A smoking thought experiment.......
Jaeger T. Cat
Where do you draw the line in the following thought experiment?
And exactly why would you draw the line at that point? And please,
if you're going to respond, "But private citizens _can't_ just
open cardrooms, _THAT'S ILLEGAL_", remember, you'll just be helping
me make my case that government regulation of private enterprise
is stupid.
And if you're going to point out that the free market doesn't work
with regards to making cardrooms non-smoking, I'd like to point out
that in Atlantic City right now, you're being proved wrong. So don't
bother.
On to the test:
If I wanted to open a cigar shop, should I be allowed to?
Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
Should I be allowed to have a smoking room in the cigar shop?
Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
Should I be allowed to put a card table in that room?
Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
Should I be allowed to spread poker on that card table?
Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
Should I be allowed to have more than one table?
Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
Should I be allowed to have 100 tables?
Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
DrToast
> Where do you draw the line in the following thought experiment?
> And exactly why would you draw the line at that point? And please,
> if you're going to respond, "But private citizens _can't_ just
> open cardrooms, _THAT'S ILLEGAL_", remember, you'll just be helping
> me make my case that government regulation of private enterprise
> is stupid.
>
> And if you're going to point out that the free market doesn't work
> with regards to making cardrooms non-smoking, I'd like to point out
> that in Atlantic City right now, you're being proved wrong. So don't
> bother.
>
> On to the test:
>
> If I wanted to open a cigar shop, should I be allowed to?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
Yes.
>
> Should I be allowed to have a smoking room in the cigar shop?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
Yes.
>
> Should I be allowed to put a card table in that room?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
Yes.
>
> Should I be allowed to spread poker on that card table?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
Yes.
>
> Should I be allowed to have more than one table?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
Yes.
>
> Should I be allowed to have 100 tables?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
Yes.
I see no problems here. Good luck with your business venture. However my
answers are subject to change if you wish to spread poker games playing
for real currency.
DrToast
Terrence Chan
news:87nqqk$gtr$1...@pluto.njcc.com...
[post snipped]
Thanks for re-affirming at least some of my faith in the rationality of
humankind. Great post.
--
Terrence Chan
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand
I understand that by posting on this newsgroup I am subject to be ridiculed
on:
a. my spelling
b. my grammar
c. my signature
d. my name
e. my birthplace
f. my hair
g. my homepage
h. my significant other
i. whatever you all damn well feel like
rounder...@yahoo.com
> > open cardrooms, _THAT'S ILLEGAL_", remember, you'll just be helping
> > me make my case that government regulation of private enterprise
> > is stupid.
> >
> I see no problems here. Good luck with your business venture. However
my
> answers are subject to change if you wish to spread poker games
playing
> for real currency.
>
> DrToast
>
>Now why would your answers change if playing for real money. If hes got
enough friends, which he knows on a first name basis, to fill 100 tables
he can spread a few, or 100, social poker games.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> And exactly why would you draw the line at that point? And please,
> open cardrooms, _THAT'S ILLEGAL_", remember, you'll just be helping
> me make my case that government regulation of private enterprise
> is stupid.
>
let's do it right.
<ahem> Government regulation of public accommodations make perfect sense if
they are acting in the public trust : to wit, ensuring a safe and clean
enviormnment (Osha, Board of Health, smoking issues) or ensuring safety from
cheating by the house (casinos, dog tracks, etc)
> And if you're going to point out that the free market doesn't work
> with regards to making cardrooms non-smoking, I'd like to point out
> that in Atlantic City right now, you're being proved wrong. So don't
> bother.
>
The free market is much slower than the government in protecting the rights
of the citizens.
While eventually they'll figure it out, as restraunt owners did, most didn't
until they were forced to.
> On to the test:
>
>
> If I wanted to open a cigar shop, should I be allowed to?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
Shop? Sure.
It's a legal product.
> Should I be allowed to have a smoking room in the cigar shop?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
Sure.
The primary business of this place is to sell tobacco.
> Should I be allowed to put a card table in that room?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
As long as it isn't a for-profit venture, why not.
If it is, it becomes a public accomodation.
> Should I be allowed to spread poker on that card table?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
So long as it isn't for profit, see above.
And yeah, so long as it isn't for real money, in violation of the laws.
>
> Should I be allowed to have more than one table?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
See above.
> Should I be allowed to have 100 tables?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
See above.
David J. Rodman
could we perhaps begin to discuss it in terms of fundamentals?
On 7 Feb 2000 20:17:08 -0500, jae...@pluto.njcc.com (Jaeger T. Cat)
wrote:
>
>Where do you draw the line in the following thought experiment?
>And exactly why would you draw the line at that point? And please,
>if you're going to respond, "But private citizens _can't_ just
>open cardrooms, _THAT'S ILLEGAL_", remember, you'll just be helping
>me make my case that government regulation of private enterprise
>is stupid.
Unfortunately, you're wrong. It's not at all stupid, it's very
intelligent. If it were stupid, truly stupid, it would be less
difficult to abolish. Government regulation of private enterprise is
immoral, not stupid.
The problem here is one of rights, not intelligence. All of your
questions boil down to just one: does a private citizen have the right
to dispose of his own property as he chooses?
Subsidiary questions: what exactly defines property? (if you created
the value, you own it); what limits, if any, must apply? (respect
exactly the same right in others). The latter is what gives rise to
the most interesting part of the controversy -- by dispersing poison
fumes in a public place am I violating anyone's rights?
In your example, it's not a public place and therefore there is no
moral quandry. The answer to each of your questions is "yes".
Government regulation proceeds along perfectly predictable lines: the
U.S. government runs on two forms of the same fuel: money and power.
If either can be gained by regulation, there will be regulation.
Economic power can be transformed into political power because our
laws are no longer based on objective principles. That was precisely
the reason for the American Revolution - it was to establish a
government of laws, not of men. What we have now is a government of
power-lusting bureaucrats whose integrity is for sale to the highest
bidder; i.e. a government of men, not of laws. These folks think a
"principle" is a guy who can bring in the teacher vote if you shmooze
him effectively. Because the men are for sale, so are the laws.
Power can be gained by immoral regulation because so many people are
willing (eager, in fact) to vote away the rights of their neighbors.
You can trace the roots of this problem to its actual source:
philosophy. What's been taught in our institutions of higher learning
(which are the pasturelands for retired bureaucrats) is that the
function of government is to give you a job, give you a living, give
you health care, give you happiness, give you whatever you feel you
might want. At whose expense? No answer.
The only *moral* function of a government is to protect individual
rights against the initiation of force. Thomas Paine had that right,
as did Jefferson and Rand.
djr at kona dot net (my real email address)
>And if you're going to point out that the free market doesn't work
>with regards to making cardrooms non-smoking, I'd like to point out
>that in Atlantic City right now, you're being proved wrong. So don't
>bother.
>
>On to the test:
>
>
>If I wanted to open a cigar shop, should I be allowed to?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
>Should I be allowed to have a smoking room in the cigar shop?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
>Should I be allowed to put a card table in that room?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
>Should I be allowed to spread poker on that card table?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
>Should I be allowed to have more than one table?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
Jeff Woods
the beginning when you speak of "being allowed". Government should not
have the power to "ALLOW" -- it should protect and defend and get the
hell out of the way of the private citizenry while taking as little as
necessary from our pockets to provide its EXPLICILTY STATED purposes in
the Constitution. So if you're not going to object to the phraseology of
"should I be allowed to", I'd have balked when you finally got to:
Should I be allowed to hold a gun to your head and FORCE you to inhale
secondhand smoke at my poker tables against your will? After all, if
you don't like smoke, it doesn't matter.... I have the gun!
THEN you have something to which to object.
Saw you on alt.consumers.misc, Jaeger. Boy, you do get around. ;-)
In article <87nqqk$gtr$1...@pluto.njcc.com>, jae...@pluto.njcc.com says...
>
> Where do you draw the line in the following thought experiment?
> If I wanted to open a cigar shop, should I be allowed to?
Jeff Woods
says...
> We could stop here, as you obviously still don't get it, Jaggie poo, but
> let's do it right.
Let's.
> <ahem> Government regulation of public accommodations make perfect sense
Your first eight words demonstrate how wrong-headed you are, and why
Jaeger is correct. In fact, it doesn't surprise me that the first two
words out of your keyboard are "Government Regulation".
A) A poker room is NOT "public accomodation". It is private property,
owned and operated SOLELY for the benefit of the owners, and the
government (in a PROPER society, not in the "save me, Hillary"
madhouse that our society has degenerated into) has no more right
to restrict smoking there than in your own home. About the ONLY
place one can make the arguement that government should restrict
smoking are in government employment buildings, or other property
owned by the government (but then whether they should OWN such
property, like public transportation, is yet another debate --
I feel that we as a society should own as little as possible,
collectively under the government, and that if we want "public"
transportation, then some private company ought to build such
a system for profit. I know that you disagree with this tenet
as well, though, and that we'll probably NEVER see eye to eye.
> The free market is much slower than the government in protecting the rights
> of the citizens.
Rephrased: The free market chose differently than *I* see fit -- the
customers of those establishments chose not to "vote with their feet" to
force the private business to amned practices to suit the majority of
their customers. Because the market didn't do what *I* thought proper,
I will point a gun at your head under threat of imprisonment or
private property seizure, and make you do what I think is best in SPITE
of what the free market has chosen.
> While eventually they'll figure it out, as restraunt owners did, most didn't
> until they were forced to.
I *KNEW* I was translating your liberal psychobabble properly. ;-)
And you probably want MY income tax dollars (which were looted from my
back pocket at the point of a gun) to pay for all these OTHER
"regulations" that you think GOVERNMENT ought to impose on us, also at
the point of a gun? "For our own good?"
Why not think more about YOUR OWN good, instead of worrying about "the
good of others"? "Others" will either fend for themselves, or will
eliminate themselves in the Darwinian sense.
http://www.boortz.com
http://www.aynrand.org/entry.html
http://www.oms.com/org/
Jeff Woods
says...
> If we're going to keep this smoking thread alive into the 4th year,
> could we perhaps begin to discuss it in terms of fundamentals?
The only people capable of discussing it on the fundamentals are those
that already accept and believe what you do, i.e.:
> Government regulation of private enterprise is immoral, not stupid.
Correct.
> The problem here is one of rights, not intelligence. All of your
> questions boil down to just one: does a private citizen have the right
> to dispose of his own property as he chooses?
You're a gentleman and a scholar.
> Subsidiary questions: what exactly defines property? (if you created
> the value, you own it); what limits, if any, must apply? (respect
> exactly the same right in others).
Where'd you get so smart? ;-)
> In your example, it's not a public place and therefore there is no
> moral quandry. The answer to each of your questions is "yes".
