Jump to content






Photo

How could Ayn rand smoke?


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#1 nicholasair

nicholasair

    $

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 27 February 2010 - 03:20 AM

Ayn Rand wrote about being rational but she also smoked. Somone wrote on this site you can rationalize smoking if the benefit is greater thean the cost. I just read nicotine postpones Alzeimers Disease by four years in people who have it in family genes, which I do. I personally just quit. I think I jsut want to rationalize starting again but I also like researching it. When Ayn Rand was alive, did ciggarretes have a bad reputation as being harmful to your health?

nick


www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm

#2 Chris Grieb

Chris Grieb

    Mr.

  • Members
  • 4,327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:History of Objectivism, American & World history, movies

Posted 27 February 2010 - 05:06 AM

Nicholas; Cigarettes were called "coffin nails" when I was growing up. They were said to shorten your life.

#3 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,012 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 27 February 2010 - 07:43 AM

I just read nicotine postpones Alzeimers Disease by four years in people who have it in family genes, which I do. I personally just quit.

Without reading up on it again, I recall reading that a doctor was advising some people to start smoking, 1-2 a day, when they hit 60 or so, because of the alzheimer’s connection. It sounds like you were a habit smoker, and went through the discomfort of quitting. If you’ve quit you should stay off it, that’s my advice. Try nicorette if need be.
http://www.barbarabr...om/smoking.html
Prandium gratis non est

#4 whYNOT

whYNOT

    tony garland

  • Members
  • 3,474 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Republic of South Africa

Posted 27 February 2010 - 09:25 AM

Or try the electronic cigarette - it's a nicotine inhaler essentially, which has no tar, no smoke (except water vapour.)
But hasn't it been banned in the US?
I must say it's been a boon for me, as I'm a nicotine addict, and 6 months on the e-cig and I'm feeling healthier, and don't miss the real thing one bit.

With respect to Barbara's experience, I don't know if people have degrees of addiction, but will-power alone is not always the answer. Nicotine is considered one of the most addictive substances.

There are studies on people taking up smoking as 'self-medication', for conditions like depression and Adult ADD - that were hardly diagnosed 40 years ago - because they found that it sharpened their concentration, and elevated the moods. All this long before any palliative benefits were understood. Rings loud and clear to me.

Alzheimers' Disease? Seeing it up close not long ago was a most sad and sobering experience.

Tony
"To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge". Nicolaus Copernicus (An original objectivist) 1473-1543 ***No man may be smaller than his philosophy...***

#5 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,411 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 27 February 2010 - 11:32 AM

How could Ayn Rand smoke. That has been debated, and I will put some old letters from Atlantis at the bottom. Both Brandens respond in that thread.

For your sake, for your loved one’s sake, and for the sake of the people around you, I hope you stop and never smoke again.

I will start with a letter from me to my daughter who smokes, and some other letters of my own:

April 3, 2008
I have some bad news, Laura.
My Uncle Peter died this morning of tobacco related, chronic lung disease. He had been in the hospital for two weeks and was scheduled to go into hospice today but he died at 5:30 this morning. He will be buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

Uncle Peter, my Dad, and several other members of my Dad’s family including first, second, third cousins, and aunts and uncles, were identified and tested by the medical establishment, in Philadelphia, back in the 1970’s.
A researcher had noticed the family name “Taylor” popping up again and again, as people who needed treatment at lung centers at Johns Hopkins and Philadelphia hospitals.

My Dad’s side of your family Laura, way back then, was identified as having a predisposition to nicotine addiction. Once addicted, it is very hard for a Taylor to quit. Recently they identified genes that show a predisposition to hard nicotine addition. Our family may have this “marker.”

Unfortunately, we also have a greater intolerance towards the affects of tobacco smoke. We show irreversible, lasting lung damage, earlier. Smokers in our family age at a faster rate in their faces and internally. While we have the genes to live into our nineties (and that is no exaggeration) no smoker makes it past their seventies. And the last years are hard.

All of our family’s smokers are in a decline by the time they reach 50 years of age. You saw my Dad before he died. He was as pathetic as the Physicist, Stephen Hawking, tied to a bed or chair.

Remember my Dad at your cousin Susan’s wedding, wheeled around in a wheel chair? He carried oxygen tanks with him everywhere. He said his every breath was painful. Doctors who manage chronic pain say dying from burns is a level ten pain. Dying from this disease is also a level ten pain. It consumes your very being.

During the last years of his life, my Dad hoped to die every day.

We love you very much, Laura.
What else can I say?
Semper cogitans fidele,
Your Dad.

From: "Peter Taylor" <solarwind47@hotmail.com>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: Re: ATL: ARI on Smoking
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 17:52:33 GMT

To briefly recap the smoking thread:
Jason R. Walker wrote:
"The compromise is this: in the state of Florida, "Big Tobacco", as it's referred to, will no longer sell cigarettes in exchange for amnesty from the suit."

Steve Reed wrote:
"The tobacco companies were craven enough to dig their own grave of precedent. Let them lie, and die, in it. I'll save my moral support for Gates."

Thomas Gramstad wrote about the auxiliary costs of smoking: "1. Material and medical expenses because of fires caused by smoking. 2. Material and medical expenses because of traffic accidents caused by smoking . . .
3. Medical expenses related to diseases where smoking is a contributing, but not the single or major cause of the disease. 4. Smokers are usually allowed many short smoking breaks on the job."

Dennis May wrote in support of the benefits of tobacco:
"The findings:
Cigarette smoking improves hand eye coordination. Increases the speed of reflexes. Correlates with higher intellectual capabilities. Increases alertness. And increases blood pressure, reducing high-G induced blackouts."

Peter Reidy wrote about being objective during this argument and mentioning all the facts:
"I haven't been following this discussion, but have people mentioned that smokers never get Alzheimer's, or that they save the rest of us money by dying sooner? They are much less likely to spend the last decade or two of their lives collecting pensions, in and out of the hospital."

Brant Gaede wrote about ARI's support of smoking:
"Sure one's total context determines whether it is rational to smoke or not, but maybe the context itself is not rational. I think the ARI is just trying to justify Ayn Rand's smoking. I think Ayn Rand was irrational about her smoking and rationalized it."

And now I write:
$140 Billion may seem an excessive judgment, but then again, considering the worth of even one life, perhaps it is the correct, "jury-nullification" type of verdict, i.e., allowing a jury to express outrage at a terrible injustice, even if the dollar amount is later lessened.

Perhaps it is the correct "jury-nullification" type of verdict - because "they," (the management of the tobacco companies, or Big Tobacco) have a product, if used correctly, will addict you. And if you are addicted, your life will be "greatly" shortened. And the evidence is definitely pointing towards the fact that second-hand smoke also significantly shortens the life of the breathers of second-hand smoke.

And "they" know it. "They" have known it, about addiction and health risks associated with smoking, since the fifties and they have known it *for sure* since the sixties. "They" are liars. They have allowed and encouraged people to use their product and then die agonizing, early deaths. And they did not give a fig. Perhaps fraud was involved, and criminal as well as civil laws were broken.

Just imagine this same scenario with any other product, say automobiles. Let us imagine, The Twentieth Century Motor Company made a car that vented a portion of the exhaust, as well as an addictive gas, into the cab of all its vehicles. The exhaust is a carcinogenic (just as diesel gas exhaust is.)

The owner of The Twentieth Century Motor Company, Ma Chalmers and Elsworth Tooey, tinkered with the design, until it took, say, one-hundred rides, in one of their cars, before the passengers were physically addicted. They decided to keep the facts a secret.

People had tremendous loyalty to this brand of vehicle. The cars were heavily advertised and became "stylish." People also had tremendous loyalty to this brand of vehicle because they became physically addicted to driving the vehicle. When they drove one of these vehicles a certain anxiety left them. They felt calm and fulfilled. They were getting a "fix" of the addictive, exhaust mixture. Vroom! Vroom!

And "they" did not care that their defective product would kill. In fact, Ma and Elsworth's only concern about the death of their car-buyers, was that they would constantly need to replenish the ranks of Twentieth Century Motor car drivers. So, they put their ads on bill-boards, in magazines, on the side of buses in the city, and they especially put their ads everywhere that kids and teenagers could be influenced to drive their vehicles, so that "they" could maximize the length of time that addicts could buy new cars.

Likewise, the tobacco company's universe was not "benevolent." I say this verdict is not an argument about freedom or Capitalism. It is about a murderous intent to hurt, maim, and kill, where the concealment of the true nature of their product, involved fraud and coercion. Sure, we should have the right to buy any product we wish, however, we should also have the right to sue the maker's of defective products or products that were intentionally-made-lethal and that cause the owner's death.

The fact is that the majority of non-smokers will say, "Of course. Sue the Bastards . .."

And smokers will disagree and begin stock-piling cigarettes if there is ever evidence that cigarettes will become illegal. This helps to prove my point. Addiction is an insidious process. An addict will do terrible things (and the least terrible thing they do, may be to evade, and then like ARI, defend their position to their death) just to be able to continue "to feed their habit" or to "get a fix."

In the name of my father, who died of smoking-related disease, I hope the tobacco companies are sued into oblivion. "They" do not deserve the good feelings or support of any Objectivist. "They" killed Ayn. "They" have killed too many of us.
Peter Taylor

From: "Peter Taylor" <solarwind47@hotmail.com>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: ARI and Smoking
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 18:14:08 GMT

This is a slightly revised reprint of a letter I wrote to "family" and "agora" when I first entered the World Wide Web, around nine months ago.

On page 22 of the paperback version of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand writes about her character Dagny Taggert, ". . . When she extinguished her cigarette, she knew that she needed another one, but thought that she would give herself a minute, just a few minutes, before she would light it . . ."

Rather than being evasive or defensive about Dagney's and perhaps her own nicotine addiction, Rand openly states this fact for a discerning reader to discover. Many fans of Ayn Rand may know that she died from smoking related disease. Why didn't she ever write anything derogatory about smoking, after discovering her illness?

I am certainly not going to "Psychologize" her, but when Rand wrote her masterpiece she was aware of several things - the unhealthy effects of smoking on herself - the effects of addiction on herself - the possibility that her glamorization of smoking would cause others to feel permissive about smoking. To paraphrase something that I once heard on the radio, ". . . as early as 1901, the writer O'Henry wrote that a cigarette was a nail in a smoker's coffin . . ."

She knew.

She knew . . . though she certainly could not have envisioned people wanting ARI's writing contest (and her book) CLOSED to High-School students because of what we now know about the long-term effects of smoking.

When she ends Atlas Shrugged on page 1074, Ayn writes,
"The road is cleared," said Galt. "We are going back to the world. He raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar."

Does any reader doubt that his hand held a cigarette?

My father died from smoking related disease and I have two non-smoking daughters, a college aged daughter Sarah, who has read Atlas Shrugged and a fifteen year old named Laura, who seems to be stuck at page 40 but says she is going to read it. I cautioned my daughters about being influenced about smoking by the world's greatest writer, persuader, and pro-smoking advocate.

I would like to benevolently extend this caution to everyone, and especially to some of the most valuable people in the world, Objectivists, Students of Objectivism, Libertarians and all people who have enjoyed her
books and consider themselves pro-reason.

Inhaling burning vegetation, to be more adult, to be better able to concentrate and "think" more clearly, to be "Cool," or to be like Ayn Rand's characters - could be traveling a road that leads to addiction, illness, and an early, agonizing death. That is not Objective. This is not what Ayn Rand would have wanted.

Live long and prosper,
Peter Taylor

From: "Peter Taylor" <solarwind47@hotmail.com>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: ARI and Smoking
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 00:57:25 GMT

This is an abbreviated quote from Brant:
"The morality of business is channeled by the laws and mores of society . . . The moral people in the smoking industry were replaced by people immoral enough to keep the business going. Now we should destroy the big smoking companies so people even more immoral can supply those who still want to smoke with smokes?

I hate to be blunt, but if you don't want to face the consequences to your health from smoking, quit. Stop being a victim--a self-made victim. If you are addicted, break the addiction. If you have a relative or friend who is
addicted, well, if they don't want to break it they won't. Go to Barbara Branden's Web site for info on a book to help you stop smoking."
end of Brant's quote

I just heard of a weird coincidence, when I spoke of this thread to my wife a few minutes ago. It is 8:15pm, Saturday the 15th of July. Some acquaintances of my family, Halton and Thelma, have been smokers for years.

About five years ago he quit because of a shortness of breath, and at his doctor's insistence. Thelma tried to quit using some very expensive drugs and programs, but she was not able to kick the addiction. She has just been diagnosed with lung cancer. I wish her well.

AMEN to Brant and Steve Reed. However, while I recognize Ayn's right to do with her person as she chose, I do NOT support her choice to smoke. I don't think it was a responsible *choice* made by a person who was *always* rational. Glamorizing smoking, in, "Atlas Shrugged," to the detriment of a number of her readers, was not a benevolent *choice* on her part. Addiction, to an extent, eliminates "choice." It is not rational. It sickens me to think of all those famous Objectivists in the sixties, puffing their way towards death.

A smoker is an addict. A chain smoker is doubly, an addict. Addiction is a physical and mental condition. When a person is pretty sure they are doing themselves harm, yet persist in this behavior, because of a physical and mental addiction, they are truly damned. They are not excused from the mistake they made when they took that first puff, however, there is no rational reason for them to continue to support smoking.

Some people donate to single issue groups that support individual rights, such as the National Rifle Association, and that is perfectly all right. However, some people support the ACLU, which may, in turn, defend the free speech of idiots, or the right of Nazis to bear arms or to speak in public, calling for the rise of a Fourth Reich. Even though an Objectivist supports individual rights there is no reason you should help pay for the legal defense of Nazis, by donating to the ACLU.

Likewise, though you may defend, in principal, an individual's right to poison their own body, there is no moral (Hey, Steve Reed would this be a Kantian idea?) obligation, on your part, to support the rights of people who sell poison. I don't think a rational person should say one word in their defense.

Steve Reed wrote:
"I share the sense of loss that Peter describes. I lost two uncles, men of heroism and achievement (one of whom developed propellants that took the Saturn V rockets to the moon), from the effects of their decades of smoking, at least in large part. Other family members have been hurt. Yet I am not removing their culpability. It was their health to squander, their lives, and they were not automatons of Liggett, B&W, RJR, or Philip Morris.


Steve Reed also wrote about my mentioning the ARI type writing contests expanding to, "Atlas Shrugged:"

"Well, that's a new twist: "Atlas" added, along with "Huckleberry Finn" and other classics of literature, to the targets of the Politically Correct. First I've heard of this. Would you elaborate? Where and how was this targeted?"

It was a father in New Jersey talking about the local school board, nixing the idea of an, "Atlas Shrugged," writing contest. That is all I remember about it. It may have been on the net, or on FOX news.

and Steve continued,
"She also was not the "world's greatest persuader" ... if she had been, she would not have allowed Peikoff's many weaknesses to muck up her legacy, via ARI and his own parasitism."

OK Steve. You win. Would you accept the accolade of "world's greatest persuader of intelligent people if you exclude Jesus, Leonard, and the less intelligent?"

On with my rant.
Would you be under an obligation to say, even to Ayn, if she were still alive, "Sure, Miss Rand, I don't mind if you smoke in my presence," if you actually did mind? She would have been better served, if her friends, her family, and her fans had urged her to quit.

And, I do of course recognize (This is for Leonard, Andrew Lewis and ARI's benefit) that she was of such value to you and I, that I would have tolerated her polluting Ford Hall to hear her speak. But I would not have thought it was right, unless she first asked the people in the room, if they minded if she smoked.

I once read that when Miss Rand was told by her doctor that she had to give up smoking. After taking one last drag, she put out her cigarette, and never smoked again. It speaks well of Ayn if the story about her instantly giving it up, is factually true.

Of course, the diagnosis and symptoms of ill health effects should have been self-diagnosed by the smoker, long before she was "forced" to go to a doctor. On some level, every smoker from the very first puff onwards knows it is not natural or good for them. Pain, morning coughing, shortness of breath, craving for a fix, all accompany this "habit."

Who could ever prove what she was thinking when she began to notice the ill effects of smoking on herself? Yet, putting myself in her place, I think she probably could not reach sleep some nights, without musing about her cravings as she hacked and coughed, and when she was diagnosed with a lung lesion, she certainly agonized over who to tell, and what her chances for survival were. Do you think a person with her mental abilities did not "Reduce" her whole dilemma to its logical roots?

Of course, she had to choose the issues of most importance to her. Telling people what they most likely knew (smoking is bad for her and you) might not have ranked very highly within her hierarchy of thought. I agree with Andrew Lewis and Richard Lattimer and others that she had many more philosophically significant issues to address than those that might occur to you or to me.

Yet, what a waste! She died too soon! Imagine yourself as one of Ayn's friends, sitting with her until late in the evening, discussing philosophical issues. What a mind she had. She could expound on the highest level concepts and then instantaneously "reduce" those concepts to their logical, lower level concepts, in her hierarchy of knowledge, and then take each idea back to its perceptual level. She had knowledge and she could prove it.

I say, smoking and its consequences were important to her because of these common sense truths:
1) her life was important to her
2) her philosophy was important to her
3) volition and making rational choices was important to her
4) influencing her readers was important to her
5) being a positive role model (judge and be judged) WAS important to her.

Is it not possible that Rand was "beyond reason" on the subject of addiction, and as someone with whom I corresponded with, once suggested, that she was "clouded" on the issue?

It must have been hard for Ayn and extremely galling.

I think her own death and its cause Was very high within her context of thought. I think it is possible that Ayn and some Objectivists (even after her death) CANNOT resolve the dilemma of such a beautiful novel, Ayn's own death from smoking, and their own continued smoking.

I have said the following before and received derisive remarks about it, but I have a thick skin, so here it is again.

There is an ad for "Objectivism the Philosophy of Ayn Rand," on the inside book jacket of the paper back edition of, "Atlas Shrugged:"

". . . If you would like to read more about Ayn Rand's philosophy . . ."

Now, would there being any harm (or good) in changing this ad to simply say:
". . . She died of lung cancer. If you would like to read more about Ayn Rand's philosophy . . ."

In conclusion, I do not think she "owed us," or had a "duty" to inform us of harm. Yet consider this. No one knew why she died, except those in her closest circles, until the wonderful Barbara Branden stepped forth to tell us.

Ayn's characters in Atlas Shrugged, who abandoned trains, never failed to make sure that "innocent" life was not lost. They "assumed" the responsibility of telling the authorities that another train was motionless
- as an example of decency, and as a GIFT to all of us rationally thinking humans. Ayn is motionless, but her thoughts live on.

Live long and prosper,
Peter Taylor

From: Michael Hardy <hardy@math.mit.edu>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: Smoking (Out) Fascists
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 18:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
Russ Madden suggests that if you don't want to get hit in the face by tobacco smoke, then "don't go where the property owner says smoking is allowed." Once upon a time in a shopping mall, a woman's breasts were grabbed by a passing male stranger. Would Russ Madden have responded by first asking whether the property owner says that is allowed? The essential issue is NOT: "Did the owner post a conspicuous sign identifying a NO-GRABBING-STRANGERS'- PRIVATE-PARTS-AREA?" Rather the issue is "Did the person so intruded upon CONSENT?". Consent to such conduct may be made a condition upon which people are admitted to the shopping mall. But if whose-turf-is-it is made essential rather than consent being considered essential, then any time a theft or a murder happens at McDonald's we must first inquire whether the owner has promulgated rules against those activities. I've actually had people cite the absence of a "No Smoking" sign as justification for spraying that stuff in my face, whose normal effect on normal people is to cause physical pain and difficulty in breathing. The law has a name for that kind of behavior: It is battery. It is the same crime that you commit when you walk up to a stranger and punch him in the face with a closed fist.
Mike Hardy

Russell Madden wrote:
>And, of course, Mr. Riggenbach also completely ignores my very points re: the initiation of coercion: that it is not permissible under any circumstances.

Exactly. BUT _some_ things that _would_ be initiation of coercion under _some_ circumstances, are _not_ initiation of coercion if there is _consent_. This does _not_ mean that a property owner has a right to "allow" the groping of strangers' private parts on his property without consent. No owner has a right to allow that. _BUT_ it _does_ mean the owner has a right to _exclude_ those who will not consent to that behavior.

Now: What is the difference? If you can _exclude_ those who will not _consent_, is that different from saying you can _allow_ the behavior?

This I answer affirmatively -- I say it _is_ different -- for two reasons: (1) If groping happens at McDonald's, one should not begin by inquiring whether the owner _allows_ it; rather, there is a burden of showing that those who have not consented have been excluded; consent consists of _something_, not merely an _absence_ of _non-consent_. (2) This whole thing about property rights is used as an excuse for a disguised attempt to preserve special privileges of people who smoke. If you doubt this, notice that no one defends grabbing strangers' private parts by saying "I don't see a sign saying the owner prohibits it." But smokers _do_ say that, and that is a special privilege -- a niggers-to-the-back-of-the-bus attitude directed against normal people by smokers. And it gets retaliated again by a counter-niggers-to-the-back-of-the-bus attitude directed against smokers by normal people. That's the wrong way to handle it. The right way is to be clear about the need for consent and the right of owners to exclude people, and that that is not the same as saying that owners have a right to allow it without consent.

>Like Mr. Hardy, he assumes that smoking is the equivalent of physical assault.

Incorrect. Smoking at one's own expense is not physical assault. Blowing it into someone's face without consent is _battery_. This is not to say it is the same degree of battery as if you maimed someone. It is a minor case. But if done deliberately, it certainly justifies punching the malefactor in the nose in self-defense.

> That is what needs to be demonstrated.

