Quote :

"Just because some people think this is needed and it's a law doesn't mean it's right."

ok then, what defines "right"?

2/27/2008 1:52:24 AM

Quote :

"and what do you care if a cook is behind the counter with no pants on. if you cant see him below his waist, and if he doesnt touch his dick, who's it hurting?"

I somehow don't think the issue is in being offended by the cook's naughty bits. Wearing pants tends to be regarded as a sanitary measure for preparing food, regardless of how much or how little our cook dittles his willy.

That being said, smoking bans aren't being pushed as a sanitary measure. Last I checked, not many people are complaining about banning the cooks from smoking - it's the patrons. And unlike the cook with no pants, whereupon the potential pathogen is invisible to the naked eye (and in fact, the unsanitary condition is entirely hidden from view), smoking is one of those "highly obvious" risks. As in, you know it's going on the minute you walk in.

Look, if you want to run a bar and let all the patrons spit all over the floor, it'll be positively disgusting, and I doubt civilized folks would patronize your establishment. But as long as it's being done outside of the food preparation area, it's entirely a separate affair than the sanitary one.

2/27/2008 1:54:40 AM

i've come to the conclusion that you're a loon.

2/27/2008 2:20:15 AM

Awfully nice to just write off people instead of address their arguments head-on, isn't it?

You're a coward.

2/27/2008 2:51:00 AM

there are people in the city in various stages of hygiene/employment/housing status, who rant and rave all day long.

i don't argue with them, either.

2/27/2008 3:09:06 AM

Again, love the name-calling. Bravo - really portrays that element of class you've got going on there, as well as your ability to prevail in a logical argument.

You fail.

2/27/2008 3:25:34 AM

can we ban morbidly obese fat woman and crying babies from restaurants. They bother me 10x more than smokers

2/27/2008 9:20:11 AM

^Why? All three are appetite suppressants.

2/27/2008 9:46:20 AM

Can we ban smoking from sidewalks and parks? Those are REAL public places...not some fucking restaurant you can only visit during certain hours, on certain days, with a certain dress code, etc...wheres the outrage for REAL public health? Oh yeah you guys act like restaurants are the most public places in the country

After that can we ban pussy ass motherfuckers who can't take a little 2nd hand smoke? They're a cancer to our society by being pussy ass motherfuckers and contributing to the political correct pussification of this country

2/27/2008 10:16:41 AM

Quote :

"I know John Locke is a dense read, but if you just give him half a chance... Oh wait - you're talking out of your ass. My error."

as someone who has actually read the works of Locke and Smith I suggest you go and crawl back into your hole.

Locke never advocated absolute property rights. You need to go do some more reading.

2/27/2008 11:03:17 AM

Somehow my impression is that your understanding is limited to the Cliff's notes, because the idea of general sovereignty over one's private property is a legitimate idea tracing back several hundred years, despite your assertions to the contrary.

But I know, let's tar it in the word "absolute," and make it meaningless. Because we all know everyone here is advocating to legalize murder in their private homes.

2/27/2008 11:05:50 AM

DrSteve don't you know a restaurant is a common good? Who cares who puts in the time and money to open it and keep it running...who cares who works 15 hour days for 6 months to start it up and who deals with any ALE allegations or local health inspectors...doesn't matter if ownership is technically in someone's name...its a public resource...CASE CLOSED

2/27/2008 11:09:15 AM

Your property rights begin with your body and end when they start to invade mine. The only consistent property rights argument you can make is that a decision to dine at a public restaurant is a decision to smoke. I happen to think that assertion is ridiculous.

2/27/2008 11:15:21 AM

^^^What you fail to seem to realize is that Locke argued against the government executing unlimited will arbitrarily. Smoking bans are not an unlimited execution of arbitrary will. Additionally, the sole usage of natural law rights when it comes to property creates all new problems, especially with Locke. If I own say 100 acres of forest land and leave that land in its natural state, even if I do put a fence around it, Locke would argue I do not own that land since I did not apply any labor to it. I would own the few feet of land in which I put a fence, but would not own the land encapsulated by the fence since there was no applied labor.

Quote :

"who cares who works 15 hour days for 6 months to start it up and who deals with any ALE allegations or local health inspectors"

this is where your argument against smoking bans fall completely on its face. By complying with government entities, such as ALE and local health inspectors, you have willingly entered into a social contract in which the government has a right to execute its will on the property. Granted, the government does not have an unlimited right to execute its will, but does still have that right.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

2/27/2008 11:15:56 AM

Quote :

"CASE CLOSED"

gimme a fucking break; no one's PRIVATE PROPERTY is a common good, perhaps unless they say so

Quote :

"The only consistent property rights argument you can make is that a decision to dine at a public private restaurant is a decision to smoke subject yourself to the decisions of the property owner."

ARRHGH your complete lack of logic hurts my brain!

Quote :

"I hope you and Vix understand that your lack of conviction when it comes to asserting the necessity of the Civil Rights Act is a bit of a problem that you need to mend ASAP. You're not thinking outside the box or being particularly thoughtful. You're just being wrong."

this coming from someone who basing her policy opinions out of emotion and dreaming

rather that principles and reality

you can oppose the civil rights act without being anywhere close to racist

if you don't understand that, then that's why WE'LL never stop fighting for liberty -- because you don't get it


If I want to open a coffee shop and only serve people with blue eyes, should I be able to that?

how about these women's-only gyms? what's the deal there? I guess some feel that sexism is ok, while racism isn't

iow, you liberals are inconsistent, illogical, and completely without understanding

your "ends justify the means" approach in the use of authoritarian force to fight racism (a civil liberty) is detestable

now go ahead and tell me that racism is illegal

Quote :

"but does still have that right."

rights come from "god"/nature -- just because they do it, doesn't make it their actual right

2/27/2008 11:23:43 AM

Quote :

"What you fail to seem to realize is that Locke argued against the government executing unlimited will arbitrarily. Smoking bans are not an unlimited execution of arbitrary will. Additionally, the sole usage of natural law rights when it comes to property creates all new problems, especially with Locke. If I own say 100 acres of forest land and leave that land in its natural state, even if I do put a fence around it, Locke would argue I do not own that land since I did not apply any labor to it. I would own the few feet of land in which I put a fence, but would not own the land encapsulated by the fence since there was no applied labor."

Yes, and if the argument here was about tenancy (i.e., owning land by simple virtue of getting there and claiming it first vs. owning the applied labor), this issue would be relevant.

The situation clearly is one where we've proceeded well beyond the State of Nature issue here - we're dealing with well-developed property - lots of value there.

Regardless, the issue at hand was the pedigree of property rights and one's sovereignty over said property. You asserted the notion that this idea was invented in the 20th century by Ayn Rand. Clearly this is false - authors as far back as Locke acknowledge the idea that exercising sovereignty over property (i.e., ownership of created value - in this case, a bar) is a natural right. Thus the burden of demonstrating the overriding need to abridge that right lies with the government - not with the owner.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 11:30 AM. Reason : .]

2/27/2008 11:28:36 AM

Quote :

"rights come from "god"/nature -- just because they do it, doesn't make it their actual right"

The United States is not based upon a natural law when it comes to property rights. Arguing that rights come from god, in the judeo-christian vein, argues directly against property rights; since the Bible explicitly states that the Earth was given to man to be held in common. That is why Locke argued the only thing people own are themselves and their labor. Hence, the ownership of property only comes from the exertion of labor on the property, therefore that property becomes your labor and therefore belongs to you.

That coupled with the creation of a social contract allows the government the right to execute a limited will on you and transitively on your labor (property).

Quote :

"Regardless, the issue at hand was the pedigree of property rights and one's sovereignty over said property. You asserted the notion that this idea was invented in the 20th century by Ayn Rand. Clearly this is false - authors as far back as Locke acknowledge the idea that exercising sovereignty over property (i.e., ownership of created value - in this case, a bar) is a natural right. Thus the burden of demonstrating the overriding need to abridge that right lies with the government - not with the owner."

No, I am arguing the notion of unlimited sovereignty over property rights is the creation of a 20th century hack. All natural law theorists have argued that through the creation of a social contract you have given limited rights to the government to execute its will in a limited manner upon you and your labor.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

2/27/2008 11:33:04 AM

Quote :

"Arguing that rights come from god, in the judeo-christian vein....."

"judeo-christian god" != "god"/nature

2/27/2008 11:57:15 AM

I am using it as one tradition of god. And it is the most important tradition of god, since it was the tradition of god the original natural law thinkers based their work off.

2/27/2008 12:02:20 PM

Quote :

"No, I am arguing the notion of unlimited sovereignty over property rights is the creation of a 20th century hack. All natural law theorists have argued that through the creation of a social contract you have given limited rights to the government to execute its will in a limited manner upon you and your labor."

I think framing the issue as "absolute property rights" is a specious argument. For one, again - no one's arguing that your right to property gives you an absolute trump over the rights of others - you don't get to murder people because they cut through your lawn, for instance. No one is arguing that. Nor do I think that even Rand was arguing for a completely absolute right of property in the sense that it trumps conflicting rights of others.

That being said, even if we're going to go by the most strict definition of property rights, anarcho-capitalism (of which I am not an adherent) still traces its way back to the 19th century - well before Rand ever wrote a hackneyed dialogue.

With that being said, the social contract takes its legitimacy in the idea that natural rights are abrogated when it is necessary to protect other rights. In other words, when rights conflict. Your right to swing your fist stops where my nose begins. When there is no legitimate conflict of rights, we are stepping over into the realm of abitrary interference - which is exactly the opposite of a social contract.

And this is the issue of contention. There isn't a rights conflict with smoking on private property, because your right to be there is conditional and voluntary. Your right to be in a public space is not, and therefore restrictions are far more reasonable.

Quote :

"I am using it as one tradition of god. And it is the most important tradition of god, since it was the tradition of god the original natural law thinkers based their work off."

Not necessarily - plenty of natural law philosophers (Kant, for instance) made human reason as the sole criterion for a basis of natural rights. The existence of an ontological entity is an optional, not necessary, component for a natural rights philosophy. It pops up a lot, but it's not strictly necessary for a basis.

[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 1:57 PM. Reason : Natural Rights]

2/27/2008 1:55:20 PM

Few argue that private property rights are not conditional when engaging in commerce. To say otherwise would argue against health inspections, labor standards, protection against discrimination, etc. Both employees and consumers have benefited greatly from these things. Reasonable people can disagree over which conditions should be in place.

2/27/2008 2:13:06 PM

Quote :

"Few argue that private property rights are not conditional when engaging in commerce. To say otherwise would argue against health inspections, labor standards, protection against discrimination, etc. Both employees and consumers have benefited greatly from these things. Reasonable people can disagree over which conditions should be in place."

I think the question is, what is conditional? The right to property, or the right to conduct commerce? It may seem like a pedantic difference, but I think at its core illustrates what is at issue, and how we justify regulations.

For instance, I don't have the right to sell tainted meat. I don't have the right to engage in fraud. I do have the right to slowly kill myself inside my own home through my own bad habits.

So, why do we make the right to conduct commerce conditional? I believe the most sound principle is the information problem. You can't see pathogens contaminating food, you can't know if you're being defrauded until it's too late. Thus, regulation is a preventative measure - rather than waiting for people to get sick, we put forth regulations for proper food handling. Namely because it's difficult for the average consumer to know if their food is being prepared properly.

