Hawaii considers ban on cigarette sales

[Steeleballz 7,550]

13 minutes ago, fascinating123 said:

In a free society, that's not how it works. Don't like it? Don't claim to be a free society.

 

    We are not a free society. There never has been such a thing. It's all relative, and we are a relatively free society compared to many. It's not absolute.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

23 minutes ago, fascinating123 said:

In a free society, that's not how it works. Don't like it? Don't claim to be a free society.

Where did I say we live in a free society?  Or anyone here say it, for that matter? Our society has many freedoms, but it is far from free.  Got your mortgage paid off, house is yours?  Kewl.  But wait, you still owe taxes!

 

Nothing in life is free, for very long.

[fascinating123 38]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    We are not a free society. There never has been such a thing. It's all relative, and we are a relatively free society compared to many. It's not absolute.

 

1 hour ago, ALFKAD said:

Where did I say we live in a free society?  Or anyone here say it, for that matter? Our society has many freedoms, but it is far from free.  Got your mortgage paid off, house is yours?  Kewl.  But wait, you still owe taxes!

 

Nothing in life is free, for very long.

 

Well, at least you're both honest. I'd prefer to live in a free society, though. I guess I have high standards.

[OriZ 3,157]

9 hours ago, fascinating123 said:

Yes, and if I own a store and decide to sell cigarettes, what then?

If you want to break the law you face the consequences, like with everything else. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[OriZ 3,157]

8 hours ago, fascinating123 said:

Up to and including the use of physical force.

 

Personally, I'm against this and any vice laws. Outside of murder, assault, theft, and all of their offshoots and variations, there really shouldn't be any other kind of laws either. I appreciate the conversation with you though.

And one could argue smoking would fit the bill for most of the above. This is really silly imo - if you were an anarchist it would be one thing, I have several anarchist friends and we agree to disagree. But you're clearly in favor of some laws and government, which makes this whole conversation hypocritical. If we all could pick and choose which laws we agree with and which we don't and have the laws suited to our beliefs wouldn't life just be so much better 🙄

[fascinating123 38]

18 minutes ago, OriZ said:

And one could argue smoking would fit the bill for most of the above. This is really silly imo - if you were an anarchist it would be one thing, I have several anarchist friends and we agree to disagree. But you're clearly in favor of some laws and government, which makes this whole conversation hypocritical. If we all could pick and choose which laws we agree with and which we don't and have the laws suited to our beliefs wouldn't life just be so much better 🙄

Murder, assault and theft aren't wrong because government says they are. They're wrong intrinsically because they violate your right to self ownership. So, no, nothing hypocritical. 

[OriZ 3,157]

10 minutes ago, fascinating123 said:

Murder, assault and theft aren't wrong because government says they are. They're wrong intrinsically because they violate your right to self ownership. So, no, nothing hypocritical. 

Smoking does the exact same thing and more.

[fascinating123 38]

10 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Smoking does the exact same thing and more.

In what way?

[OriZ 3,157]

2 hours ago, fascinating123 said:

In what way?

If you really feel the need to ask that this discussion is pointless. The gap will not be bridged and my time is way too valuable to state the obvious repeatedly.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 hours ago, fascinating123 said:

 

 

Well, at least you're both honest. I'd prefer to live in a free society, though. I guess I have high standards.

Honesty is a great quality, one I strive for; thanks for noticing.  

 

What’s your idea of a free society?  More government handouts, perhaps free college?  Or just no laws, where people can do whatever they want?

Edited February 7, 2019 by ALFKAD

[fascinating123 38]

5 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Honesty is a great quality, one I strive for; thanks for noticing.  

 

What’s your idea of a free society?  More government handouts, perhaps free college?  Or just no laws, where people can do whatever they want?

I'm a radical capitalist, so no I don't favor handouts of any kind. 

 

Ultimately, I'd like to see an agorist world. In which law is a product of the free market. Short of that or in the interim, government established rules should be kept to an absolute minimum (government which governs least). 

 

Most of the world unfortunately (including the US) is hurdling in the other direction. 

[fascinating123 38]

6 hours ago, OriZ said:

If you really feel the need to ask that this discussion is pointless. The gap will not be bridged and my time is way too valuable to state the obvious repeatedly.

I'm asking if you're talking about smoking in public violating a non smoker's rights, which I could buy to a limited degree. A problem that would be best solved through means other than a ban. 

 

If you're talking about protecting smokers from "predatory tobacco companies", then that's just a level of nanny statism that I cannot agree with at all. 

 

Good day to you. 

[OriZ 3,157]

2 hours ago, fascinating123 said:

I'm asking if you're talking about smoking in public violating a non smoker's rights, which I could buy to a limited degree. A problem that would be best solved through means other than a ban. 

 

If you're talking about protecting smokers from "predatory tobacco companies", then that's just a level of nanny statism that I cannot agree with at all. 

 

Good day to you. 

I'm not a statist but as mentioned not an anarchist either, more of a minarchist. Smoking anywhere violates a non smoker's right. What most smokers are totally oblivious to, is how long after they're done smoking the smell as well as toxicity actually keeps lingering about. There really would be no way to protect non smokers well enough other than to avoid smoking altogether. People who smoke in their homes or cars affect non smokers as well(if, say a non smoker comes to visit you, or if you have your house/car window open. You don't know how many times I drive by someone who's smoking and can smell it in my own car). Not to mention walking down the street where someone is smoking or smoked 2 minutes ago. Not smoking in public places is a good start but it isn't good enough.

Edited February 7, 2019 by OriZ

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,378]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

I'm not a statist but as mentioned not an anarchist either, more of a minarchist. Smoking anywhere violates a non smoker's right. What most smokers are totally oblivious to, is how long after they're done smoking the smell as well as toxicity actually keeps lingering about. There really would be no way to protect non smokers well enough other than to avoid smoking altogether. People who smoke in their homes or cars affect non smokers as well(if, say a non smoker comes to visit you, or if you have your house/car window open. You don't know how many times I drive by someone who's smoking and can smell it in my own car). Not smoking in public places is a good start but it isn't good enough.

I will differ a little. I think if a person wants to open a business and wants to allow smoking then you can vote with your dollars. I would not patronize them.

[fascinating123 38]

6 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I'm not a statist but as mentioned not an anarchist either, more of a minarchist. Smoking anywhere violates a non smoker's right. What most smokers are totally oblivious to, is how long after they're done smoking the smell as well as toxicity actually keeps lingering about. There really would be no way to protect non smokers well enough other than to avoid smoking altogether. People who smoke in their homes or cars affect non smokers as well(if, say a non smoker comes to visit you, or if you have your house/car window open. You don't know how many times I drive by someone who's smoking and can smell it in my own car). Not to mention walking down the street where someone is smoking or smoked 2 minutes ago. Not smoking in public places is a good start but it isn't good enough.

 

So we're talking about an externality issue, then. I understand where you're coming from and I'm sympathetic, however the problem is more complex than you portray. You don't have to go to a smoker's house, nor do you have to invite a smoker to your own home. Further, you mention disliking the smell, but what about non-smoker's who do like the smell (my wife is such a person, and likes the way I smell after smoking a cigar)? I think the Coase theorem solution is more appropriate here than government stepping in to correct an externality.