That's ridiculous. This point is obvious. Those who claim they didn't know normal people suffer physical pain as a result of inhaling tobacco smoke are just being sarcastic.

> (And re: Mr. Hardy, come on; who -- on this list anyway – seriously would argue that grabbing someone's private parts is not wrong?)

It is _not_ wrong if there is consent. And a property owner may exclude non-consenters. But consent is not merely the _absence_ of non-consent; it is not merely the absence of a conspicuous "No Groping" sign.
Mike Hardy

From: Thomas Gramstad <thomas@ifi.uio.no>
Reply-To: thomas@ifi.uio.no
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: Re: ATL: Smoking Out Fascists
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:11:00 +0200

Russ Madden wrote:
> I guess Michael Hardy didn't bother to notice a crucial line in my essay: "You have zero 'right' to tell anyone what to do with his property as long as he does not coercively make you associate with him."
>
> What part of "not coercively" doesn't he understand? Do I really have to explain property rights to Mr. Hardy and all their implications?

Explain how my property rights to my body, and to my lungs and airways in particular, gives other people the right to expose me to poisonous and pain-inducing chemicals against my will.

> Sure, I suppose we could require that an owner of a "public" space post a "smoking permitted" sign. I guess I could accept that.
>
> (Though why should the burden be on the property owner?

Because the normal assumption is that one will not be subjected to coercion and physical attack -- neither on one's own or on other people's property.

> If you don't like smoke,

It has nothing to do with likes and dislikes, and everything to do with force vs. consent.

> [Cf this to "organic" farmers who want _non"organic"_ farmers (who might use genetically enhanced seeds) to have _their_ food labeled as "nonorganic" or whatever rather than having "organic" food labeled as such.]

As in his article, Madden spends a lot of time introducing spurious analogies. No argument is made for establishing that they really are analogies, which they aren't. These repetitive diversions with an army of non-analogous red herrings instead of addressing the real issue indicate that his argument is a weak one at best.

> But a puff of smoke the equivalent of a _punch_ in the face with a closed fist [as opposed to an open fist...?]...?

Well, I guess that would all depend on the strength, skill, angle etc. of that fist, among other things... I certainly would consider a regular open fist slap in the face less annoying than a head-on exposure to a big puff of tobacco smoke. On the other hand, I'd say that head-on exposure to one of those big stinker
cigars are generally more comparable to a closed fist. But this analogy stinks (so to speak) because of the complexities of where and how hard that closed fist is supposed to hit. So perhaps the analogy to unexpected and without-consent groping may be a better and more accurate one. "Analogy" may be a misleading term here anyway; they are all different referents of "coercion".

> As Stossel would say, give me a break. This is the same tyrannical impulse from the PC crowd

Name calling is no substitute of argument.

> who literally maintain that "hurtful" words are the equivalent of that "punch in the face."

More spurious analogies, and they are no substitute for argument either.

> "Normal" people don't go into "physical pain and difficulty in breathing" from mere second-hand smoke.

Yes, they do. Most people experience various degrees of physical annoyance and pain (usually in the airways and eyes, and in the head) or symptoms of poisoning when exposed to tobacco smoke (not to be confused with allergy symptoms, which are different). Some try to ignore the symptoms, more or less successfully.

Only a minority of people are not annoyed by tobacco smoke. The tobacco issue is usually cast as a conflict between smokers and non-smokers, but that's false. The real conflict is between "normal" people who experience those poison symptoms, and who consist of non-smokers _and_ smokers, on the one side – and people who deny or do not experience such symptoms (a very small minority of non-smokers and a rather big minority, but still a minority, of smokers) on the other side.

Experiencing those symptoms does not necessarily protect one from becoming or staying a smoker. But these smokers are usually considerate to other people when they smoke. These smokers prefer non-smoking seats in trains, restaurants etc., and go to the smoking section when they need to smoke. The minority of smokers who does not experience the poison symptoms or who have been able to build tolerance or acceptance of them, may be inclined to be less considerate, and these are the troublemaking smokers.

Yet few people, in my experience, are as fanatical about permitting smoking everywhere, as that very small minority of non-smokers who claim to not experience any of the poison symptoms and annoyance of tobacco smoke. It is as if they sense their own abnormality and feel out of place, and so are fanatically driven to recreate the world in their image: "_I_ am not bothered in the least by tobacco smoke, and therefore I will not allow the fact that you (and you and you and...) legitimately and objectively are physically annoyed by tobacco smoke to enter anyone's consciousness either!".

Thomas Gramstad
thomas@ifi.uio.no
"A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless." James I, _A Counterblast to Tobacco_, 1604

From: BBfromM@aol.com
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: Re: ATL: Re: Smoking Out Fascists
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 18:38:46 EDT

Russ Madden wrote:
<<If you don't like smoke, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no smoking" that smoking is permitted.>>

I would add: And you should go elsewhere if you are bothered by smoke.

Jeff Riggenbach responded:
<<And if you don't like murder, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no murder" that murder is permitted! >>

I can't think of a more irrelevant analogy. Have you noticed, Jeff, that smoking is NOT and should not be illegal, although you appear to think it should be. Do you really want a "tobacco war" to go with the "drug war?" Murder IS illegal, at any time, in any place, on anybody's property. That's why no one needs to post signs forbidding murder, but does need to have a signs forbidding the lawful activity of smoking on his property. The lack of a "No Smoking" sign is clearly understood both by smokers and nonsmokers to mean that smoking is allowed; the presence of such a sign also is clearly understood.

Barbara

From: Michael Hardy <hardy@math.mit.edu>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
CC: bbfromm@aol.com
Subject: ATL: Answer to Barbara Branden
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 19:52:58 -0400 (EDT)

ABSTRACT: I explain why smoking should NOT be forbidden in "non-smoking areas", and why Barbara Branden should be considered polite but very very very confused. Ayn Rand's identification of the logical fallacy of reification of the zero is relied upon: Non-smoking is not something; it is nothing. (Reification of the zero is how you prove that a $5 is more valuable than perfect happiness, by a short syllogism: Nothing is more valuable than perfect happiness; and having $5 is more valuable than having nothing.) First I address legalities, then I address politeness.

Barbara Branden wrote:
> Russ Madden wrote:
> <<If you don't like smoke, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no smoking" that smoking is permitted.>>
>
> I would add: And you should go elsewhere if you are bothered by smoke.

That would be full-scale niggers-to-the-back-of-the-bus. The fact that someone smokes does not justify their ordering me to leave whenever they feel like it. And this practice is ruder than saying "Niggers step to the back of the bus!", because saying that is using words rather than physical violence. If you sneak up on them and slap their faces to indicate that you want them to step to the back of the bus, and act as if you don't notice their presence when you do it, that's the same as saying "you should go elsewhere if you are bothered by smoke."

> Jeff Riggenbach responded:
And if you don't like murder, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no murder" that murder is permitted! >>
>
> I can't think of a more irrelevant analogy. Have you noticed, Jeff, that smoking is NOT and should not be illegal, although you appear to think it should be.

Non sequitur. It is NOT smoking that was objected to. It was _FORCING_ smoke on bystanders. My "groping" analogy is commensurate. You should not be allowed to grab stranger's private parts WITHOUT CONSENT. (What?? Am I saying physical contact with another's body should be ILLEGAL??? No: I said "WITHOUT CONSENT.")

