🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jtbooker.16.3001E72B@nando.net>, jtbooker@nando.net (Jon) 
wrote:
>
>merely the attempted justifications of those who place themselves as 
>judge and jury in forcing their values on the rest of society.

Without taking any particular side in the smoking debate I want to make a 
small point about law, people, politics, and society.  We have all kinds 
of rules that restrict peoples rights.  We can't shoot up in public (or 
private), we can't spit on our neighbors, we can't shoot anyone we happen 
to dislike.  Don't argue "you have taken away my rights", argue "my right 
is greater than your concern" or "your concern is less than you think" or 
something like that.  All laws, by their very nature, deny someone some 
kind of "right".  My right to discriminate is your right to be free of 
discrimination.  As a society we choose which we want.

Which brings me to my second point. I have trouble with the free market 
arguement implied in this discussion.  Why is it better to vote with my 
pocket book and force people into bankruptcy and not vote with my 
franchise and outlaw action?  Both have values and both can be misused.  
If I vote to outlaw smoking in public I am not making myself judge and 
jury, I am setting the rules for judges and juries. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------
The opions expressed here represent those of everyone in the world,
except my company and myself.
-- Do what you can, with what you have, where you are --T. R. --
----------------------------------------------------------------------