This is the SINGLE most difficult thing to get across to a liberal. The
folks who are on the other side of the aisle are the ones that don't
believe in personal property rights, but DO believe in the forced seizure
of the products of the producers (via taxation, nationalization,
regulation, etc) at the point of a gun, for the benefit of those that did
NOT produce it. That's the precise immorality of which you speak, and
I'm pleased that more people learn this fact every day.
The rest of your message, I've not re-posted, but it merits serious study
and consideration by those who still have yet to learn this.
Sadly, about the only way MANY people will ever learn this is to go into
business for themselves and then have to butt heads with those
bureaucrats whose sole job is to meddle in your private affairs,
demanding paperwork detailing your every action, and seizing an ever
growing slice of the pie you've hand-made from ingredients you grew from
the ground with your own sweat and tears.
Most people will never have the guts, as they tend to prefer the security
of a GOVERNMENT safety net over the freedom to create and produce in a
truly free society. That may be the saddest commentary possible on what
was once a beautiful document, when it was written in 1787.
Badger
> The only *moral* function of a government is to protect individual
> rights against the initiation of force. Thomas Paine had that right,
> as did Jefferson and Rand.
So you are saying withing your moral universe you agree government should
establish laws to protect non-smokers.
Gary Carson
>A) A poker room is NOT "public accomodation". It is private property,
> owned and operated SOLELY for the benefit of the owners, and the
> government (in a PROPER society, not in the "save me, Hillary"
> madhouse that our society has degenerated into) has no more right
> to restrict smoking there than in your own home.
Well, it is a public accomadation. It's also those other things you
mentioned. If you really don't understand what a public accomadation is
then you probably don't have a lot to offer to this debate.
Gary Carson
Gary Carson
>The only *moral* function of a government is to protect individual
>rights against the initiation of force. Thomas Paine had that right,
>as did Jefferson and Rand.
I don't know about that. Government is what creates this property that
you're so gung-ho to have rights in.
Without government to protect your property rights then you have no property
rights. In some cases, copyright comes to mind, without government the
property doesn't even exist. And, what government giveith, government can
taketh away.
Gary Carson
Scrollkey1
The idea that the government should have control of what should be private is
not a liberal idea. It is practiced by both sides, Republican and Democrat,
conservative and liberal. Might I remind those who are so quick to assail
"liberal" virews that it is the conservatives who are more inclined to censor
what you see on the Internet, what you are able to buy and sell on newstands,
what you can see on TV or in a theatre or museum or hear on a CD or cassette.
It is also the conservatives who uphold old laws to regulate what consenting
adults do in their own bedrooms.
Personal freedom ain't just about business laws and smoking and the desire to
do "what's best for the rest of us" is not confined to any one party or
philosphy.
Cheers,
Russ
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jeff Woods <je...@telix.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.130a0236f...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <87onkq$nnm$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>, bel...@sprynet.com
> says...
>
> > We could stop here, as you obviously still don't get it, Jaggie poo, but
> > let's do it right.
>
> Let's.
>
> > <ahem> Government regulation of public accommodations make perfect sense
>
> Your first eight words demonstrate how wrong-headed you are, and why
> Jaeger is correct.
Untrue.
But your further post shows you haven't a clue what a public accomodation
is.
In fact, it doesn't surprise me that the first two
> words out of your keyboard are "Government Regulation".
I'm usually againt it. I'm certainly against it in frivolous uses.
This is not one of them.
>
> A) A poker room is NOT "public accomodation". It is private property,
> owned and operated SOLELY for the benefit of the owners, and the
> government (in a PROPER society, not in the "save me, Hillary"
> madhouse that our society has degenerated into) has no more right
> to restrict smoking there than in your own home.
Incorrect. It IS a public accomodation, Jeff. A Public accomodation, since
you quite obviously don't know, is a business open to the public. As opposed
to a private cvlub with membership fees, for instance.
They can't regulate tobacco use in my home because I and I alone determine
who is allowed here, because I don't open it to the public.
About the ONLY
> place one can make the arguement that government should restrict
> smoking are in government employment buildings, or other property
> owned by the government (but then whether they should OWN such
> property, like public transportation, is yet another debate --
> I feel that we as a society should own as little as possible,
> collectively under the government, and that if we want "public"
> transportation, then some private company ought to build such
> a system for profit.
I'm an economic conservative.
I disagree with this tenet only because public transportation isn't
profitable.
Neither are public roads.
You use them as an expense... public transportation to lessen traffic and
pollution.
I know that you disagree with this tenet
> as well, though, and that we'll probably NEVER see eye to eye.
>
> > The free market is much slower than the government in protecting the
rights
> > of the citizens.
>
> Rephrased: The free market chose differently than *I* see fit -- the
> customers of those establishments chose not to "vote with their feet" to
> force the private business to amned practices to suit the majority of
> their customers.
Wrong.
There was an example given as to restraunt owners.
We'll see if you snipped it.
Because the market didn't do what *I* thought proper,
> I will point a gun at your head under threat of imprisonment or
> private property seizure, and make you do what I think is best in SPITE
> of what the free market has chosen.
>
> > While eventually they'll figure it out, as restraunt owners did, most
didn't
> > until they were forced to.
>
> I *KNEW* I was translating your liberal psychobabble properly. ;-)
Excuse me, would you drop by alt.radio.talk.dr-laura and tell them that I'm
a liberal?
They routinely refer to me as a capitalist-apologist.
What you failed to note is that restraunt business got better after they
went smoke free, but the owners were afraid it would get worse... especially
if done piecemeal.
making them all do it at once eliminates that fear, and lo and behold
business improved
>
> And you probably want MY income tax dollars (which were looted from my
> back pocket at the point of a gun) to pay for all these OTHER
> "regulations" that you think GOVERNMENT ought to impose on us, also at
> the point of a gun? "For our own good?"
I'm anti-tax.
But it doesn't cost anything much to enforce this rule.
BTW, if you think they aren't taking them out of my pocket too, you're
cracked.
>
> Why not think more about YOUR OWN good, instead of worrying about "the
> good of others"?
I do.
But it's illegal to strike idiot smokers in the solar plexus for polluting
my air in a casino.
"Others" will either fend for themselves, or will
> eliminate themselves in the Darwinian sense.
Well, you seem to be de-evolving even as we speak
Beldin the Sorcerer
<snip>
>
> In your example, it's not a public place and therefore there is no
> moral quandry. The answer to each of your questions is "yes".
>
Wrong. It services the public, the public can reasonably be expected to go
there, therefore it is a public accomodation and must accomodate them.
JW Steve
<garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>A) A poker room is NOT "public accomodation". It is private property,
>> owned and operated SOLELY for the benefit of the owners, and the
>> government (in a PROPER society, not in the "save me, Hillary"
>> madhouse that our society has degenerated into) has no more right
>> to restrict smoking there than in your own home.
>
>Well, it is a public accomadation. It's also those other things you
>mentioned. If you really don't understand what a public accomadation is
>then you probably don't have a lot to offer to this debate.
>
>Gary Carson
>
It's definitely a public accomodation and currently, the government
has the power and the right to regulate it. It seems as though the
entire issues comes down to the following...
1 - Cigarettes are being used in the manner in which they are
intended. This fact alone makes all of the analogies about dumping
toxic waste on the floor, etc. pointless. I can't think of one other
such product that is unilaterally banned for use in public
accomodations by the government.
2 - The effects of secondhand smoke are not definitely established.
There have been reputable studies that have concluded that the effect
of secondhand smoke posed very little if any health risk. At the very
least, it has not been 100% established that secondhand smoke provides
a significant health risk.
3 - People seem to be ignorant of the fact that the California law was
passed on behalf of the workers. (in theory) these workers had a
right to work without significant health risk. It was not passed with
the customer in mind.
If second hand smoke is simply annoying and not dangerous, the
government has no business regulating it anymore than it can keep out
people who are ugly or abrasive.
If second hand smoke is indeed significantly dangerous, I wouldn't see
why they couldn't institute some air purity standards and allow
companies to deal with the hazard themselves.
If it's so dangerous that it's impossible to purify the air to
acceptible standards than the stuff should be illegal. If a vast
casino is dangerous because of cigarette smoke, imagine what it's like
for a child in a small house with two smokers.
jw steve
Jeff Woods
garyc...@mindspring.com says...
>
>
> >The only *moral* function of a government is to protect individual
> >rights against the initiation of force. Thomas Paine had that right,
> >as did Jefferson and Rand.
>
> I don't know about that. Government is what creates this property that
> you're so gung-ho to have rights in.
Bzzzzzzt! But thanks for playing, anyway.
Government didn't do any such thing. PRODUCERS within PRIVATE INDUSTRY
did the act of creating it. All that government does (or should do) is
to protect that creation, the result of the efforts of the private
citizenry.
> Without government to protect your property rights then you have no property
> rights.
This is why many of us own GUNS. Private property rights don't come
from and end with the government. Try to take MY property away without
my consent, and I'm likely to introduce you to Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
> And, what government giveith, government can taketh away.
Government does not GIVE anyone ANYTHING. EVERY SINGLE THING that the
government "owns", it does so because it confiscated it (or the money to
buy it -- same difference) from someone who produced, whilst the
government has only ONE official product: red tape.
Jeff Woods
PROPERTY (instead trying to call it a public accomodation, which is
really 'parks, public transit, and any other taxpayer-supported entity
not run by private enterprise, all other things being private property
held by private citizenry for their own benefit and use), then you're
right about one thing -- we'll have little to discuss, because YOU don't
have much to offer to the debate.
In article <87pjm1$r9d$3...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
garyc...@mindspring.com says...
Gary Carson
Jeff Woods wrote in message ...
>In article <87pjlv$r9d$2...@nntp4.atl.mindspring.net>,
>garyc...@mindspring.com says...
>> I don't know about that. Government is what creates this property that
>> you're so gung-ho to have rights in.
>
>Bzzzzzzt! But thanks for playing, anyway.
>
>Government didn't do any such thing. PRODUCERS within PRIVATE INDUSTRY
>did the act of creating it.
This is a really silly thing to argue about. It just depends on what kind
of property you're talking about. Real property and copyright exist as
things without government, but you really can't have private ownership of
them without government title and court protection.
> All that government does (or should do) is
>to protect that creation, the result of the efforts of the private
>citizenry.
Well, the point is, without that government protection you don't really have
anything of much value.
>
>This is why many of us own GUNS. Private property rights don't come
>from and end with the government. Try to take MY property away without
>my consent, and I'm likely to introduce you to Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
Sure. That's all we need. More tough guys.
Look, I'm not a fan of government interference in your lives in any way.
But, we can't all live in Montana.
Gary Carson
Gary Carson
Jeff Woods wrote in message ...
>Clearly, since you cannot grasp something so very BASIC as PRIVATE
>PROPERTY (instead trying to call it a public accomodation, which is
>really 'parks, public transit, and any other taxpayer-supported entity
>not run by private enterprise, all other things being private property
>held by private citizenry for their own benefit and use)
You seem to be really confused between what you want things to be and what
they really are. You really don't have anything to offer, Jeff, until you
get that confusion straightened out.