Now Barbara, you say you and others DID and DO ask for consent first. And _that_ is exactly as it should be! And _some_ people do _not_ do that, when they clearly should. That's bad manners at best.

Smokers should be accorded _exactly_ the same rights as others and _no_more_. And no less. People have retaliated against the bad manners of smokers by waging an equally unjustified niggers-to-the- back-of-the-bus campaign _against_ smokers. That's not the right way to do it. The right way to remedy the conflict is to say
(1) consent is needed to expose people to tobacco smoke (Barbara, you tacitly acknowledged this by asking for consent);

(2) consent is not merely the _absence_ of something; and

(3) property owners may exclude non-consenters.

As far as I can see, those points address the _legal_ aspects of the matter. There are also some issues of _politeness_. Consider genuinely public place such as a state university campus. When "smoking areas" and "non-smoking areas" existed, someone told me that "my" territory had recently greatly expanded, while "smoker's" territory had contracted. The tacit premise is that it's like providing men's and women's restrooms, where fairness would dictate reasonable numbers of each. So fairness, on that theory, would prescribe an equitable division of territory and of inconveniences resulting from the division. Ayn Rand called a certain logical fallacy "reification of the zero", and this is an instance of it. Smoking has costs; non-smoking has NO COSTS! Smokers should pay the costs of smoking; non-smokers should not pay any costs of non-smoking, because none exist. If smoking areas are set aside, any inconveniences and any other costs should be borne by smokers. "Non-smoking areas" are not areas set aside for the activity of non-smoking, since there is no such thing as the activity of non-smoking; they are areas _not_ set aside for smoking. Should smoking be forbidden in such places? NO. (BARBARA BRANDEN, PAY ATTENTION HERE: I just said smoking should NOT be forbidden in non-smoking areas!) Rather, what should be forbidden (and at this point I'm talking about politeness and not about laws, which I addressed separately above) is smoking at others' expense, WITHOUT CONSENT. Therefore, Barbara Branden should be considered polite, since she did ask for consent.

Does anyone doubt that reification of the zero is happening? Then let them consider this: I have been told that smokers are not allowed to sit at some tables in some restaurants. This is false. There is no such table. There is no such restaurant. Smokers are allowed to sit wherever anyone else is allowed to sit, and to do anything while sitting there that anyone else is allowed to do while sitting there.

Moreover, a celebrity who had recently quit smoking said on TV that all of his time is now taken up by (brace yourself): Not smoking. I have never smoked, and _NONE_ of my time has ever been taken up by the activity of Not Smoking. Put so baldly, that celebrity's statement is humorous, and that is how he intended it. But I think it describes a real phenomenon; he actually did feel that that was an activity that was occupying him all the time to the exclusion of other things. That explains the reification of the zero that is involved.

Mike Hardy

From: William Dwyer <wsdwyer@pacbell.net>
To: Atlantis <atlantis@wetheliving.com>
Subject: ATL: Re: Smoking Out Fascists
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 23:23:36 -0700

The question of whether smoking is permissible on private property if there is no sign explicitly forbidding it gets into the issue of implied consent. Clearly, it does not follow that anything is permitted on private property so long as there is no sign forbidding it. Certain things are understood as forbidden, because it is assumed from the context that they would not be consented to by the owner of the property, unless otherwise indicated.

Jeff Riggenbach gave some good examples (e.g., playing handball in a China shop). Now, there are clearly borderline cases, in which it is not altogether obvious that the owner would object to a certain activity taking place on his or her property. In case there is any doubt, it is important to ask. For example, if you are invited to a party, there might be some doubt as to whether or not you can bring a guest. In that case, you ask ahead of time. The same thing would be true of smoking. If you are not sure whether or not the host permits
smoking on the premises, then you ask. In this day and age, it cannot be assumed that the owner would not object.

What about a "public" place, like a baseball park? In the recent past, if there was no policy expressly forbidding smoking (as there wasn't in most baseball parks), it could rightly be assumed that smoking was permitted. So if the person seated next you at the game was smoking, it might have been annoying to you (as it was to me), but in that situation, it would not have violated your rights any more than it would the rights of the owner. Today, thankfully, smoking is not permitted even in outdoor stadiums.

In cases such as these, context and precedent are important indicators of what is implicitly permitted or forbidden on private property. As to whether or not smoking could be a violation of anyone's rights on unowned land, here I would agree with George Smith. If we say it is, we are on a slippery slope, in which such things as bad perfume and bad language become violations of our rights as well. If it could be shown that a few whiffs of smoke caused ~physical harm~, then of course, there would be an argument against it in public. But if it's simply an annoyance, then it's not per se a violation of anyone's rights.

Bill

From: Michael Hardy <hardy@math.mit.edu>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: Answer to Barbara Branden
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 12:41:04 -0400 (EDT)
Barbara Branden wrote:
< The fact that someone smokes does not justify their ordering me to leave whenever they feel like it. If you are on the property of someone who allows smoking, no one orders you to leave. You keep forgetting the issue of property rights.


How have I forgotten that issue? I said explicitly and repeatedly that owners may exclude anyone the wish from their property. It does _not_ follow that if someone gropes a stranger's private parts without consent in your house, they are exonerated of any offense by your later statement that you allow that on your property, and that it is then appropriate to consider the matter concluded by an instruction to the recipient of that attention that "If you don't like it, go somewhere else." You may exclude those who have not consented, but you are not entitled to wait until after it happens and then put the matter to rest by announcing that you allow it.

> If you're in my house, I can have a sign that says: Making Love Allowed. That does not mean that you have to make love, or that you're ordered to leave if you don't.

And similarly at MacDonalds there can be a sign that says: Smoking Permitted. That does not mean you have to smoke, or that you're ordered to leave it you don't. AND ALL OF THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING, REPEATEDLY. Why do you consider this relevant to what I was saying? I said that the ABSENCE of any such sign gets cited as proof that there is a "smoking area", and then people are told to leave if they don't like it. That DOES mean I am forced to participate and ordered to leave if I don't like it, NOT by the property owner, but by OTHERS. The scenario you describe involves the PRESENCE of a sign in your house. How is that relevant to my statement that the ABSENCE of a sign at McDonald's does not imply consent? -- Mike

From: William Dwyer <wsdwyer@pacbell.net>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: Consensual mugging?
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 12:26:45 -0700

I wrote,
"Suppose that a neighborhood were a gated proprietary community in which the owner permits mugging and that this policy were clearly posted at the entrance. If you enter the neighborhood, have you consented to being mugged?"

Morganis replied, "No."

Victor Levis then asked: "OK, how about this: This 'gated community' is a boxing arena? Does that change anything?" To which Morganis replied,

"No. However, at this point, it appears that some elucidation is called for, re my responses. Ok... One might as well use the example of 'going into a bar on a wharf,' or entering a territory clearly marked 'DANGER!'

"One is knowingly *taking a Risk,* and, thereby, has no justification for holding anyone else responsible/accountable/blamable for whatever happens.

"This does not mean that one has *consented* to whatever happens to one; it merely means that one has *consented*...to take the risk(s). The difference is in whether or not one...or an Other...can validly say: "They DESERVE what happened to them."

But the question is whether or not your rights have been violated if you are attacked in the bar, since you consented to go in there knowing that it was dangerous. Coercion, after all, is defined as the use of your property (which includes your person) without your consent and against your will.

