AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Spain Smoking Ban
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Spain Smoking Ban

post #1 of 168
1/2/11 at 7:05am
Thread Starter 
Spain where I live has today introduced the strictest anti-smoking ban in Europe.

Quote:
The ban - one of the strictest in Europe - outlaws smoking in all bars and restaurants. Smokers will also be prohibited on television broadcasts, near hospitals or in school playgrounds.

I don't smoke but I don't mind it - I like a nargile sometimes (hubble bubble) and that is banned too.

This is going to hit business in a country that is teetering on the abyss. It is also hypocritical of the Government to ban something they profit immensely from. Also it is more control of the populace.

I don't agree with it.

Thoughts?
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #2 of 168
1/2/11 at 7:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Spain where I live has today introduced the strictest anti-smoking ban in Europe.



I don't smoke but I don't mind it - I like a nargile sometimes (hubble bubble) and that is banned too.

This is going to hit business in a country that is teetering on the abyss. It is also hypocritical of the Government to ban something they profit immensely from. Also it is more control of the populace.

I don't agree with it.

Thoughts?

The idea that it's going to hit business has proven wrong all over the globe. What happened here in Hong Kong is that more people who hate stinking like smoke after going out started going out more often, more than accounting for the small number of people who stayed at home (most smokers just took it outside). And smoking was and is VERY popular here.

And according to what that quote says, it seems what we have is far more strict. No parks, no beaches, no shopping malls. I think there's a restriction on private businesses with two or more employees as well.

I'll miss sharing a hookah in a bar every once in a while though...
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 168
1/2/11 at 9:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The idea that it's going to hit business has proven wrong all over the globe. What happened here in Hong Kong is that more people who hate stinking like smoke after going out started going out more often, more than accounting for the small number of people who stayed at home (most smokers just took it outside). And smoking was and is VERY popular here.

And according to what that quote says, it seems what we have is far more strict. No parks, no beaches, no shopping malls. I think there's a restriction on private businesses with two or more employees as well.

I'll miss sharing a hookah in a bar every once in a while though...

In LA there are hookah salons. Have to agree that the argument that smoking bans are bad for business is BS. In LA restaurant business increased after the smoking ban ordinance passed.

Somehow I enjoy eating without inhaling someone's else's exhaust emissions.

Smokers only have themselves to blame for the movement to ban public smoking.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #4 of 168
1/2/11 at 9:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The idea that it's going to hit business has proven wrong all over the globe. What happened here in Hong Kong is that more people who hate stinking like smoke after going out started going out more often, more than accounting for the small number of people who stayed at home (most smokers just took it outside). And smoking was and is VERY popular here.

And according to what that quote says, it seems what we have is far more strict. No parks, no beaches, no shopping malls. I think there's a restriction on private businesses with two or more employees as well.

I'll miss sharing a hookah in a bar every once in a while though...

The major hit has always been at the bars. There are those who like a smoke while they drink and this has caused them to stay at home and do their drinking. My feeling on the subject is. If the person is going to a smoking establishment, and it is setup as such, the govt has no business telling them they cannot smoke there. I don't care for smoking, so I would not care aesthetically if it were banned but these laws restricting behaviors are worrisome to me. Like seatbelt laws, it may save lives, but it always leads to more restrictions and regulation of private individuals.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #5 of 168
1/2/11 at 9:50am
Sounds a lot like what's happened in the US (in certain parts) over the last 10 years or so. Though I think any smoking bans in movies and TV have actually been relaxed, which is interesting.

My thoughts on this:

1. I hate smoking. I hate being around it. I grew up with a smoking parent and learned to despise it. I would avoid restaurants that did not have a good smoking/non-smoking section separation.

2. I believe business owners (restaurants, bars, etc.) should have property rights and should be allowed to decide for themselves what customers they wish to cater to. They should be allowed to decide if they want to allow smokers or not or both. Going to a restaurant or bar is a not a right. If the place allows smokers and you despise it as much as I do, you don't go there.

3. Places where people are in attendance in a less voluntary situation (e.g., public schools with little kiddies sitting there while teachers smoke) is probably a little different case.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 168
1/2/11 at 10:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Sounds a lot like what's happened in the US (in certain parts) over the last 10 years or so. Though I think any smoking bans in movies and TV have actually been relaxed, which is interesting.

My thoughts on this:

1. I hate smoking. I hate being around it. I grew up with a smoking parent and learned to despise it. I would avoid restaurants that did not have a good smoking/non-smoking section separation.

2. I believe business owners (restaurants, bars, etc.) should have property rights and should be allowed to decide for themselves what customers they wish to cater to. They should be allowed to decide if they want to allow smokers or not or both. Going to a restaurant or bar is a not a right. If the place allows smokers and you despise it as much as I do, you don't go there.

3. Places where people are in attendance in a less voluntary situation (e.g., public schools with little kiddies sitting there while teachers smoke) is probably a little different case.

100% agreed.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #7 of 168
1/2/11 at 10:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The major hit has always been at the bars.

Not sure about LA, but that's not the case here. Bars are doing a booming business. Not one bar has claimed the smoking ban has put it out of business.

I agree that smoking should be allowed in certain establishments that are open to the public, but only if the owner is the only employee. See where I'm going with that?
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 168
1/2/11 at 10:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

I agree that smoking should be allowed in certain establishments that are open to the public, but only if the owner is the only employee. See where I'm going with that?

No. Spell it out.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 168
1/2/11 at 10:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not sure about LA, but that's not the case here. Bars are doing a booming business. Not one bar has claimed the smoking ban has put it out of business.

I agree that smoking should be allowed in certain establishments that are open to the public, but only if the owner is the only employee. See where I'm going with that?

Wasn't aware that HK had a smoking ban.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #10 of 168
1/2/11 at 11:01am
These total bans suck big time and are a disgrace. I smoke up to about a pack a day and love smoking. I love having a few beers and smoking, as does a large part of the population. In Scotland you can't smoke in bars and Baltimore banned it for the last few years I was there. You see people here freezing to death outside bars all day and night thanks to a bunch of control freaks who walk over peoples liberty like their mother fucking Theresa.

The right way to go about this would be that if say 30% of the population smoke, then 30% of the bars people should allow smoking or at least have a smokers bar within the establishment.

I spoke to a barmaid a few weeks back who said she smoked a pack a day and since the ban she's stopped coughing because she's not breathing in second hand smoke at work. She, the dumb cow, was all for the ban. Get another job if you can't hack it and keep your health problems out of our faces!

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #11 of 168
1/2/11 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

These total bans suck big time and are a disgrace. I smoke up to about a pack a day and love smoking. I love having a few beers and smoking, as does a large part of the population. In Scotland you can't smoke in bars and Baltimore banned it for the last few years I was there. You see people here freezing to death outside bars all day and night thanks to a bunch of control freaks who walk over peoples liberty like their mother fucking Theresa.

The right way to go about this would be that if say 30% of the population smoke, then 30% of the bars people should allow smoking or at least have a smokers bar within the establishment.

I spoke to a barmaid a few weeks back who said she smoked a pack a day and since the ban she's stopped coughing because she's not breathing in second hand smoke at work. She, the dumb cow, was all for the ban. Get another job if you can't hack it and keep your health problems out of our faces!

Yeah...government coercion and violating people's rights sucks. But it only sucks when it is your rights they're violating.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #12 of 168
1/2/11 at 11:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yeah...government coercion and violating people's rights sucks. But it only sucks when it is your rights they're violating.

I'm for greater liberty than you could possibly imagine.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #13 of 168
1/2/11 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm for greater liberty than you could possibly imagine*.

Really? That's great! I must confess that your past posts led me to a different conclusion.


*I can imagine quite a lot of liberty and have been called pretty extreme and unrealistic in those views, so I'm guessing that what I can imagine is equal to the task.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #14 of 168
1/2/11 at 11:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Really? That's great! I must confess that your past posts led me to a different conclusion.


