Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: r9etb
"Let us be quite clear: your "free market solution" is to demand that the guy bear the costs for the activities of his neighbor"

I have a history of respiratory infections and have had asthma attacks. I am also sensitive to chemical pollutants. I don't like using air conditioning or heat unless absolutely necessary, preferring fresh air, not to mention keeping the bills down, and live in a climate where neither is really needed much of the year. Problem is, there is a paper mill on the south side of town and many times, when the wind is right, the smell, along with whatever toxic chemicals may be in the air, gets to be overwhelming and it is just about impossible to breathe and I have to close the windows and turn on the AC. And all this time I didn't realize that what I really should be doing is suing the paper mill for posing a threat to my health and causing my electric bill to skyrocket.

The point is, unless you are independently wealthy, anywhere you live is going to come with things you don't like and are not necessarily healthy. You choose the trade offs. If later you decide you can't handle it, you move. You don't impose your will on everybody else.

327 posted on 01/24/2004 12:52:17 PM PST by sweetliberty (Even the smallest person can change the course of the future. - (LOTR))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: sweetliberty
You don't impose your will on everybody else.

But don't you see, the folks at the paper mill have imposed their will on you, and everybody else, by making you deal with their effluents.

When we're talking about smoking in public, the issue is not just the rights of smokers, but the rights of those around them who are also exposed to the smoke from their voluntary activity. Because the smokers are doing something unpleasant, they impose a cost on those around them -- it is up to me to move, or stay put in less-than-optimal conditions, because somebody else has decided to do something.

The question of smokers' "rights" is in reality a matter of cost-balancing: is the cost imposed on others enough to restrict smokers' rights to smoke? I think that's an open question, and that there's no single answer to it -- but in some cases it is appropriate to say "no smoking allowed here."

Note the difference here: the loud screaming on this thread is not from me -- it's from the nice people who apparently think their bad habit is more important than the wishes of those who don't want to be around it.

457 posted on 01/24/2004 5:56:03 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson