What happened to our Freedom?

[J.E.D]

You traded freedom for equality.

Equality IS freedom. Why do you hate freedom?

Freedom has little to do with equality. Take a "homosexual" couple. They may have the freedom to perform their acts on each other; however, their acts are not equal to those of a heterosexual couple. The one couple might produce a baby. One can be free to abstain from drug use and another free to take drugs----they not equally intelligent decissions.

Dumbest argument ever. Are you serious?

 

[Pop23]

You really suck at analogies. For your analogy to be equivalent

Management at the ballpark would be permitting patrons to pelt my child with baseballs. That would be the equivalent of my entering a bar with patrons allowed to engulf me in their filth.

As a citizen, I have a right to enter any public business. Patrons of that business have no freedom to force me to inhale their filth

No, here's where your wrong again. The baseball management knows it will happen. Patrons are hit at nearly every game and that can be easily stopped, yet the government has failed to stop these acts from happening.

Forman vs Frazier. Both know they will be assaulted, and in a public place, yet the government allows it to happen. Most likely because ADULTS are allowed to decide what's best for them.

A bar, placing a sign on its front door, stating that smoking is allowed, allows the "patron" a decision as to if they want to go in or go somewhere else. The right for ADULTS to determine what's best for them has been lost, and THAT IS what this thread is about.

YOU PROVED THE OP RIGHT!

Oh, I don't advocate that ANY bar allow smoking, the owners choice, not mine.

Edited to add: a business owner can refuse entry to anyone at anytime.

When was the last time you were forced into a bar. This is at least the third time I've asked?

Let me salvage your straw man analogy

You are allowing your patrons to pelt small children with baseballs. You are forced to tell your patrons they are no longer allowed to do so. Your patrons complain about "their loss of freedom"

No again, we are talking bars, where adults only are allowed. But you won't get that.

The reason the ballpark owner, the fighters, the NASCAR track owners and dozens upon dozens of other entities are not liable for injuries that occur to spectators or participants is a legal principle known as the assumption of risk.

The ballpark owner prints that on the back of his ticket. The fighter signs a paper stating he assumes the risk. The bar owner should have the same right. All adults should have the FREEDOM to assume risk.

Again, proving the OP correct.

 

[rightwinger]

No, here's where your wrong again. The baseball management knows it will happen. Patrons are hit at nearly every game and that can be easily stopped, yet the government has failed to stop these acts from happening.

Forman vs Frazier. Both know they will be assaulted, and in a public place, yet the government allows it to happen. Most likely because ADULTS are allowed to decide what's best for them.

A bar, placing a sign on its front door, stating that smoking is allowed, allows the "patron" a decision as to if they want to go in or go somewhere else. The right for ADULTS to determine what's best for them has been lost, and THAT IS what this thread is about.

YOU PROVED THE OP RIGHT!

Oh, I don't advocate that ANY bar allow smoking, the owners choice, not mine.

Edited to add: a business owner can refuse entry to anyone at anytime.

When was the last time you were forced into a bar. This is at least the third time I've asked?

Let me salvage your straw man analogy

You are allowing your patrons to pelt small children with baseballs. You are forced to tell your patrons they are no longer allowed to do so. Your patrons complain about "their loss of freedom"

No again, we are talking bars, where adults only are allowed. But you won't get that.

The reason the ballpark owner, the fighters, the NASCAR track owners and dozens upon dozens of other entities are not liable for injuries that occur to spectators or participants is a legal principle known as the assumption of risk.

The ballpark owner prints that on the back of his ticket. The fighter signs a paper stating he assumes the risk. The bar owner should have the same right. All adults should have the FREEDOM to assume risk.

Again, proving the OP correct.

Once again you use a straw man as a substitute for argument. Nobody is suing the bar owner for damages. The bar owner has created a public nuisance where ALL patrons are being assaulted by the wretched filth of the few. Requiring patrons to stop their fouling of a public space does not impinge their freedom It protects the freedom of patrons to breathe clean air.

 

[Erand7899]

You just demonstrated you have no concept of freedom

Before you reach that conclusion, you should be able to demonstrate that you have a valid concept of "equality". That is a word that has different meanings to just about every person. To some equality means an even share. To others, it means an earned share.

Then, we can debate what "earned" means, or how do we get to an even share.

To me, freedom means the unqualified right to do as I choose, as long as my choices do not impact the freedom of others. Restrictions, on that right to do as I choose, reduces my freedom, and should only be imposed when necessary to the safety and security of society as a whole.

But only one meaning under the law, the only relevant meaning.

Under the law ‘equality’ means a consistent application of public law and policy, regardless race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It means a particular class of persons cannot be singled-out by law to sustain a specific disadvantage unique to that class of persons.

