Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Search / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Smoking Ban Proponents Getting “Rights” All Wrong

By Theresa Fritz Camoriano

As I listened to the testimony of people on the proposed smoking ban in Louisville, I realized that most of them are completely unaware of the ideas that are the foundation of our legal system.  One of the speakers complained that she lost money, because she was a singer and could not sing in smoke-filled rooms due to her health.  She seemed to think that she had the right to a profitable job in a smoke-free bar.  Another complained that her granddaughter enjoyed bowling but stopped, because her family did not think the smoke-filled bowling alley air was healthy for her.  She thought her granddaughter should have the right to go bowling in a smoke-free establishment.   

The rebellious Richard Rumbold, in his scaffold speech in 1679, said, "I am sure there was no man born marked of God above another, for none comes into the world with a saddle upon his back, neither any booted and spurred to ride him."   This unique, revolutionary concept that we are all equal before the law, and that nobody has the right to ride on our backs, has been the foundation of our system of government, but it is being lost as people concoct all kinds of so-called new “rights.”

The American founders understood that we each had a basic right to be secure in our persons and property and that this basic right was enjoyed equally by everyone.  The only burden it put on others was the burden not to murder, plunder, enslave, or use other aggressive force.  But these new-fangled “rights” are very different.  If that singer has a right to a profitable job in a smoke-free bar, then somebody else has an obligation to open a bar, to make it smoke-free, to hire her to sing there, and to pay her well.  If the woman’s granddaughter has a right to bowl in a smoke-free bowling alley, then someone else has an obligation to open a bowling alley, to make it smoke-free, and to allow her to bowl there. 

Creating these unequal “rights” for some people and corresponding obligations for others gives those with the “rights” the power to use the spurs, while those with the burdens have to wear the saddles.  This, of course, completely topples the basic, original concept of equal justice and of being secure in our persons and property.   If the new nature of “rights” is that some of us are to be burdened for the benefit of others -- that some of us are to wear saddles on our backs while others of us are to be booted and spurred to ride, then these new “rights” are returning us to the very kind of tyranny against which our forefathers rebelled, with the tyrannical king simply being replaced by the tyrannical majority. 

We should not be surprised as politics becomes more vicious and more corrupt, as these new tyrannical “rights” virtually ensure that outcome.  No amount of campaign finance reform, good intentions, or sweet talk will change the nature of the beast.  Government is force, and, if there are few or no restraints on government power, so that the majority can do anything it wants to the minority, then there will be a vicious, hard-pitched battle to obtain power, because nobody wants to wear the saddle while somebody else is booted and spurred.  (It should also be noted that, once we have had saddles placed on our backs, we may not be as productive or energetic as we were before – might tend to lie down on the job, roll over on our riders, etc.)

What is the alternative?  The alternative is to respect individual rights by respecting private property.  When each property owner is secure in his life and property, then everyone is respected, and there is no basis for the power struggles.  The owner of a business should have control over the manner in which he runs his business.  If he wants to make it a non-smoking establishment, that should be his right, and, if he wants to require that everyone bring a pack of cigarettes in order to be allowed admission, then that should also be his right, respecting his right to use his property as he chooses.   If he serves his customers well, then he will prosper, and, if he does not serve them well, he will go out of business.  Some businesses will cater to customers who prefer to smoke, and others will cater to customers who prefer smoke-free establishments.  In this way, everyone is treated with respect, and there is no need for fighting or conflict. 

If the “do-gooders” who are promoting the smoking ban really want to do good, then they will recognize that we can only have peace and abundance when everyone is respected, including people who hold a minority view.   They will recognize that respect for private property is the tool that ensures respect for each individual, including those who have views that are different from the majority. 

In fact, things have been working well in the absence of a no-smoking ordinance, with everyone’s tastes being respected.  Some restaurants prohibit smoking, and others permit it.  A new, no-smoking bowling alley is starting up in Jeffersontown, Kentucky, so the woman’s granddaughter will have a smoke-free place to bowl, while those who wish to smoke will also have places where they can go to have a meal or a drink and relax with a cigarette if they wish.  Unless, of course, we put on our spurs and saddle them up.

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest / Search / White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN