A case in point:

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_718327.html

Wow.

I just read, that in Australia, with only 20 million people, the have been 742,043 abortions in the last 10 years. 73,000 per year.

The article that quoted it then said:
Even if you believe abortion is an inalienable right for women, you must wonder at the waste of such human potential.

It later said:
But what is infrequently explained when abortion is contemplated is the deep regret many women feel later, when a child who might have been becomes a sort of eavesdropper on memory. Many priests will have heard self-accusations of murder in the confessional from women carrying abortion guilt. Whether that is justified or not, it happens. What a tragedy that there is such a lack of compassion at the time and perhaps a dark confrontation with despair. There seems no other solution than to get rid of the problem. They might hesitate if they believe they are getting rid of a person.

Man, I'm not sure if it's possible to come any further from left field there Yorick [img]smile.gif[/img]
I realise you are trying to keep to the freedom theme here, but abortion and smoking bans don't gel so well together in a single thread. Well, at least not from where I'm sitting.

LOL Hierophant :D

But the point is, as you realise, that one mans freedom is another mans restriction. So the freedom and rights card itself is double sided and its value depends on which side you look upon the card.

So the application of compromise and common sense prevails IMO. If the bar or pub or club is open to the public IE no membership needed then it should be a total ban, no segregation, no dark corner with a sign saying smokers only. The compromise is of a members only club like a cigar smokers club [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] who may have the right to continue under certain conditions set out in membership. But as for the protection of the workers therein? I will leave that one up to the lawyers. :D

Well, that's why I proposed a comprimise via city zoning ordinance establishing a minimum % of each. Yorick, again, let me turn this on you: you are the one who insists on restricting my liberty by banning my legal act in all bars. I don't want to keep you out of bars, so I proposed as system whereby you and I could each have places to go as patrons and/or work at as employees. Telling me "you can still smoke -- at home" is like me telling you "you can still work -- elsewhere." I want a place to drink AND smoke, and I think you have no right to deny me that.

You point the "double-edge sword" of liberty argument at me, and I say your argument actually goes against you.

I note that legally, Wellard's membership solution is about the same as my solution. My problem with his solution is that it would restrict me from enjoying bars when not near my local "membership" bar. In effect, it would limit me to ONE bar or A FEW bars rather a certain minimum % of bars across the land. How boring! Oh, and, Wellard, cigar bars operate as businesses and not private clubs over here.

To your expansion of this discussion to include every liberty-related issue, Yorick, addressing each in turn would drag this thread into 18 different directions. I know that it's fun to "get meta" and discuss big-picture relationships and theories, but there's a fine line between that and an inability to FOCUS, MAN, FOCUS.

[ 03-31-2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Ah but I am focussed Timber. One must continually adjust focus, from near to far, small to large, in order to see truly. I do it all the time in music. Focussing on a single note, then out to the part, to the section of song, to the song itself, to the album, and then back in again. One needs focal adjustments to see the context.

Just to remind you again Yorick, "Freedom From" is not freedom, but security, and is at the opposite side of the Liberty/Security axis. ;)

Sliding on Timber's coattails on the smoking issue only, a system that lets market forces determine the environment while maintaining a minimum % of both smoking and non-smoking establishments preserves everyone's freedom to partake their leisure or earn their living in an environment to their individual tastes. It leaves choice open.

I recognize that, I'm just saying that you've stated the point, and let's not open the can of words of discussing this in light of each of the different topics because this thing will fill up with tangential posts. I'm just asking you to fly at the 5,000 foot level rather than the 30,000 foot level. ;)

And NS beat me to the punch about "freedom from" and "liberty to." You should have freedom from having to work or socialize in places that are smoke-free. However, if you translate that into requiring that ALL places be smoke free, you have completely removed my liberty to have at least some places where I can smoke and drink.

I'm happy with what we have here.
Public open to minors; no smoking. Resturants, bowling alleys, etc..
Public off limits to minors; smoking. Bars, clubs, hard alcohol, etc.

We all have a choice. No infringement.

How do we have a choice ? what if I want to drink in a smoke free bar ?