It seems that the smoking ban issue has sent one of the locals off the deep end. Sometimes self-proclaimed but now former libertarian Patriot Paul Wheeler, who gained some very minor notoriety dressed as an 18th century American at anti-tax protests, appears to have left the farm. This is unfortunate as "Patriot Paul" seems like a good guy and he has done some great work helping protest skyrocketing property and local income taxes. This is something the citizens of Indiana owe him some thanks over but doesn't excuse some more recent comments which can only be labeled, in my opinion, as "looney".
Let's start with a basic premise that libertarians believe in personal property rights and personal responsibility. There is a belief that you have a choice as to whether or not to work at a bar or restaurant that allows (or does not allow) smoking. In fact, chances are, when you applied for or took the job there, you probably knew it was a smoking environment. You also probably know that while you work at such a place, getting pregnant is probably not the best of ideas or, for the health of your child, you might consider working somewhere else for a while. You are responsible for choosing your environment, not for everyone else to yield to your desires.
The owner of any such establishment, has no obligation to give anyone a job. When an owner voluntarily takes money out of their own pocket to pay someone for their work that does not create a "right" on the part of the employee to that job. It creates an employment situation that either side may terminate for just about any reason.
Even if you take a job as a copy machine repairperson, you knowingly enter into a job where you may not always control your environment. You accept that you may not like the language used at some offices or that you might be asked to, infrequently, enter an establishment where people could be smoking.
Now, what someone does NOT have right to do is to keep someone in a compulsory environemnt or otherwise against their will exposed to something they object to. In fact, if you want to have a conversation about not being allowed to smoke in a car with the windows up and children in it, that is a fair conversation to have. I agree completely that there should be no smoking in any public place that people are compelled by law to be at (schools, courtrooms and BMV to name a few). However, the government telling a private business owner that he can't go into his office, close his door and smoke an otherwise perfectly legal cigar is an intervention in someone's private affairs where there is no victim.
The anti-smoking lobbyists (some of whom actually are smokers we are told but make their money lobbying for the other team) like to talk about 950 Hoosiers dying each year from 'second hand smoke'. They don't tell us how much of that exposure was in years long since gone when far more people smoked EVERYWHERE, even in government buildings. How much of that exposure was from a spouse they lived with? Let's see more detailed information. Today, people's exposure is far more limited unless they choose for it not to be.
A couple of days ago Mr. Wheeler called Chris Spangle, the State Executive Director, a "baby killer" for not supporting a smoking ban in bars and casinos. Mr. Spangle responded that Evil Kneivel was jealous of the leap Wheeler took to get there.
Well, today, the previously mentioned Mr. Wheeler, who has for the most part refused any kind of meaningful engagement to have policy discussion at libertarian oriented
Meet Ups or even the County Business Meetings jumped the shark today in a letter to the editor he got published in
The Speedway Navigator.
In the letter he seems to claim to speak for most libertarians (he does not) while suggesting that the party leaders (chosen by majority votes) are a bunch of extremists solely because they support the rights of a property owner to dictate smoking policy instead of the government. That makes "extremists" out of at least half the population then doesn't it? He even makes the claim that libertarians think the Constitutions become null and void on private property. Unfortunately, Mr. Wheeler appears to have 'made up' most of his understanding of libertarianism on his own. But, it gets worse as he libels the party by some completely delusional suggestion that we think that rape and murder are okay on private property?
Clearly, there is a disconnect in his (lack of) logic and failure to understand libertarian principles. But, what is to be expected when someone assumes they know what we believe but refuses to actually learn? There's quite a bit of difference between saying, "people who think a person on their own property should be able to dictate smoking policy of an otherwise legal product" and saying that, "taking someone's life or raping them must also be okay." He claims that libertarians would believe it okay since you 'voluntarily' agreed to work there... how does someone get 'voluntarily raped' anyway???
Clearly, this is utter nonsense and he has no evidence to support anyone of significance holding such a ridiculous opinion. But, then again,
every party has a few Tony "the great porn dragon" Zirkles. Making up "straw man" arguments to try and add credibility to one's own biases is weak at best, dishonest at worst. In fact, it is clear that the REAL EXTREMISTS are the activists working to ban smoking everywhere.
Mr. Wheeler maintains that "right to life" trumps all, and in that argument I believe he is mostly correct except when it comes to smoking at bars, nobody is forcing anyone to end their own life. He also seems to believe that people have a right to their job. Really? Don't show up to work for three days or call the boss a few choice names and see what kind of "right" to that job you have. And just because choices are sometimes difficult or uncomfortable, doesn't mean that the government should relieve you of having to make one.
If talking about rights within the context of the U.S. Constitution we are talking about restrictions on what government can do to people and/or to the States. For example, libertarians believe in a Constitutional right to bear arms and protect oneself; however, we also believe in personal property rights. You have a protected right against the government taking your guns away; however, if I am a home owner or business property owner your right to bear arms does not mean I have to allow you on my property with them. Just like your employer can restrict what you say at work or in any duty representing their company. The government; however, cannot restrict your speech... no matter how unpopular or ridiculous.
If you don't like smoking in bars, that's fine, go start your own non-smoking bar. Quit trying to force your wishes on others, go set the example yourself. People will vote with their wallet and their patronage.
Excerpts from an e-mail conversation in opposition to the smoking ban:
"If I own a business and have no employees. Can I smoke there (assume I own the property)? If I own a business, own the property, have my own office and can close the door with nobody else in there with me can I still light up a Cigar? Not if a bunch of wrong-headed, nosy busy-bodies trying to interfere in people's property and freedom of association rights have their way.
...nobody is forcing anybody to breath anything (for any harmful period of time). If 60 seconds of exposure to somebody's cigarette from 10 feet away is killing them then we now need laws to shut off all motors in the fast food drive-through so exhaust doesn't "kill" everyone in line. We now need laws to ensure that everybody stand a safe distance from bonfires for fear soot could get in someone's lungs and, someday, kill them. My goodness, I believe it now also must be illegal to remove the air filter from any HVAC system including your own home (kids you know) because increased dust content in the air could possibly, someday, lead to some syndrome akin to black lung... oh crap.... now we have to shut down all the coal mines.
I do believe in the printing business it is common to use spray powder corn starch as a drying agent. Certainly, lots of that floating around the air.
Next we can focus on over exposure to UVA and UVB radiation on tanning salon workers since some of that light might leak through cracks in the doors and such or that they might get exposed to the lights when not actually intending to tan. Let's forget, of course, that they work there voluntarily. That doesn't matter! The salon owner is killing them with skin cancer!!!
You may think all of this sounds silly. Just keep in mind this is EXACTLY what Smoke Free Indy sounds like to anyone who is not so biased and selfish that they want to force what is convenient for them upon everyone else."
Mr. Wheeler has a right to his opinion, but he does not have a right to libel libertarians by suggesting they are in favor of rape and murder. Even the most ardent adversaries of libertarianism (they are called statists, fascists, socialists and communists) will recognize that as absolute lunacy. In fact, if he has any semblence of class and honesty he will publically retract those statements.
At the end of the day, I really don't get the whole smoking thing. Just like I don't agree with lots of things people might say. But just like I would defend anyone's right to their OPINION, I'll defend the right of the property owner to set the rules on their own property. Otherwise, next thing you know, the Twinkie Police will be coming around telling people the Quicky Mart can't sell Twinkies or sugared soda pop because it "kills people".
We may all disagree at where the line should be drawn, but seriously, at some point, enough is enough.
[note: in thinking about the Indiana State and Marion County Libertarian Party leaders, I was hard pressed to think of any that I know are extremists or smokers (of anything).]
----
Don't forget to keep up to date daily on national news that affects your freedom and our economy at
The Liberty File.
