More than a decade ago, the state of California became patient zero in the deadly epidemic that has spread its infection across this nation by telling the owners of private property that they were not allowed to let people smoke. It was a piece of landmark legislation that was hailed by all who wish to meddle in everyone else’s life but who require the force of law to accomplish their goals.
It’s an infection that kills freedom
It was easy to write this off in the beginning as just more crazy left-wing idiocy that will only affect California. However, over the years, the disease spread. At first, it was the usual suspects. It happened in places where personal liberty is usually supplanted by authoritarian governmental dictates – Massachusetts, New York, etc. But eventually, the disease started to infect healthier parts of the country. Places where you expected them to respect private property rights started to pass similar bans. City councils and state legislatures, in lemming like fashion, started to pass laws banning smoking. Mayors and governors, almost without exception, blindly signed them into law touting how much they cared about the health of the people. How refreshing it would have been to hear one of these chief executives proclaim loudly, “I will veto this legislation because the government has no business interfering in private property rights”.
“Public” places are still private property
Just because we call them “public” places doesn’t mean that the public owns them. A bar or a restaurant is a piece of private property. Someone has spent money to purchase or lease that space. It belongs to the property owner. Telling a bar owner that it is illegal to let his patrons smoke is no different than telling a home owner that it is illegal to let his house guests smoke (just wait, that is coming soon). The argument that a bar owner allows access to the public and therefore it justifies this intrusion of private property rights is ridiculous. The only way a valid case could be made here is if the bar owner is dragging people unwillingly off the street and forcing them to sit in his establishment while people smoke cigarettes around them.
New Orleans shows how to do it
The legislature of Louisiana recently voted overwhelmingly to reject a ban on smoking in bars and gambling establishments (sadly, an earlier state-wide ban on smoking in restaurants did pass).
Louisiana House Rejects Smoking Ban, 29-71
In the wake of this failure to further restrict freedom, a solution to the problem is cropping up in New Orleans. Ironically, the key element in this solution is: Freedom!
Smoke-free bars can be found in New Orleans
The owners of individual establishments are deciding to ban smoking on their own. Even though there is no law requiring it, these places do not allow smoking. This is the way it should be done everywhere in the world! The owner of the property should be the one who decides whether or not smoking is allowed. As a customer, each person can exercise their own freedom to patronize a business or not.
The lesson will be lost
Unfortunately, the example being played out in Louisiana is an aberration. One day, the battle will be lost there, too. There are far too many people in America who believe that just because they do not like to be around cigarette smoke, it is justifiable to have the government impose the restriction on someone else’s property. They simply do not understand the dangerous precedent that they are allowing by ceding this bit of freedom to the government. Or even worse, they do understand and yet simply do not care – they would rather give up freedom in exchange for the government “taking care” of them.
Benjamin Franklin wrote in the Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759):
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager said recently on the air:
I grew up in a freer country than my children will.
I happen to agree with both of those quotations. We are giving up our freedom in exchange for the perception of security. As each piece of freedom-grabbing legislation is signed into law, there are large numbers of citizens standing up and applauding. Standing up behind them applauding even louder with even bigger smiles on their faces are the politicians and bureaucrats to whom they have just handed more power to control their lives.
California has sent some real lunatics into public office on both the local and federal level. However, this exchange between Senator Barbara Boxer and Brigadier General Michael Walsh is infuriating. She objects to the General addressing her as “ma’am”. She condescendingly rebukes him as though he were a disrespectful child and demands that he address her as “Senator”. Apparently, the senator is unaware that “ma’am” is actually a sign of respect – especially as a part of military protocol.
Of course, Mrs. Boxer is fully aware of that fact. She is yet another liberal who goes out of her way to find a reason to be offended. I believe that the disrespect she showed for the general comes from a greater contempt for the military.
Here’s the bottom line: if you are offended by something that is not offensive, then it is you that have the problem. Barbara Boxer is an arrogant and hateful hag. The most appropriate word to use here is one that I would rather not use on this blog site. It is defined, though, as a pregnant dog.
General Walsh spent his day addressing every male senator as “sir”. Not a single one of them raised any objection. I was raised to address my father as “sir” and my mother as “ma’am”. I think a good many, if not most, of us were taught the same. These are terms of respect for authority. They are not offensive. The fact that Senator Boxer (happy now?) took offense (or, more likely, feigned offense) to something that is not offensive shows that she is the one with the problem.
The following article describes a Chicago public school where 44 out of 77 students have failed the eighth grade.
Nearly 60% Won’t Graduate At South Side School
This article talks about one youngster who has failed English class. Her mother claims to have not been notified that her son was failing. I guess he had no homework assignments where he was struggling and there were no report cards sent home!
But I think that the following quote says more than anything else in the whole article:
It’s horrible because these kids were under the impression they were graduating, and they let them know at the last minute that they wasn’t.
Hmmmm. I wonder why these children are failing English.