It has nothing to do with ‘earning’ anything or ‘equal shares.’

You then contradict yourself in your last paragraph: if one has an ‘unqualified right’ to do as he wishes, then the state has no authority to place restrictions on a right even “when necessary to the safety and security of society as a whole.”

Therefore rights are not ‘unqualified,’ they are not absolute, and are indeed subject to restriction.

The question then becomes what restrictions are appropriate and legal. Laws banning smoking in public places are Constitutional, for example, because they’re applied to everyone equally – no particular class of persons is singled out. (No, smokers do not constitute a ‘class of persons.’) Laws banning smoking in public places are also legal as they are predicated on objective, documented evidence concerning the harmful effects of smoking to “society as a whole.”

One does have the right to do as he wishes, until such time as society – per the authority of government – determines such actions to be in conflict with the best interests of “society as a whole.” One can either accept a given restriction or seek relief on court if he believes the restriction violates his civil liberties, either as an individual or as a member of an adversely effected class of persons.

You have the liberal/socialist concept of freedom down pat, but you have left out the one element that freedom applies to, and that is the individual. Classes of people do not have freedom, individual citizens do. Nor does equality apply to classes of people, it applies to individual citizens. An individual, regardless of his class or economic condition is entitled to the same freedoms and equality as any other citizen.

Laws banning smoking in public places may be legal, but that does not make them moral, proper, or equal. We are discussing freedom here, not what the government can do, or cannot do. You have the freedom to avoid public places that you consider hazardous to your safety or health. You do not have the freedom to demand that other citizens curb their otherwise legal activities to your convenience or desire for fresh air.

Equality has many meanings and equality under the law is only one of those meanings. One that has been pretty well universally accepted as a good thing. Consequently, it is not part of any real debate over freedom. Equality of outcomes is the current theme in our political world, and its application to personal freedom is what that equality means to different people.

Before you attempt to lecture me on eighth grade civics, make sure you understand the lesson yourself. The fact that government has the power to limit my freedom does not make it automatically right that the government does limit my freedom.

BTW, equality under the law is not the only relevant meaning to equality, in a discussion about freedom. Under the law, we already redistribute wealth. We have equal pay laws, and we have affirmative action laws. We have numerous tax laws and regualations that discriminate among citizens. All of these laws limit the freedoms of some citizens for the benefit of other citizens.

 

[Murhy]

Go to work. Get Married. Have some kids. Pay your taxes. Pay your bills. Watch your tv. follow fassion. act normal. Obey the law and reapeat after me: I AM FREE.

 

[rightwinger]

Before you reach that conclusion, you should be able to demonstrate that you have a valid concept of "equality". That is a word that has different meanings to just about every person. To some equality means an even share. To others, it means an earned share.

Then, we can debate what "earned" means, or how do we get to an even share.

To me, freedom means the unqualified right to do as I choose, as long as my choices do not impact the freedom of others. Restrictions, on that right to do as I choose, reduces my freedom, and should only be imposed when necessary to the safety and security of society as a whole.

But only one meaning under the law, the only relevant meaning.

Under the law ‘equality’ means a consistent application of public law and policy, regardless race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. It means a particular class of persons cannot be singled-out by law to sustain a specific disadvantage unique to that class of persons.

It has nothing to do with ‘earning’ anything or ‘equal shares.’

You then contradict yourself in your last paragraph: if one has an ‘unqualified right’ to do as he wishes, then the state has no authority to place restrictions on a right even “when necessary to the safety and security of society as a whole.”

Therefore rights are not ‘unqualified,’ they are not absolute, and are indeed subject to restriction.

The question then becomes what restrictions are appropriate and legal. Laws banning smoking in public places are Constitutional, for example, because they’re applied to everyone equally – no particular class of persons is singled out. (No, smokers do not constitute a ‘class of persons.’) Laws banning smoking in public places are also legal as they are predicated on objective, documented evidence concerning the harmful effects of smoking to “society as a whole.”

One does have the right to do as he wishes, until such time as society – per the authority of government – determines such actions to be in conflict with the best interests of “society as a whole.” One can either accept a given restriction or seek relief on court if he believes the restriction violates his civil liberties, either as an individual or as a member of an adversely effected class of persons.

You have the liberal/socialist concept of freedom down pat, but you have left out the one element that freedom applies to, and that is the individual. Classes of people do not have freedom, individual citizens do. Nor does equality apply to classes of people, it applies to individual citizens. An individual, regardless of his class or economic condition is entitled to the same freedoms and equality as any other citizen.

