It took a law to do this, you might call my fellow Countrymates brainwashed, but at this point, nobody would go back to how it was before, not because of fear, but because everybody, (even smokers) recognize the benefits.

No-one is forced to enter a bar and no interest group should have the power of legislation to provide the entertainment that they prefer.

If the government truly believes the mass of misinformation about the effects of smoking shouldn’t they ban it completely? Or if they continue along the track of ‘it’s ok to harm yourself’ why not license some bars for smokers only and ban non smokers from entering them for their own safety.

“no independent, collective rights can exist”

BillG responds:

agreed

W.E. Schetlick wrote:

“The rest of what you are discussing is a form of strange social metaphysics applied to property”

BillG responds:

I disagree…

do you or do you not recognize the legitimacy of individual property rights held in common?

do you recognize and acknowledge the distinction between collective property and property held in common?

You have to have legitimate authority before you can delegate it. Cooperative and group rights are no more and no less than the sum total of all individual rights in the group. If no one in the group has the right to exclude anyone else from the use of a resource without first owning it, then the group cannot delegate a power or authority to do so to any other institution as its agent. Since no collective exists in reality, (hypostacy and reification notwithstanding), no independent, collective rights can exist.

Simple. The rest of what you are discussing is a form of strange social metaphysics applied to property. Fine. No problem. Sounds vaguely like Georgeist fantasy or something. And it has no bearing whatsoever in any way, shape or form to the question of the validity of smoking bans.

I don’t smoke. I don’t even much care for it in others. So I don’t hang out with smokers, and prefer bars and restaurants that have a non-smoking section. I never represented the tobacco companies in court or before the legislature, either. None of this has anything to do with the smoking ban, either, but I thought I’d make the appropriate representations.

“In all socialist countries, all the property is nominally owned in common; the government makes all the rules and regulations and can change them whenever it suits them; can grant special dispensations and licenses to use it to favored interests . . . in other words, the government owns the resource.”

BillG responds:

so it is quite obvious to me that you do not recognize the difference between collectively owned property – a group right that requires consent from all the other owners or delegated authority prior to access/use and ownership in common – an individual right that only requires that the individual does not infringe on anyone else’s equal access/use right…they are actually opposite.

Gee that’s news

not!

http://geolib.com/sullivan.dan/commonrights.html

You can twist and turn yourself into semantic pretzels if that is your wish, but you can’t change the property rules . . . they were here nad adopted and applied way before the State of New Hampshire decided to enage in wholesale “nationalization” of an ownable resource.

In all socialist countries, all the property is nominally owned in common; the government makes all the rules and regulations and can change them whenever it suits them; can grant special dispensations and licenses to use it to favored interests . . . in other words, the government owns the resource.

Not.

“In the case of government power and applying methodological individualism, no principal could give the government power over something he could not own; spefically the power to exclude others using air in a bar not his own; therefore, the government cannot have such a power.”

BillG responds:

as I said, in NH all surface water and all groundwater is constitutionally recognized as being owned in common as an individual equal access opportunity right with the state as the public trustee…so I DO own the water as an individual right in common with all other individuals in the state.

if someone encloses the water for private use that denies me equal access the state has a positive duty to protect my individual rights which are being infringed upon.

what is the difference with air?

if the bar owner enclosed the air in such a way that it did not leave enough and as good left for others thus imposed a cost, infringing on the equal access rights of other individuals via a tax on their wages – I would be on the other side of the issue.

property rights not subject to labor of the owner are conditional as they can always at some point (Locke’s proviso) violate absolute rights to labor products.

Philanthropists often gift-deed land to be preserved for special purposes, reserving in their families, and heirs a reversionary interest in the land should the covenant be broken. New Jersey has many farm and environmental trusts (most counties sponsor them) where the lands can be preserved in perpetuity by the government entity so long as it maintained as a farm, etc.

None of this has anything to do with any proviso of any kind. It is simply yet another example of a property owner exercising their rights to alienate their own property with reservations, conveying to the buyer less thana fee simple absolute (subject to reverter).

“But let there be no misunderstanding: to the best of my knowledge, no private community currently exists living under the Locke Proviso.”

BillG responds:

all land trust are set-up under this principle…

http://www.schoolofliving.org/landtrust.htm

Respecting the “takings” issue: the 5th Amendment obliquely refers to a presumptive federal taking power; however, there is no distinct and specifically enumerated federal power to take private property. You have to look up the Annals of Congress during the debates over the Bill of Rights to get the full flavor of the structural controversy.

But remember that that original Bill of Rights were written to be applied ONLY against the federal government and not the states; presumably, if a state agency (not federal) took private property prior to the incorporation idea (14th Amendment) it could do so absent a state prohibition against a taking.

“Regulatory taking” is a whole ‘nother ball of wax. The federal law is very confused and pretty much anarchic . . . a standardless standard, if you will (see Penn Central and Pallazollo). The instant bar case would be considered a regulatory taking; that is, the government does not actually take the real property itself (in this case, a bar or restaurant), but merely passes a regulation that “takes” away one of the property rights that the owner has with respect to the physical property itself (specifcally, a “use” limitation). State decisional law is just as bad as federal decisional law in the area of regulatory takings if not worse . . . New jersey is no exception. State legislators have no respect for state constitutional limitations; state courts have less, and We The Sheeple are, well . . . sheep.

W.E. your indefatigable perserverance in the face of so much from so many unwilling to see is truly awe-inspiring.

As an aside, I was wondering your take on Erie v. Thompkins (1938) — is it correct to understand that ruling as setting aside “Common Law” in favor of “Public Law” ? In other words, within Statute is our only remaining redress?

Curiously…