Gary Carson
William Loughborough
confusion straightened out."
WL: But should you fold, call, or raise? I know I have a delete key but
the bulk of all this non-poker stuff is a STONE DRAG - including whether
to go for two or...
Anybody interested in POKER?
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Andrew Prock
>1 - Cigarettes are being used in the manner in which they are
>intended. This fact alone makes all of the analogies about dumping
>toxic waste on the floor, etc. pointless. I can't think of one other
>such product that is unilaterally banned for use in public
>accomodations by the government.
I usually shy away from these kind of discussions, now that
I'm a sane and rational person... :)
But using something "as intended" doesn't make them
acceptable for a public accomodation. Some examples
that come to mind:
- laser pointers
- portable karaoke machines
- portable desiel fans
- inneficient nuclear powered wristwatches
- Andrew
Badger
>
> 1 - Cigarettes are being used in the manner in which they are
> intended. This fact alone makes all of the analogies about dumping
> toxic waste on the floor, etc. pointless. I can't think of one other
> such product that is unilaterally banned for use in public
> accomodations by the government.
You're kidding, right? You can't think of one other legal product used in
the manner intended banned for use in public accommodations by the
government???? Good god, think for more than 1/10 of a second! More utter
silliness.
Badger
> >intended. This fact alone makes all of the analogies about dumping
> >toxic waste on the floor, etc. pointless. I can't think of one other
> >such product that is unilaterally banned for use in public
> >accomodations by the government.
>
>
> I'm a sane and rational person... :)
>
> But using something "as intended" doesn't make them
> acceptable for a public accomodation. Some examples
> that come to mind:
>
> - laser pointers
> - portable karaoke machines
> - portable desiel fans
> - inneficient nuclear powered wristwatches
> - Andrew
I really can't stop laughing at how ridiculous the "I can do any damn thing
I please" people get. The JWsteve's above statement is just so not true and
genuinely ignorant there really isn't anything to talk about. It appears
the only argument the pro-smoking side can manage anymore is pure Pollyanna
libertarianism. The world just doesn't exist how they continually assert
though. If we had a society where what they *want* is how things work, well
that would be different. But this ongoing asinine assertion of a certain
kind of property right that does not exist in the United States (or
anywhere, or ever existed in modern times) is hysterical, but also not at
all helpful. Only a fool pretends the unreal is real.
What government's view towards property *should* be is an open question.
What it *is* currently on planet Earth though is not the delusions of some
who think their pretend world is reality.
--
Badger
"Criminal behavior is safer when
state power is behind it." -- Noam Chomsky
M
Jaeger T. Cat wrote in message <87nqqk$gtr$1...@pluto.njcc.com>...
>
>Where do you draw the line in the following thought experiment?
>if you're going to respond, "But private citizens _can't_ just
>open cardrooms, _THAT'S ILLEGAL_", remember, you'll just be helping
>is stupid.
>
>And if you're going to point out that the free market doesn't work
>with regards to making cardrooms non-smoking, I'd like to point out
>that in Atlantic City right now, you're being proved wrong. So don't
>bother.
>
>On to the test:
>
>
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
>Should I be allowed to have a smoking room in the cigar shop?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
>Should I be allowed to put a card table in that room?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
>Should I be allowed to spread poker on that card table?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
>Should I be allowed to have more than one table?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
>Should I be allowed to have 100 tables?
> Why not? After all, if you don't like smoke, you don't have to go.
>
Jaeger T. Cat
JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:33:28 -0800, "Badger"
><stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>You obviously don't get it. There are public accomodations where you
>can
You're right. Badger doesn't get it. This is just his usual
"style" of debate:
let's see if I remember the steps, from the pot stealing episode
1) deny facts in evidence
2) change parameters of model
3) assert that one's opponents are stupid ("Asshole Idiot Troika", is
the technical term, right Steve?)
4) assert that things are "just different" in the world, and that
"you just don't understand".
Yup, I think he covered all the bases.
Jaeger T. Cat
M <mmm...@excelonline.com> wrote:
>
>AND WHAT ABOUT the employees? Let's suppose they don't have to go either.
>
>
Why yes. Exactly. Now you're learning.
Don't like the working conditions (boss, salary, offensive posters,
assigned shift, smoking, whatever)?
Then _don't_ _work_ _there_.
JW Steve
>According to JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com>:
>>1 - Cigarettes are being used in the manner in which they are
>>intended. This fact alone makes all of the analogies about dumping
>>toxic waste on the floor, etc. pointless. I can't think of one other
>>such product that is unilaterally banned for use in public
>>accomodations by the government.
>
>
>I usually shy away from these kind of discussions, now that
>I'm a sane and rational person... :)
>
>But using something "as intended" doesn't make them
>acceptable for a public accomodation. Some examples
>that come to mind:
>
>- laser pointers
>- portable karaoke machines
>- portable desiel fans
>- inneficient nuclear powered wristwatches
>- Andrew
Are you part of the list? Have any of the above items (that actually
exist) been unilaterally banned by the government? If you could
reference that legislation, I'd appreciate it.
thanks,
jw steve
>
>
JW Steve
<stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
>>
>> 1 - Cigarettes are being used in the manner in which they are
>> intended. This fact alone makes all of the analogies about dumping
>> toxic waste on the floor, etc. pointless. I can't think of one other
>> such product that is unilaterally banned for use in public
>> accomodations by the government.
>
>You're kidding, right? You can't think of one other legal product used in
>the manner intended banned for use in public accommodations by the
>government???? Good god, think for more than 1/10 of a second! More utter
>silliness.
No, I really can't. See, there are guns, but then you have gun ranges
(which are public accomodations). Do you have an example that's been
banned from use in a public accomodation, or are you simply confused
as to what a public accomodation is?
jw steve
JW Steve
<stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Andrew Prock <jeffy...@yahoo.com> wrote...
>> According to JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com>:
>> >1 - Cigarettes are being used in the manner in which they are
>> >intended. This fact alone makes all of the analogies about dumping
>> >toxic waste on the floor, etc. pointless. I can't think of one other
>> >such product that is unilaterally banned for use in public
>> >accomodations by the government.
>>
>>
>> I usually shy away from these kind of discussions, now that
>> I'm a sane and rational person... :)
>>
>> But using something "as intended" doesn't make them
>> acceptable for a public accomodation. Some examples
>> that come to mind:
>>
>> - laser pointers
>> - portable karaoke machines
>> - portable desiel fans
>> - inneficient nuclear powered wristwatches
>> - Andrew
>
>I really can't stop laughing at how ridiculous the "I can do any damn thing
>I please" people get. The JWsteve's above statement is just so not true and
>genuinely ignorant there really isn't anything to talk about.
You obviously don't get it. There are public accomodations where you
can
- set off fireworks and explosives
- shoot guns and automatic weapons
- use laser pointers
- use portable karaoke machines
- use portable diesel fans
- use pretty much almost anything..
> It appears
>the only argument the pro-smoking side can manage anymore is pure Pollyanna
>libertarianism.
Great rhetoric.
>The world just doesn't exist how they continually assert
>though. If we had a society where what they *want* is how things work, well
>that would be different. But this ongoing asinine assertion of a certain
>kind of property right that does not exist in the United States (or
>anywhere, or ever existed in modern times) is hysterical, but also not at
>all helpful. Only a fool pretends the unreal is real.
Only a fool muddies the water with nonsense and rhetoric.
>What government's view towards property *should* be is an open question.
>What it *is* currently on planet Earth though is not the delusions of some
>who think their pretend world is reality.
Please explain it to me, since you obviously have some miscontrued
conception of what constitutes public accomodation. Here is a simple
quiz....
It seems that Andrew is under the misguided assumption that because
some things may not be allowed in some public accomodation, that they
are somehow equivalent to a government ban. This is simply untrue.
Guns aren't allowed in casinos, but they are allowed at gun ranges
both can be public accomodaitons. The issue of public accomodation
(which someone else brought up) applies to all public accomodation and
the regulation of such is usually reserved for such things as
predjudice and access to the disabled, etc.
A casino is certainly free to ban smoking, but a public accomodation
ban is different thing entirely and Andrew's examples are entirely
irrelevant.
jw steve
David J. Rodman
<garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The only *moral* function of a government is to protect individual
>>rights against the initiation of force. Thomas Paine had that right,
>>as did Jefferson and Rand.
>
>I don't know about that. Government is what creates this property that
>you're so gung-ho to have rights in.
Sounds like we need a definition of "property". I'm talking about a
clearly defined good whose value arises out of human effort. What are
you talking about?
>
>Without government to protect your property rights then you have no property
>rights.
OK, let's distinguish moral rights from political rights.
> In some cases, copyright comes to mind, without government the
>property doesn't even exist.
Surely you can't mean that if I write a novel, the novel does not
exist unless I register it with the Library of Congress? What would I
register, if the property does not exist without the government? I
would send them this non-existent thing and beg that they bring it
into existence for me?
If a resident of Communist China writes a novel, does the novel exist?
When a person creates a value, he has a moral right to that value by
virtue of having created it. This is called a "right" because it is
specifially a moral concept, not a political concept.
The political concept of "right" is derived from the moral concept,
not the other way around. Political rights were invented as a way to
focus the use of force into a specifically restricted and defined
arena, leaving people free to create.
Perhaps your argument is "if the government didn't stop people from
stealing my stuff, I wouldn't have any stuff, so therefore the
government really owns my stuff." (I'm just guessing here, forgive me
if I'm giving you too much or too little credit for intelligence)
But you are missing the fundamental point: where did your stuff come
from in the first place? And why, therefore, is it a bad thing for
people to steal it? Answer those questions and you may have the
beginnings of a rational moral code.
Badger
> >> 1 - Cigarettes are being used in the manner in which they are
> >> intended. This fact alone makes all of the analogies about dumping
> >> toxic waste on the floor, etc. pointless. I can't think of one other
> >> such product that is unilaterally banned for use in public
> >> accomodations by the government.
> >
in
> >the manner intended banned for use in public accommodations by the
> >government???? Good god, think for more than 1/10 of a second! More
utter
> >silliness.
>
> No, I really can't. See, there are guns, but then you have gun ranges
> (which are public accomodations). Do you have an example that's been
> banned from use in a public accomodation, or are you simply confused
> as to what a public accomodation is?
Are you just being silly? You can't put a poker table in a barbershop. You
can't shoot off fireworks in a laundramat. You can't put explicit
pornography in a Toys R'Us. You can't put a radar antena in a coffee shop.
But you can put a troll in newsgroup.
All those things are legal products, but they can not be used in the manner
intended public accomadations unless the government grants a license.
In the future please address trolling messages on this important subject to
Beldin. He is responsible for answering Jaeger. He can handle another
troll (or two if Mr. Woods keep going).
--
Badger
"Journalism is the death of a great writer." -- Ernest Hemingway
David J. Rodman
<garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>Well, the point is, without that government protection you don't really have
>anything of much value.
OK, so now we need a definition of "value". A value is something
which a person will act to gain or to keep, in pursuit of his own
rational self-interest. Food, for example, is a value. Art,
companionship, gold, music, pizza ... all are values.
Values derive from the nature of human beings, not from government
protection. If you have something of value, it's valuable because it
supports life, not because a government may or may not protect it.
If it's good for the government to protect our values, that is because
they are valuable, not because the government protects them (which
would be completely circular). The act of protecting something does
not give it value, it respects its value.
David J. Rodman
<stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David J. Rodman <bit-b...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> The only *moral* function of a government is to protect individual
>> rights against the initiation of force. Thomas Paine had that right,
>> as did Jefferson and Rand.
>
>So you are saying withing your moral universe you agree government should
>establish laws to protect non-smokers.
>
>
If you can demonstrate that smoking is the initiation of force, in
violation of a moral right, yes. In that case both smokers and
non-smokers would properly be subject to such protection.
David J. Rodman
<bel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>David J. Rodman <bit-b...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:389fe131...@news.supernews.com...
>
><snip>
>>
>> In your example, it's not a public place and therefore there is no
>> moral quandry. The answer to each of your questions is "yes".
>>
>Wrong. It services the public, the public can reasonably be expected to go
>there, therefore it is a public accomodation and must accomodate them.
>
>
No - my business services whomever I choose for it to serve. There is
no "public" and there are no reasonable expectations regarding it.
There are individual human beings. "Public" is not a noun, it's an
adjective, incessant usage and dictionary definitions to the contrary
notwithstanding.
Those who choose to do business with me do so on the terms I decide,
because I have created the values which they wish to purchase from me.
It is that act of creation which gives me the right to decide how my
property will be used, distributed, or otherwise disposed of.
The concept that a business "must accommodate" its customers is
certainly a bit of practical advice for a budding entrepreneur.
However, it doesn't take too much experience, if you're paying
attention, to realize that if you attemtp to accommodate every
irrational, self-destructive, undefined, contradictory desire your
customers come up with, you will shortly be unable to accommodate
anyone at all, being out of business, out of money, out of luck.
A business must accommodate the customers its owner chooses to do
business with. One of the most fundamental rules of succeedeing in
business is to be clear about what business you're in, and don't try
to be in another business.
What you are saying is that since a business is open to the public
(meaning that any individual who so chooses is welcome to walk in),
therefore a business must accommodate the public (meaning that
anything claimed to be "in the public good" must be accepted and
obeyed by the business). This is the logical fallacy of synechdoche -
attributing to the parts attributes of the whole. It turns on an
equivocation on the word "public", as detailed in the parenthesised
clarifications in this paragraph.
David J. Rodman
<lov...@gorge.net> wrote:
>
>Anybody interested in POKER?
>
>
> ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
I musta missed the "accessibility" chapter in Super/System. Or is it
in HPAP?
What, exactly, is "accessibility", anyway?
David J. Rodman
>I draw the line somewhere downstream of where you stopped, or right at
>the beginning when you speak of "being allowed". Government should not
>have the power to "ALLOW" -- it should protect and defend and get the
>hell out of the way of the private citizenry while taking as little as
>necessary from our pockets to provide its EXPLICILTY STATED purposes in
>the Constitution.
Good Grief! Another right-wing capitalist running dog. There's two
of us.
JW Steve
<stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>> >> 1 - Cigarettes are being used in the manner in which they are
>> >> intended. This fact alone makes all of the analogies about dumping
>> >> toxic waste on the floor, etc. pointless. I can't think of one other
>> >> such product that is unilaterally banned for use in public
>> >> accomodations by the government.
>> >
>> >You're kidding, right? You can't think of one other legal product used
>in
>> >the manner intended banned for use in public accommodations by the
>> >government???? Good god, think for more than 1/10 of a second! More
>utter
>> >silliness.
>>
>> No, I really can't. See, there are guns, but then you have gun ranges
>> (which are public accomodations). Do you have an example that's been
>> banned from use in a public accomodation, or are you simply confused
>> as to what a public accomodation is?
>
>Are you just being silly? You can't put a poker table in a barbershop. You
>can't shoot off fireworks in a laundramat. You can't put explicit
>pornography in a Toys R'Us. You can't put a radar antena in a coffee shop.
Boy, you are thick. Go back an look around for the word
*unilateral*, look it up and then get back to me. None of the things
you mentioned are unilaterally banned in all public accomodations.
Demonstrating one place that they are banned, is just plain
irrelevant. I'd explain why, but it seems you are having such a tough
time with this simple concept that it would be pointless.
>But you can put a troll in newsgroup.
blah blah blah...
>All those things are legal products, but they can not be used in the manner
>intended public accomadations unless the government grants a license.
Uh... poker, isn't a product, first of all.
Fireworks are not unilaterally banned and there are public
accomodations where they are legal without any sort of license (an
example would be Alaska where fireworks are pretty much legal in parks
outside of city limits and sometimes banned when fire hazards are
high). You claim that I can't set off fireworks unless the government
grants a license is patently false...
Your pornography example is a little off-based as well. You are
talking about *selling* a product not consuming it. Obviously there
are large sets of regulation regarding selling material. Your claim
that someone can't read pornography in a public accomodation without a
license is patently false.
The radar antenna example is just simply nonsensical.
>In the future please address trolling messages on this important subject to
>Beldin. He is responsible for answering Jaeger. He can handle another
>troll (or two if Mr. Woods keep going).
I am curious why you need all of the diversionary stuff. It seems
hard for you to debate a point on it's merits without throwing some
sort of misguided temper tantrum. Not like I haven't seen if before.
jw steve
Jeff Woods
garyc...@mindspring.com says...
> >> I don't know about that. Government is what creates this property that
> >> you're so gung-ho to have rights in.
> >
> >Bzzzzzzt! But thanks for playing, anyway.
> >
> >Government didn't do any such thing. PRODUCERS within PRIVATE INDUSTRY
> >did the act of creating it.
>
> This is a really silly thing to argue about.
On the contrary, it is the very CRUX of you purport to defend, poorly.
> It just depends on what kind of property you're talking about.
So it depends on what "is" is? Property is property. What part of
"private" don't you understand?
> > All that government does (or should do) is
> >to protect that creation, the result of the efforts of the private
> >citizenry.
>
> Well, the point is, without that government protection you don't really have
> anything of much value.
I don't need government "protection", in the mobster sense. Pay us this
extortion^H^H^Htax and we'll make sure nothing 'happens' to it...
Thanks, but we're not talking torts here -- we're talking about private
property rights, and the power of individuals to make their own choices,
free of government intervention and meddling.
> >
> >This is why many of us own GUNS. Private property rights don't come
> >from and end with the government. Try to take MY property away without
> >my consent, and I'm likely to introduce you to Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
>
> Sure. That's all we need. More tough guys.
So, my use of a gun to protect what I created and own is "thuggish" but
the government's use of a gun to take the same away from me when it did
NOT create it, for the benefit of others, is perfectly acceptable.
Perfect sense. I don't know why I didn't follow that before.
> Look, I'm not a fan of government interference in your lives in any way.
> But, we can't all live in Montana.
Nor can the ENTIRE world be smoke free. If you don't like the smoke in
my private enterprise, visit (or work) in another -- unending variety and
choice awaits those who look.
Jeff Woods
three of us here (you, I and my good friend Jaeger), and since we know
Carson isn't going to ever "get it" until he's one of the looted instead
of one of the looters, there's not much else to say.
Care to open a private poker room in the mountains of California, anyone?
Who is John Galt?
In article <38a1344c...@news.supernews.com>, bit-b...@aol.com
says...
Gary Carson
>> But, we can't all live in Montana.
>
>Nor can the ENTIRE world be smoke free. If you don't like the smoke in
>my private enterprise, visit (or work) in another -- unending variety and
>choice awaits those who look.
LOL. Apparently you've been so busy spouting off your nonsense that you
haven't read anything I've posted. I've never suggested that I liked the
idea of government outlawing smoking, in the workplace, in your store, or
anywhere else.
Gary Carson
Jeff Berman
You wrote:
> This is why many of us own GUNS. Private property rights don't come
> from and end with the government. Try to take MY property away without
> my consent, and I'm likely to introduce you to Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
Suppose I'm faster on the draw/better shot than you. Is that the end of
it - I get to take your property because you can no longer prevent me
from doing so?
Jeff
David J. Rodman
On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 13:57:00 GMT, jw_s...@hotmail.com (JW Steve)
>Boy, you are thick. Go back an look around for the word
>*unilateral*, look it up and then get back to me.
>
Actually, the word you pro-regulation guys are groping for is
"universal". All banning is unilateral. That's the nature of a ban.
JW Steve
wrote:
Well, first of all, I am not "pro-regulation".
Also, I wasn't mistakenly using the word unilateral. I was using it
to indicate a ban that was imposed on one group (in this case,
owners/operators of public accomodation) by another group (in this
case the government).
I suppose you could argue that all bans imposed by the government are
unilateral. However, some of the issues raised (like laser pointers
in a certain public accomodation) are not unilateral bans imposed by
the government, rather the if they aren't allowed, it may simply be
preference of the owner of the public accomodation.
jw steve
Terrence Chan
Jeff Woods <je...@telix.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.130b483e9...@corp.supernews.com...
> Care to open a private poker room in the mountains of California, anyone?
Sure, but who's gonna want to play with chips made out of pure gold?
--
Terrence Chan
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand
I recently came to the conclusion that .sig files are basically the on-line
equivalent of The Family Circus cartoon. Everyone reads them, yet no one
finds them funny but the author. (And maybe not even...)
Andrew Prock
>>I'm a sane and rational person... :)
>>
>>But using something "as intended" doesn't make them
>>acceptable for a public accomodation. Some examples
>>that come to mind:
>>
>>- laser pointers
>>- portable karaoke machines
>>- portable desiel fans
>>- inneficient nuclear powered wristwatches
>>- Andrew
>Are you part of the list?
Depends on your perspective :)
>Have any of the above items (that actually
>exist) been unilaterally banned by the government? If you could
>reference that legislation, I'd appreciate it.
Unilaterally banned? Hmm, I can't think of *anything*
that the government has "unilaterally banned", unless
maybe it's Fidel Castro.
- Andrew
Andrew Prock
>
>Also, I wasn't mistakenly using the word unilateral. I was using it
>to indicate a ban that was imposed on one group (in this case,
>owners/operators of public accomodation) by another group (in this
>case the government).
I'm still confused, is the ban on pornogrophy in Toys-R-Us stores
univeral, unilateral, or something else?