Laws banning smoking in public places may be legal, but that does not make them moral, proper, or equal. We are discussing freedom here, not what the government can do, or cannot do. You have the freedom to avoid public places that you consider hazardous to your safety or health. You do not have the freedom to demand that other citizens curb their otherwise legal activities to your convenience or desire for fresh air.

Equality has many meanings and equality under the law is only one of those meanings. One that has been pretty well universally accepted as a good thing. Consequently, it is not part of any real debate over freedom. Equality of outcomes is the current theme in our political world, and its application to personal freedom is what that equality means to different people.

Before you attempt to lecture me on eighth grade civics, make sure you understand the lesson yourself. The fact that government has the power to limit my freedom does not make it automatically right that the government does limit my freedom.

BTW, equality under the law is not the only relevant meaning to equality, in a discussion about freedom. Under the law, we already redistribute wealth. We have equal pay laws, and we have affirmative action laws. We have numerous tax laws and regualations that discriminate among citizens. All of these laws limit the freedoms of some citizens for the benefit of other citizens.

Nowhere in the Constitution do you have the freedom to force your personal filth on other people. Other people have the freedom to breathe clean air. YOU have the option of avoiding public places if you must indulge in your filthy habit

 

[Pop23]

No, I don't have the option. GET IT!

And, for the fourth time, when were you EVER forced to go into a bar?

Oh, and it's not now, nor has it ever been my RIGHT to smoke in a bar. It should be, by the same principle that allows boxers to hit each other without be guilty of a crime, the bar owners right.

You keep proving the OP right every time you post.

 

[rightwinger]

No, I don't have the option. GET IT!

And, for the fourth time, when were you EVER forced to go into a bar?

Oh, and it's not now, nor has it ever been my RIGHT to smoke in a bar. It should be, by the same principle that allows boxers to hit each other without be guilty of a crime, the bar owners right.

You keep proving the OP right every time you post.

I am not forced to go anywhere. But as an American, I have the FREEDOM to go into business establishments and not be assaulted by he filth expelled by those inconsiderate of others

 

[Pop23]

My rights end at your nose

Your rights end at the bar owners door because you have admitted you have never been forced into a bar

Your ability to choose what's best for you is freedom. That goes for you and the bar owner. Your freedom is no more important than his.

 

[rightwinger]

My rights end at your nose

Your rights end at the bar owners door because you have admitted you have never been forced into a bar

Your ability to choose what's best for you is freedom. That goes for you and the bar owner. Your freedom is no more important than his.

Being forced to enter a bar would impact my freedom. As a patron of that bar, you do not have the freedom to foul my clothes and force me to breathe your filth

Bar owners do not love smokers. Smokers leave their butts on the floor, throw cigarettes in the urinals and expect someone else to pick it out, burn the bar and seats, foul the air and put their employees at a substantial health risk

Smokers have not lost any freedom

 

[Pop23]

My rights end at your nose

Your rights end at the bar owners door because you have admitted you have never been forced into a bar

Your ability to choose what's best for you is freedom. That goes for you and the bar owner. Your freedom is no more important than his.

Being forced to enter a bar would impact my freedom. As a patron of that bar, you do not have the freedom to foul my clothes and force me to breathe your filth

Bar owners do not love smokers. Smokers leave their butts on the floor, throw cigarettes in the urinals and expect someone else to pick it out, burn the bar and seats, foul the air and put their employees at a substantial health risk

Smokers have not lost any freedom

Funny, time and time again I've argued for the bar owners freedom, not the smokers freedom, yet time and time again you ignore that fact

Since you are not forced into a bar, your freedom to determine what's best for you remains secure. Go to one that does not allow smoking. The freedom lost is not the smoker, it is the bar owners

Once again, my freedom does end at your nose, yours ends at his door.

 

[editec]

No, I don't have the option. GET IT!

And, for the fourth time, when were you EVER forced to go into a bar?

Oh, and it's not now, nor has it ever been my RIGHT to smoke in a bar. It should be, by the same principle that allows boxers to hit each other without be guilty of a crime, the bar owners right.

You keep proving the OP right every time you post.

I am not forced to go anywhere. But as an American, I have the FREEDOM to go into business establishments and not be assaulted by he filth expelled by those inconsiderate of others

Do you also have the freedom to walk down the city streets and not be assaulted by the EXHAUST FILTH of the cars that pass by?

No?

Why not?

Isn't that filth even more deadly, more toxic and even MORE difficult to avoid than smoke in someone's place of business?

 

[rightwinger]

No, I don't have the option. GET IT!

And, for the fourth time, when were you EVER forced to go into a bar?

Oh, and it's not now, nor has it ever been my RIGHT to smoke in a bar. It should be, by the same principle that allows boxers to hit each other without be guilty of a crime, the bar owners right.

