[mike777]

Ken:

Ok


I agree that there is a loss of freedom or economic growth. I agree that at times that loss is too great.

I guess my hope is that our political system and rights of free speech remain strong enough to rebalance when we go too far in one direction or another. That people such as yourself speak out and take actions when you feel the nanny state has gone too far.

I fear the only alternative is to seek out new frontiers if the loss of freedom becomes too great or the loss of the social safety net too harsh.

[RichMor]

mikeh, on Jan 8 2010, 03:20 PM, said:

I think part of the reason why the self-sufficiency, personal responsiblity meme is so powerful in the US (it exists in other societies as well, of course) is that the US has a Constitution that its citizens actually read, and it contains the enlightment statement that it is evident that 'all men' are created equal.

Mike,

While I agree with the main thrust of your post, the phrase 'all men are created equal' does not appear in the US Constitution. It does appear in the Declaration of Independence.

So it is a little inaccurate to assert that some behaviors of the US government and citizens are inconsistent with the US Constitution.

RichM

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Jan 8 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

Ken it's a basic ecomonic concept. The problem with maximizing individual rights over societal rights is that (in almost every case in the real world) the net gain is grossly exceeded by the net loss.

Say we live in Ken-land which has 2,001 people, including you. If your smoking in some instance gives you +1,000 units of enjoyment, but gives 2,000 people -1 units of enjoyment, then that is a net loss for everyone of 1,000 units of enjoyment.

Is it so clear, though, that smoking gives Ken +1,000 units and not +3,000? It's not obvious to me that without government action, society "can't" work for its own benefit, especially given that non-smokers far outnumber smokers.

The fact that despite having a solid majority, nonsmokers didn't voluntarily create a slew of nonsmoking restaurants suggests to me that the utility measure might be skewed the other way - the downside to nonsmokers, on balance, was relatively small, so they continued to patronize restaurants that permitted smokers; on the other hand, the downside of not smoking, to smokers, was sufficiently high that when given the choice, restaurateurs preferred to permit smoking in their restaurants, and cater to the minority.

[Lobowolf]

mikeh, on Jan 8 2010, 03:20 PM, said:

I would leave any society in which lobowolf or rexford set the rules, and I am sure they'd leave any in which I did.

I'd be quite happy to live in a society where you set quite a few of them, though.

[mike777]

FWIW

Italy is talking about banning smoking while driving in your own car.


http://behavioralhealthcentral.com/index.p...ng-in-cars.html

[jdonn]

mike777, on Jan 8 2010, 04:36 PM, said:

FWIW

Italy is talking about banning smoking while driving in your own car.


http://behavioralhealthcentral.com/index.p...ng-in-cars.html

Oddly enough, the thing that bothers me the most about smokers is that I so often see them throw their butts out of the car onto the street. Yay Italy!

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Jan 8 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 8 2010, 03:51 PM, said:

Ken it's a basic ecomonic concept. The problem with maximizing individual rights over societal rights is that (in almost every case in the real world) the net gain is grossly exceeded by the net loss.

Say we live in Ken-land which has 2,001 people, including you. If your smoking in some instance gives you +1,000 units of enjoyment, but gives 2,000 people -1 units of enjoyment, then that is a net loss for everyone of 1,000 units of enjoyment.

Is it so clear, though, that smoking gives Ken +1,000 units and not +3,000? It's not obvious to me that without government action, society "can't" work for its own benefit, especially given that non-smokers far outnumber smokers.

The fact that despite having a solid majority, nonsmokers didn't voluntarily create a slew of nonsmoking restaurants suggests to me that the utility measure might be skewed the other way - the downside to nonsmokers, on balance, was relatively small, so they continued to patronize restaurants that permitted smokers; on the other hand, the downside of not smoking, to smokers, was sufficiently high that when given the choice, restaurateurs preferred to permit smoking in their restaurants, and cater to the minority.

I gave an example to make a point, which I admitted might not accurately represent the case of smoking in many ways. I don't think pointing out one or two of those ways detracts from the point at all.

Perhaps the fact that non-smoking political interests were able to overcome smoking political interests points the other way as to the actual utility breakdown. Who knows.

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Jan 8 2010, 04:47 PM, said:

the thing that bothers me the most about smokers is that I so often see them throw their butts out of the car onto the street.

+1. Can't stand littering.

[blackshoe]

Couple of points about rights:

1. Rights accrue to an individual, and are inherent in that individual's existence.
2. One individual's rights do not trump another's - by which I mean that one's rights extend only so far as they do not infringe the rights of others. In the case of smoking, anyone has a right to smoke. No one has a right to smoke where doing so may adversely impact the health of another.
3. That several individuals (or many millions of them) form a group does not accrue to that group rights that the individuals of which it is composed do not have. This is true whether you call the group a "club", a corporation, a "town meeting", or a government.
4. No one, and no group, can take away anyone's rights. Oh, some people, and some groups, have the power to do that, or at least to refuse to recognize someone's rights, but that doesn't mean they have the right.

[Lobowolf]

blackshoe, on Jan 8 2010, 05:19 PM, said:

Couple of points about rights:

2. One individual's rights do not trump another's - by which I mean that one's rights extend only so far as they do not infringe the rights of others. In the case of smoking, anyone has a right to smoke. No one has a right to smoke where doing so may adversely impact the health of another.

I suspect that most people in this thread would agree that person X has the right to smoke in his house (to make it even easier, we'll say he lives alone).

I suspect that most people in this thread would also agree that person X does not have the right to smoke in a public park.

Getting back to a restaurant, then, the* question is whether a restaurant is more like a home, in that it is private property, or more like a park, in that it is a place of "public" association.


("the" question is an overbid; as has been pointed out, another question involves workplace safety, which I think is a better rationale for a smoking prohibition in restaurants. Employees have more rights than patrons).

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on Jan 8 2010, 03:20 PM, said:

No-one has ever argued that affording basic rights to everyone in a society is free of cost. BTW, one side issue is that most societies in history and to this day have different ideas of 'rights' than we do...'rights' are a luxury that become 'basic' only when the society can both afford them and wants them.

Yes, any country can define the rights of its citizens to suit itself. If the rights so defined are unsustainable (either too few to engender loyalty or too expensive to maintain), the country's system of government will eventually collapse.

A socialistic system based on evenly distributing the goods and services produced does not provide economic incentives for productive behavior, so there is not enough produced to meet the needs of its citizens. On the other hand, pure capitalism produces a lot of goods and services, but they are very unevenly distributed. So all modern governments are hybrids, with the boundary lines drawn differently to suit each country.

The US is ever-so-gradually tempering its capitalism to focus on a more equitable division of goods and services. The current health care bill is an example, and before long its opponents will accept it as if they had never opposed it, just as has happened with social legislation in the past.

In my opinion, it would be good for the US as a whole, and US business in particular, to expand the rights of all citizens to guarantee a minimum standard of food, shelter, health care, and a good (free) education at any time of life. Plus, I think that everyone who wants to work should be guaranteed a job, building infrastructure if no desirable job is offered by a private employer. I certainly understand that more taxes will be needed and that this expansion of rights won't occur within my lifetime, although it will inevitably happen.

With such a minimal safety net in place, people with good ideas but little capital will be able to take risks impossible today for those with dependents. And smart people who later learn that they should have paid more attention in school will be able to recover at any age, to become more productive citizens.

From the standpoint of a business owner, I can say how painful it is to let someone go no matter how unproductive he or she has become. You can't help but think of the consequences of the loss of health insurance (I hope that situation will soon be a nightmare of the past) and of losing a regular paycheck. So, like almost every other business person I have ever talked with, you keep people on longer than you really should. That hurts productivity and profitability. Businesses would be quite a bit more efficient if the social consequences of letting people go were made less severe.

[Lobowolf]

PassedOut, on Jan 8 2010, 05:46 PM, said:

In my opinion, it would be good for the US as a whole, and US business in particular, to expand the rights of all citizens to guarantee a minimum standard of food, shelter, health care, and a good (free) education at any time of life. Plus, I think that everyone who wants to work should be guaranteed a job, building infrastructure if no desirable job is offered by a private employer. I certainly understand that more taxes will be needed and that this expansion of rights won't occur within my lifetime, although it will inevitably happen.