- Andrew
JW Steve
>According to JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com>:
How about discrimination against people in with disabilities? Or
discrimination wrt race or color?
jw steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
JW Steve
>According to JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com>:
>>On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 18:21:47 GMT, bit-b...@aol.com (David J. Rodman)
>>
>>Well, first of all, I am not "pro-regulation".
>>
>>Also, I wasn't mistakenly using the word unilateral. I was using it
>>to indicate a ban that was imposed on one group (in this case,
>>owners/operators of public accomodation) by another group (in this
>>case the government).
>
>I'm still confused, is the ban on pornogrophy in Toys-R-Us stores
>univeral, unilateral, or something else?
What makes you think that Toys-R-Us can't sell pornography if they
take the proper precautions in areas where other people can sell
pornography? Could you produce the document that you feel *bans*
pornography from Toys-R-Us and how exactly in the eyes of that
document Toys-R-Us differs from the local video rental store?
jw steve
Andrew Prock
Nope, could you produce one that *allows* it?
- Andrew
Andrew Prock
>>
>>>Have any of the above items (that actually
>>>exist) been unilaterally banned by the government? If you could
>>>reference that legislation, I'd appreciate it.
>>
>>Unilaterally banned? Hmm, I can't think of *anything*
>>that the government has "unilaterally banned", unless
>>maybe it's Fidel Castro.
>
>How about discrimination against people in with disabilities? Or
>discrimination wrt race or color?
I wasn't aware that discrimination was an item. I thanks for
clarifying that for me. Do where can I purchace some contraband
discrimination, I have a hard time discriminating my left from
my right, and could really use some.
As far as discrimination wrt race or color, it's done all the
time. Unlike my left/right problem, I can always tell the
difference between my colors. In fact, when using NTSC to
transmit colors, you have to be very careful to select colors
which don't oversaturate.
- Andrew
Badger
> violation of a moral right, yes. In that case both smokers and
> non-smokers would properly be subject to such protection.
Just trying to be clear... so you are saying the conscious expulsion of a
dangerous substance into a closed environment is not a violation of another
person's inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Your rhetoric is clear. Your conclusion runs counter to your own
statements.
--
Badger
> Boy, you are thick. Go back an look around for the word
> you mentioned are unilaterally banned in all public accomodations.
LOL, so your problem is you don't understand unilateral!!
My goodness. I suspect you mean "universally". Government action is by
it's nature unilateral. The government acts; the public obeys (or doesn't)
the edict.
You ought look up words you don't understand before splashing them around.
--
Badger
"Criminal behavior is safer when
state power is behind it." -- Noam Chomsky
Terrence Chan
> three of us here (you, I and my good friend Jaeger), and since we know
> Carson isn't going to ever "get it" until he's one of the looted instead
> of one of the looters, there's not much else to say.
>
>
A horrible bluffer, I would think. I can't imagine John Galt representing a
hand he doesn't have. I can see him playing 7-stud heads-up with Dagny...
4th street:
Dagny: (x,x) 8s, 8c
Galt: (x,x) Td, Jd
Dagny bets 20 ounces of gold. Galt calls.
5th street:
Dagny: (x,x) 8s, 8c, 3h
Galt: (x,x) Td, Jd, Qd
Dagny bets 12 ounces of gold. Galt calls.
6th street:
Dagny: (x,x) 8s, 8c, 3h, 5c
Galt: (x,x) Td, Jd, Qd, Kd
Dagny checks. Galt checks.
7th street:
Dagny: (x,x) 8s, 8c, 3h, 5c (x)
Galt: (x,x) Td, Jd, Qd, Kd (x)
Dagny checks. Galt checks and turns over 3c, 4c, 4s. "Your pair of eights
are good, Miss Taggart." Dagny turns over 8,8 in the hole for quads. The
RGPers watching ask her why she didn't slowplayon 4th and 5th. She responds
haughtily, "Slowplay?! Am I supposed to be ashamed of my quads? When I
bet, I swear by my life and love for it that I have the best hand!" She
then adds that on 6th and 7th street she'd only get called by Galt if she
was beaten (the truth).
Badger
> >*unilateral*, look it up and then get back to me.
>
> "universal". All banning is unilateral. That's the nature of a ban.
Thank you. I wish I'd seen your post before replying to him.
--
"As long as people are marginalized and distracted,
they will have no way to organize and articulate
their sentiments, or even know that others
have these sentiments." -- Noam Chomsky
Bill Ingram
> This is the SINGLE most difficult thing to get across to a liberal. The
> folks who are on the other side of the aisle are the ones that don't
> believe in personal property rights
Not true. A liberal does believe in personal property rights
as well as public rights. And so does a conservative. The
difference is the degree that each believes that these two
rights are most important.
The liberal believes that the welfare of the community is
more important while the conservative believes that the
welfare of the individual is more important. Both believe
that the other right is important too, but less so.
It's that simple. Empathy for others versus selfishness.
> Most people will never have the guts, as they tend to prefer the security
> of a GOVERNMENT safety net over the freedom to create and produce in a
> truly free society.
I suspect that a totally free environment would not be
particularly pleasant at all. Very quickly, one entity
would grow to control everything. You may romanticize
about how wonderful it must have been before Unions and
government regulation, but I seem to recall this is where
the phrase "sweat shop" comes from.
Imagine a world run by series of Mafia-like organizations
(no cracks about how the government IS Mafia-like, please.
It's not even close). What do you think would happen if
you didn't like the food in a Mafia-run restaurant and
decided to open a better place down the street?
You have a much better chance at opening a successful
restaurant under a government-regulated system like we
currently have than if you lived under a totally free
system where your rival can do whatever it takes to
put you out of business.
What you are wanting is a system where you are free to
do whatever you want. But, you also want a system that
protects and gives you that freedom to do as you please.
And you want all that provided to you at no cost.
> That may be the saddest commentary possible on what
> was once a beautiful document, when it was written in 1787.
Uh, have you read the thing? It's primarily a list of
complaints from wealthy land owners who didn't want to
contribute towards the upkeep of the society they chose
to live in. The fact that it happened to produce a system
of government that works well 200 years later is just a
happy coincidence.
-- Bill
Jaeger T. Cat
Bill Ingram <bi...@its.bldrdoc.gov> wrote:
>
>> That may be the saddest commentary possible on what
>> was once a beautiful document, when it was written in 1787.
>
>Uh, have you read the thing? It's primarily a list of
>complaints from wealthy land owners who didn't want to
>contribute towards the upkeep of the society they chose
>to live in. The fact that it happened to produce a system
>of government that works well 200 years later is just a
>happy coincidence.
>
>-- Bill
Um, not _that_ thing, the _other_ thing.
Declaration - 1776
Constitution - 1787
Matt Crane
<terren...@telus.net> wrote:
>> Who is John Galt?
>
>A horrible bluffer, I would think. I can't imagine John Galt representing a
>hand he doesn't have. I can see him playing 7-stud heads-up with Dagny...
<snip most of "Poker According to Rand">
>Dagny checks. Galt checks and turns over 3c, 4c, 4s. "Your pair of eights
>are good, Miss Taggart." Dagny turns over 8,8 in the hole for quads. The
>RGPers watching ask her why she didn't slowplayon 4th and 5th. She responds
>haughtily, "Slowplay?! Am I supposed to be ashamed of my quads? When I
>bet, I swear by my life and love for it that I have the best hand!" She
>then adds that on 6th and 7th street she'd only get called by Galt if she
>was beaten (the truth).
Heh. Nice story. :-)
And all this time, I'm over at the Hold'em table and my ears are
ringing listening to Jim Taggart drone on endlessly with his litany of
bad beat stories.
-Matt
Bill Ingram
Yup. That's the logical extension. You want to take his property.
In Jeff's totally free society, there's no rule against it, so no
one will make any effort to stop you except Jeff himself.
And, if you manage to gun him down, you win all his stuff
and the world keeps on turning.
I just hope you have extra bullets and an armored wagon to
cart it all off because the next guy down the street will be
waiting for you with a cannon.
-- Bill
Jaeger T. Cat
JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>You ought look up words you don't understand before splashing them around.
>
>the waters. Can you address a post without some sort of personal
>attack or disingenuous remark?
>
Nope, he can't. It's the Badger style. I give him two more
posts before he identifies you as a "troll"... Badger speak
for "those with positions I disagree with"
Jeff Woods
@telus.net says...
> Dagny checks. Galt checks and turns over 3c, 4c, 4s. "Your pair of eights
> are good, Miss Taggart." Dagny turns over 8,8 in the hole for quads. The
> RGPers watching ask her why she didn't slowplayon 4th and 5th. She responds
> haughtily, "Slowplay?! Am I supposed to be ashamed of my quads? When I
> bet, I swear by my life and love for it that I have the best hand!" She
> then adds that on 6th and 7th street she'd only get called by Galt if she
> was beaten (the truth).
ROFLMAO! Best post to RGP in years!
JW Steve
Ah.. kindergarten tactcis.. genius.
jw steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
JW Steve
>According to JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com>:
>>On 9 Feb 2000 21:13:57 GMT, jeffy...@yahoo.com (Andrew Prock) wrote:
>>Could you produce the document that you feel *bans*
>>pornography from Toys-R-Us and how exactly in the eyes of that
>>document Toys-R-Us differs from the local video rental store?
>
>Nope, could you produce one that *allows* it?
Uh.. the constitution?
jw steve
JW Steve
<stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>> Boy, you are thick. Go back an look around for the word
>> *unilateral*, look it up and then get back to me. None of the things
>> you mentioned are unilaterally banned in all public accomodations.
>
>LOL, so your problem is you don't understand unilateral!!
>
>My goodness. I suspect you mean "universally". Government action is by
>it's nature unilateral. The government acts; the public obeys (or doesn't)
>the edict
The government makes *bans* that apply to different groups of people.
Again, none of the examples given apply to a the group of owners of
public accommodations. A unilateral ban for all public accommodations
would have to be adhered to by all such owners. None of the *items*
you mentioned fit that bill.
>You ought look up words you don't understand before splashing them around.
I understand just fine badger, despite your juvenile attempts to muddy
the waters. Can you address a post without some sort of personal
attack or disingenuous remark?
jw steve
Andrew Prock
>On 9 Feb 2000 22:22:04 GMT, jeffy...@yahoo.com (Andrew Prock) wrote:
>
>>According to JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com>:
>>>On 9 Feb 2000 21:13:57 GMT, jeffy...@yahoo.com (Andrew Prock) wrote:
>>>Could you produce the document that you feel *bans*
>>>pornography from Toys-R-Us and how exactly in the eyes of that
>>>document Toys-R-Us differs from the local video rental store?
>>
>>Nope, could you produce one that *allows* it?
>
>Uh.. the constitution?
I just did a keyword search on my local copy of the
constitution and neither pornography nor Toys-R-Us
were mentioned.
Maybe you could give me the passage you were talking
about.
