In the case of laws that regulate otherwise legal activity, yes, they must be followed or else they are completely useless and, thus, should not be implemented.
I did not make a claim that there was no difference.
I stated that whether a law is followed or not should not be the basis for the law being implemented in the first place.
For all practical purposes Asbestos doesn't burn; and Spraying Chlorine gas is already illegal (that's considered a weapon of mass destruction: Mustard Gas is Chlorine) and covered by other laws.
Your examples fail to explain why an Employer should have laws passed that make him responsible for the otherwise perfectly legal actions of individuals.
Actually, it is quite civilized. Especially considering, as I already mentioned, those employees are free to make their own decisions and work or not work wherever they please. Certainly it is more civilized than your version of society, where we slowly legislate individual freedoms into extinction at the behest of the disapprovers and finger-waggers such as yourself, for the presumed benefit of those who did not even ask for it in the first place. But this is that little irreconcilable difference I was alluding to previously. I will agree to disagree with you.
Allowing the employer complete control of the working conditions of his employees does not = individual freedom. Are you truly so dumb as to think otherwise?
Allowing the employer complete control of the working conditions of his employees does not = individual freedom. Are you truly so dumb as to think otherwise?
There is no ban on asbestos and there is no ban on chlorine. An individual is perfectly within his right to own either of these substances on his private property. There are bans on how they can be used in the workplace.
There is no ban on cigarettes. There is now a ban on how cigarettes can be used in the workplace.
In its elemental state, chlorine exists as a gas. Gas is the purest form with an available chlorine content of 100%. While "available" as a sanitizer, it is extremely dangerous and restricted in its use. Due to stringent regulations, restrictions and licensing requirements only specialized professionals use it. Chlorine gas is extremely acidic and will drastically lower a waters pH.
Lol thats such a fail analogy. Charging down the street with a knife? Yeah, thats exactly the same as lighting up a cigarette in a private establishment.
If you come into my house and people are smoking and you don't like it, fuck you and leave, don't tell me to put my cigarette out.
I never said about your house?! I said about a public place...
What part of the constitution grants people the right to blow smoke in people's faces in some business open to the public?
If you want to smoke in your own home that is freedom. However, when you are not in your home you are polluting the air someone elese is breathing.
Whats the difference? I own my restaurant, I let people come in to be there, you don't like the rules you can leave and go somewhere else, its that simple. Tobacco is not an illegal substance and as a private establishment I should be able to set the rules in my own place.
You can set some rules, and not others.
You should be able to put up lava lamps or chandeliers, shag rug or wood floors, serve burgers or tofu.
You should not be able to create an unsafe workplace for workers, and their 'right ro leave' does not give you the right to create an unsafe workplace.
In the late 19th century, when workers were paid barely enough to get food to eat and the public was angry, an ideology spread in the country that "contracts" were the fair solution. They could still pay the same low wages, but by having the worker sign a contract for that wage, it was said "he didn't have to sign, it's a mutually agreed deal and therefore fair".
It took some time for public opinion to evolve to say there was an inherent power imbalance between the employer and employee so that a contract did not make it fair.
The worker has to eat - and this allowed employers to push their wages down and down to where they could sign to work for almost nothing or starve.
There was no 'invisible hand' or 'free market' benefits fixing this - it was just a disaster for the workers.
This is where a recognition of the need to even things a bit on power came up, and the right for workers to organize got support - and it worked.
An employer could tell each worker, 'sign or starve', but if it told that to all its workers, they could say 'you can't afford for the workforce to strike' over poverty wages'.
This 'they can leave if they don't like getting cancer' line is like the 'sign the contract for poverty wages or starve' line. It's ridiculous, and it's wrong morally.
There are people who still think segregation should be legal because they take the 'private business' ideology too far, and would let segregation come back.
Businesses do not need to be allowed to do things against the public interest, like segregate or create unsafe workplaces.
You are a sad person to put your 'freedom' to give people cancer ahead of the health of workers. And you're wrong.
This.
You shouldn't be able to set a rule that negatively effects the health of the public who enter
If a company can hire only non smokers by preference may another establishment hire only smokers? ie a bar with only smokers working there.
Seems that a sign on door that says smoking within should be permissible.
If you reflect for a few moments on the words assembled above, you will realize that they make no sense. Not that they support a position or oppose a position inadequately but that they simply make no sense.Here's my problem in all of this and today it's really far too late to change since we let it get out of hand long ago because we were more worried about given birth to soccer moms that run over things while talking on their iPhone and drinking a Starbucks and yet only strike a tier to the mid middle class or high lower class as a heirloom.
Almost all laws have been set from the mindset of those that have the power and money to protect that. Our people always project themselves as something they really are not. An example is that guy living in a duplex in the worst part of town that somehow bought a 300M chrysler and some stolen wheels and stereo. He thinks since he has possession of a nice ride, he is somehow better.
Then you have those that can't find work anywhere because of crimes, lack of education, or simply can't wake up on time to go to a job. They gather and bitch and moan as a force.
Too much sympathy enters the financial equation.
I say allow all businesses to put up what they are willing to pay.
There will be a long period of adjustment, but in the end commerce will be fair.
If you reflect for a few moments on the words assembled above, you will realize that they make no sense. Not that they support a position or oppose a position inadequately but that they simply make no sense.
Do you think the government, at any level.. whether federal, state, or local.. should be able to enact/enforce absolute smoking bans on private businesses?
The rights involved here are ones of property ownership and the right of association, not to mention the more general right of personal liberty.
I have a big problem with smoking bans for private businesses. The government does not have the right to enact/enforce absolute smoking bans on these businesses, in my opinion. I can understand the compromise of setting up zones or areas in these businesses where smoking is allowed, but absolute bans take things too far.
Patrons who have a problem with smoking can choose to punish businesses that don't offer smoke-free environments by spending their money elsewhere. Employees who have a problem with smoking can find places of employment that are smoke-free.
What do you think?
(NB: I don't really care if this has been debated before; you can choose on your own whether or not to post in this thread)
As long as a private business has their own fire dept, police, roads, source of electricity, own phone network, satellites,etc, I think they can do whatever they want.
However, if their business is part of society in that you can get there on a public road, or they use telephones, electricity, or any other thing that only exists because of that society, then they should live within that societies' rules.