On the other hand, certain risks are knowable beforehand, and we allow them. You sign a waiver to go bungee jumping - no one denies it's a risk-free commercial transaction. You agree to limits on liability when you step on an airplane. And so forth.

I would argue that issues like smoking in commercial establishments fall clearly on the side of the second category. It's a known, assumed risk. You know there's smoke there, and you can choose whether or not to patronize the establishment. You don't know if food is being handled properly or not - thus the health inspector.

2/27/2008 2:36:13 PM

you signing a waiver to go bungee jumping doesnt negatively impact the health of the single mother or college student who is paying their bills by working the bungee jump operation.

your foul smoke makes people who work in bars and restaurants sick. not to mention the other patrons.

dont argue about how you have the "right" to force them to go find another job somewhere else if they wont accommodate your filthy habits. This is 21st Century America, and you don't have that right any more. Now go out and stand behind the dumpster.

Meanwhile, revenue for bars and restaurants has actually increased in states and municipalities where a comprehensive ban has been put in place. the fact is, this is a popular law even for smokers.




[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2008 3:11:39 PM

Quote :

"you signing a waiver to go bungee jumping doesnt negatively impact the health of the single mother or college student who is paying their bills by working the bungee jump operation."

So going into a smoky restaurant is a mandatory risk, now? You don't just choose to go there - someone has you at gunpoint?

Quote :

"your foul smoke makes people who work in bars and restaurants sick. not to mention the other patrons."

Yeah, uh, few people are debating that smoke is bad for your lungs. Not the pertinent question. The question is, if the owner of the establishment chooses to allow smoking, do you choose to patronize this place or not?

In other words, given a known risk, do you still choose to patronize the establishment?

Quote :

"dont argue about how you have the "right" to force them to go find another job somewhere else if they wont accommodate your filthy habits. This is 21st Century America, and you don't have that right any more. Now go out and stand behind the dumpster."

Remind me, who owns the business again? Is it the staff? No... Is it you, useless customer? No...

Well then gee, I guess you're shit out of luck. You, shiftless employee, don't get to dictate the terms of your employment - not in a bar, not in corporate America. You take it or leave it. Unless I have the right to walk into your home and start telling you how to run things now.

Quote :

"Meanwhile, revenue for bars and restaurants has actually increased in states and municipalities where a comprehensive ban has been put in place. the fact is, this is a popular law even for smokers."

So why is a ban necessary? If everyone loves smoke-free establishments, why weren't they comparatively more popular than smoking establishments? Why didn't significantly more people choose to patronize these places over places that chose to allow smoking?

In other words, if they're supposedly so popular, why is there no comparative market advantage?

2/27/2008 3:22:05 PM

How come people can't just choose to not go to a particular bar or restaurant if it allows smoking, and instead go to a different bar or restaurant that happens to have a smoking ban?

Why can't you pussies make choices and quit bitching about what other people choose to do? I've been to bars before where for whatever reason, the atmosphere, people, prices, whatever...I didn't like the bars...you know what I did? I fucking left and went somewhere else, I didn't whine like some self entitled bitch about how other people should run their businesses

DAMMIT HOW DARE YOU POSSIBLY HURT MY LUNGS WHILE I WILLFULLY HURT MY LIVER!!1

2/27/2008 3:23:13 PM

Quote :

"you signing a waiver to go bungee jumping doesnt negatively impact the health of the single mother or college student who is paying their bills by CHOOSING TO working the bungee jump operation"

fixed it for ya

Quote :

"dont argue about how you have the "right" to force them to go find another job somewhere else if they wont accommodate your filthy habits"

that doesn't even make sense

an employer can fire you, but if it's your objection to working around smoke that's the issue, then you can simply quit

the only thing "forcing" them to go find another job is themselves, and they're free to do so

it's not like you didn't know there was smoke there before you took the job in the first place

how about valets?

they are exposed to car exhaust nearly the whole time they work

should we ban cars in public places?

or are you gonna say that 2nd hand engine exhaust isn't bad for you?