- Andrew
JW Steve
wrote:
>According to JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com>:
>>On 9 Feb 2000 22:22:04 GMT, jeffy...@yahoo.com (Andrew Prock) wrote:
>>
>>>According to JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com>:
>>>>On 9 Feb 2000 21:13:57 GMT, jeffy...@yahoo.com (Andrew Prock) wrote:
>>>>Could you produce the document that you feel *bans*
>>>>pornography from Toys-R-Us and how exactly in the eyes of that
>>>>document Toys-R-Us differs from the local video rental store?
>>>
>>>Nope, could you produce one that *allows* it?
>>
>>Uh.. the constitution?
>
>I just did a keyword search on my local copy of the
>constitution and neither pornography nor Toys-R-Us
>were mentioned.
>
>Maybe you could give me the passage you were talking
>about.
I wasn't sure if you were just being a dick or not, but now it's
clear.
Truly infantile.
jw steve
JW Steve
wrote:
>In article <38a40bd4....@news.psn.net>,
>JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>You ought look up words you don't understand before splashing them around.
>>
>>I understand just fine badger, despite your juvenile attempts to muddy
>>the waters. Can you address a post without some sort of personal
>>attack or disingenuous remark?
>>
>
>Nope, he can't. It's the Badger style. I give him two more
>posts before he identifies you as a "troll"... Badger speak
>for "those with positions I disagree with"
Actually he claimed an earlier post was a troll, but continued to
respond anyway, interestingly enough.
jw steve
David J. Rodman
wrote:
>On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 14:45:41 -0800, "Badger"
><stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com> wrote...
>>> Boy, you are thick. Go back an look around for the word
>>> *unilateral*, look it up and then get back to me. None of the things
>>> you mentioned are unilaterally banned in all public accomodations.
>>
>>LOL, so your problem is you don't understand unilateral!!
>>
>>My goodness. I suspect you mean "universally". Government action is by
>>it's nature unilateral. The government acts; the public obeys (or doesn't)
>>the edict
>
Great minds think alike!
David J. Rodman
wrote:
>
>Not true. A liberal does believe in personal property rights
>as well as public rights. And so does a conservative. The
>difference is the degree that each believes that these two
>rights are most important.
>
>The liberal believes that the welfare of the community is
>more important while the conservative believes that the
>welfare of the individual is more important. Both believe
>that the other right is important too, but less so.
>
>It's that simple. Empathy for others versus selfishness.
Hmm... The most fundamental of all rights is the right to one's own
life. Where do liberals and conservatives stand on that issue? I
think you will find that it's not quite as simple as you thought to
draw a clean line between liberal and conservative on the plane of
"rights".
>> Most people will never have the guts, as they tend to prefer the security
>> of a GOVERNMENT safety net over the freedom to create and produce in a
>> truly free society.
>
>I suspect that a totally free environment would not be
>particularly pleasant at all. Very quickly, one entity
>would grow to control everything. You may romanticize
>about how wonderful it must have been before Unions and
>government regulation, but I seem to recall this is where
>the phrase "sweat shop" comes from.
Here are some other phrases: "Industrial Revolution". "Universal
Employment". "A Home Of Your Own". "Free Time". "Discretionary
Income". "Leisure Activities".
The ability to produce enough to feed one's family, having time left
over to do ANYTHING but sleep, is an artifact of a free society.
>
>
>You have a much better chance at opening a successful
>restaurant under a government-regulated system like we
>currently have than if you lived under a totally free
>system where your rival can do whatever it takes to
>put you out of business.
Which is why we need a government: to protect individual rights
against the initiation of force.
>
>What you are wanting is a system where you are free to
>do whatever you want. But, you also want a system that
>protects and gives you that freedom to do as you please.
>And you want all that provided to you at no cost.
No, sir, not me. I'm delighted to pay for an army, a police force, a
judicial system, and whatever government is reasonably required to
protect my life and property.
I am not, however, delighted to be forced to pay for your education,
his job, her cosmetic surgery, their health insurance...
>
>Uh, have you read the thing? It's primarily a list of
>complaints from wealthy land owners who didn't want to
>contribute towards the upkeep of the society they chose
>to live in. The fact that it happened to produce a system
>of government that works well 200 years later is just a
>happy coincidence.
It's cause and effect; not coincidental at all. It's in the design,
not random chance.
Perhaps you don't distinguish roulette from poker, either?
David J. Rodman
<jeffrey....@lmco.com> wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>You wrote:
>
>> This is why many of us own GUNS. Private property rights don't come
>> from and end with the government. Try to take MY property away without
>> my consent, and I'm likely to introduce you to Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
>
>Suppose I'm faster on the draw/better shot than you. Is that the end of
>it - I get to take your property because you can no longer prevent me
>from doing so?
>
>Jeff
Nope, the end of it is we establish a government with a monopoly on
the legitimate use of coercive force, and we hamstring and hogtie that
government so that all it is allowed to do is protect our rights, and
nothing else.
That's called "capitalism".
When you see the reversal that began this thread, where the question
is asked "what am I allowed to do", that's a pretty sad commentary on
the past 200 years of the history of freedom.
The 9th amendment makes good reading on this point.
Andrew Prock
>On 10 Feb 2000 02:01:01 GMT, jeffy...@yahoo.com (Andrew Prock)
>wrote:
>>>>According to JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com>:
>>>>>Could you produce the document that you feel *bans*
>>>>>pornography from Toys-R-Us and how exactly in the eyes of that
>>>>>document Toys-R-Us differs from the local video rental store?
>>>>
>>>>Nope, could you produce one that *allows* it?
>>>
>>>Uh.. the constitution?
>>
>>I just did a keyword search on my local copy of the
>>constitution and neither pornography nor Toys-R-Us
>>were mentioned.
>>
>>Maybe you could give me the passage you were talking
>>about.
>
>I wasn't sure if you were just being a dick or not, but now it's
>clear.
I'm not sure what planet you live on Johnny, but
I've read the Constitution several times, and I
have *never* seen any reference to pornography.
Maybe you're thinking of some supreme court interpretation
of the Constitution, but even that doesn't apply here.
I find it utterly laughable that you try and attack
me by saying "produce a document" and then when I
ask you for one you say "the Constitution" like that's
any kind of an answer.
I've never seen anyone who's more misinformed and
less capbable of defending a very defendable position.
If the highpoint of you debate is
"... you were just being a dick..."
I'm sure you've got a great future in store for
you.
- Andrew
rounder...@yahoo.com
point because poker is not illegal.
Also in response to an idiotic statement it would be illegal for a toys
r us to sell pornograhy more than likley they just decided it would not
be a very good idea to sell such things with the clientel they recieve.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Terrence Chan
Thanks, although your praise has got to be part hyperbole (I hope :). I
actually considered crossposting it to humanities.philosophy.objectivism but
then I remembered that HPO has that mod-bot that kicks out crossposts, and I
was too lazy to send it again. More relevant here anyway. :)
Badger
JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com> wrote...
> The government makes *bans* that apply to different groups of people.
> Again, none of the examples given apply to a the group of owners of
> public accommodations. A unilateral ban for all public accommodations
> would have to be adhered to by all such owners. None of the *items*
> you mentioned fit that bill.
Look, you use common terms differently than the rest of the world. There's
no way to talk to you if you don't speak English. Good luck with Andrew.
> >You ought look up words you don't understand before splashing them
around.
>
> I understand just fine badger, despite your juvenile attempts to muddy
> the waters. Can you address a post without some sort of personal
> attack or disingenuous remark?
You refered to *me* as thick! And you refered to me as thick because *you*
didn't know what a word meant! And you say I'm engaging in a personal
attack?
--
JW Steve
wrote:
>According to JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com>:
>>On 10 Feb 2000 02:01:01 GMT, jeffy...@yahoo.com (Andrew Prock)
>>wrote:
<snip>
>I've never seen anyone who's more misinformed and
>less capbable of defending a very defendable position.
>If the highpoint of you debate is
You are right. I am un capbable.
>"... you were just being a dick..."
>
>I'm sure you've got a great future in store for
>you.
It's clear you've been throwing a temper tantrum for about a week now
and I am sorry I've entertained it thusfar. My apologies to the group
for carrying on with something that is clearly personal to you. I am
always willing to debate a point, but when it degenerates into thick
headed nonsense, it doesn't help anybody.
Don't sweat my future, if I let the opinion of others in a newsgroup
alter my life (like putting me on tilt for a week), then I would worry
about my future.
Prost !
jw steve
>- Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
JW Steve
> I am not exactly sure but it seems to me you all are arguing a null
>point because poker is not illegal.
> Also in response to an idiotic statement it would be illegal for a toys
>r us to sell pornograhy more than likley they just decided it would not
>be a very good idea to sell such things with the clientel they recieve.
That's what I thought, but when I asked Andrew why he was assuming
there was a *ban* on Toys-R-Us selling pornography, he deflected the
question and asked me to demonstrate why there wasn't a ban?
Apparently, the nonsensical nature of this defense was lost on him and
he felt it necessary to disparage me instead of address the point.
Here is a comparable argument...
You are walking along on the sidewalk and a cop arrests you.
You "What did I do wrong?"
Cop -" You are banned from walking on the sidewalk"
You - "Where is the document that prohibits me from walking on the
sidewalk?"
Cop - "Where is the document that allows it?" (deflecting the
question)
You - realizing the absudrity of the above discourse, offer a half
joking response - "the consitution". Which in reality, the
constitution does implicitly offer rights that aren't taken away by
other documents.
Cop - "The word 'sidewalk' isn't mentioned anywhere in the
constitution"
You - At this point you can't believe the cop is serious, because the
above argument is so ridiculous, so you say "why are you being such a
dick"?
Cop - "Your future is dim".
Idiotic for sure.
jw steve
Gary Carson
JW Steve wrote in message <38a2cf21....@news.psn.net>...
>Here is a comparable argument...
>
>You - At this point you can't believe the cop is serious, because the
>above argument is so ridiculous, so you say "why are you being such a
>dick"?
>
>Cop - "Your future is dim".
>
I really don't understand this. Are you suggesting that you're analogous to
some shcizo handing out his pamphlets on the sidewalk and Andrew is a cop
taking you down to the county hospital?
Gary Carson
Andrew Prock
>
>> I am not exactly sure but it seems to me you all are arguing a null
>>point because poker is not illegal.
>> Also in response to an idiotic statement it would be illegal for a toys
>>r us to sell pornograhy more than likley they just decided it would not
>>be a very good idea to sell such things with the clientel they recieve.
>That's what I thought, but when I asked Andrew why he was assuming
>there was a *ban* on Toys-R-Us selling pornography, he deflected the
>question and asked me to demonstrate why there wasn't a ban?
Huh? I must have a very skewed understaning of reality. All you
did was ask me to produce a document. You never asked why I *assumed*
that there was a ban.
>Apparently, the nonsensical nature of this defense was lost on him and
>he felt it necessary to disparage me instead of address the point.