If, for example, you enter a boxing ring to compete against another boxer, and are knocked out, you cannot complain that your rights have been violated because you were assaulted by the other boxer. After all, you consented to this act of "force" when you entered the ring. That doesn't mean that you ~wanted~ to be knocked out; indeed, you tried to prevent it from happening; but it does mean that if you are knocked out, you cannot complain that your rights have been violated.

Now suppose that there is a community in which, by entering, you agree to whatever happens to you, up to and including physical assault, just as in a boxing match you agree to whatever happens to you within the
rules of the fight. If you can consent to the latter, why can't you consent to the former? If you cannot press charges against the boxer who knocked you out, because you consented to that possibility when you chose to enter the ring, then you cannot press charges against the person who mugs you in this savage proprietary community, because you consented to that possibility when you chose to enter the community.

Now suppose that instead of choosing to enter this proprietary community, you choose to enter a bad neighborhood with a high crime rate. Have you consented to being mugged in this neighborhood, because you chose to enter it, knowing that it was dangerous? And if you haven't, what exactly is the difference?

In my opinion, the difference is that the proprietary community is someone else's property, which you have no right to be on unless you agree to the conditions, one of which is that you are subject to being mugged. The same would be true of a boxing ring. You have no right to be there unless you agree to the terms of the boxing match. But you have every right to enter a bad neighborhood without being mugged, because consenting to that possibility is not a requirement of your presence there. In other words, the bad neighborhood is not someone else's property, which has as one of the conditions of your being there that you consent to being mugged (if that should happen), just as the boxer consents to being knocked out.

The same is true of being present in someone's house in which smoking is permitted. You cannot complain that your rights are being violated by the second-hand smoke, because you chose to enter the house knowing
that smoking was allowed, which means that you consented to being the recipient of second-hand smoke. This would be true even if second-hand smoke were a violation of your rights on unowned land.

One way to approach the question of smoking on unowned land is to see it as an issue of first-come, first served. Suppose you are situated in a particular location (say a campsite) and are smoking there. An outsider cannot enter your immediate vicinity and complain that you are "assaulting" him with second-hand smoke. That much is clear. However, suppose that you are a non-smoker who occupies a particular location, and a smoker comes into your immediate vicinity after you are already there and forces you to breath his second-hand smoke. In that event, you may have a case that his action is invasive. Here we are dealing with a right of first occupancy, which is a corollary of the right to property.

So, in the absence of existing regulations by a property owner, the rule would be this: If you are smoking, a non-smoker who enters your space cannot claim that you are violating his rights. After all, you were there first. But as a smoker, neither can you approach the space of a non-smoker and smoke in his presence if he objects, since he was there first.

This issue has implications for whether or not pollution in general violates someone's rights. If a factory is polluting and you decide to build a house downwind of the pollution, you cannot demand that the factory cease polluting, because your property is now being affected. In that case, the factory's pollution wouldn't violate your property rights, because the factory was there first. By choosing to build a house downwind of the factory, you have consented to the pollution.

But if you are already living in the house, and the factory moves in and starts dumping pollution on your property, then you do have a right to complain, because you were there first. If the factory wants to continue dumping pollution on your property, it will have to compensate you enough to gain your consent, assuming there is some price that you would be willing to accept in exchange for the pollution.

At any rate, that's one possible approach to the problem of pollution, of which smoking can be seen as a separate case
Bill

From: Michael Hardy <hardy@math.mit.edu>
To: atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: ATL: Re: Answer to Barbara Branden
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 18:12:21 -0400 (EDT)
Barbara Branden wrote:
> Why should smokers be the only ones to accommodate themselves to others?

They should be the only ones _required_ to accommodate themselves to problems caused by smoking, because the costs of smoking should be borne by smokers or those who have otherwise consented to bear them. There are no problems caused by non-smoking, so non-smokers cannot be required to accommodate themselves to problems caused by non-smoking.

>To begin with, I don't know why the anti -smokers always assume that smokers want nothing more than to blow smoke in their faces.

There actually is a reason for this exaggerated assumption: It is an exaggeration, but it is not entirely unfounded.

Since no one has said anything against smoking on this list, and given her other comments, I am guessing that what Barbara means by "anti-smokers" is not people who are against smoking (which might include Barbara herself), but rather, people who are against smokers.

>Murder, rape, and theft are ILLEGAL, they are crimes. No restaurant owner or private person can give us the right to commit a crime on his premises. These activities are illegal anywhere, at any time, and at any place. Smoking is NOT ILLEGAL

But what should be illegal, or at the very least, considered exceedingly boorish behavior, is exposing people to tobacco smoke when they have NOT CONSENTED. This is even more true in a restaurant than in most other places, since smoking is inherently destructive of the purpose for which restaurants exist, which includes deriving pleasure from eating. Smoke prevents pleasure.

>It is therefore up to the decision of the property owner whether or not he shall allow it.

The owner should be able to EXCLUDE NON-CONSENTERS. That can be done by posting a conspicuous "Smoking Permitted" sign, and perhaps often by less explicit means. But that is done BEFORE the activity that is consented to. To wait until afterwards, is often used as a means of maintaining customs according to which all iconveniences that result from smoking should be borne by non-smokers.

> I don't know what all the fuss is about. For years, smokers have been treated like criminals.

Perhaps so, but that is a response to the chronologically earlier custom of making non-smokers step meekly to the back of the bus. The solution is to allow smokers to _buy_ what they were formerly allowed to _steal_. As follows: First, people should recognize that exposing others to smoke requires consent, which in _some_ circumstances is implicit in their presence in certain places, and in others should be sought before proceeding. Second, it should be realized that recognition of rights of smokers does NOT require provision of sufficient "smoking areas" in buildings, but rather, these should be made available for a price. (The price could be included within the bill you pay in a restaurant in which you can smoke anywhere, as is already often done, and ought to be permitted by law everywhere.)

But one must realize that places that are not smoking areas are NOT areas set aside for the activity of non-smoking that therefore support non-smokers' habit of non-smoking, thereby depriving smokers of equal treatment unless enough smoking areas are similarly provided. Smoking is an activity that has costs; non-smoking is not an activity, and has NO costs. Inconveniences suffered by smokers as a result of being in areas not set aside for smoking, are not costs of non-smoking, but costs of smoking; inconveniences suffered by non-smokers who are in smoking areas are also not costs of non-smoking, but costs of smoking.

>I would think that libertarians would fight for the rights of smokers just as they fight for the rights of people who take drugs.

I will defend the right of people to smoke AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE, and ONLY at their own expense or at the expense of those who have consented to bear costs.

>Smokers are quite aware that some people are allergic to smoke, that others find it very unpleasant

..... and often they equate that with the alleged fact that some people are allergic to non-smoking or find non-smoking very unpleasant. They see a spurious symmetry here. They forget that BOTH the unpleasantness suffered by non-smokers exposed to smoke AND that suffered by smokers forbidden to smoke, are costs of smoking, and neither is a cost of non-smoking.

>Why should smokers be the only ones to accommodate themselves to others?

They should be the only ones _required_ to accommodate themselves to problems caused by smoking, because the costs of smoking should be borne by smokers or those who have otherwise consented to bear them.
Mike Hardy

From: "Morganis Chamlo" <phyrm_x@hotmail.com>
To: hardy@math.mit.edu, atlantis@wetheliving.com
Subject: Re: ATL: Answer to Barbara Branden
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 19:26:23 -0000

>From: Michael Hardy <hardy@math.mit.edu>
I explain why smoking should NOT be forbidden in "non-smoking areas", and why Barbara Branden should be considered polite but very very very confused. Ayn Rand's identification of the logical fallacy of reification of the zero is relied upon: Non-smoking is not something; it is nothing.

