Opinion
Ban would snuff out individual rights
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Jim Allard:
- Tea parties missing ideological boat (April 15, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative ignores ideological objections (April 7, 2009)
- Biddy's initiative highway robbery (April 1, 2009)
- Climate change lectures suppress relevant debate (March 24, 2009)
- Cheaters graduate from college, go on to craft stimulus package (March 3, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The increasing number of smoking bans and debates surrounding them are stark reminders of our country’s abandonment of individual rights. Proponents argue the perils of secondhand smoke, calling it a health issue, while opponents decry flawed studies and warn of economic losses.
All of these arguments take for granted that such issues should be decided by vote. Advocates on both sides of the issue make it their assignment to sway public opinion on the merits of allowing smoking in bars and restaurants, but no one questions whether the public has a right to decide this issue in the first place.
I’m questioning it.
The issue of smoking in bars and restaurants should be off-limits to government and majority vote, regardless of economic and health arguments. The reason is simple: Individual business owners and patrons have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This, the principle of individual rights, is the founding principle of America and essential to any free and civilized society. Unfortunately, the concept of rights is only a fuzzy notion in today’s society and is often incorrectly equated with democracy or majority rule.
Gov. Jim Doyle encapsulated this view during Lance Armstrong’s recent visit to promote a statewide ban, saying “It’s not a complicated issue. It’s not like trying to put together all the pieces of a big health care plan. This is basically a vote, ‘Are you for banning tobacco in public places or are you against it?’ So let’s put that in front of the Legislature, and let’s have a vote.” The only obstacle, he says, is “a small group keeping the will of the people from being done.”
The idea that the “will of the people” should prevail simply because they will it is a direct attack on individual rights. The founders of this country explicitly recognized unrestrained democracy as a form of tyranny, which is why America is a constitutional republic and not a democracy. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.” If freedom is a value, it does not matter if it is destroyed by a single tyrant or an entire nation — freedom is destroyed just the same.
If individual rights should decide the smoking ban issue rather than majority vote, what constitutes upholding rights? Essentially, individual rights act to eliminate force in human affairs. Rights prohibit one party from attempting to gain a value from another by force or by fraud.
But today, the concept of rights has been stood on its head. Instead of protecting individuals from force, rights have become synonymous with entitlement. We hear things like, “the right to a smoke-free environment,” “the right to certain working conditions” and “the right to health care.” These are not rights, but a violation of rights. A right that forces others to provide a desired service or particular environment cannot be a right.
The failure to distinguish between force and voluntary interaction leads to a complete inversion of the meaning of rights, such as Lance Armstrong’s claim that when you smoke in an establishment “you have violated somebody else’s basic rights.”
Such claims blank out the fact that a business and its customers come together by mutual consent, which is the very essence of a free society. Mr. Armstrong and others seek to establish the “right” to dictate these interactions by force.
Smoking ban advocates claim people shouldn’t have to choose between a job or dining spot and their health. Yet these are precisely the choices that one’s life depends on and no one can escape. Smoking bans do not eliminate the need to choose; they simply force a particular conclusion on everyone. Just because some majority doesn’t want to choose, that doesn’t give them the right to eliminate everyone’s freedom to choose.
Some argue that because a business is open to the public, it does not enjoy the same rights as private entities. And while many laws do treat business owners as second-class citizens, there’s no justification for it. If getting what you want by force is wrong when dealing with your neighbor, it is equally wrong when dealing with your local tavern owner. Owners have a right to conduct business with customers and employees by mutual consent. If either party does not accept the conditions, it is free to go its own way.
Arguments over lost business, health risks and majority will are only a distraction. To answer Mr. Doyle: It’s not a complicated issue. Are you for individual rights, or are you against them? This is the debate we should be having.
Jim Allard (jeallard@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in biology.
13 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
This is just the most sensible thing I've seen written in a long time on the subject of the new definition of "rights". I love that you quote Jefferson in framing your answer. This article's a keeper. E. Dewey
Your right to smoke ends before the smoke reaches my nose, the same as my right to swing a fist.
Smoking is a nasty, smelly addiction with no redeeming features.
Sounds like someone needs to take a trip to Somalia to see the slippery slope of "individual rights."
I checked this site at around 1:40 AM, and this article was at the top of the page, and it said it was by Andy Granias.
I WANT ANSWERS -- YOU'RE NOT FOOLING ME!
Thank you, Jim. One of the most sensible articles I've read on the topic.
I personally am not a smoker, but I am adamantly against the smoking ban. I don't like being in smoky restaurants and bars. That is why I choose not to patronize them. Any other non-smoker can do the same.
True, you have the right not to inhale smoke if you don't want to. However, you also have the right to inhale smoke if you DO want to. Tavern owners should have the right to allow smoking, and to forfeit the business of non-smokers if they so choose. Laissez faire at its finest!
what about my right to cleaner air in a public establishment? What is the democratically determined majority of those are in favor of cleaner air in privately owned yet publicly open establishments?
This article reminds me of the typical behavior of an addict...justify, spin, deny, argue, throw out red herrings. You are a nicotine addict and your addiction is ruling you. Recognize it. Admit it.
The ban is going to happen. It's the will of the majority. Get used to it.
1:01, I don't think there's any viable conception of rights that includes "democratically determined" ones.
Insofar as employee health is the real concern, and not merely a pretext, why not just mandate the installation of proper ventilation systems in smoking establishments? For that matter, what about employees who themselves smoke?
I love hearing people talk about individual rights like they're sacred. Seems like they forget about how the government controls the use of most drugs (legal and illegal), decides the legality of sexual actions, subsidizes different industries and criminalizes others, regulates everything from the use of firearms to business practices, and on and on and on.
If you're actually serious about making the argument that the government can't make institute a smoking ban, you should explain to me why individual rights are protected in this case and not others.
down with the tyranny of the majority!
Well written article, Jim. This one actually makes sense. Fun to see you in the paper! I have to laugh that people assume you're a smoker. It's like they didn't listen to the argument at all.
Thank you for your sensible article. This is indeed about more than smoking. Sometimes you have to live through tyranny to really understand your analysis of a Republic vs. Direct Democracy. I took a political science class at UCLA not too long ago and this topic came up; I was perplexed, though now I truly understand the foundation that our country was built upon. I wish that everyone else did, but I suppose that that is all too human, and that was the point in the first place. Thanks for your rational thoughts:)
Excellent Article! Hit the nail on the head. I'm not a smoker but I am a libertarian. I choose not to go bowling often because bowling alleys are smoky. In exchange, folks from the bowling alley don't come over and smoke in my apartment because I have the right to clean air. I can understand banning smoking on tax subsidized land wholeheartedly. Private land is private whether you welcome guests or not. If the majority were smokers, should they be able to vote in favor of smoking in my home?
David Summerly, Lenexa, KS