Actually, "the nonsensical nature of this defense" was not lost
on me. More to the point, the irony of my using that defense
was lost on you.
- Andrew
Andrew Prock
>and I am sorry I've entertained it thusfar.
Again, pure irony. Here I thought it was *you* who were
having the temper tantrum. Personally, I was having a
dandy ole time engaging in a pointless debate.
- Andrew
JW Steve
wrote:
>According to JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com>:
>>On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 10:49:58 GMT, rounder...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> I am not exactly sure but it seems to me you all are arguing a null
>>>point because poker is not illegal.
>>> Also in response to an idiotic statement it would be illegal for a toys
>>>r us to sell pornograhy more than likley they just decided it would not
>>>be a very good idea to sell such things with the clientel they recieve.
>
>>That's what I thought, but when I asked Andrew why he was assuming
>>there was a *ban* on Toys-R-Us selling pornography, he deflected the
>>question and asked me to demonstrate why there wasn't a ban?
>
>Huh? I must have a very skewed understaning of reality. All you
>did was ask me to produce a document. You never asked why I *assumed*
>that there was a ban.
Yes you do... I believe you snipped the part where I said...
------------
What makes you think that Toys-R-Us can't sell pornography if they
take the proper precautions in areas where other people can sell
pornography?
------------
Now "what makes you think" and "why do you assume" are fairly
analogous AFAIC.
>>Apparently, the nonsensical nature of this defense was lost on him and
>>he felt it necessary to disparage me instead of address the point.
>
>Actually, "the nonsensical nature of this defense" was not lost
>on me. More to the point, the irony of my using that defense
>was lost on you.
Apparently.
jw steve
JW Steve
You're right, you don't understand it.
jw steve
Andrew Prock
>On 10 Feb 2000 15:29:25 GMT, jeffy...@yahoo.com (Andrew Prock)
>wrote:
>>Huh? I must have a very skewed understaning of reality. All you
>>did was ask me to produce a document. You never asked why I *assumed*
>>that there was a ban.
>
>Yes you do... I believe you snipped the part where I said...
>
>------------
>What makes you think that Toys-R-Us can't sell pornography if they
>take the proper precautions in areas where other people can sell
>pornography?
>------------
>
>Now "what makes you think" and "why do you assume" are fairly
>analogous AFAIC.
Ack, I've been proven a fraud!
What a sorry state of events to have turned upon me
in this oh so shallow and meaningless debate. I am
surely outclassed.
Such is life. Live and learn.
- Andrew
Richard Threadgould
I wasn't sure if you were just being a dick or not, but now it's
clear.
You - At this point you can't believe the cop is serious, because the
above argument is so ridiculous, so you say "why are you being such a
dick"?
HEY! Knock it off with the "dick" stuff! :-)
--
-So much to do, so much to learn, so little time!
Dick Threadgould
Jeff Woods
do. It is a document about what "The Government" is PROHIBITED from
doing. It doesn't grant the citizenry "rights" -- it prohibits the
government from removing those rights. i.e. the first amendment (part
and parcel of the document) does not say that people may express
themselves freely, or assemble, or "have" freedom of the press. It says
that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. The second amendment does not GIVE the
people the RKBA -- it says that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." Note
that in all forms, "the right" is already there. It is not being
"granted" by the Government.
Pornography of course will not be mentioned explicitly (pardon the pun)
in the Constitution. It is IMPLICITLY mentioned here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Article I, section 8 is an explicit list of the powers of the US
Congress, and I don't see "prohibiting pornography" among those
restrictions....
In article <87t64t$n...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, jeffy...@yahoo.com says...
Beldin the Sorcerer
Jaeger T. Cat <jae...@pluto.njcc.com> wrote in message
news:87ql50$o98$1...@pluto.njcc.com...
> In article <38a3c6bf....@news.psn.net>,
> JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:33:28 -0800, "Badger"
> ><stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >You obviously don't get it. There are public accomodations where you
> >can
>
> You're right. Badger doesn't get it. This is just his usual
> "style" of debate:
>
> let's see if I remember the steps, from the pot stealing episode
>
> 1) deny facts in evidence
You've repeatedly denied facts in evidence on this topic, Jaggiepoo
> 2) change parameters of model
You're guilty here too, going from smoking to gambling.
> 3) assert that one's opponents are stupid ("Asshole Idiot Troika", is
> the technical term, right Steve?)
You did that to me, Jaggie
You're shooting yourself in the ass nicely
> 4) assert that things are "just different" in the world, and that
> "you just don't understand".
>
In this case, you show you DON'T understand.
Beldin the Sorcerer
JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38a3c6bf....@news.psn.net...
> >> But using something "as intended" doesn't make them
> >> acceptable for a public accomodation. Some examples
> >> that come to mind:
> >>
> >> - laser pointers
> >> - portable karaoke machines
> >> - portable desiel fans
> >> - inneficient nuclear powered wristwatches
> >> - Andrew
> >
> >I really can't stop laughing at how ridiculous the "I can do any damn
thing
> >I please" people get. The JWsteve's above statement is just so not true
and
> >genuinely ignorant there really isn't anything to talk about.
>
> You obviously don't get it. There are public accomodations where you
> can
>
Licensed and regulated. Granted or banned as per governmental approval.
> - shoot guns and automatic weapons
Ditto.
Shooting ranges are regulated.
> - use laser pointers
Subject to laws saying where you can't...
> - use portable karaoke machines
Ditto...
> - use portable diesel fans
Ditto
> - use pretty much almost anything..
A little vague, but likely ditto.
Do you *get it*?
You can't do anything everywhere.
The government, as Badger showed and as you were obviously too simpleminded
to understand, can regulate what you can use and where you can use it, even
"as intended."
A gun is a legal item. It is intended to be used to shoot a projectile. If I
point it at you and fire, I cannot use the idiot-reasoning line you claimed
made perfect sense.
> Only a fool muddies the water with nonsense and rhetoric.
>
Then you are truly a great fool.
> >What government's view towards property *should* be is an open question.
> >What it *is* currently on planet Earth though is not the delusions of
some
> >who think their pretend world is reality.
>
> Please explain it to me, since you obviously have some miscontrued
> conception of what constitutes public accomodation. Here is a simple
> quiz....
>
>
> It seems that Andrew is under the misguided assumption that because
> some things may not be allowed in some public accomodation, that they
> are somehow equivalent to a government ban. This is simply untrue.
It appears JW is too dumb to read the posts.
The line of arguement is not "It's an accommodation, they can't do that!"
It's "It's an accomadation, the government can therefore regulate them as
desired"
> Guns aren't allowed in casinos, but they are allowed at gun ranges
> both can be public accomodaitons. The issue of public accomodation
> (which someone else brought up) applies to all public accomodation and
> the regulation of such is usually reserved for such things as
> predjudice and access to the disabled, etc.
>
Like those who can't breathe correctly in smoke-filled rooms.
> A casino is certainly free to ban smoking, but a public accomodation
> ban is different thing entirely and Andrew's examples are entirely
> irrelevant.
>
You are a perfect idiot, my friend.
It isn't a "ban", it's the right to set rules.
>
> jw steve
>
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
Badger <stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u6px9ztc$GA.272@cpmsnbbsa02...
> In the future please address trolling messages on this important subject
to
> Beldin. He is responsible for answering Jaeger. He can handle another
> troll (or two if Mr. Woods keep going).
It breaks up the monotony.
Plus, Jaggie swore he wouldn't read my posts cuz I was so mean to him.....
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:19:42 -0600, "Gary Carson"
> <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ...
>
> 1 - Cigarettes are being used in the manner in which they are
> intended. This fact alone makes all of the analogies about dumping
> toxic waste on the floor, etc. pointless. I can't think of one other
> such product that is unilaterally banned for use in public
> accomodations by the government.
>
Alchohol, except where duly licensed.
Shows you thought not at all, as it is the most comperable and the most
obvious.
> 2 - The effects of secondhand smoke are not definitely established.
There are established to the point of reasonable protective standards being
evoked.
<snip foundering about how safe it is to breathe cancerous fumes>
> 3 - People seem to be ignorant of the fact that the California law was
> passed on behalf of the workers. (in theory) these workers had a
> right to work without significant health risk. It was not passed with
> the customer in mind.
True, it was easier to do so via OSHA.
However, those with difficulty breathing could easily be deemed handicapped,
and public accomodations are required to allow equal access to the
handicapped.
If they can't breathe, they can't access.
>
>
> If second hand smoke is simply annoying and not dangerous, the
> government has no business regulating it anymore than it can keep out
> people who are ugly or abrasive.
The government says it's legal to remove those who are abusive, and to
regulate noise levels of music, amongst many other things.
>
> If second hand smoke is indeed significantly dangerous, I wouldn't see
> why they couldn't institute some air purity standards and allow
> companies to deal with the hazard themselves.
>
Because it is far simpler and cost effective to remove the cause, and
because they don't start ant the end of the cig, they start in the
ventalation system, after spreading through the people in the building.
> If it's so dangerous that it's impossible to purify the air to
> acceptible standards than the stuff should be illegal. If a vast
> casino is dangerous because of cigarette smoke, imagine what it's like
> for a child in a small house with two smokers.
DSS has used that for cause, in some extreme cases, for removal of a child.
It has also played a part in custody determination.
Andrew Prock
>The Constitution is NOT a document about what citizens are PERMITTED to
>do. It is a document about what "The Government" is PROHIBITED from
>doing. It doesn't grant the citizenry "rights" -- it prohibits the
>government from removing those rights. i.e. the first amendment (part
>and parcel of the document) does not say that people may express
>themselves freely, or assemble, or "have" freedom of the press. It says
>that CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. The second amendment does not GIVE the
>people the RKBA -- it says that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." Note
>that in all forms, "the right" is already there. It is not being
>"granted" by the Government.
>
>Pornography of course will not be mentioned explicitly (pardon the pun)
>in the Constitution. It is IMPLICITLY mentioned here:
>
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
>speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
>assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You certainly are better at this than jw_steve. Of course, depending
on the community, you may or may not be able to sell porn in Toys-R-Us.
- Andrew
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 01:06:09 -0800, "Badger"
> <stevebadg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Boy, you are thick.
Wrong.
Go back an look around for the word
> *unilateral*, look it up and then get back to me. None of the things
> you mentioned are unilaterally banned in all public accomodations.
You don't understand the word Unilateral.
It means One Sided.
The word you mean, perhaps, is Exclusively.
A Unilateral weapons ban means (for instance) the US agrees to ban weapons,
despite what the Russians do.
> Demonstrating one place that they are banned, is just plain
> irrelevant. I'd explain why, but it seems you are having such a tough
> time with this simple concept that it would be pointless.
>
JW, you do such a good job being a shithead, it leaves little to say.
> >All those things are legal products, but they can not be used in the
manner
> >intended public accomadations unless the government grants a license.