Per se, true. However, the 'effort' put into Refraining from something for the sake of some Demander (not to be confused with a Requester - 'allowed options' are implied in one case, but not the other) is not, ipso facto, a
'nothing'; it is a 'something.' It is a 'something' Demanded by one that 'nothing' bother them.

(Reification of the zero is how you prove that a $5 is more valuable than perfect happiness, by a short syllogism: Nothing is more valuable than perfect happiness; and having $5 is more valuable than having nothing.) First I address legalities, then I address politeness.
>
> Barbara Branden wrote:
> Russ Madden wrote:
> >
> > <<If you don't like smoke, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no smoking" that smoking is permitted.>>
> >
> > I would add: And you should go elsewhere if you are bothered by smoke.
>
> That would be full-scale niggers-to-the-back-of-the-bus.

As little (then) Drew Barrymore said in _ET_: "Gimme a break." Sheesh! Like, your advertised attitude isn't smokers-to-the-back-of-the-bus?

The fact that someone smokes does not justify their ordering me to leave >whenever they feel like it.

Absolutely correct! No argument! Agreed!

Uh, when was the last time you (or, anyone here in ATL) ran into this 'ordering' by a smoker in some restaurant?

And this practice is ruder than saying "Niggers step >to the back of the bus!", because saying that is using words rather >than physical violence.

Absolutely correct, again! No argument! Such is definitely ruder (well, to some, anyway; possibly...not to some others [like, the ones it was told to]). However, I ask again: have you really ever run into this
(hypothetical?) *experience?*

I got a bit confused here; you're saying that using 'ordering' Words is 'ruder' than physical violence?

I'm not sure if any, self-defined, *niggers* would agree...

Indeed, I'm unaware that such is a 'practice'; could you document this...apparent verbiage?

(I could speak from a personal example about a conversely analogous situation which happened to me with a self-advertised non-smoker in a diner where ONLY they and I were customers-of-the-moment, and, we were on opposite sides of the room, and, after I lit up...but...as Socrates said, "I won't do that.")

If you sneak up on them and slap their faces to >indicate that you want them to step to the back of the bus, and act >as if you don't notice their presence when you do it, that's the same as saying "you should go elsewhere if you are bothered by smoke."

Really? (That 'sneaking up on them' part is really interesting, btw. Smokers are stalkers-in-disguise! Shades of Hannibal Lector!) The 'face-slapping' really shouldn't be necessary, since all non-smokers know that Smokers are *The Man* (yeah, right...)

> > Jeff Riggenbach responded:
And if you don't like murder, you should assume that unless it is posted as "no murder" that murder is permitted! >>
> >
> > I can't think of a more irrelevant analogy. Have you noticed, Jeff, that smoking is NOT and should not be illegal, although you appear to think it should be.
>
> Non sequitur. It is NOT smoking that was objected to. It was _FORCING_ smoke on bystanders.

You mean like: "_FORCING_" one's own carbon dioxide, horrible fashion, ungainly deportment, low IQ (uh, skip that one, here), stupid arguments, etc. "...on bystanders"?

Oh. Pardon us illiterate and stupidly inconsiderate "Dis-Likables" for existing, oh, grande Eloi.

[snip re 'groping']

>
> Smokers should be accorded _exactly_ the same rights as others and _no_more_. And no less. People have retaliated against the bad manners of smokers by waging an equally unjustified niggers-to-the-back-of-the-bus campaign _against_ smokers.

This supposed 'analogy' is getting a very long beard rather quickly.

Like, there's no non-smokers with *bad manners* in how they treat smokers? Gimme a br...(oh, I said that, somewhere)

That's not the right way >to do it. The right way to remedy the conflict is to say
>
>(1) consent is needed to expose people to tobacco smoke (Barbara, you tacitly acknowledged this by asking for consent);

If we're talking about people NOT in any confined area, the term 'exposed' really needs at least SOME semblance of a definition. Consider a farmer in the middle of his farm 'lighting up.' How 'close' can others be before s/he *exposes* them to the horrors of smelling the tobacco?

Re *confined* areas, we have little disagreement. Depends on your context-definition of 'confinement', however: the confinement of an elevator, airplane-hanger, or...

Hopefully, you see that for your argument/attitude to be persuasive to non-choir readers, you have to get a bit more specific, definitional, and context-explaining...rather than just equate Smokers to Simon LeGree,
because you demand that they stop doing what you dislike. You do see that, don't you?
>
>(2) consent is not merely the _absence_ of something;

Granted. Prob is, clarifying what it actually *is* (re when is 'admission' of such required, and, when not?), not merely what it is not.

and
>
>(3) property owners may exclude non-consenters.

This may cause a prob about bus-riders, re what bus-owners want, no?

>
> As far as I can see, those points address the _legal_ aspects of the matter.

Umm...the _legal_ aspects...the aspects using delegated-and-authorized _FORCE_...ok.

However, your next argument, I've got to admit, is really, really, interesting.

There are also some issues of _politeness_. Consider >genuinely public place such as a state university campus. When >"smoking areas" and "non-smoking areas" existed, someone told me that "my" territory had recently greatly expanded, while "smoker's" territory had contracted. The tacit premise is that it's like providing men's and women's restrooms, where fairness would dictate reasonable numbers of each. So fairness, on that theory, would prescribe an equitable division of territory and of inconveniences resulting from the division. Ayn Rand called a certain logical fallacy "reification of the zero", and this is an instance of it. Smoking has costs; non-smoking has NO COSTS! Smokers should pay the costs of smoking; non-smokers should not pay any costs of non-smoking, because none exist. If smoking areas are set aside, any inconveniences and any other costs should be borne by smokers. "Non-smoking areas" are not areas set aside for the activity of non-smoking, since there is no such thing as the activity of non-smoking; they are areas _not_ set aside for smoking. Should smoking be forbidden in such places? NO. (BARBARA BRANDEN, PAY ATTENTION HERE: I just said smoking should NOT be forbidden in non-smoking areas!) Rather, what should be forbidden (and at this point I'm talking about politeness and not about laws, which I addressed separately above) is smoking at others' expense, WITHOUT CONSENT. Therefore, Barbara Branden should be considered polite, since she did ask for consent.
>
> Does anyone doubt that reification of the zero is happening?

At this point, definitely not. *0*-smoking will have *0*-tolerance by *0*-oriented people.

>Then let them consider this: I have been told that smokers are not allowed to sit at some tables in some restaurants. This is false. There is no such table. There is no such restaurant. Smokers are allowed to sit wherever anyone else is allowed to sit, and to do anything while sitting there that anyone else is allowed to do while sitting there.

What an equivocation posing as a counter-argument!
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#6 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 27 February 2010 - 01:43 PM

Peter:

How can you continue to post at that length. I did not read a word past ...A letter to my daughter who smokes...

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqQD4dzVkwk"]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=fqQD4dzVkwk[/url]

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#7 Dragonfly

Dragonfly

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,891 posts

Posted 27 February 2010 - 01:52 PM

I think posting such ridiculous long and unreadable posts is useless.

