[FoRK] Welcome to the American Totality. You've been warned.
<jbone at place.org> on
Wed Feb 6 09:00:31 PST 2008
On Feb 6, 2008, at 1:36 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:00:46PM -0600, Jeff Bone wrote:
>> I reject the notion that an owner who allows uninvited guests on his
>> property for any reason --- even commercial --- has in any way ceded
>> his rights of control over his property and what happens upon it. If
> How about shooting them? Not in self-defense, of course.
> How about allowing them to kill each other, as in "no cops,
> this is my private property, let them murder each other,
> I kinda like that".
There's a serious argument to be had about that one: why shouldn't
an individual be able to enter a contract with another individual
that waives the legal protection of live of the first relative to the
actions of the second? In a sense we already do something like that
with a variety of disclaimers, waivers, etc. (I'm thinking in the
case of certain extreme sports or other dangerous entertainments,
dangerous occupations, etc.)
>> you assert that he *has* then you have created a new right for an
>> abstract, collective entity --- society --- that trumps the
>> traditional rights of the concrete individual.
> Rights are of course negotiable, and are created and revoked all
> the time.
Yes, but I reject the notion that your right to go wherever the hell
you please trumps my buddy's right to assemble with the people he
wants to assemble with and engage in whatever consensual and ---
again --- not immediately perilous behavior he and they want to
engage in *on his own premises.*
Nobody's answered the pertinent question that I've asked a couple of
times, now: does your advocacy of smoking prohibition in bars also
extend to smoking prohibition in *private clubs?* I.e., do you
assert that your rights extend to regulating what can be done by a
group of people who belong to a private club and operate a business
that services only members of that private club? How about private
homes? How tyrannical do you really want to be in your quest for
Here's another one: should parents be allowed to smoke around their
children? I can see both sides of that argument, indeed I probably
come down on the side of "no" on that one. But then, I also don't
believe parents should be able to abuse their children by way of
religious indoctrination either. In neither case is the child a
responsible individual capable of consent to exposure to such behavior.
My point is there are reasonable compromises. But forbidding smokers
from banding together in private businesses that intentionally and
specifically cater to them is just another example of the kind of
small, politically-correct tyranny you see all over the place these
More information about the FoRK