July 03, 2003

The Real Smokers Debate

Jonathan Wilde at Catallarchy.net gets to the heart of the debate over smoking in public places:

The debate is not about smokers vs. non-smokers, although in the binary left-right axis of modern political culture, it is no surprise that it is conceived that way. Rather, the debate is about control of an individual's property by himself vs. by the mob. The real question is, "Should owners of private property be able to decide whether or not their guests are allowed to smoke on their property?"

A restaurant is emphatically not public property. You might reply, "But when many people patronize the restaurant, it becomes public property." No, it is simply private property with many people on it. The owner of said property can set any standard for appropriate or inappropriate behavior by which he deems his guests worthy of admission, whether it is the ability to smoke, a certain dress code, or an affinity for the music of Britney Spears. That is the consequence of property rights.

If you are a non-smoker and you do not like cigarette smoke, patronize a different restaurant. If you believe that there will be no restaurants that do not allow smokers, start one yourself. It is likely that you will have many customers if the support for such smoking bans on private property is an indicator. But just as you would not demand that my carpeting be a different color when you are a guest at my house, you do not have the 'right' to impose your rules by force on another peron's property.

For someone to step onto another's property and demand that the owner set the rules for his liking is rude. For the guest to actually use government force to make it happen is an act of aggression and a violation of the owner's rights. It is an infringement of the freedom from violence that is owed to the individual due to his nature as a man.