#8 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,012 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 27 February 2010 - 02:15 PM

I think posting such ridiculous long and unreadable posts is useless.

I had to hit page down 28 times to get to the end. Jesus.
name="allowFullScreen" value="true"> type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340">
Prandium gratis non est

#9 Robert Jones

Robert Jones

    $$$

  • Members
  • 241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stepford, Minnesota
  • Interests:Art, bicycling, classical music, reading books

Posted 27 February 2010 - 02:38 PM

How could Ayn Rand smoke? Probably by taking a cigarette out of her pack, inserting it into her cigarette holder, and then lighting it with her Zippo cigarette lighter. She probably put her lips to the cigarette holder, drew in her breath, and with that, cigarette smoke.

I imagine that's how Ayn Rand could smoke.
WWMD

#10 Chris Grieb

Chris Grieb

    Mr.

  • Members
  • 4,327 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington DC
  • Interests:History of Objectivism, American & World history, movies

Posted 27 February 2010 - 02:48 PM

How could Ayn Rand smoke? Probably by taking a cigarette out of her pack, inserting it into her cigarette holder, and then lighting it with her Zippo cigarette lighter. She probably put her lips to the cigarette holder, drew in her breath, and with that, cigarette smoke.

I imagine that's how Ayn Rand could smoke.

Since it was Ayn Rand she probably lit the cigarette by snaping her fingers.

#11 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 27 February 2010 - 03:02 PM

How could Ayn Rand smoke? Probably by taking a cigarette out of her pack, inserting it into her cigarette holder, and then lighting it with her Zippo cigarette lighter. She probably put her lips to the cigarette holder, drew in her breath, and with that, cigarette smoke.

I imagine that's how Ayn Rand could smoke.


Robert:

I was sooooo tempted to post what you just posted...lol

However, you had better be careful because if Peter sees your profile Avatar, he will:

Posted Image he is just a

Posted Image
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#12 Robert Jones

Robert Jones

    $$$

  • Members
  • 241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stepford, Minnesota
  • Interests:Art, bicycling, classical music, reading books

Posted 27 February 2010 - 04:35 PM


How could Ayn Rand smoke? Probably by taking a cigarette out of her pack, inserting it into her cigarette holder, and then lighting it with her Zippo cigarette lighter. She probably put her lips to the cigarette holder, drew in her breath, and with that, cigarette smoke.

I imagine that's how Ayn Rand could smoke.

Since it was Ayn Rand she probably lit the cigarette by snaping her fingers.


Burgess Meredith used to do that!
WWMD

#13 Robert Jones

Robert Jones

    $$$

  • Members
  • 241 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stepford, Minnesota
  • Interests:Art, bicycling, classical music, reading books

Posted 27 February 2010 - 04:40 PM


How could Ayn Rand smoke? Probably by taking a cigarette out of her pack, inserting it into her cigarette holder, and then lighting it with her Zippo cigarette lighter. She probably put her lips to the cigarette holder, drew in her breath, and with that, cigarette smoke.

I imagine that's how Ayn Rand could smoke.


Robert:

I was sooooo tempted to post what you just posted...lol

However, you had better be careful because if Peter sees your profile Avatar, he will:

Posted Image he is just a

Posted Image


You wouldn't have to be Adam Selene, leader of the lunar revolution?

I limit my smoking to one day out of the year: The "Great American Smokeout."

Say what you want about smoking, but here's an uncomfortable fact I'd like to see Objectivists address:

The life expectancy of smokers is a hell of a lot longer than the life expectancy of aborted children. The real question (which should make any conscientious objectivist squirm) is:

How could Ayn Rand have an abortion?
WWMD

#14 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 27 February 2010 - 05:03 PM

Nicholas; Cigarettes were called "coffin nails" when I was growing up. They were said to shorten your life.


When I was a kid during the 40s and the 50s I was told smoking cigarettes would stunt my growth.

Ba"al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#15 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,012 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 27 February 2010 - 05:14 PM

You wouldn't have to be Adam Selene, leader of the lunar revolution?

His friends know his real name is Mike.
Prandium gratis non est

#16 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 27 February 2010 - 05:14 PM

Ayn Rand wrote about being rational but she also smoked. Somone wrote on this site you can rationalize smoking if the benefit is greater thean the cost. I just read nicotine postpones Alzeimers Disease by four years in people who have it in family genes, which I do. I personally just quit. I think I jsut want to rationalize starting again but I also like researching it. When Ayn Rand was alive, did ciggarretes have a bad reputation as being harmful to your health?

nick


www.forces.org/evidence/evid/therap.htm


There has always been evidence of some ill effects of smoking with inhalation. One of the most obvious is getting short-winded. Heavy smokers do not have very good stamina and wind for long distance runs. The connection between smoking and lung cancer was nailed in the 1960s

Ba"al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#17 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 27 February 2010 - 05:22 PM

The life expectancy of smokers is a hell of a lot longer than the life expectancy of aborted children. The real question (which should make any conscientious objectivist squirm) is:

How could Ayn Rand have an abortion?


Shame on you! Children are not aborted. Fetuses are aborted.

Ba"al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#18 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 27 February 2010 - 05:26 PM



How could Ayn Rand smoke? Probably by taking a cigarette out of her pack, inserting it into her cigarette holder, and then lighting it with her Zippo cigarette lighter. She probably put her lips to the cigarette holder, drew in her breath, and with that, cigarette smoke.

I imagine that's how Ayn Rand could smoke.


Robert:

I was sooooo tempted to post what you just posted...lol

However, you had better be careful because if Peter sees your profile Avatar, he will:

Posted Image he is just a

Posted Image


You wouldn't have to be Adam Selene, leader of the lunar revolution?

I limit my smoking to one day out of the year: The "Great American Smokeout."

Say what you want about smoking, but here's an uncomfortable fact I'd like to see Objectivists address:

The life expectancy of smokers is a hell of a lot longer than the life expectancy of aborted children. The real question (which should make any conscientious objectivist squirm) is:

How could Ayn Rand have an abortion?


Robert:

I have a major issue with the big "O"bjectivist position on abortion.

I have smoked for about 25 of the 63 years. Thankfully, with 5 and 3 year breaks during the journey.

It is a choice. I am two years out now from my last cigarette. Michael and others have provided avenues to approach quitting.

Michael posted the Rational Recovery approach which mirrors elements of the 12 step process with rationality as the "higher power."

I quit "cold turkey" and I agree with Barbara's article about believing that you will have horrible withdrawal symptoms. I fortunately had to

be involved with Sloan Kettering with successful results. I confirmed what I knew that you will greatly assist your success or failure at something depending on what expect to happen.

I am not talking about a public place, I am talking about just before sunrise when you doubt.

Adam
just a similar name lol

Edited by Selene, 27 February 2010 - 05:26 PM.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#19 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,012 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 27 February 2010 - 05:40 PM

Adam
just a similar name lol

That's a hell of coincidence! You've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, right? As I recall, Adam Selene is the "character" Heinlein compares to John Galt.
Prandium gratis non est

#20 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 16,405 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 27 February 2010 - 05:44 PM


Adam
just a similar name lol

That's a hell of coincidence! You've read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, right? As I recall, Adam Selene is the "character" Heinlein compares to John Galt.


The Selene part - actually the Moon is a Harsh Mistress Selene is the computer Mike and he projects the image of Selene which I believe is as either an invalid or a recluse.

Adam
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users