With such a minimal safety net in place, people with good ideas but little capital will be able to take risks impossible today for those with dependents. And smart people who later learn that they should have paid more attention in school will be able to recover at any age, to become more productive citizens.

I agree with most of your post, but I wanted to carve out this connection between standard of life and productivity, as it's the one part I disagree with. People who are unproductive, particularly people who are voluntarily unproductive (i.e. "smart people who later learn that they should have paid more attention in school") are, in my opinion, most likely to become productive when there are strong incentives, such as not having the safety net you mention.

Imagine "Dear Abby" were sick for a week, and we had to take a BBO poll to replace her advice with a BBO consensus. Open the first envelope:

"Dear Abby:

My son is 30 years old and lives at home. He's intelligent and able-bodied, but doesn't seem to be doing much. He's unemployed, other than a part-time job at Wendy's for spending money. He sleeps in his old room, and I cook for him, and he's on my health insurance, and if he wants to go back to school, I will pay for it. But all he does is watch TV. What should I do?

Signed,

Desperate in Denver."

I strongly suspect the overwhelming reaction from our little BBO poll would be, "Throw his ass out! There's no reason he shouldn't be working and providing for himself," and we'd further probably mostly think that the way to get him to do so is to put his back up against the wall. We'd be joking in posts about what the heck she was thinking letting him stay there for the last 10 years.

But she's providing the safety net you're talking about - food, shelter, education, and health care. He's 30? So what - "at any time of life."

And if she SHOULDN'T be providing those things for him, then why on earth should the taxpayers?


I think there's an plausible reason why - Because, for mostly moral reasons, we (many people) think that everyone (certainly everyone living in a country as well off as the USA) should have all of those things. And I don't think it's a bad reason. And maybe in many (or most) cases, providing those things will make some people more productive. There are many "Desperate in Denvers" out there with their 30 year old sons, and it's surely a sign of their parents' caring that many of them are being taken care of while working at the food court or attending community college, but I don't think that level of care is making them any more productive.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Jan 9 2010, 01:19 AM, said:

4. No one, and no group, can take away anyone's rights. Oh, some people, and some groups, have the power to do that, or at least to refuse to recognize someone's rights, but that doesn't mean they have the right.

Read much political theory when you were at Cornell? You might want to familiarize yourself with the notion of a social contract. You've made the decision to live and participate in civilized society. In doing so, you've explicitly agreed that your rights are going to be restricted.

You can, of course, decide to withdraw from the social contract. An extreme version of doing so would be to move to some other country that will give you the opportunity to be all that you want to be. Might I recommend Afghanistan or Somalia (both have very weak central governments)? Alternatively, there are some interesting things happening on some old abandoned oil rigs. A wussier version is, of course, to live here in the US while ignoring those laws you don't happen to like. (This does run the risk of arrest however) Finally, there is always the option to play armchair warrior and engage in meaningless posturing on email lists.

If / when you do decide to Go Galt, make sure that the door doesn't hit you in the ass...

[Hanoi5]

I don't have the right to spend all the money I make on the things I might like abroad. I can only spend $400 a year on the internet, who can I complain to? How easy is it for me to go to another country where I can live the life I want? I agree I somehow signed that social contract but I'm afraid too many clauses are being added...

[Winstonm]

kenrexford, on Jan 8 2010, 09:26 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 8 2010, 09:07 AM, said:

A consideration about smoking bars and restaurants is that the work staff also has to be comprised of smokers - can you discriminate against non-smokers who want a job and even if you can, how do you compensate in the cost of paying worker's compensation for a smoke-only establishment?

This is a fallacy.

Can you create a good, clean environment for coal miners who want a job but don't like the dust?

Can you create a job for the person who wants to be a Navy Seal but doesn't like getting shot at?

Can you create a job for a person who wants to work on an oil rig but doesn't want to get dirty and wants to have a safe time at it?

No.

There are many jobs out there. A person shouldn't have a right to work at a cigar club and then demand that patrons don't smoke cigars. A smoking-allowed bar is the same thing.

Get a different job.

The owner of the mine does not have the option of providing a coal-dust mine or a non coal-dust mine.

A bar or restaurant owner, (assuming law does not prevent it), has complete control over whether smoking is allowed or is not allowed.