*I can imagine quite a lot of liberty and have been called pretty extreme and unrealistic in those views, so I'm guessing that what I can imagine is equal to the task.

You I think are a big believer in peoples liberty it's just that I believe liberty should include poor peoples liberty too. The UK NHS is a great example were people get liberty even if they don't have much money. In the US of course 50 million people don't have health insurance and many more have inadequate health insurance. Under your favoured policies that situation would get even worse. Liberty for all not just the few is my moto and the opposite is true of yours in many, many cases.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #15 of 168
1/2/11 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

You I think are a big believer in peoples liberty it's just that I believe liberty should include poor peoples liberty too.

I'm guessing you've misunderstood my position. I favor liberty for everyone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The UK NHS is a great example were people get liberty even if they don't have much money. In the US of course 50 million people don't have health insurance and many more have inadequate health insurance. Under your favoured policies that situation would get even worse. Liberty for all not just the few is my moto and the opposite is true of yours in many, many cases.

It sounds like we might have different definitions of liberty. That would explain a lot. I would say that this probably has a good definition (from my point of view):

Quote:
Liberty is the concept of ideological and political philosophy that identifies the condition to which an individual has the right to behave according to one's own personal responsibility and free will.

You seem to be talking about a different concept that you're calling liberty.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #16 of 168
1/2/11 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Spain where I live has today introduced the strictest anti-smoking ban in Europe.

I don't smoke but I don't mind it - I like a nargile sometimes (hubble bubble) and that is banned too.

This is going to hit business in a country that is teetering on the abyss. It is also hypocritical of the Government to ban something they profit immensely from. Also it is more control of the populace.

I don't agree with it.

Thoughts?

What is more important? The right of people to poison the air supply of everyone else around them, forcing others to passively partake of their addiction, or to allow smokers the right to partake of their addiction but without putting others' health in danger? Smoking in bars and restaurants here in California is banned... all public places are subject to this restriction.. and businesses are not suffering. People who smoke tobacco still have the right to smoke in their own homes, or outdoors, without acquiring a criminal record, going to jail or picking up a hefty fine.

I am the last last fan of government intrusion into peoples' lives, but there are a few areas, especially as regards public safety, where some 'liberties' are of lesser importance than the public good . Some obvious examples... there are laws that only allow us to drive on the right-hand side of the highway, or others that require us to switch on headlamps after sundown, or in bad weather... There are laws against dumping poisonous waste (unfortunately for us all, barely policed). Tobacco smoke is also a pollutant and passive (or 2nd hand smoke) has been conclusively proved to be dangerous to the health of non-smokers.

I used to occasionally smoke.. for 3 years, and very occasionally. Quitting was very *difficult*, even for a smoker as "light " as I was. As an ex-smoker, I detest tobacco smoke (as do pretty much all others). The smell gets everywhere, it makes your clothes stink, it trashes your health and the health of others around you. I can understand older people who have lives into their 70s and 80s and have been smoking all their lives... (they are lucky to have survived that long)... but in the 2000s.. with all the medical facts out there and well known ... kids are still starting smoke, as if there's something "cool" about it. WTF??? Are they trying to compete for a Darwin Award? Duh????

I am a bit of a libertarian...but with the proviso: in the pursuance of ones own liberties, don't stomp on the liberties of others.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #17 of 168
1/2/11 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

What is more important? The right of people to poison the air supply of everyone else around them, forcing others to passively partake of their addiction, or to allow smokers the right to partake of their addiction but without putting others' health in danger? Smoking in bars and restaurants here in California is banned... all public places are subject to this restriction.. and businesses are not suffering. People who smoke tobacco still have the right to smoke in their own homes, or outdoors, without acquiring a criminal record, going to jail or picking up a hefty fine.

