Yeah, it may be wrong… But oh well!

Or so says one particularly feeble-minded writer. I would almost tag this person as suffering from multiple personalities, because that is the only way I can think to justify this article. Is this what happens to people who are smart enough to “get it” but are too weak to fight off the anti-smoking propaganda? I mean, I had high hopes when I started reading this article, but towards the end it completely falls apart…

Take, for example, this:

We also agreed that property rights are sacrosanct in America, and that, in principle, if not always practice, the U.S. offers investors and entrepreneurs the promise that they will enjoy a stable rule of law, free from nationalization and arbitrary changes in regulations.

Furthermore, if legislation is enacted which harms their businesses, they are free to seek redress in court. In this case, bar and restaurant owners developed their business models based on the understanding that they would be able to offer their customers a place to smoke.

While these properties may remain just as valuable as a site for, say, an auto parts store, they are certainly now less attractive as locations for bars and restaurants.

Which sounds pretty intelligent and would lead you to think that this individual understands property rights and what it means to run a business. However, later in the article:

Ultimately, I believe the City of Hattiesburg was right to ban smoking in public places, even if it did harm some businesses. Secondhand smoke is a proven carcinogen, and it’s unwise to subject the general public to this threat, and unjust to force employees to work under dangerous conditions.

Eh? So, bans are bad, but they’re good too? But wait! It gets more bizarre, because the author mixes things up by both first saying that the free market won’t work but then saying that the free market would work:

It is often argued that people who don’t want to endure smoky places should spend their money elsewhere and let the market speak. By that logic, however, a business owner would be allowed to exclude customers based on race, or any number of illegal factors, and we can only imagine how the local market would respond to a racially segregated bar.

What?? Yes, yes the market would work by punishing anybody dumb enough to impose racial segregation as this person points out… But then again, he throws this very logic right under the bus when it comes to smoking! My oh my, those “smoking is the root of all evil” commercials really did a number on this poor guy. He’s smart enough to understand the issue, but his brain just won’t jive with his emotions… Sad. Very sad.

2 Responses

  1. [...] Posted on August 27, 2008 by Marshall Ryan’s article Yeah, it may be wrong… But oh well! Got me to thinking. One of the biggest arguments for the ban is to protect the workers. If this [...]

  2. Protect workers from what…….themselves?

    Workers have protection they have the free will to quit and go find employment in a non smoking environment.

    When “workers” have more rights than employers there wont be any jobs because workers dont employ people, businesses do.

    On the rest of the article I have been saying for months they agree the bans are bad but dont want free market to dictate either. I believe in segregation between smokers and non smokers, total segregation. It is a simple answer to a simple problem.

Leave a Reply