5 ms·

Almost everyone sees it as their right (or the government's right) to restrict other's behavior/rights/property when it would affect their quality of life or th

by kauffj 12y ago

Almost everyone sees it as their right (or the government's right) to restrict other's behavior/rights/property when it would affect their quality of life or the standards of their community (cf. drugs, gay marriage). Suppose 90% of people in Fort Lauderdale want to disallow businesses from feeding the homeless while 90% of Philadelphia wants to disallow businesses from allowing smoking inside. What principle allows us to restrict smoking on private property that wouldn't also allow us to restrict people feeding the homeless? Is there a reason one of these is more acceptable than the other? On edit: For those who feel the difference is purely about outcomes, what if Roger Marbut is right and feeding the homeless in the way banned is a net harm? Would it be okay then? Also, while one can argue smoking bars are a net good, they do, at a minimum, harm those who would like to smoke. We can also construct a scenario in which a smoking restaurateur wants to serve food to his 3 smoking customers (i.e. all are harmed).

quonn 12y ago
Yes. Giving food to a fellow human being who might otherwise well starve has always been considered positive in probably most societies. A society thinking otherwise is very mistaken.
wazoox 12y ago
Because smoking harms you and those around you, while feeding the homeless actually help fellow human beings?
- icebraining 12y ago
  The argument is that just handing out food harms the homeless by enabling him to avoid places where (s)he could be further helped.
  - Klinky 12y ago
    This would make sense if the US had well-funded homeless shelters & mental health facilities, and a robust economy. We don't. Many of the places the homeless get referred to are not of any help for their circumstances, in some cases they can be more dangerous than the street.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      So you agree that if that precondition was fulfilled, banning food handouts to homeless people would be as permissible as banning businesses from allowing smoking inside?
      - Klinky 12y ago
        No. Second-hand smoke is easily provable to be detrimental to public health. Giving food to a homeless person is not.
mikeash 12y ago
Smoking poisons people who aren't participating in the activity, while feeding the homeless doesn't directly affect anyone besides the feeder and feedee. You could, of course, argue that the indirect effects are sufficient justification.
denom 12y ago
If you reduce them to singular acts, that is feeding a hungry person and smoking in a restaurant, arguably one is actively doing specific harm (carcinogens) while in the other case it's hard to deduce a specific harm from the act. In the case of feeding a person, I have heard arguments about _general_, long-term, associated harm to property values and averaged crime rates. Conservatively, when looking at a principle cause, there isn't a good reason to ban feeding the homeless.
lotsofmangos 12y ago
I'd say the main moral difference in that comparison is that people don't get ill and die from not smoking enough cigarettes, but they can from not getting enough food.
axotty 12y ago
I believe you are confusing the government's right to regulate behavior with the government's right to regulate negative externalities[0] caused by certain behaviors. I would argue in that in the case of smoking, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests the activity harms others around you. Therefore, the public has the right to regulate the negative externality that this activity creates -- needless physical harm to others. The regulation of this activity creates virtually zero new negative externalities and is therefore justified. This is in contrast to the other behavioral regulations you mentioned such as gay marriage, feeding the homeless, or even other drugs. The supposed negative externalities these activities produce have been viewed with more skepticism by the general public in recent years. For example, the argument that gay marriage would somehow harm the way certain children were raised, has been mostly debunked. If sufficient evidence to the contrary would arise, evidence that was comparable to the quality of the evidence for second hand smoke, then the public would be justified in reevaluating the issue. Fortunately, from a civil rights perspective, this is not the case. In the case of non-smokable drugs you have to consider how much harm drug use causes vs. drug prohibition. It becomes clear that the negative externalities from the latter are much larger in scope and scale. Therefore, a conversation in ending drug prohibition is justified. So, I would argue that whether or not a regulation on feeding the homeless is justified depends on the scope and scale of the negative externalities the activity creates, vs the scope and scale of negative externalities the regulation itself may or may not create. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
- shkkmo 12y ago
  > The regulation of this activity creates virtually zero new negative externalities and is therefore justified. The problem with considering issues involved from the point of view of 'Externalities' is how you measure 'externalities'. Can you be sure that you have measured all the possible externalities? The regulation of the behavior curtails the rights of a number of people. You don't seem to consider that a significant externality (probably because you aren't one of those people). You also present a false dichotomy. The question is no 'to regulate or not regulate, which is worse?'. The question is 'How do we solve this problem while protecting as the rights of the people involved as much as possible?' There is a tendency to want to regulate away issues rather than trying to understand the needs of everyone involved and craft solutions that actauly work.
shkkmo 12y ago
Society has to answer these questions by weighing the rights being curtailed for one party vs. the rights being protected for the other party. I've always thought that outright indoor smoking bans are a gross in-balance of non-smoker's rights vs. smokers and property owner's rights. I think imposing mandatory licensing (with fees) of indoor smoking establishments that ensure proper ventilation for the protection of employees and other tenants is the reasonable solution. It can protect smokers and property owners rights while also also protecting the rights on non-smokers, employees and tenants. In the case of feeding the homeless, I think the ability to give charity is an important right. I think it is more important than the right to have an attractive city center that encorages tourism. However, the relative importance of these rights isn't important. The available solutions are important. If there is a solution that protects the rights of both parties, it is the proper solution to use. This is why these cities should be using incentives and support to encourage feeding the homeless in proper locations (near support infrastructure and away from valuable retail or tourist destinations). We should always choose to encourage proper behavior as opposed to banning improper behavior whenever possible.
- axotty 12y ago
  > Society has to answer these questions by weighing the rights being curtailed for one party vs. the rights being protected for the other party I encourage you to read my post about externalities. I believe you would find the arguments from the economics perspective interesting. > I've always thought that outright indoor smoking bans are a gross in-balance of non-smoker's rights vs. smokers and property owner's rights. Is smoking really an autonomous behavior? It is a common behavioral symptoms associated with a nicotine addiction. Should people with uncontrollable addictions have rights outside of the right to treatment? I'm not so sure... Tobacco smoking might be the only drug that causes unavoidable physical harm to non users. > I think imposing mandatory licensing (with fees) of indoor smoking establishments that ensure proper ventilation for the protection of employees and other tenants is the reasonable solution. The WHO has suggested that solutions through engineering, such as improved ventilation, are ineffective at reducing the unsolicited harm (or social costs) that non smokers have to incur. http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf
jMyles 12y ago
For what it's worth (and I know this isn't the consensus view here), some of us hold that both prohibiting smoking at a private space and prohibiting direct donations of food to a person are outside the government's legitimate purview. However, for my part, I also surmise that in both cases the outcome is undesirable, so I suppose I'm still vulnerable to the point you make in your edit.
- jdmichal 12y ago
  Which government? City? County? State? Federal? Is this a legal understanding of the government's purview or a philosophical one? Can public concerns ever override private ones? When? What is people are making morally-correct decisions with clear negative outcomes? I don't actually expect answers. I just want to reveal some of the depth of issues such as these mentioned.
  - jMyles 12y ago
    Absolutely - I realize that there are lots of what-have-yous. I'm not prepared to go into the deep waters at the moment. :-) I meant a philosophical, rather than a legal assessment. And of course, silly decisions at a city or county level are less damaging than at a state or especially national level.
cLeEOGPw 12y ago
> What principle allows us to restrict smoking on private property that wouldn't also allow us to restrict people feeding the homeless? Principle of "you have your freedom as long as you do not restrict other's freedom". Smokers restrict freedom of those who want to breath air that is not harmful. Hobos restrict freedom of those who want healthy sanitary environment without drug addicts and asocial behavior in public space. If you want to allow hobos to live as they live, you also have to allow anyone pull their pants and piss right near you in bus or park, allow anyone to harass anyone else for no reason, also allow your kids to communicate with asocial people that have nothing to lose whatever they would do. If you actually think hobos do nothing bad to people you have not met any hobos.

by kauffj 12y ago

quonn 12y ago

Yes. Giving food to a fellow human being who might otherwise well starve has always been considered positive in probably most societies. A society thinking otherwise is very mistaken.

wazoox 12y ago

Because smoking harms you and those around you, while feeding the homeless actually help fellow human beings?

icebraining 12y ago
The argument is that just handing out food harms the homeless by enabling him to avoid places where (s)he could be further helped.
- Klinky 12y ago
  This would make sense if the US had well-funded homeless shelters & mental health facilities, and a robust economy. We don't. Many of the places the homeless get referred to are not of any help for their circumstances, in some cases they can be more dangerous than the street.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    So you agree that if that precondition was fulfilled, banning food handouts to homeless people would be as permissible as banning businesses from allowing smoking inside?
    - Klinky 12y ago
      No. Second-hand smoke is easily provable to be detrimental to public health. Giving food to a homeless person is not.

mikeash 12y ago

Smoking poisons people who aren't participating in the activity, while feeding the homeless doesn't directly affect anyone besides the feeder and feedee. You could, of course, argue that the indirect effects are sufficient justification.

denom 12y ago

If you reduce them to singular acts, that is feeding a hungry person and smoking in a restaurant, arguably one is actively doing specific harm (carcinogens) while in the other case it's hard to deduce a specific harm from the act. In the case of feeding a person, I have heard arguments about _general_, long-term, associated harm to property values and averaged crime rates. Conservatively, when looking at a principle cause, there isn't a good reason to ban feeding the homeless.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

I'd say the main moral difference in that comparison is that people don't get ill and die from not smoking enough cigarettes, but they can from not getting enough food.