Under your argument, it sounds like the owner should be able to run a smoke-free bar for two years and then decide to change it to allow smoking and any employee who didn't like it could take a hike.

That owner's right may ring true to some, but it sounds to me more like the uncompromising approach that led to social upheavals.

[mike777]

Hanoi5, on Jan 8 2010, 07:48 PM, said:

I don't have the right to spend all the money I make on the things I might like abroad. I can only spend $400 a year on the internet, who can I complain to? How easy is it for me to go to another country where I can live the life I want?  added...

It is not easy, for you it may be impossible, but for your children or grandchildren...maybe they can....

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jan 8 2010, 07:48 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jan 8 2010, 09:26 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 8 2010, 09:07 AM, said:

A consideration about smoking bars and restaurants is that the work staff also has to be comprised of smokers - can you discriminate against non-smokers who want a job and even if you can, how do you compensate in the cost of paying worker's compensation for a smoke-only establishment?

This is a fallacy.

Can you create a good, clean environment for coal miners who want a job but don't like the dust?

Can you create a job for the person who wants to be a Navy Seal but doesn't like getting shot at?

Can you create a job for a person who wants to work on an oil rig but doesn't want to get dirty and wants to have a safe time at it?

No.

There are many jobs out there. A person shouldn't have a right to work at a cigar club and then demand that patrons don't smoke cigars. A smoking-allowed bar is the same thing.

Get a different job.

The owner of the mine does not have the option of providing a coal-dust mine or a non coal-dust mine.

A bar or restaurant owner, (assuming law does not prevent it), has complete control over whether smoking is allowed or is not allowed.

Under your argument, it sounds like the owner should be able to run a smoke-free bar for two years and then decide to change it to allow smoking and any employee who didn't like it could take a hike.

That owner's right may ring true to some, but it sounds to me more like the uncompromising approach that led to social upheavals.

Actually the coal owner does have a choice......Western coal mining is very different from eastern coal mining.


This whole attitude vs property owners rights is disturbing. Where to draw the line, ok.....but can we at least start with the assumption owners have alot of very very important rights that we really want to stop and think about before we take them away.....

I mean if you never want to be a business owner..ok.....just say so.....if you never want to risk your life savings ok ...If you just want to work for the state.....just say so....

[PassedOut]

Lobowolf, on Jan 8 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

I agree with most of your post, but I wanted to carve out this connection between standard of life and productivity, as it's the one part I disagree with. People who are unproductive, particularly people who are voluntarily unproductive (i.e. "smart people who later learn that they should have paid more attention in school") are, in my opinion, most likely to become productive when there are strong incentives, such as not having the safety net you mention.

In other posts you point out that there are always tradeoffs and close choices to made, and I agree with you. I believe that incentives are of utmost importance in improving productivity, and I would not want a safety net so comfortable that a large number of people opted to choose it permanently over work.

There will always be bums, of course, but most people (in my experience) really want to be proud of the work they do. The under-educated people I'm talking about are not the bums. They are honest workers who already have the incentive to upgrade their skills to qualify for better positions, but see no way to accomplish that.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Jan 8 2010, 09:03 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Jan 8 2010, 06:07 PM, said:

I agree with most of your post, but I wanted to carve out this connection between standard of life and productivity, as it's the one part I disagree with.  People who are unproductive, particularly people who are voluntarily unproductive (i.e. "smart people who later learn that they should have paid more attention in school") are, in my opinion, most likely to become productive when there are strong incentives, such as not having the safety net you mention.

In other posts you point out that there are always tradeoffs and close choices to made, and I agree with you. I believe that incentives are of utmost importance in improving productivity, and I would not want a safety net so comfortable that a large number of people opted to choose it permanently over work.

There will always be bums, of course, but most people (in my experience) really want to be proud of the work they do. The under-educated people I'm talking about are not the bums. They are honest workers who already have the incentive to upgrade their skills to qualify for better positions, but see no way to accomplish that.

I think we need someone who knows Denmark in depth to discuss this issue more.

Does Roland happen to know anyone from Denmark?



http://www.newsbull....?TOPIC_ID=58613

[blackshoe]

Lobowolf, on Jan 8 2010, 05:27 PM, said:

Employees have more rights than patrons

No, they don't. Everyone has exactly the same rights.