Harm is a 2-way street/Walter E. Williams: Private property rights key to liberty

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, November 19, 2003 | Walter E. Williams

[JohnHuang2]

Harm is a 2-way street

---

Posted: November 19, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

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.

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Quote of the Day by Oldeconomybuyer

[Vigilantcitizen]

You're on a roll this morning. It's hard to keep up. :)

Another good one from Mr. Williams.

[JohnHuang2]

Gracias, friend

[Vigilantcitizen]

"Gracias, friend"

De nada, amigo.

[Tank-FL]

I love(ed) the Florida smoking ban.. I now know that it is wrong for me to push my will on others. Thank you Dr. Williams.. you just burst my bubble.

But can't the office stay smoke free?

I hate smoke so much .. I do not want to work in an ashtry!

[stainlessbanner]

No smoking should be a house rule, not a constitutional ammendment.

[ClearCase_guy]

The Civil Rights movement of the 1950's and early 1960's was largely a good thing. But I believe the judicial concept of "public accomodation" began at that time, and that was a bad thing. Who can sit at the lunch counter? It used to be the decision of the owner of the lunch counter -- but that is no longer so.

When courts decide that the Boy Scouts at a "public accomodation" then it means that homosexuals cannot be excluded from leadership positions.

Nowadays, we are told to look back at some judicial decisions and see how wrong they were. The two classic examples I learned (in public school) were "Dredd Scott" and "Plessy v Ferguson (separate but equal)". I believe that some day we will look back at the "public accomodation" concept and shake our head at the problems it created.

[TexasTransplant]

click-it or ticket is just as offensive to me as smoking is to you, I wish we could limit the seat-belt laws to just the towns and cities that don't want my company

[CSM]

"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?"

The nail on the head bump!

[Conspiracy Guy]

The author is stealing my and your material.

[CSM]

I just wish he had more TV or Radio talent. His points are always on the mark and easily understandable that even a gnatzie would be unable to argue them. I find him difficult to listen to or watch, but that doesn't invalidate his intelligence!

[jimt]

Williams, as usual, is brilliant and direct.

Thanks for the post !

[Conspiracy Guy]

I speak much better than I write. But I have never sought to make a living with either.

[Gabz]

I speak much better than I write.

Same here, but then we start to differ a bit....

But I have never sought to make a living with either.

I've done both!!!!

I enjoy william's on the radio, but it could pssibly be because I enjoy his commentary so much I over look any shortcomings.

[sergeantdave]

State control of private property is fascism.

Anytime someone says the state should control private property by banning smoking, that person should publicly and loudly be labeled as a fascist. And why not - that's what he is.

Just stand up, point your finger and say: "Fascist. Fascist. Fascist. You're a fascist."

Don't let him change the subject, just call him a "goosesteeping fascist." You're on solid ground both in meaning and legally. It's time to put these Nazis in their place - standing next to their buddies Hitler and Mussolini.

[Conspiracy Guy]

I have never heard him, but I have hread him.

[Gabz]

LOL!!!

[Conspiracy Guy]

Thanks. I hread that!

[CSM]

"I enjoy william's on the radio,...."

I do too, however that is because I have the ability to get past the presentation and listen to the points. I just wish his mind could be exposed to a larger audience and a better presentation would allow for that. I think that is a sad reality, but I may be wrong.....

I wish I would have been able to take a class from this fine example of logical reasoning.

[Protagoras]

I love(ed) the Florida smoking ban.. I now know that it is wrong for me to push my will on others

How will you rectify your mistake? Your wrong?

Stumping against the law and actively advocating it's repeal?