Bloomberg Smokes Out Property Rights A crusade trumps freedom.

National Review Online ^ | October 9, 2002 | Robert A. Levy

[JakeINJoisey]

Fireworks are expected at the City Council hearing scheduled for October 10, as New Yorkers wrangle over Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to ban smoking in all restaurants and bars. For now, smokers and nonsmokers have been debating which group's rights should trump. Actually, both groups miss the point. So does Bloomberg, businessman extraordinaire, whose proposal proves that he hasn't the foggiest notion of what private property is about. Smokers have no right to light up in my restaurant. Nor do nonsmokers have a right to prevent smokers from lighting up in my restaurant.

[Yankee]

Quote from Bloomberg at yesterday's hearing:

"I would be happy as a bar owner if this passes. Since people won't be smoking, they'll consume more alcohol."

If this were the case, the free market would dictate that smoke free dirnking and eating places would have sprung up all around New York, without government coercion, to meet this "demand".

The fact is, the biggest opponents of this ban, are the restaurant, bar and hotel owners. The one's that know this will damage their businesses.

[TopQuark]

Poor thinker with an all-too-quick accusatory finger.

Smokers have no right to light up in my restaurant. Nor do nonsmokers have a right to prevent smokers from lighting up in my restaurant.

Just substitute "prostitution," or "dealing drugs," or even "murder" for "smoking" in the preceding sentence to see that is is utter nonsense.

Property rights, as anyone that ever opened at least one book on the subject knows, are never absolute and has never been. Fee simple real estate --- the most complete bundle of right --- is, and has been for centuries, limited by four types of rights that the public retains for itself.

Why is it that libertarians so often stumple over the most simple facts?

[DumpsterDiver]

Smokers have no right to light up in my restaurant. Nor do nonsmokers have a right to prevent smokers from lighting up in my restaurant.

Just substitute "prostitution," or "dealing drugs," or even "murder" for "smoking" in the preceding sentence to see that is is utter nonsense.

Prostitution, dealing drugs and murder are all illegal. Smoking is not.

[TopQuark]

Firstly, the point was that, whether or not legal, the issue does not follow from one's property rights.

Secondly, --- that is their point --- they are trying to change what's legal. Prostitution was one legal also.

WHat I am saying is not a question of opinion: the article is factually and logically incorrect.

[freeeee]

Why is it that libertarians so often stumple over the most simple facts?

I guess we had this crazy idea that property owners had the right to permit a legal activity on their own property.

That's ok though. You and every wide-eyed liberal from Berkley to Ithica know better.

Go right ahead and alienate and eventually criminalize millions of smokers and small business owners. The "least of two evils" ploy at the polls won't work anymore because the Rats want to ban smoking too. We libertarians will gladly take their millions of votes from you. Thanks for finally helping us break out of the 1% range!

And no, I don't smoke. Never have, never will.

[Wolfie]

Smoking is not.

But when the ban passes, it will be iilegal to smoke in bars and restaurants. Property rights do not trump law.

[freeeee]

Property rights do not trump law.

All rights trump laws. That's what a right is, something no law can legitimately infringe upon.

Permission given by some authority taken that can be taken away isn't a right, it's a privilege.

"Property Privileges" is more accurate to what you are describing. It is also what countries less free than ours grant their subjects, if they're lucky.

[Wolfie]

All rights trump laws.

Now that's funny.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

Since New Yorkers are well known for their ability to screw City Hall, they should get revenge on Bloomberg quickly. PLEASE NOTE: I can not stand demorats. However, as payback for Bloomingidiot's support of the smoking ban, the bar owners should offer 1 penny mixed drinks or beer on election day, to everyone who votes against Bloomingidiot when the mayoral election rolls around. It will teach the Pubbies a lesson in screwing around with the free enterprise system and keep the restraunts empty on that election day.

[freeeee]

Now that's funny.

The definition of rights amuses you?

Do tell, what do you think the difference between a right and a privilege is? And where do you think rights come from?

[Wolfie]

Tell ya what. Go out on your front lawn and engage in any number of prohibited activities, your choice. Be sure to tell the judge that you were on your own property. Let me know how it turns out. (I don't disagree with what you're saying, I'm just pointing out how the real world works).

[Nuke'm Glowing]

" Just substitute "prostitution," or "dealing drugs," or even "murder" for "smoking" in the preceding sentence to see that is is utter nonsense."

So under your theory of law, we can impose through public dissertation a ban on sodomy in your household (which is already illegal in most states). Henceforth, we can enforce that law and conduct raids in your house since YOUR private property should not be exempted from law enforcement or public health and morals laws either.

" Property rights, as anyone that ever opened at least one book on the subject knows, are never absolute and has never been."

A true statement from those who are anti-capitalism and pro-socialist. I do hope you enjoy eating those words as you lose your rights to your home and the so-called implied rights of "privacy" you may or may not think exist.

"Fee simple real estate --- the most complete bundle of right --- is, and has been for centuries, limited by four types of rights that the public retains for itself."

Wow. Did you pull that out of Das Kapital on your own or did your community college communist professor point that out to you?

" Why is it that libertarians so often stumple over the most simple facts?"

Simple fact? I'll love that when you lose your rights. Don't look for me to defend them. You think this is simple because you live in the fantasy world that rights are not absolute and can be used as a "convenience" to the public. What you forget, as a simple person or communist would, is that those rights used to apply to all, no matter how inane or stupid that individual was. Now that you and a majority of the left feel that rights are only those that can rent them via fiat and payment to the government you will find that unless you can buy your way out of a situation, those rights in our Constitution will not apply to you. Smoking is a bad habit. Granted. I do not smoke cigarrettes. I smoke the occassional cigar, sometimes once a month, sometimes once a week. I never asked that non-smokers come into a bar that has the clearly labeled sign on it "CIGAR BAR". But because others feel it is so important to dictate human behavior, because they can not control them politically or economically at this point in time, the socialist-communist mantra is to usurp free enterprise using the enviro-whacko, healthnazi, and peacenut movements. Congrats for being a part of that crowd. Now don't be a coward. Put that hammer and sickle bumper sticker on your car and wear your title proudly.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

"Firstly, the point was that, whether or not legal, the issue does not follow from one's property rights.

Secondly, --- that is their point --- they are trying to change what's legal. Prostitution was one legal also.

WHat I am saying is not a question of opinion: the article is factually and logically incorrect."

Based on this posting we can also conclude the following:

"A NEA EDUCATION CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH"

[Nuke'm Glowing]

" But when the ban passes, it will be iilegal to smoke in bars and restaurants. Property rights do not trump law."

Then I would suggest if you commit acts of sodomy in your household that you quit. Because as a casual cigar smoker, if the ban is enforced in Florida, I'm going to whip up the bible belters here and demand enforcement of all anti-sodomy laws in every household since private property rights do not trump law.

[Wolfie]

Whatever rubs your Buddha.

[freeeee]

I'm just pointing out how the real world works

Well I'm all for that, but let's have a little truth in advertising.

Just like an unscrupulous business, this country advertises 'something' to prop up its (brand) name, then they pull out the fine print and fail to deliver the goods.

That 'something' falsely advertised by our country is freedom. Clearly, freedom isn't the way this country works. We don't have rights, we have privileges. "Home of the Free" isn't going to cut it anymore. "Home of the License" is much more accurate, don't you think?

[Wolfie]

No argument there. I once read an interview with an American ex-patriot living in Costa Rica. He commented that Amercians were a curious bunch, shrieking shrilly about how free we are, all the while shackling ourselves ever tighter to the State.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

So you're one of those. Private property rights apply to your home but not your business? Welcome to the communist peacenut,healthnazi, envirowhacko movement. Now run along and get that hammer and sickle t-shirt and wear it proudly.

[Wolfie]

You're not paying attention.