I am the last last fan of government intrusion into peoples' lives, but there are a few areas, especially as regards public safety, where some 'liberties' are of lesser importance than the public good . Some obvious examples... there are laws that only allow us to drive on the right-hand side of the highway, or others that require us to switch on headlamps after sundown, or in bad weather... There are laws against dumping poisonous waste (unfortunately for us all, barely policed). Tobacco smoke is also a pollutant and passive (or 2nd hand smoke) has been conclusively proved to be dangerous to the health of non-smokers.

I am a bit of a libertarian...but with the proviso: in the pursuance of ones own liberties, don't stomp on the liberties of others.

So if 99% of the population smoked we should ban it from bars for the other 1%?

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #18 of 168
1/2/11 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm guessing you've misunderstood my position. I favor liberty for everyone.




It sounds like we might have different definitions of liberty. That would explain a lot. I would say that this probably has a good definition (from my point of view):



You seem to be talking about a different concept that you're calling liberty.

I think you are genuine MJ, but I don't believe your policies would in many cases offer more liberty. Some would though, let's just leave it at that so we don't derail the thread.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #19 of 168
1/2/11 at 12:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I think you are genuine MJ, but I don't believe your policies would in many cases offer more liberty.

As I said, I believe we're using different definitions of that term.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

let's just leave it at that so we don't derail the thread.

Fair enough.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #20 of 168
1/2/11 at 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

What is more important? The right of people to poison the air supply of everyone else around them, forcing others to passively partake of their addiction, or to allow smokers the right to partake of their addiction but without putting others' health in danger? Smoking in bars and restaurants here in California is banned... all public places are subject to this restriction.. and businesses are not suffering. People who smoke tobacco still have the right to smoke in their own homes, or outdoors, without acquiring a criminal record, going to jail or picking up a hefty fine.

I am the last last fan of government intrusion into peoples' lives, but there are a few areas, especially as regards public safety, where some 'liberties' are of lesser importance than the public good . Some obvious examples... there are laws that only allow us to drive on the right-hand side of the highway, or others that require us to switch on headlamps after sundown, or in bad weather... There are laws against dumping poisonous waste (unfortunately for us all, barely policed). Tobacco smoke is also a pollutant and passive (or 2nd hand smoke) has been conclusively proved to be dangerous to the health of non-smokers.

I think the bulk of what you're talking about can be dealt with using a proper framework of property rights.

The first and most basic right anyone has is the right to their own body. Ownership in their own person and physical body. Indeed smoking (as it exists right now) has polluting side-effects that can essentially intrude onto other people's property (body) at the very least annoying them, but worse damaging them. So this would be a violation of that person's basic rights. However...the sphere of this threat is relatively small. A few feet in most cases.

We also have the property rights of the bar or restaurant owner. This is their physical property and they should have the right to determine what activities are allowed in and on it. If they chose to allow smokers (they should never be forced to accept smokers) and this is clearly known to anyone who voluntarily enters the establishment...then I see no violation of the rights of a person who dislikes smoke. They are not required to enter the premises and can leave at any time and never return. Conversely, another bar/restaurant owner could offer an environment where smoking is not permitted and anyone who attempts to smoke can be removed from the property for violating the rights of that property owner.

Now, in public (i.e., government owned and operated) spaces (e.g., sidewalks, et al) the situation is more difficult. I could see a government ban in these publicly (i.e., government) owned and operated spaces. NOTE: This could be a valid angle for banning smoking within cars driving on the roads. Though, to me the ban for reasons having to do with "distracted driving" is the more reasonable argument. Note also that I would favor privatization of many or most or all roads allowing private companies to set their own rules here too.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I am a bit of a libertarian...but with the proviso: in the pursuance of ones own liberties, don't stomp on the liberties of others.

I would say that any true libertarian holds to the same proviso.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 168
1/2/11 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I think the bulk of what you're talking about can be dealt with using a proper framework of property rights.

The first and most basic right anyone has is the right to their own body. Ownership in their own person and physical body. Indeed smoking (as it exists right now) has polluting side-effects that can essentially intrude onto other people's property (body) at the very least annoying them, but worse damaging them. So this would be a violation of that person's basic rights. However...the sphere of this threat is relatively small. A few feet in most cases.

Where does one draw the line as to what part of a room is "polluted", and what is "clean"?

Quote:
We also have the property rights of the bar or restaurant owner. This is their physical property and they should have the right to determine what activities are allowed in and on it. If they chose to allow smokers (they should never be forced to accept smokers) and this is clearly known to anyone who voluntarily enters the establishment...then I see no violation of the rights of a person who dislikes smoke. They are not required to enter the premises and can leave at any time and never return. Conversely, another bar/restaurant owner could offer an environment where smoking is not permitted and anyone who attempts to smoke can be removed from the property for violating the rights of that property owner.

Understood. But is it right that society is duplicitous as regard smokers rights? Why should they be a "special case". Why should smokers be privileged as such, in that they indulge in an activity which kills and injures so many people that we ALL pay for it's deleterious health effects, through the nose, via inflated insurance premiums? And...what about the rights of bar staff and restaurant waiters etc? Or are the rights of low paid peons somehow of lesser importance than....

Quote:
Now, in public (i.e., government owned and operated) spaces (e.g., sidewalks, et al) the situation is more difficult. I could see a government ban in these publicly (i.e., government) owned and operated spaces. NOTE: This could be a valid angle for banning smoking within cars driving on the roads. Though, to me the ban for reasons having to do with "distracted driving" is the more reasonable argument. Note also that I would favor privatization of many or most or all roads allowing private companies to set their own rules here too.

Privatization of roads will invariably lead to restriction of access for many. Perhaps thats an inverted side effect of "libertarianism"?

Quote:
I would say that any true libertarian holds to the same proviso.

True ones, yes.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #22 of 168
1/2/11 at 1:49pm
Yeah wouldn't it be fun to have roads where you can't even smoke in your car on...can't listen to the BBC...can't drive an Eco-friendly car...can't be a democrat...can't be black etc?!!

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #23 of 168
1/2/11 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Yeah wouldn't it be fun to have roads where you can't even smoke in your car on...can't listen to the BBC...can't drive an Eco-friendly car...can't be a democrat...can't be black etc?!!

What roads are these you speak of?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 168
1/2/11 at 2:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Where does one draw the line as to what part of a room is "polluted", and what is "clean"?

I think you missed the point. The first question is who owns the room you're talking about? That person sets the rules for the room. If they say it's okay to smoke in that room, then any voluntary entrant to the room must abide by and conform to the rules.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Understood. But is it right that society is duplicitous as regard smokers rights?

Shit, we have a society that is duplicitous and hypocritical about lots of people's rights.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

that we ALL pay for it's deleterious health effects, through the nose, via inflated insurance premiums?

Maybe. If you insure with a company that also insures smokers, then this might be true. Here again though, given open competition, someone would be free to offer insurance to people who are exclusively non-smokers (or whatever).


Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

And...what about the rights of bar staff and restaurant waiters etc?

They have a right to find other jobs. They are not slaves and so long as they enter into the employment arrangement with full knowledge of its circumstances and are free to leave it, I don't see a problem.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Privatization of roads will invariably lead to restriction of access for many.

Why?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 168
1/2/11 at 2:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

What roads are these you speak of?

Corporate caravan roads for the wealthiest elites.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #26 of 168
1/2/11 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Corporate caravan roads for the wealthiest elites.

Again...not sure which roads these are. Can you elaborate?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #27 of 168
1/2/11 at 2:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Again...not sure which roads these are. Can you elaborate?

Well if I had a road and wanted to make as much money as I possibly could I would only allow multib/millionaires on it and I'd make sure they never had to smell someones elses fag.

Silly post. Please ignore. (officially approved).

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #28 of 168
1/2/11 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Well if I had a road and wanted to make as much money as I possibly could I would only allow multib/millionaires on it and I'd make sure they never had to smell someones elses fag.

Ohhhh. I see now. I suspect you wouldn't be a very successful business person in that case. You would also miss out on the opportunity to be as rich as, say, the Waltons or Rockefeller or many, many, many others who became very, very wealthy by selling products to the people who are not "multib/millionaires."

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #29 of 168
1/2/11 at 2:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Ohhhh. I see now. I suspect you wouldn't be a very successful business person in that case. You would also miss out on the opportunity to be as rich as, say, the Waltons or Rockefeller or many, many, many others who became very, very wealthy by selling products to the people who are not "multib/millionaires."

Greedy fuckers the lot of them.

Just kidding.

Did you know that in the uk once a road is deemed a road it must remain so by law. Some guy has tried to get knocked down the parliament and st Paulson because there are old public roads that run through them. He was trying to draw attention to issues. I forget which but you could giggle it if so inclined, or I'll provide a link upon occasion of there location.


Seriously, we need rules for the road, just like healthcare.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #30 of 168
1/2/11 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Seriously, we need rules for the road, just like healthcare.

Well yes, rules and guidelines must exist for orderly society to exist. But having rules and privately owned and operated are not mutually exclusive.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #31 of 168
1/2/11 at 2:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Well yes, rules and guidelines must exist for orderly society to exist. But having rules and privately owned and operated are not mutually exclusive.

True, but traveling To a to b could be denied to some. Imagine if only certain corporations could use said road, it would help kill competition. Business is wild.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #32 of 168
1/2/11 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

True, but traveling To a to b could be denied to some.

Who would they deny? Why?

P.S. You do realize that the US is on the road (pardon the pun) to doing exactly that. It has started in the nominally "private" airline business.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 168
1/2/11 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Who would they deny? Why?

P.S. You do realize that the US is on the road (pardon the pun) to doing exactly that. It has started in the nominally "private" airline business.

I do know that. I'd like to know more about it. I don't like the idea of private roads. Aren't a lot owned by foreign corporations? Doesn't that bother you at all?

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #34 of 168
1/2/11 at 3:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Aren't a lot owned by foreign corporations? Doesn't that bother you at all?

I don't know. Why should it bother me?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 168
1/2/11 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I don't know. Why should it bother me?

Good question.

They have power and they'll push for THEIR agenda...whatever that is...ai'm paranoid, I know.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #36 of 168
1/2/11 at 3:21pm
Dont worry it wont be long before the fascists hire lobbyists to push for privatising the air we breathe.
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 168
1/2/11 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcUK™ View Post

Dont worry it wont be long before the fascists hire lobbyists to push for privatising the air we breathe.

They already do, they lobby to fuck it up for a buck. Who cares that in sunny California trumpets and Sammie joes car kill people through their stinking exhaust pipes, so long as smokers can't have a fag in a bar, who the hell cares...

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #38 of 168
1/2/11 at 3:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Good question.

They have power and they'll push for THEIR agenda...whatever that is...ai'm paranoid, I know.

Yes. Best we keep things in the hands of the government so that won't happen.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #39 of 168
1/2/11 at 3:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes. Best we keep things in the hands of the government so that won't happen.

True,true.

Don't foreign corporations have to be guarded against at all? I think there a major threat, trivial I know given the times, but they are, we are going to end up owned and ruled by people who's only incentive is their own.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #40 of 168
1/2/11 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

True,true.

I was being sarcastic. Just in case you didn't catch that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Don't foreign corporations have to be guarded against at all? I think there a major threat, trivial I know given the times, but they are, we are going to end up owned and ruled by people who's only incentive is their own.

Who is "we?" What do you mean by "owned by?" Are you "owned by" anyone*? What is the "threat?" How major is it? These are serious questions. You are offering claims and assumptions without supporting facts, evidence and reasoning.


*Frankly if there's any entity I currently feel actually "owned" by it is the US government. Its behavior certainly suggests a relationship of ownership of me (and just about everyone else.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Spain Smoking Ban