(isn't it funny how just because cars are more useful and popular than cigarettes

we ignore the fact that they produce generally the same danger to others in public?)

Quote :

"popular law"

oh, it's popular?

well why didn't you just say so?

if it's popular, then who cares about liberty and justice for all

51% should be all you need to revoke anyone's civil liberties

2/27/2008 3:34:59 PM

When In Rome...

Tell the Romans how to run their country and force the Italian government to regulate everything

2/27/2008 3:38:51 PM

Quote :

"So going into a smoky restaurant is a mandatory risk, now? You don't just choose to go there - someone has you at gunpoint?"

wtf dude, are you dense? you made the comparison that going to a smoky restaurant was akin to bungee jumping. im pointing out the stupidity of that analogy

Quote :

"The question is, if the owner of the establishment chooses to allow smoking, do you choose to patronize this place or not?"

oh, i see... you are dense. you don't understand the economic differences between a restaurant voluntarily becoming non-smoking in a crowd of smoking establishments, and a level playing field where all restaurants are mandated non-smoking by public health code.

Quote :

"gee, I guess you're shit out of luck. "

well, golly Beav, I think you've got it backwards. Because you, my friend, are the one who is shit out of luck. You are the one who is standing behind a dumpster in the rain, while I sit inside and enjoy a clean atmosphere.

cheers to you though ... keep up the good fight. that's it, my boy, keep a stiff upper lip. I daresay it will quit raining soon, what what?



[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2008 3:42:14 PM

How come people can't just choose to not go to a particular bar or restaurant if it allows smoking, and instead go to a different bar or restaurant that happens to have a smoking ban?

Why can't you pussies make choices and quit bitching about what other people choose to do? I've been to bars before where for whatever reason, the atmosphere, people, prices, whatever...I didn't like the bars...you know what I did? I fucking left and went somewhere else, I didn't whine like some self entitled bitch about how other people should run their businesses

DAMMIT HOW DARE YOU POSSIBLY HURT MY LUNGS WHILE I WILLFULLY HURT MY LIVER!!1

you really cant rationally respond to this post because it turns your argument into complete shit

no surprise there, you are on the wrong side of the argument as usual

Quote :

"if the owner of the establishment chooses to allow smoking, do you choose to patronize this place or not?"

hmm i wonder why joeschmoe didnt answer this question...hmmmm i wonder....

2/27/2008 3:45:26 PM

I HAVE A RIGHT TO WALK DOWN THE SIDEWALK ALONG A PUBLIC STREET

AND NOT BE EXPOSED TO 2ND HAND EXHAUST THAT HARMS MY LUNGS

RRAWWR RRAWRRRR!!!!



I HAVE A RIGHT TO GET A JOB IN A RACING PIT CREW

AND NOT BE EXPOSED TO 2ND HAND SMOKE FROM CARS THAT HARMS MY LUNGS

RRAWR!!!



I'M A LIBERAL AND I KNOW EVERYTHING!!!!!!

RRRRRRARARAWWWWWRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1776






wow, joeshmoe is quite a loser

Quote :

"hmm i wonder why joeschmoe didnt answer this question...hmmmm i wonder...."

cause he's an idiot to think he knows what he's talking about here, duh

2/27/2008 3:52:10 PM

whats really funny about all of this...

in Nov 2005, the State of Washington passed a statewide smoking ban, led by voter initiative, the most restrictive in the nation, passed by a 2:1 margin.

I was against the initiative, and campaigned against it. Partly because of a distaste for ballot inititatives in general, partly because of the private property arguments, partly because i was a smoker.

i was pissed when it passed. But right around the time it took effect in May 2006, I decided quit smoking for other reasons (being a father, and my kid getting old enough to see me sneaking outside).

