|
Norah Vincent's Smoky View of Libertarianism New
York writer Norah Vincent claims in a recent op-ed
piece that smoking advocates like to think of themselves as “big
libertarians,” in response to a new proposal by N.Y. mayor Michael
Bloomberg to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants. This is going
even farther in the anti-smoking campaign than Bloomberg’s
predecessor, Rudy Giulaini, and on the heels of a rise in taxes from 8
cents to $1.50 per pack. I
am not a cigarette smoker, but I sympathize with those who wish to
enjoy a legal vice without paying an inordinate amount of extortion
money to local, state, and federal governments for the privilege.
Vincent is obviously a non-smoker, but her accusations of smokers
bastardizing the ideals of libertarian philosophy fall way short. Vincent
shows her ignorance in the basis of her argument: “Enter
the populist rhetoricians of the tobacco lobby, whose only hope of
squashing Bloomberg's sensible policy lies in distorting
libertarianism. How? Norah,
you do not have a RIGHT to patronize any establishment. Your rights
extend only to the extent that the owner of said business wishes to
bring you into his circle of clientele. If he or she does not wish to
do business with you, or anyone else, that is their right. One can
assume, however, that the owner wants to do business with as many
patrons as possible, while keeping the greatest percentage of them
happy, so they continue to patronize his or her company. This keeps
them in the black, otherwise they do not survive. And
please, going elsewhere is always an option. While it is debatable to
what degree second hand smoke is dangerous to bystanders, it is still
the bystander’s decision whether or not to expose his or her self to
it. The owner of the place--by virtue of the fact they bought or
leased the building and the land it stands on, bought the perishable
goods that they must sell before they spoil and have to pay the staff
they have hired to serve their patrons--should be able to determine if
they want to allow smoking or not in their building. That is (or
should be, to us who subscribe to the tenets of libertarianism) one of
the rights of property ownership. You and your social shapers however,
not only want to tell the fist’s owner to stop short of your
metaphorical nose, but how it should perform other activities as well.
All while taking risks with capital and absorbing the costs of
your wishes. Vincent
also shows her ignorance of those who claim to be libertarian, by
stating they don’t like to pay up for the consequences of their
vices: Second,
another keystone of libertarianism is the notion that freedoms come
with responsibilities attached. Being free doesn't mean you get to do
whatever you want; that's license. It also doesn't mean that you don't
have to pay up when whatever you've insisted is your right to do turns
sour in the doing. While
it is true that smokers, when they smoke alone, harm only themselves,
it is also true that the many diseases to which they often succumb
because they smoke cost the public millions (in both insurance
premiums and health-care services). No
self-respecting, libertarian-leaning individual asks for others to
pick up the future costs of their vices. I know several smokers, and
all of them pay for their own private insurance. They also pay a
premium for it, at much higher rates than I do. Obviously, Vincent is
referring to Medicare insurance these so called “libertarians” (as
she labels
them) will be using for health care. Private individuals paying for
private insurance cannot possibly “cost the public millions”
because they are paying for their own healthcare. It is impossible to
“pick up the tab” for others unless they are on the government
dole for healthcare. Does that mean that every smoker has insurance?
Of course not. But every individual who subscribes to any libertarian
ideology has a solution to Norah’s problem. Get rid of
welfare-healthcare. No taxpayer funding, no freeloaders. Therefore, Norah, before you go spouting off in print how libertarians state one thing and do another, do a little research into what the subject you are writing on is really about. Before publishing some half-baked analysis of something you obviously do not understand, do a little research. The solution to your quandary is simple, and pretty consistent with nearly all individuals supporting an ideology extolling personal freedom. The first part is to respect private property rights, which you hate, since you cannot force others to do what you like, and then to get the government out of the healthcare business, which will end the problem of smokers expecting the rest of us to pick up the tab in the future.
|
