to that subject, but, as usual, and with condescension, and oh so tiresomely, went on to repeat the usual excuse of the statist, to wit and specifically, that you are ''harmed'' by something or another, and THEREFORE, willy-nilly, the state has a prior duty to redress your claim at the expense of absolutely any- or everyone else on the planet, either by forcibly confiscating some portion of the liberty of the citizen or by confiscating the citizen's property... likely enough in your case, both.

I don't really know if it's possible, in the real world, to go merrily to hell, but, whether or not it is, would you please give it a try?

If you can't manage merriment on your trip, would you please just go anyway?

Could those citizens who prefer the rule of the Constitution be so lucky as to see you seek Virgil as a guide, or shall we be condemned by your fiat to not ''offend'' anyone, ever, at any time, and under coercion and throughout all our lives, and have our property threatened in the bargain, by such as you?

I suggest, in the general spirit of friendliness here on Free Republic, that if you believe that this is so, or that this ''should'' be the case, that citizens should surrender liberty and property, ad hoc and upon your demand, that you improve your accuracy with a weapon straightaway.

Just a guess, but I'd be willing to wager that you'll be requiring that skill shortly.

If lawlessness is what you fancy, as so it seems from your post, history speaks quite clearly, and will, ultimately, accommodate you.

[John Valentine]

All this, addressed to me? Whoosh!

My little comment brought all this out? Whee!

I can't imagine how my little, narrow, comment, which had nothing to do with property rights, brings this large whooshing windy retort.

I never addressed the private property aspects of Walter's argument at all, and in fact I agree completely with him on those points. I did say that there are very good arguments in favor of smokers rights. Private property is one of them. I never claimed otherwise.

My point was simple and obvious. I won't restate it here. I stand by it and your whooshing reply just went by on the other side of the road, missing my point entirely.

[mishka]

No, he's got it right.
He's actually saying who gets harmed is NOT the issue.
If you don't want to get shot, don't run into a firing range.
If you don't want to get run over, don't run onto a race track.
And if you don't want secondhand smoke, don't go into a smoker's bar.
A sign would suffice to allow an informed decision.
(I can't stand to eat when people are smoking nearby, personally, it ruins the meal for me...but I am not emperor, and I would read the sign, and be happy I'm in America, and eat somewhere else or get it to go.)
But the point of the article was beyond the smoking issue altogether.
And I think it's a very important point: If you don't like what I do on my private property, then go away.
The assumption that the "public" has rights over "private" property is crossing a very important line.
It's the "mob/totalitarian" mentality versus the "self-responsibility/liberty" mentality.
What a clear and insightful distinction this author made on not only THIS issue, but makes many OTHER issues more clear as to which side is "right".
Thank you, "kattracks", for posting that.

[Brian Allen]

<< Sigh.

Yet another illiterate.

Doctor Williams' comment, Sir, was about property rights.

Your argument not only did not address his contention as to that subject, but, as usual, and with condescension, and oh so tiresomely, went on to repeat the usual excuse of the statist, to wit and specifically, that you are ''harmed'' by something or another, and THEREFORE, willy-nilly, the state has a prior duty to redress your claim at the expense of absolutely any- or everyone else on the planet, either by forcibly confiscating some portion of the liberty of the citizen or by confiscating the citizen's property... likely enough in your case, both.

I don't really know if it's possible, in the real world, to go merrily to Hell, but, whether or not it is, would you please give it a try?

If you can't manage merriment on your trip, would you please just go anyway?

Could those citizens who prefer the rule of the Constitution be so lucky as to see you seek Virgil as a guide, or shall we be condemned by your fiat to not ''offend'' anyone, ever, at any time, and under coercion and throughout all our lives, and have our property threatened in the bargain, by such as you?

I suggest, in the general spirit of friendliness here on Free Republic, that if you believe that this is so, or that this ''should'' be the case, that citizens should surrender liberty and property, ad hoc and upon your demand, that you improve your accuracy with a weapon straightaway.

Just a guess, but I'd be willing to wager that you'll be requiring that skill shortly.

If lawlessness is what you fancy, as so it seems from your post, history speaks quite clearly, and will, ultimately, accommodate you. >>

Hear! Hear!

<< No, he's got it right.
He's actually saying who gets harmed is NOT the issue.
If you don't want to get shot, don't run into a firing range.
If you don't want to get run over, don't run onto a race track.
And if you don't want secondhand smoke, don't go into a smoker's bar.
A sign would suffice to allow an informed decision.
(I can't stand to eat when people are smoking nearby, personally, it ruins the meal for me...but I am not emperor, and I would read the sign, and be happy I'm in America, and eat somewhere else or get it to go.)
But the point of the article was beyond the smoking issue altogether.
And I think it's a very important point: If you don't like what I do on my private property, then go away.
The assumption that the "public" has rights over "private" property is crossing a very important line.
It's the "mob/totalitarian" mentality versus the "self-responsibility/liberty" mentality.
What a clear and insightful distinction this author made on not only THIS issue, but makes many OTHER issues more clear as to which side is "right".
Thank you, "kattracks", for posting that. >>

Hear! Hear!

Hear! Hear!

Bump/Ping

[raybbr]

Another boring and peurile arguement from WW. If this was not about smoker's rights and truly about property rights why didn't he pick a more pertinent example for his arguement? Like say, whether your neighboors can tell you what color your house can be, or what kind of cars you can keep on your property? This is actually going on in communities all over America.

He is afraid that at some point they are going to take away his "right" to smoke in public. He turns the arguement around and WW sycophants fall all over themselves praising his quick turn of phrase and saying, while pointing their finger at us, "See, see Walter Williams said this and this and he's right". No, he's not! He does not address the infringement of the non-smokers rights when the smoke drifts off the property into the store or restaurant next door. You say, that this is just a minor consequence? Well, if that's the case then the oil running out of my neighboor's lawn tractor onto my lawn is inconsequential then too, isn't it?

This is another of his arguements where he addresses a tiny part of an issue that is pertinent to him and ignores the rest. He does this all the time and the WW fawns knees quake with excitement as if he's made some eloquent point.

I no longer regard WW as being relevant in public discourse since he's has proven himself to be not so much as eloquent but rather grandiloquent in his highly selective application of logic.

[metesky]

He does not address the infringement of the non-smokers rights when the smoke drifts off the property into the store or restaurant next door.

Go change your diaper.

[MeekOneGOP]

How'd this thread go this long without a Puff-List or SheLion ping ?! lol ! ...

[qam1]

No, he's not! He does not address the infringement of the non-smokers rights when the smoke drifts off the property into the store or restaurant next door

That is truly one of the stupidest thing I ever heard.

What bizzaro planet do you live on that smoke from a cigarette travels sideways but car exhaust and cooking fumes still rise

[mishka]

> He does not address the infringement of the non-smokers rights when the smoke drifts off the property into the store or restaurant next door.

Exactly, he does not address that...that would be another issue.
He's not promoting the infringement ON somebody ELSE'S property.
Quite the contrary.
He's talking about bars and restaurants, where you want to go INTO them and force people not to smoke around you. He's not talking about leaking smoke (or oil) onto ANOTHER'S property. If he were saying he wants to pump smoke onto my property and saying that it's his right, then I would disagree with him. Nobody has the right to harm me on MY property. But nowhere does he say he has the right to vioate YOUR private property, in fact just the opposite.

It sounds like you're more concerned with anger at "WW" and people that appreciate his point, than at the point itself. What previous things he's said that piss you off is another matter...old baggage. The discussion is not "do we like WW". I don't even know Walter Williams, so I can't be a "follower" or something...I just know that I read an article that makes absolute sense. He DID make an eloquent point, and it seems like the people who's knees are "quaking" are those who can't focus on what it is, but have some larger beef with the guy. As to that SPECIFIC point, there's really no countering the fact that a person's private property is their business, and that you can always excercise your free will to go somewhere else, and to do otherwise is mob coercion. Oil on lawns, smoking on the property line and blowing it toward your neighbor, forcing him to have a certain type of car, etc...these are OTHER issues you can start another discussion on...but as for an indoor restaurant or bar that you want to CONTROL for your own reasons, it is cut and dry.

[John Valentine]

Dear Mishka, I'm with you. But I have read and rea read Walter's essay, and he really ought to leave out those first two paragraphs. They add nothing whatsoever to his argument and in fact weaken it.

[mishka]

Yeah, those paragraphs don't HAVE to be there.
His following 6 paragraphs contain the very eloquence I found.
From a purely logical standpoint, the first 2 aren't technically false.
BUT the "emotion" it brings up about comparing the "level" of harm leads to some people missing his point (or they think that comparison IS the point!). It's like adding circumstancial evidence to a case when you already have the murder weapon, motive, fingerprints, etc!
Not necessary, but not really "weakening" to the main point (for the observant jurors anyway).
But I see your point.
Hopefully, at this point, people are getting HIS actual point!

[raybbr]

...smoke from a cigarette travels sideways but car exhaust and cooking fumes still rise?

I suppose there is no wind where you live, is there.

You completely missed my point. (probably on purpose) This essay is about smoker's rights and he uses property rights to support it. He came up with the smoker analogy. I am saying that if he wanted to make a case about property rights he should have used an analogy that was more to his point. I know he is an avid smoker. He brags about it all the time. So, I know then, that he is using property rights to make his case about smoker's rights not the other way around.