Now, its generally agreed that the law is the best thing thats happened in this state for quite a while. My dilemma is that I still fundamentally hate voter ballot initiatives, but I'm really glad that one passed. Everything is so much nicer now that people aren't smoking everywhere.

whats interesting the unintended consequence, that smokers have become even more marginalized by society. now they have to really go hide, and they look so pathetic, its hard not to feel sorry for them.

everytime one is smoking outside in public, you can feel the stares of disgust from everyone else around. of course, in Seattle, smokers always seems to be the hucklebucks from the suburbs or tourists. well, and the junkies on Capital Hill, of course.





[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 3:59 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2008 3:52:33 PM

Quote :

"I think the question is, what is conditional? The right to property, or the right to conduct commerce? It may seem like a pedantic difference, but I think at its core illustrates what is at issue, and how we justify regulations. For instance, I don't have the right to sell tainted meat. I don't have the right to engage in fraud. I do have the right to slowly kill myself inside my own home through my own bad habits. So, why do we make the right to conduct commerce conditional? I believe the most sound principle is the information problem. You can't see pathogens contaminating food, you can't know if you're being defrauded until it's too late. Thus, regulation is a preventative measure - rather than waiting for people to get sick, we put forth regulations for proper food handling. Namely because it's difficult for the average consumer to know if their food is being prepared properly. "

The information problem is only one part. We didn't create worker safety standards to eradicate 19th century manufacturing decisions because people didn't KNOW it was dangerous. We didn't create child labor laws because people didn't KNOW kids were working in factories. We certainly didn't pass civil rights legislation because people were unaware discrimination was taking place. There are compelling reasons to protect workers, not just oblivious consumers.

2/27/2008 3:52:58 PM

now schmoe is trying to tell us how nice it is with a smoking ban since any principles of his arguments as far as the property rights, ability to make a choice for yourself, etc have gotten completely shot the fuck up so badly that he cant dare to answer any of these questions

i cant blame him too much though...he lives in seattle...all that liberal indoctrination can turn people into little bitches

2/27/2008 3:56:34 PM

Quote :

"wtf dude, are you dense? you made the comparison that going to a smoky restaurant was akin to bungee jumping. im pointing out the stupidity of that analogy"

And failing at it. Is going to a smoky restaurant as a patron an assumed risk? Yes or no? Is going bungee jumping as a patron an assumed risk?

But really - keep calling me dense - it's hilarious to watch a complete idiot rant and rave about how stupid someone who can actually put together a logical argument is.

Quote :

"oh, i see... you are dense. you don't understand the economic differences between a restaurant voluntarily becoming non-smoking in a crowd of smoking establishments, and a level playing field where all restaurants are mandated non-smoking by public health code."

You're right. That must be why I asked about why people wouldn't choose to patronize a restaurant that voluntarily goes non-smoking if it offered a significant advantage to their experience. You know, because they like going to an establishment where there isn't smoking. Clearly then, it must mean I totally don't understand the issue, because either you're too lazy or stupid to read what I'd written.

Quote :

"well, golly Beav, I think you've got it backwards. Because you, my friend, are the one who is shit out of luck. You are the one who is standing behind a dumpster in the rain, while I sit inside and enjoy a clean atmosphere."

You know what the most laughable part of this is? It's not the fact that you time and time again ignore the fact that I ask about the owner's policy toward the restaurant than toward the issue of the individual smokers who can or can't practice their habit at the discretion of the owner - it's the fact that you pretty much automatically assume that I'm a smoker, because I argue against these kinds of bans! Hilarious!

Wouldn't you just look stupid if you found out that I've never smoked in my life?