axotty 12y ago

I believe you are confusing the government's right to regulate behavior with the government's right to regulate negative externalities[0] caused by certain behaviors. I would argue in that in the case of smoking, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests the activity harms others around you. Therefore, the public has the right to regulate the negative externality that this activity creates -- needless physical harm to others. The regulation of this activity creates virtually zero new negative externalities and is therefore justified. This is in contrast to the other behavioral regulations you mentioned such as gay marriage, feeding the homeless, or even other drugs. The supposed negative externalities these activities produce have been viewed with more skepticism by the general public in recent years. For example, the argument that gay marriage would somehow harm the way certain children were raised, has been mostly debunked. If sufficient evidence to the contrary would arise, evidence that was comparable to the quality of the evidence for second hand smoke, then the public would be justified in reevaluating the issue. Fortunately, from a civil rights perspective, this is not the case. In the case of non-smokable drugs you have to consider how much harm drug use causes vs. drug prohibition. It becomes clear that the negative externalities from the latter are much larger in scope and scale. Therefore, a conversation in ending drug prohibition is justified. So, I would argue that whether or not a regulation on feeding the homeless is justified depends on the scope and scale of the negative externalities the activity creates, vs the scope and scale of negative externalities the regulation itself may or may not create. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

shkkmo 12y ago
> The regulation of this activity creates virtually zero new negative externalities and is therefore justified. The problem with considering issues involved from the point of view of 'Externalities' is how you measure 'externalities'. Can you be sure that you have measured all the possible externalities? The regulation of the behavior curtails the rights of a number of people. You don't seem to consider that a significant externality (probably because you aren't one of those people). You also present a false dichotomy. The question is no 'to regulate or not regulate, which is worse?'. The question is 'How do we solve this problem while protecting as the rights of the people involved as much as possible?' There is a tendency to want to regulate away issues rather than trying to understand the needs of everyone involved and craft solutions that actauly work.

shkkmo 12y ago

Society has to answer these questions by weighing the rights being curtailed for one party vs. the rights being protected for the other party. I've always thought that outright indoor smoking bans are a gross in-balance of non-smoker's rights vs. smokers and property owner's rights. I think imposing mandatory licensing (with fees) of indoor smoking establishments that ensure proper ventilation for the protection of employees and other tenants is the reasonable solution. It can protect smokers and property owners rights while also also protecting the rights on non-smokers, employees and tenants. In the case of feeding the homeless, I think the ability to give charity is an important right. I think it is more important than the right to have an attractive city center that encorages tourism. However, the relative importance of these rights isn't important. The available solutions are important. If there is a solution that protects the rights of both parties, it is the proper solution to use. This is why these cities should be using incentives and support to encourage feeding the homeless in proper locations (near support infrastructure and away from valuable retail or tourist destinations). We should always choose to encourage proper behavior as opposed to banning improper behavior whenever possible.

axotty 12y ago
> Society has to answer these questions by weighing the rights being curtailed for one party vs. the rights being protected for the other party I encourage you to read my post about externalities. I believe you would find the arguments from the economics perspective interesting. > I've always thought that outright indoor smoking bans are a gross in-balance of non-smoker's rights vs. smokers and property owner's rights. Is smoking really an autonomous behavior? It is a common behavioral symptoms associated with a nicotine addiction. Should people with uncontrollable addictions have rights outside of the right to treatment? I'm not so sure... Tobacco smoking might be the only drug that causes unavoidable physical harm to non users. > I think imposing mandatory licensing (with fees) of indoor smoking establishments that ensure proper ventilation for the protection of employees and other tenants is the reasonable solution. The WHO has suggested that solutions through engineering, such as improved ventilation, are ineffective at reducing the unsolicited harm (or social costs) that non smokers have to incur. http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf http://www.who.int/fctc/cop/art%208%20guidelines_english.pdf

jMyles 12y ago

For what it's worth (and I know this isn't the consensus view here), some of us hold that both prohibiting smoking at a private space and prohibiting direct donations of food to a person are outside the government's legitimate purview. However, for my part, I also surmise that in both cases the outcome is undesirable, so I suppose I'm still vulnerable to the point you make in your edit.

jdmichal 12y ago
Which government? City? County? State? Federal? Is this a legal understanding of the government's purview or a philosophical one? Can public concerns ever override private ones? When? What is people are making morally-correct decisions with clear negative outcomes? I don't actually expect answers. I just want to reveal some of the depth of issues such as these mentioned.
- jMyles 12y ago
  Absolutely - I realize that there are lots of what-have-yous. I'm not prepared to go into the deep waters at the moment. :-) I meant a philosophical, rather than a legal assessment. And of course, silly decisions at a city or county level are less damaging than at a state or especially national level.

cLeEOGPw 12y ago

> What principle allows us to restrict smoking on private property that wouldn't also allow us to restrict people feeding the homeless? Principle of "you have your freedom as long as you do not restrict other's freedom". Smokers restrict freedom of those who want to breath air that is not harmful. Hobos restrict freedom of those who want healthy sanitary environment without drug addicts and asocial behavior in public space. If you want to allow hobos to live as they live, you also have to allow anyone pull their pants and piss right near you in bus or park, allow anyone to harass anyone else for no reason, also allow your kids to communicate with asocial people that have nothing to lose whatever they would do. If you actually think hobos do nothing bad to people you have not met any hobos.