>
>
>
> Uh... poker, isn't a product, first of all.
Wrong AGAIN!
Public poker is a product.
>
> Fireworks are not unilaterally banned and there are public
> accomodations where they are legal without any sort of license (an
> example would be Alaska where fireworks are pretty much legal in parks
> outside of city limits and sometimes banned when fire hazards are
> high).
That's called regulation, you idiot.
You claim that I can't set off fireworks unless the government
> grants a license is patently false...
Nope.
You can issue a default license to the populus within regulated activities.
However, you have to be licensed to shoot off any of the heavier classes of
fireworks.
>
> I am curious why you need all of the diversionary stuff. It seems
> hard for you to debate a point on it's merits without throwing some
> sort of misguided temper tantrum. Not like I haven't seen if before.
>
Badge is doing a fine job of making you look like a perfect ass.
Of course, you help him tremendously.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 18:21:47 GMT, bit-b...@aol.com (David J. Rodman)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Wed, 09 Feb 2000 13:57:00 GMT, jw_s...@hotmail.com (JW Steve)
> >>
> >>Boy, you are thick. Go back an look around for the word
> >>*unilateral*, look it up and then get back to me.
> >>
> >
> >"universal". All banning is unilateral. That's the nature of a ban.
> >
> >
>
> Well, first of all, I am not "pro-regulation".
>
> Also, I wasn't mistakenly using the word unilateral. I was using it
> to indicate a ban that was imposed on one group (in this case,
> owners/operators of public accomodation) by another group (in this
> case the government).
You used the word wrong.
>
> I suppose you could argue that all bans imposed by the government are
> unilateral. However, some of the issues raised (like laser pointers
> in a certain public accomodation) are not unilateral bans imposed by
> the government, rather the if they aren't allowed, it may simply be
> preference of the owner of the public accomodation.
Laws have been passed, kiddo.
Go to the research center and write a termpaper now.
Beldin the Sorcerer
Keep it to Usenet please <idontre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:idontreadthis56-7189F2.15144808022000@[216.227.56.89]...
> In article <87pqsr$dtc$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>, "Beldin the
> Sorcerer" <bel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know exactly how enforceable this is. The only way California
> was able to ram it's non-smoking laws (part of their weird freedom
> rulz!/people are too stupid to make any decisions at all combo) down
> everybody's throat was through CAL/OSHA, not through any concepts of
> "public accomodation". What finally allowed them to get it past the
> courts was that they treated smoking the same way they would an
> employer spraying benzene, cyanide or some other "toxic" chemical
> around.
>
All regulations about non-smoking in restraunts and such use a public
accomodation - type rational, or so has been explained to me.
Beldin the Sorcerer
them around.
>
> I understand just fine badger, despite your juvenile attempts to muddy
> the waters. Can you address a post without some sort of personal
> attack or disingenuous remark?
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
David J. Rodman <bit-b...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38a1304a...@news.supernews.com...
> On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 14:31:53 -0500, "Beldin the Sorcerer"
> <bel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >David J. Rodman <bit-b...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:389fe131...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> In your example, it's not a public place and therefore there is no
> >> moral quandry. The answer to each of your questions is "yes".
> >>
> >Wrong. It services the public, the public can reasonably be expected to
go
> >there, therefore it is a public accomodation and must accomodate them.
> >
> >
>
> No - my business services whomever I choose for it to serve.
I'm sorry, in what country do you live?
In the US, it's ILLEGAL to deny services to people in general due to race,
class, gender, etc, etc, etc.
There is
> no "public" and there are no reasonable expectations regarding it.
You're wrong.
And falling flat on your face nicely.
> There are individual human beings. "Public" is not a noun, it's an
> adjective, incessant usage and dictionary definitions to the contrary
> notwithstanding.
No, "Public", as in "The Public" is a noun.
Do you often look foolish, or only on usenet?
>
> Those who choose to do business with me do so on the terms I decide,
> because I have created the values which they wish to purchase from me.
Are your doors open?
Or do you have a members-only policy?
If the former, they don't choose to do it on terms you decide, they choose
to do it as defined by law.
> It is that act of creation which gives me the right to decide how my
> property will be used, distributed, or otherwise disposed of.
Wrong again. Quite obviously you don't live in the US; perhaps you live on
Mars?
You are allowed to decide those things, within, and ONLY within, the laws of
the United States. If you live here.
>
> The concept that a business "must accommodate" its customers is
> certainly a bit of practical advice for a budding entrepreneur.
> However, it doesn't take too much experience, if you're paying
> attention, to realize that if you attemtp to accommodate every
> irrational, self-destructive, undefined, contradictory desire your
> customers come up with, you will shortly be unable to accommodate
> anyone at all, being out of business, out of money, out of luck.
You don't understand the concept of public accomodation.
You must accomodate everyone in general, not everyone in specific. People in
wheelchairs, yes. My aunt Agness (hypothetically) screaming at you, no.
>
> A business must accommodate the customers its owner chooses to do
> business with. One of the most fundamental rules of succeedeing in
> business is to be clear about what business you're in, and don't try
> to be in another business.
>
> What you are saying is that since a business is open to the public
> (meaning that any individual who so chooses is welcome to walk in),
> therefore a business must accommodate the public (meaning that
> anything claimed to be "in the public good" must be accepted and
> obeyed by the business). This is the logical fallacy of synechdoche -
> attributing to the parts attributes of the whole. It turns on an
> equivocation on the word "public", as detailed in the parenthesised
> clarifications in this paragraph.
You're perfectly wrong.
Public means the same in both terms.
You just wish to obscure that with equivocation.
If you are open to the public (all the citizens, in general) you must take
reasonable steps to insure they may partake of your offering, be it handicap
access or safe air.
Beldin the Sorcerer
> In article <sa1c7q...@corp.supernews.com>,
> M <mmm...@excelonline.com> wrote:
> >
> >AND WHAT ABOUT the employees? Let's suppose they don't have to go
either.
> >
> >
>
> Why yes. Exactly. Now you're learning.
>
> Don't like the working conditions (boss, salary, offensive posters,
> assigned shift, smoking, whatever)?
>
> Then _don't_ _work_ _there_.
>
This is an illegal attitude to take, and if Jag ever opens a business, I
hope he takes it and they lock him up.
With three inmates who smoke.
Gary Carson
>hope he takes it and they lock him up.
>
>With three inmates who smoke.
Smoking is prohibited in most jails and prisons these days.
Gary Carson
Bill Ingram
> >It's that simple. Empathy for others versus selfishness.
>
> Hmm... The most fundamental of all rights is the right to one's own
> life.
That may be. But, you can't really expect the right to your
own life unless you have previously built a stable society to
live under.
If you build a spaceship, fly to the moon, and build a home,
you'd be living without the safety of a community. If a space
pirate comes along, takes all your stuff, and kills you,
nothing will come of it (except, maybe, in St. Peter's big
book of sins). You have no basic right to life unless you
live in a stable community that can enforce that right.
And, to have a stable community, the individuals must relinquish
the absolute freedom to do whatever they please (shouting "fire"
in a crowded Movie house, for example).
So, if a shop owner wants to have a stable community,
sometimes he has to knuckle under and agree to the current
community standards and ban smoking, for example.
> >about how wonderful it must have been before Unions and
> >government regulation, but I seem to recall this is where
> >the phrase "sweat shop" comes from.
>
> Here are some other phrases: "Industrial Revolution". "Universal
> Employment". "A Home Of Your Own". "Free Time". "Discretionary
> Income". "Leisure Activities".
I believe those things didn't really come into use until
the 1950s after the government discovered that capitalism
that runs free just leads to a depression. Various worker-
rights, anti-monopoly, and fair trade regulations were
created.
I don't think very many of the assembly-line workers of the
Industrial Revolution of the 1910s had a home of their own,
leisure activities, or much discretionary income.
> The ability to produce enough to feed one's family, having time left
> over to do ANYTHING but sleep, is an artifact of a free society.
No. It's an artifact of a benevolent government that
prevents it's own citizens from taking unfair advantage of
each other.
And yes, our government is benevolent. By far, most government
rules and regulations are designed to make things easier for
people to enjoy life and to prevent other people from taking
that enjoyment away from you.
> Which is why we need a government: to protect individual
> rights against the initiation of force.
True. We agree.
But, what we disagree on is the limits.
> I am not, however, delighted to be forced to pay for your education,
> his job, her cosmetic surgery, their health insurance...
Well, I'm not aware of any case where the government knowingly
pays for cosmetic surgery. If you know of any, report it to
the appropriate authorities.
But, as far as education goes, I feel it's a small price
to pay to educate all members of society. A more-educated
society is less likely to have the plagues that affect
other societies (crimes, disease, etc.).
> Perhaps you don't distinguish roulette from poker, either?
Certainly I do. Roulette is a game of luck and poker is
a game of skill.
See? This is where that education thing comes in. If everyone
were educated properly, no one would play Roulette.
-- Bill
Gary Carson
>See? This is where that education thing comes in. If everyone
>were educated properly, no one would play Roulette.
Actually, if everyone were educated properly then everybody would understand
that many people are better off playing a game of luck like roulette than
they are playing a game of skill like poker. It's possible to have low
enough levels of skill at poker to have essentially no chance at all of
winning at poker. Anyone has some chance of winning at roulette.
Gary Carson
JW Steve
<bel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>JW Steve <jw_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:38a27417...@news.psn.net...
>> On Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:19:42 -0600, "Gary Carson"
>> <garyc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ...
>>
>> 1 - Cigarettes are being used in the manner in which they are
>> intended. This fact alone makes all of the analogies about dumping
>> toxic waste on the floor, etc. pointless. I can't think of one other
>> such product that is unilaterally banned for use in public
>> accomodations by the government.
>>
>Alchohol, except where duly licensed.
>Shows you thought not at all, as it is the most comperable and the most
>obvious.
>
A good point and the rest of your post is nice as well. I would follow
up, but this thread has turned so ugly, it's pointless. You stated in
another post that my entire participation was disingenuous. I didn't
feel that this post was anything of the sort and if someone had
addressed it the way you did from the start, there might have been
some quality discussion. Now it's pointless, but thanks for the
input. You are right, I hadn't thought of alcohol.
jw steve
<snip>
JW Steve
<bel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Do you *get it*?
>You can't do anything everywhere.
>The government, as Badger showed and as you were obviously too simpleminded
>to understand, can regulate what you can use and where you can use it, even
>"as intended."
>A gun is a legal item. It is intended to be used to shoot a projectile. If I
>point it at you and fire, I cannot use the idiot-reasoning line you claimed
>made perfect sense.
There are plenty of ways to make a point, if badger had one in there
somewhere it was lost on me. You both share a zest for being abrasive
for no good reason. I have better things to do than play that game.
If you or badger wants to grow up long enough to have a civilized
debate, I am perfectly willing.
jw steve
<snip "if I call him an idiot enough, it *will* be true technique">