2/27/2008 3:59:12 PM

Quote :

"everytime one is smoking outside in public, you can feel the stares of disgust from everyone else around"

spoken like a true liberal elitist...thank god places like seattle and san francisco != the rest of the united states

btw how do people react to all the hippies smoking dope in seattle? probably dont care...i mean smoke is smoke is smoke, and inhaling sublimated embers is never good for your respiratory system...but i mean, its not evil cigarettes, its just weed

2/27/2008 4:01:58 PM

you know, fellas, i understand your anger.

i know all you middle class white guys are feeling oppressed by a society that is ever more slipping out of your control.

but don't worry, guys. it will be okay. you'll be assimilated, and it will be relatively painless.

pretty soon, you too will sport a thin ponytail on your balding heads, spandex bike pants, birkenstocks, and an hemp shopping bag to use when you buy produce at the organic supermarket.


JUST...



LIKE...




ME




[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2008 4:04:50 PM

So just like dnl

you changed your policy opinion largely to convenience your recent decision to quit smoking

iow, your complete lack of principles removes all credibility from your arguments

you are revealing your true colors -- and they are the colors of a whiney childish bigot

Quote :

"whats even cooler is the unintended consequence, that smokers have become even more marginalized by society. now they have to really go hide, and they look so pathetic, its hard not to feel sorry for them."

wow

you see

you're nothing but a dirty fucking bigot

eat shit and die

oh, and

I have a thin ponytail on my [someday?] balding head, birkenstocks, and an hemp shopping bag that I use when I buy produce at the organic supermarket.

plus I compost, recycle, am designing a gray-water system for my home

I've got some grateful dead tapes somewhere, I eat granola, I bicycle to run errands

AND I WILL NEVER BE ANYTHING LIKE YOU, YOU ELITIST BIGOTED PIECE OF SHIT


[Edited on February 27, 2008 at 4:13 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2008 4:05:17 PM

Quote :

"The information problem is only one part. We didn't create worker safety standards to eradicate 19th century manufacturing decisions because people didn't KNOW it was dangerous."

Here's a (quite serious) question for you - why would it not be in the interests of unions to advance safer working conditions? I realize this is an ahistorical question, but my point is this - workers and unions negotiate all the time for better working conditions. Why wouldn't occupational safety be a part of that? And if we assume workers have enough knowledge of how to do their jobs safely, why wouldn't this be in their interests to negotiate this as a part of their working conditions?

I ask this particularly because unions have been historically effective elsewhere. So why not here?

Quote :

"We didn't create child labor laws because people didn't KNOW kids were working in factories. We certainly didn't pass civil rights legislation because people were unaware discrimination was taking place. There are compelling reasons to protect workers, not just oblivious consumers."

I think these latter two are a separate issue from the occupational safety question, and thus should be addressed separately. One could make the argument that a child is incapable of fully informed consent, and make the case for child labor laws that way.

More to the point, though, neither of these regulations is about safety at all, really - they're about normative choices. We believe children shouldn't work, and that minorities shouldn't be denied commercial accommodation. These are moral questions, not safety ones. In that sense, I think they're an entirely different class of issue altogether.

2/27/2008 4:06:12 PM

its really no surprise that you've (joe_schmoe) completely stopped trying to logically argue the points we throw at you since you'd be assured defeat

its funny though...you think you're so smart and so much more intelligent than all of us...but you're too fucking dumb to realize you have a CHOICE of where to go out to eat and drink

2/27/2008 4:06:33 PM

joe_schmoe

2/27/2008 4:07:35 PM

no that guy definitely looks like he would support more freedoms than you

if it was you you'd have already filed a lawsuit against starbucks or wherever you got that coffee since it looks way too hot for safety

cause i mean that guy obviously isnt capable of determining for himself whats too hot and dangerous a temperature for coffee (we the people arent capable of deciding what restaurant or bar we go to)

he needs the government to mandate coffee and make one more choice for him since he is incapable of individual thought and instead needs the government to tell him everything to do (he needs the govt to ban smoking since he is too dumb to know there are other places he can go that dont allow smoking)

sadly these simple analogies will be lost on you since you're incapable of individual thought

2/27/2008 4:08:21 PM

Quote :

"pretty soon, you too will sport a thin ponytail on your balding heads, spandex bike pants, birkenstocks, and an hemp shopping bag to use when you buy produce at the organic supermarket. JUST... LIKE... ME"

You mean we'll become pompous, self-righteous, hypocritical assholes with puffed-up moral pretentiousness? Gods, I certainly hope not.

