Once again the ‘smoking ban’ in bars advocates have reared their nanny-state heads (Proposal 371). This time it looks like more of the Republicans on the council might stab their "small, unobtrusive government" conservative supporters in the back on the issue.
One would think nosy busy-bodies in government would have more important things to do (like reducing taxes, preventing crime, stopping transfers of public money to private organizations, trying to get out of the sports stadium business that is draining taxpayers and city coffers) … but, no.
For most Republicans or “conservatives” one would think they would expect their elected representatives to support and promote the principles of small, unobtrusive government … again, they would be sadly mistaken. To be sure, there are some like
Councilor Christine Scales (R - District 4) or
State Senator Mike Delph (R - 29th) that, even if the voting record is not perfect, really try to do the right things, do their homework and listen to all sides of an issue. I would even suggest that Libertarian, and my good friend,
Ed Coleman (Indianapolis City Council - At Large) doesn't have what I'd call a 'perfect' voting record, but he sure is trending far and away better than anyone from the other two parties and is proving to be the best taxpayer advocate on the Council.
I question whether or not supporters of the ban that are e-mailing councilors are actually people who go to bars or would, however frequently, if they were all smoke free. Why wouldn’t they visit places like Scotty’s Brew Pub which is already smoke free? Of course, as with so many things, anytime people can relieve themselves of the opportunity to have to think about something or make a hard choice, they turn to government to force their wishes or opinion on everyone else. Didn’t this battle get fought a few years ago and the result was the current compromise that seems to work pretty well? BUT, no, those who would force their will on everyone else never rest until their victory is absolute – this is a lesson we should remember every time our politicians give a little ground, make a little compromise and budge just that little bit. And this why Libertarians typically oppose giving up any ground to the enemies of freedom and liberty.
Considering some core principles we should ask advocates of the total ban about:
Do you believe in private property rights? Specifically, that if I own property I can decide certain policies for that property so long as no one else is forcibly denied their rights?
Do you believe in voluntary association? Do you believe that I have the right to associate or not associate with whomever I choose?
Do you believe a business owner has a right, racial discrimination notwithstanding, to decide what customers he or she wishes to cater to?
Do you believe that people are smart enough that if they fail to verify ahead of time and end up at a smoking establishment that they may exercise their own judgment to stay or leave that establishment in favor of another that more serves their particular desires?
Do you believe that employees in smoking establishments most likely applied for those jobs with the full understanding that the environment was not smoke-free or were they somehow duped and then stuck there, possibly for years, with no other employment options?
If you support a smoking ban on establishments just because they open the doors to the public (who can choose or not choose to go there) do you also support a ban on smoking at private parties, in houses or other dwellings where more than the smoker may be present, in cars so long as more than one person is in it? What about exhaust fumes at drive through restaurants? What about exhaust fumes on I-69 during rush hour? Parking garages? What about standing too close to a bonfire? Or a grill?
There is a great line about “politics is the art of the possible” but I take that to mean that politics is how far one can get the opponent to budge on their principles. With luck, the opponent might not even have any core beliefs or principles and that makes the job ever easier. They will sway in the wind doing whatever is popular, what they are told to do or what is best for their future political career (Maybe like
Ben Hunter, District 21? [note: he claims to be a small government conservative but after voting for a recent tax increase (proposal 285), voting to limit free speech and voluntary charitable contributions (237), voting to transfer public money to private organizations (18, 117)… he’s not fooling some of us]).
Even politicians who think they are doing the right thing because their constituents (or some vocal ones) are for something often fail to consider whether they are having to reduce the rights or freedoms of others . Is this not what our Republic and the ‘rule of law’ is intended to provide protection from? Specifically, the law is supposed to protect our rights, our lives and our property not to undermine them. This is in contrast to ‘pure democracy’ where majority rules and if 6 (or even 9) out of 10 people decide they want to take away your rights, your life or your property they can do so? That is called ‘tyranny of the majority’ or ‘tyranny of the masses’.
This time, one of the excuses is ‘economic development’. That if the city government bans smoking in all the bars, more organizations will hold their conventions here and buy services from the (inappropriately government owned and operated) convention industry. There is always the possibility that this could just be the latest excuse from the
ICVA (Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association) sales department? I’m not saying it is, but I know how sales folks come up with excuses and can see somebody saying that.
Let us not forget that nobody seemed real concerned that the hotel tax increase the City Council passed through a few months ago made it basically one of the highest taxes in the nation (from 9% to 10% in the last go around but from around 5% to 9% in the past few years prior. I bet food and beverage taxes like the extra 2% to subsidize a monopoly sports team gets figured in too). It was sad to not hear councilors ask questions of the convention center folks like, “how much MORE business could you bring if we figured out how to lower the tax instead of increasing it?”
Oddly, the argument that if we had casinos we might attract more convention business probably wouldn’t play well, but let’s make that argument now. There is probably a reason why Las Vegas is one of the top convention spots. Personally, I think weather and scenery might have a boat load to do with popularity of the top 20 or 25 locations too. But, never let intuition, logic or facts get in the way of an elected government busy-body with an agenda and ambition.
The ban debate, combined with the recent fervor over panhandlers makes one wonder if the City Council is trying to ‘shine up’ the city a bit - to sanitize it so we can make pretend like we’re the Disney World of the convention industry? The problem is, of course, we don’t have a Disney World, we don’t have Casinos, we don’t have awesome weather most of the year, no mountains and no ocean. Great city, you bet’cha but let’s not have false illusions about our drawing power.
Having government trying to shoehorn our city into being tops in the convention business is just economic intervention of the kind where poor and middle class people get taxed so that government officials can flail about trying to centrally plan the economy and engage in economic adventurism without having the guts to do it privately with their own money at risk. What’s interesting, is there is massive competition because half the cities in the country it seems decided to try and enhance their attraction to conventioneers and built out space (my guess is space has been built out faster than the convention business has grown).
Instead, why not just cut the crap, keep tax rates and regulation as low as possible and actually attract business and industry? That might bring higher paying jobs than just hospitality ones too. One has to think we’d end up with a more diverse and resilient business environment as a result. Just create the right environment for things to grow and they will.
UPDATE: some of the discussion is about companies supposedly having decided not to relocate to Indianapolis because we don't have a blanket smoking ban and that affects their cost to provide healthcare. In that case, I suppose we should ban Twinkies and soda pop to help reduce the obesity problem, thus lowering healthcare costs? If some big-government statist doesn't want to move a company here because our politicians aren't all up in everybody's private business, that seems just fine to me.
Posts
