i guess to your question though, the bar owner operates at the pleasure of the state liquor authority. it's a business. and an extremely regulated business at that.
bars have very strict rules about who they can serve, when they can serve, and how they can serve.
do you have a problem with bars not being able to serve 18 year olds? or not being able to serve after 2am or 4am depending on the state? how about bars being unable to serve someone who is obviously intoxicated? all are law governing bars and would, as you say, restrict property rights.
smoking might be a little different since that is the choice of the patrons and not the bar owners. but that would seem to be limiting an individual right rather than property rights. because you can smoke on the property, just not inside the building. a bar's property is more than just the structure. it includes the outside as well.
i would abstain from a vote on a ban personally. i have smoked in my life. in bars and outside of bars. i have seen how miserable smokers are because of it and i have seen how happy non-smokers are because of it.
i think the difference between me and you guys around here is that i fail to see this as a much larger issue.
Sorry, I was didn't see that post before I submitted my own.
i guess to your question though, the bar owner operates at the pleasure of the state liquor authority. ...
I've never understood this argument. Essentially, it holds that the imposition of one set of restrictions justifies another, unrelated set of restrictions. It implies that if the state sticks its nose into one aspect of an industry, it gives the state a blank check to regulate all aspects of that industry.
I don't see how that idea can be compatible with a belief in limited government. If the existence of state liquor authorities has any legitimacy (I'm agnostic on that question for now), then its power should only extend to matters that relate to alcohol regulation and only so far as is needed to achieve legitimate ends.
Think of it this way; if the state requires a restaurant license to run a deli, should that give the state the authority to choose the condiment selection at the deli?
bars have very strict rules about who they can serve, when they can serve, and how they can serve...
They do. But in my opinion, each of those rules should have an independent justification. Most of them do.
do you have a problem with bars not being able to serve 18 year olds? ...all are law governing bars and would, as you say, restrict property rights.
As I have said previously on this thread, some restrictions of property rights are acceptable. I don't have a problem with the age restrictions or restrictions on serving the intoxicated. In my opinion, those restrictions are justified because they protect people unable to competently assume the risks of drinking. I would also be okay with the time restrictions, as they are designed to protect the rights of others outside of the property.
Since the smoking bans lack any similar justification, I remain opposed to them. Even though bars and restaurants are already subject to a number of restrictions, I still believe each new restriction must have a sufficient, independent justification.
smoking might be a little different since that is the choice of the patrons and not the bar owners. but that would seem to be limiting an individual right rather than property rights. because you can smoke on the property, just not inside the building. a bar's property is more than just the structure. it includes the outside as well.
Actually, it includes even more than that. It also includes the right to control, use, and enjoythe premises as the owner pleases. So even if smoking is still allowed outside, by restricting smoking INSIDE you are still restricting the owner's right to control the inside of his property as he would like.
Property includes more than just the stuff inside the boundaries of your land. That's why conservatives view environmental and endangered species laws as property rights issues. Even though most of those regulations do not take land away from the owners like in eminent domain cases, they restrict the owner's use, enjoyment, and control of his land.
...i think the difference between me and you guys around here is that i fail to see this as a much larger issue.
By itself, I agree that this issue isn't going to have huge consequences. Local economies won't collapse because of smoking bans (though many good people could lose jobs), and nobody is going to be faced with years in jail because of violations.
But as a matter of principle, the smoking ban issue should offend anyone who believes in the importance of property rights and limited government. Smoking bans represent the sacrifice of property rights and market solutions in exchange for the personal convenience of politically powerful groups....with no valid justification.
That idea, left unchecked, can have pretty dire consequences.