Amusing? Sad? Aggravating?

[ecj]

The prevailing "scientific wisdom" is that saturated fat causes heart disease and full squats are bad for your knees. If a number of American cities decide to ban them on this basis, what has happened? Government has once again overstepped the only legitimate purpose it has -- enforcing contracts and providing common services that individuals cannot accumulate the resources to provide for themselves, i.e. public works (roads, sewers, water) and defense against physical threats. It fucks up every time it exceeds these limits.

Again, I think health codes demonstrate that this is a flawed philosophy on the reasonable limits of governance. It's clearly better for me as a citizen and for our society as a whole for our government to overstep the bounds you have outlined to check up on whether or not food producers and restaurants are preparing and serving food in a way that does not present a health risk to the consumer. What could be more invasive than having a city inspector walk into your restaurant, check that you and all your workers have cleaned under their fingernails, and then close your restaurant if they aren't satisfied?

I think these issues are far more murky and difficult to decide and interpret than yours and rumblefish's responses imply. There are no commonly understood and accepted reasonable limits to governance, and there never have been. It's always been a fierce debate, and at times I find myself on one side of the fence or the other.

[kwerk]

That sounds like one of those, "for the good of humanity, humanity should cease to exist arguments."

You're concerned with the reduction in air quality? From smokers? What about wood stoves? Paving roads? Tarring roofs?
..... Etc, etc, etc.

Yes, I am concerned. This is where we as humans have to make value judgements. Is my roof being leak-free of more importance as me being allowed to smoke tobacco inside a restaurant?

[DoctorWho]

Except, no. Common law dating back to the 11th century or so establishes that innkeepers have obligations to the public for fair treatment, and definitions of fair treatment and means of defining it vary for society to society and era to era.

What does it mean that innkeepers had a duty under common law for "fair treatment."? Do you mean a duty to keep the guests and their property safe? And the common law developed in only one society (I think), so what's it mean that the duty was defined society to society?

[rumblefish]

my roof being leak-free of more importance as me being allowed to smoke tobacco inside a restaurant?

Are these mutually exclusive?

I would like to point out the incongruous arguments in this thread. You have referenced the air quality of surrounding businesses and homes as affected by smoking in my hypothetical bar, ECJ is concerned that customers will unknowingly enter my hypothetical bar with smokers in it and immediately suffer some deadly, dire consequence.

Both of these stretch credulity. Are you part bloodhound that you are smelling smoke from people inside a bar, down the street? Is the momentary exposure that would occur if you walked into a bar, realized shortly thereafter that "OH SHIT TOBACCO SMOKE IS PRESENT!", wheeled around on your heels and made a hasty exit. Is that exposure tantamount to being in the room with an exposed reactor core?

That is my impression of your reaction. I understand asthma attacks and it's smelly ( and for the record I don't smoke unless you count a cigar every 3 months ), but the knee jerk fear blows me away.

[casaubon]

What does it mean that innkeepers had a duty under common law for "fair treatment."? Do you mean a duty to keep the guests and their property safe? And the common law developed in only one society (I think), so what's it mean that the duty was defined society to society?

Well, thanks to the sun never setting on the english empire, the common law is a foundation for multiple legal codes around the world. And what I mean is the same thing justice harlan meant, being an innkeeper is a quasi-public trust and bars, inns and the like are public accomodations. My house, my rules has never governed restaurants, bars and the like, they have always been governed by rules and laws beyond the whims of the landlord.

The notion that a few people have put forward here that there is only public or private property, and that at the line of public property all government or social interest stops, is a myth. It is, as I said, dorm-room libertarianism at its lamest.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Well, if that's the way it's always been done, it must be the right way to do it.

[FatButWeak]

I noticed that earlier in this thread you said you would sue a neighbor who was burning garbage on his property and letting the smoke drift onto yours. Which of these three functions would the court be acting under? By what authority would the court tell your neighbor to stop burning his shit on his property?

The situation you describe is a type of common law trespass, for resolution in the civil courts through litigation. The burden would be on the person being annoyed to prove to a jury of his peers that the grabage burning was a trespass. We don't need more laws micromanaging peoples' behaviour.

But , if we lived in a more free/libertarian society, there would be more restrictive covenants allowed with land sales. This increases the value and utility of land for everyone. So, if you were the type of person who wanted to live where burning trash is not allowed, you would pay extra money to purchase property surrounded by other properties with restricive covenants against burning trash. If you wanted to save a few bucks on your purchase price, you could buy a property surrounded by properties with no such restrictive covenants and run the risk of your neighbor deciding to burn trash. This is how it would work.

[casaubon]

Well, a revolutionary attempt to rewrite centuries of law is certainly possible, and you're welcome to give it a go. At least then you'd be acknowledging the baselessness of claims like this:

But if I own a cafe and I want to smoke in the damn thing and let my customers do so too, and you come in my cafe to eat, then I have the right to make you smelly, yessir.

Rhetoric is easy. Reality is a lot harder. Small government dreams pushed far enough aren't really any different from big government dreams pushed far enough. They're utopianism, not sensible attempts to deal with how people in the world live. Which is why "utopia" means what it does.

[trebor]

When my kids don't finish their food at dinner, and my wife tells them that people are starving - I will remember to say "Maybe in Africa, but only 1.6% of homeless people are underweight in Boston."

I can buy a bag of rice in Boston for so cheap, that it is just 11 cents per serving. One can eat beans for protein. But doing that requires you to be smart. If you were smart and not mentally ill, you would not be homeless.

A grilled chicken sandwich at McDonalds on a wheat bun is $4.83. You can buy almost five McDoubles for that.

[Girtron]

Well, thanks to the sun never setting on the english empire, the common law is a foundation for multiple legal codes around the world. And what I mean is the same thing justice harlan meant, being an innkeeper is a quasi-public trust and bars, inns and the like are public accomodations. My house, my rules has never governed restaurants, bars and the like, they have always been governed by rules and laws beyond the whims of the landlord.

The notion that a few people have put forward here that there is only public or private property, and that at the line of public property all government or social interest stops, is a myth. It is, as I said, dorm-room libertarianism at its lamest.

Since you said it before, it must be right. I find it laughable you called me a dorm room, stoner philosopher previously. I don't think anyone here is implying there should be no health regulations. I think coach has covered this already. I think you assume that because you believe that anyone who disagrees with you must be an idiot. What I think you misunderstand is that some people (myself included) believe that government is constantly overstepping its bounds and should be kept in check.
There is a huge difference in serving an unsuspecting patron a peanut butter and feces sandwich and alowing smoking to occur in a bar (with a sign posted). The patron is forced to unknowingly eat shit in the first example; while in the latter example, he would be free to take his business elsewhere. I see a difference in the two. Are you saying an owner of a business should have no absolute rights concerning his private property and that all happenings therin should be up to popular vote, code or regulation? Because if you are, we just plain old disagree.