You keep proving the OP right every time you post.

I am not forced to go anywhere. But as an American, I have the FREEDOM to go into business establishments and not be assaulted by he filth expelled by those inconsiderate of others

Do you also have the freedom to walk down the city streets and not be assaulted by the EXHAUST FILTH of the cars that pass by?

No?

Why not?

Isn't that filth even more deadly, more toxic and even MORE difficult to avoid than smoke in someone's place of business?

Do any states not have emission standards? All new cars have to meet EPA standards. We now require unleaded gas

 

[rightwinger]

My rights end at your nose

Your rights end at the bar owners door because you have admitted you have never been forced into a bar

Your ability to choose what's best for you is freedom. That goes for you and the bar owner. Your freedom is no more important than his.

Being forced to enter a bar would impact my freedom. As a patron of that bar, you do not have the freedom to foul my clothes and force me to breathe your filth

Bar owners do not love smokers. Smokers leave their butts on the floor, throw cigarettes in the urinals and expect someone else to pick it out, burn the bar and seats, foul the air and put their employees at a substantial health risk

Smokers have not lost any freedom

Funny, time and time again I've argued for the bar owners freedom, not the smokers freedom, yet time and time again you ignore that fact

Since you are not forced into a bar, your freedom to determine what's best for you remains secure. Go to one that does not allow smoking. The freedom lost is not the smoker, it is the bar owners

Once again, my freedom does end at your nose, yours ends at his door.

The bar owner is free to allow smoking in his home, not his place of business. He is not "free" to serve alcohol to minors either. You own a public business you have to follow the rules and regulations

 

[Pop23]

Being forced to enter a bar would impact my freedom. As a patron of that bar, you do not have the freedom to foul my clothes and force me to breathe your filth

Bar owners do not love smokers. Smokers leave their butts on the floor, throw cigarettes in the urinals and expect someone else to pick it out, burn the bar and seats, foul the air and put their employees at a substantial health risk

Smokers have not lost any freedom

Funny, time and time again I've argued for the bar owners freedom, not the smokers freedom, yet time and time again you ignore that fact

Since you are not forced into a bar, your freedom to determine what's best for you remains secure. Go to one that does not allow smoking. The freedom lost is not the smoker, it is the bar owners

Once again, my freedom does end at your nose, yours ends at his door.

The bar owner is free to allow smoking in his home, not his place of business. He is not "free" to serve alcohol to minors either. You own a public business you have to follow the rules and regulations

As pointed out before, there is a legal principle know as the assumption of liability, this principle is violated by these bans. You brought up minors in a way to deflect from reality

NASCAR is a public business, baseball is a public business. Both exist as they are because the basic freedom to determine one own level of risk also exists.

The bar owner should be able to exercise that principle as well.

If not, why not?

You stated earlier that bar owners do not like smokers. It would then seem to me, if that indeed is a fact, most bars would not allow smoking in their business. I would applaud them, and governmental bans would be uneccessary

 

[Lovebears65]

What can't you do anymore?

Cant go without your seat belt without getting a ticket ..

 

[rightwinger]

Funny, time and time again I've argued for the bar owners freedom, not the smokers freedom, yet time and time again you ignore that fact

Since you are not forced into a bar, your freedom to determine what's best for you remains secure. Go to one that does not allow smoking. The freedom lost is not the smoker, it is the bar owners

Once again, my freedom does end at your nose, yours ends at his door.

The bar owner is free to allow smoking in his home, not his place of business. He is not "free" to serve alcohol to minors either. You own a public business you have to follow the rules and regulations

As pointed out before, there is a legal principle know as the assumption of liability, this principle is violated by these bans. You brought up minors in a way to deflect from reality

NASCAR is a public business, baseball is a public business. Both exist as they are because the basic freedom to determine one own level of risk also exists.

The bar owner should be able to exercise that principle as well.

If not, why not?

You stated earlier that bar owners do not like smokers. It would then seem to me, if that indeed is a fact, most bars would not allow smoking in their business. I would applaud them, and governmental bans would be uneccessary

The problem for bar owners was nobody wanted to be the first to say no to smokers for fear they would run to the competition

Now, bar owners would not want to be the first to say yes

That genie is out of the bottle

 

[Contumacious]

What happened to our Freedom?

"We" decided that having a welfare/warfare state was more important than individual freedoms.

Next question, please.

.

 

[rightwinger]

What happened to our Freedom?

"We" decided that having a welfare/warfare state was more important than individual freedoms.

Next question, please.

.

We are more free today than at any time in our history

 

[Pop23]

What can't you do anymore?

Cant go without your seat belt without getting a ticket ..

Sorry, your wrong