Libertarian land ownership theory

[Flint]

So, in your theory, it doesn't matter that people were harmed, just that it will eventually get brought to light. Of course, the harm isn't undone, so there is no real-life value for the actual human beings affected. And, of course, since you have to wait until provable harm has already been done before you can do anything about it, your system doesn't provide any protection for the common man. There will always be unethical business practices, there will always be greed, and it may not pay off in the "long term" but that doesn't mean people won't get hurt in the meantime. Allowing business to run rampant is a plan that guarantees unethical practices.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by Radar

Whether or not you personally like it is irrelevant. Your right to keep your nose away from smoke is just fine with me. It means you have a responsibility not to bring your nose into smokey areas. The right of people to smoke does not have a limit at the tip of your nose.

If you go into a bar, you know the bar will have smoke in it before you enter. If you don't want to be around smoke, nobody is forcing you to go into the bar. Likewise, nobody is forcing anyone to apply to work in a smokey bar.

Telling someone they can't smoke in a bar is like telling someone they can't read in a library. The owner of the bar, and nobody else, has legitimate say in the matter. If the owner wants a smoke free bar, he'll get more non-smokers. If he wants to allow smoking in his bar, nobody has any legitimate complaints when they go in and breathe in smoke.

As to your first point, this is fine in a private establishment, but why should either the smoker or non smoker have preference in a public place? Suppose I like to go around and spritz cadvaerase or skunk musk into the air? Obviously if the bar owner doesn't object, I'm fine, but if you are walking down the street and I do it, then T.S.? Right?

Your second point makes sense to me also.

Your third point I feel the analogy breaks down because the function of a library is reading, research, borrowing books. The purpose of a bar is serving drinks. Food and entertainment may be secondary and smoking I'd say is ancillary. A closer analogy may be a library with a copy machine, and using the copier. (Which can conveniently introduce copyright infringement tangent possibilities into the thread)

[Flint]

Regarding that third point, does the business owner necessarily have an obligation to define the primary activities of his establishment? I go to an Anime store that has an arcade in the back, they sell comics, collectibles, they design custom cosplay outfits. I just go there to rent movies. There isn't really a primary purpose, it's unique to each customer.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

How long of a period were Enron or MCI in business? How long of that period were they operating unethically?

I was referring to your casual dismissal of slavery. It was quite profitable for the South for centuries, and in other parts of the world for even longer.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Flint

So, in your theory, it doesn't matter that people were harmed, just that it will eventually get brought to light. Of course, the harm isn't undone, so there is no real-life value for the actual human beings affected. And, of course, since you have to wait until provable harm has already been done before you can do anything about it, your system doesn't provide any protection for the common man. There will always be unethical business practices, there will always be greed, and it may not pay off in the "long term" but that doesn't mean people won't get hurt in the meantime. Allowing business to run rampant is a plan that guarantees unethical practices.

Greed is not unethical. Greed is also subjective. Who determines how much is enough for one person? I say we each determine that for ourselves. There will always be the extremely low percentage of people (less than 1%) who do business unethically, and the overwhelming majority who don't.

If someone dies, you can't bring them back. When someone is harmed, you can't unharm them. You can only see to it that those who did the harm are brought to justice. The common man is protected somewhat from being harmed because those who practice business unethically (meaning they steal, trespass, commit fraud, or are directly responsible for physical harm to unconsenting people) will be publically brought to justice and this will serve to deter others who would commit these types of crimes.

Actually the best way to keep business ethical is to remove 100% of all government influence on the markets. It means getting rid of any government oversite of business, getting rid of all government regulations, getting rid of unconstitutional government agencies like the FDA, FTC, and others, and having business be completely and totally unhampered by government.

Government is what allows many businesses to get away with unethical behavior.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

I was referring to your casual dismissal of slavery. It was quite profitable for the South for centuries, and in other parts of the world for even longer.

It wasn't profitable in the Southern States for centuries. The USA didn't even exist for a century before a war was fought to keep the South from leaving the union and ending slavery.

Any slavery that happened before America existed is irrelevant because it wasn't considered unethical back then. A slave was considered to be livestock, not a person.

[footfootfoot]

Radar,
I checked the link to your website and I like what I saw re: your thougths on various issues. I checke d the links to Libertarian party HQ and I'll research there before hassling you on this thread. Thanks for taking the time to come up with thoughtful answers to everyone's questions wihtout getting all worked up.

If someone is unethical they will practice unethical business regardless of the existence of laws regarding said business or not.

Again and forever, a bar, business or restaurant is not public property... it is privately owned property, in regards to the smoking issue.
The state has no place dictating what an owner wants done on his, or her, own property.

If you don't like smoke, don't shop there... go to a non-smoking business.

[Radar]

Even in public property, smoking should be ok as long as people don't leave cigarette butts on the ground. The public doesn't own the air. Nobody owns it. If someone is outside smoking, and you don't like it, you're free to take a few steps away so you don't smell the smoke.

As far as being unethical goes, the same is true of any crimes. If someone is a criminal and they want to commit a crime, laws won't stop them; but they will punish them. For those who are just considering doing something unethical, hopefully they will take the laws and punishment into consideration before doing it.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Radar

Any slavery that happened before America existed is irrelevant because it wasn't considered unethical back then.

Ha!

It wasn't considered unethical by whom? The slaveowners? That was true even for some time after the civil war. Abolitionists? That was true before the US was founded. The slaves? I bet it was always considered unethical by most of them. The founding of the US was neither the beginning nor the end of any phase in the history of slavery.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Radar

The public doesn't own the air. Nobody owns it.

So if I want to build a Biomass (read: shit-burning) furnace on my property, I can pump cow shit smoke across the city cause the public doesnt own the air?

[Radar]

That's right. But if they can somehow prove that the smoke from your shit burning furnace is causing harm to others, you'll have to shut it down. My guess is there would be more than a few businesses with lost revenue who could take you to civil court. If it caused health risks, you could be taken to criminal court for trespass.

Second-hand smoke has never been proven to cause any danger or damage to anyone.

I'm all for biomass energy; especially utilizing hemp, but if it were discovered that it harmed people, I'd willingly stop using it.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Ha!

It wasn't considered unethical by whom? The slaveowners? That was true even for some time after the civil war. Abolitionists? That was true before the US was founded. The slaves? I bet it was always considered unethical by most of them. The founding of the US was neither the beginning nor the end of any phase in the history of slavery.

It wasn't considered unethical by the vast majority of the population... (aka those who weren't slaves and weren't considered to be anymore human than other livestock).

The founding of the United States is important in this discussion because it is the beginning of the scope of time I'm discussing. I'm not going to discuss ancient Egypt or any other historical examples before the founding of America because the general non-slave population at those times didn't consider slavery to be wrong. As soon as it was generally accepted that slavery was wrong, it ended. As soon as it was discovered that Enron and MCI were committing fraud, they were shut down.

[Happy Monkey]

So it's sort of a tautology. When enough people oppose something to stop it, that is the point at which it becomes unethical.

[Radar]

If people think it's ok, they won't be angry about it or be up in arms about it. If the same situation is presented in a manner that openly and clearly presents the wrong of the situation in a non-threatening way (such as the civil rights movement), the public will get behind the idea, and will do something about it.

Until what is being done is recognized as wrong, it will continue forever. But as soon as it's "discovered" as being wrong and is brought to the public, the public takes steps and the wrongdoing ends as it did with slavery, with the treatment of blacks in the South, with women's suffrage, and even more quickly with businesses acting unethically.