2/27/2008 4:09:06 PM

more freedoms than ME ??

2/27/2008 4:10:00 PM

hey guys, when i'm having my anus torn apart by all these counter arguments, i'll resort to picture bombing to try and numb the pain and change the subject

2/27/2008 4:11:44 PM

Quote :

"joeschmoe = pompous, self-righteous, hypocritical assholes with puffed-up moral pretentiousness"

*** hit nail on head ***

2/27/2008 4:18:06 PM

oh dear im being ganged up on and called names by

392
TreeTwista
DrChaos

oh fuck oh dear. whatever shall i do.




oh, wait... i know.

i'll take it as a compliment.

2/27/2008 4:22:37 PM

pic bombing
resorting to sympathy stories
making fun of screennames

just 3 recent joe_schmoe tactics to try and cover up the fact that he's getting his ass handed to him on all accounts on this issue

hey joe did you know you could CHOOSE where to go out to eat or drink? i'm dead serious

oh shit that last line wont get through seattle's internet filters, sorry i tried

2/27/2008 4:26:43 PM

Quote :

"Here's a (quite serious) question for you - why would it not be in the interests of unions to advance safer working conditions? I realize this is an ahistorical question, but my point is this - workers and unions negotiate all the time for better working conditions. Why wouldn't occupational safety be a part of that? And if we assume workers have enough knowledge of how to do their jobs safely, why wouldn't this be in their interests to negotiate this as a part of their working conditions? I ask this particularly because unions have been historically effective elsewhere. So why not here? "

There are many historical reasons unions took off in some parts of the country and not others. It has tended to flourish in areas with a heavy manufacturing presence. In NC specifically, the textile industry was able to aggressively defeat a number of unionization efforts. There are also substantial differences in state law re: unions. Part of the drop in union growth (and eventual decline) can be credited to the fact that the labor movement accomplished many of their early goals, that being to improve working conditions. Once certain things were protected by law, it benefited all workers, not just those in unions.

The decline of unions generally can be traced to two things: the improvement of working conditions, and the domestic decline of industries they had a major presence in.

2/27/2008 4:27:02 PM

Quote :

"oh, wait... i know. i'll take it as a compliment."

So should I be taking your own name-calling as a substitute for logical argument as a compliment as well now? Because I think I will, insofar as it demonstrates your concession of the argument.

2/27/2008 4:32:10 PM

Quote :

"markgoal: There are many historical reasons unions took off in some parts of the country and not others. It has tended to flourish in areas with a heavy manufacturing presence. In NC specifically, the textile industry was able to aggressively defeat a number of unionization efforts. There are also substantial differences in state law re: unions. Part of the drop in union growth (and eventual decline) can be credited to the fact that the labor movement accomplished many of their early goals, that being to improve working conditions. Once certain things were protected by law, it benefited all workers, not just those in unions. The decline of unions generally can be traced to two things: the improvement of working conditions, and the domestic decline of industries they had a major presence in."

I think I should clarify my question. Why do you believe unions and other means of employee negotiation to be inadequate for "known" occupational safety issues, as opposed to federal regulation? I think you elude to a few reasons, but I want to draw them out. Patchy/inconsistent application appears to be the main one I can draw out. Am I missing something here?

I clarify the term "known" here, because there are others where the effects are sustained over the long-term, rather than acutely. Specifically, I am thinking of chemical, radiological, and other hazards where the damage is cumulatively done, and thus the knowledge problem comes back into play.

2/27/2008 4:35:33 PM