Now there are some precedents in law that state you don’t have to put a sign up or lock a given door and still expect a space to be “private”. Such as the door to a private residence, or an entryway that leads behind a serving counter or cash register. However, there’s no legal precedence stating that a restaurant that is open to the public is a “private space”.

FYI: A perfect example of this is fire codes… A restaurant has to have entry doors that open outwards. There is no such restriction for private residence. Depending on the city/county/state, smoking bans often fall under these same fire codes–as opposed to being codified into a separate law.

Also note that while *you* haven’t made up your mind or not on whether any given law is just does not mean that your elected officials haven’t. In fact, a debate has long since passed and the law in question is already in place. If you feel that a law violates your rights, challenge it in court! That’s one of the reasons why we have courts in the first place.

Of course, you probably will never challenge a law in court. This is because costs are prohibitive and our court system is so obfuscated that it is nearly impossible for a middle-class person to actively participate in any given court battle without risking their career, their family, and their liberty in general. Not only that, but It costs tens of thousands to hire a lawyer to argue *anything* in court on your behalf.

We’ve come to the point where a mere accusation of a crime can bankrupt a person and destroy their lives… But that is an entirely different subject.

As for anarchy: that is a loaded question designed to get the answer you want. In addition you have changed the basis of the argument from private business to a private home. But I’ll take the bait anyways. Lets take the generic and apply it to the specific. You should be free to do whatever you want in your home provided A) it does not violate anyone else’s rights, and B) it does not violate some other Law (BTW the law should only exist to protect rights, so revert back to A).
So should I be allowed then to sit in my home and fire gunshots into the house next door? no because I am damaging property he pays for. should I be allowd then to shoot someone in my home? no of course not. Should I be allowed to introduce pollutants into the soil on my property that will contaminate my neibor’s water ? No (how would that be different from firing a gun into his house?).

Should I play music at 1500 decibels? In this particular case, there is already a noise ordinance in Jacksonville as there is in most cities. But if I were asked “Is the noise ordinance just?”, I would say I have not made up my mind. I would need to see where loud noise violates rights. If it does then the question is What do we do about noises that aren’t controlllable, such as traffic, trains, thunder, dogs howling. My working opinion is if you have a problem with your neighbor, talk to your neighbor. If the problem cannot be solved by talking to your neighbor, maybe you should consider a sound dampanning fence. The bottom line is that there is no reasonable expectation of silence for anyone. When I lived in my apartment in Riverside, My downstairs neigbors routinely threw parties so loud that they shook the building (it was a rickety piece of shit) but they always waited until friday or saturday to party. On fridays when they were having their partys I would either go out or I would hang around on the stoop and drink beer with them. They agreed to wrap em up by 2 AM which I considered very resonable. I don’t believe any of us has a RIGHT to not be offended or uncomfortable and if you think your neighbor can’t be reasonable, you can buy 4 inch thick foam panels at lowes for 5 bucks a sheet.

As for the Dump next to my child’s school: is the dump properly maintained? is it safe? Is it legal? Do I have a choice to send my kid to an alternate school? I have no intention to tell anyone what they can do with their own property as long as it does not violate anyone’s rights.

“Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice.” - Arcesilaus
“That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.” - Thomas Jefferson
“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”– Thomas Jefferson

When operating as a free and open-to-all business, his establishment is no different than the sidewalk outside your house. You may “own” that particular stretch of land, but you’re legally bound to keep it free from obstacles (such as shoveling snow off of it in the Winter).

Are you advocating anarchy in regards to property? Should a new neighbor be able to move in next door and blast music all night long? Should they be allowed to block the street? Should they be allowed to turn it into a toxic waste dump?

All these regulations are based on the same property rights that you speak of. If we don’t have regulations regarding how property is handled, all sorts of horrible things can and will happen. Should a power company be allowed to dump their nuclear waste next door to your house? How about next to your child’s school? How about on some waterfront property that just so happens to feed into the city’s water supply?

No one is forcing non-smokers to breath “dirty air”.

The fact that the government was not granted power to even look into your belongings without probable cause, suggests that Gov has NO (0, less than nothing) authority to tell someone what they have to do with their property. It could be argued that the air inside a bar or home is actually the property of that property owner.

Asside from that If you are going to argue that there is no property rights in this country, then you are grasping at straws.

do we really want to live in a world where the government can tell you what to do with your private property? Today it is smoking in your own Restaraunt. Tommorrow it will be stip clubs being too accessible. And after that it would be “High Times” is Tooo Controversial and can’t be sold any more.

I just see this law as an extension of the crazed political correctness movement.

Secondly: There’s 6.5 billion people on this planet, not 4.

Thirdly: The amount of pollution that smokers exhale is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Once that smoke dissipates into the surrounding air, it’s ability to cause harm is severely diminished. The ban on smoking indoors is to prevent non-smokers from being forced to breath in the toxic air in large quantities.

Also, what the hell are you talking about in regards to our founding fathers and property rights? A large number of these people wanted to make it so that only land owners could vote and run for office. This was a major point of contention up until the last moments before the final version. No one could agree, so they left it out. This meant that the de-facto standard of land owners voting would continue.

Later on the dispute continued and eventually they settled on the electoral college. Regardless, what does this have to do with modern day property rights? The Constitution and it’s amendments make no mention of property rights other than that the government shall not seize it without due process and/or just compensation (eminent domain).

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin

If a law is passed saying everyone has a right to clean air, we all have that right as citizens. It is as simple as that. The only recourse is to repeal the law (by voting in new representatives who will do so), or fight the law in the courts (but many would consider a ruling against such a law the realm of “activist judges”).

We all have the right to speak freely, yet we do not have the right to plot an assassination. Doesn’t one right trump the other? Another example: We all have the right to a fair, speedy, and public trial (due process). Yet when someone enters your home uninvited, you have the right to shoot them dead. Their right to due process was superceded by your right to use lethal force on trespassers.

There’s conflicting rights ALL OVER the legal map. For instance, a pub owner’s right to control what goes on inside his pub isn’t just limited to smoking bans; he also can’t sell liquor to minors, invite in more people than his fire-inspection permit allows, operate without running water, or host cock fights. A smoking ban is no different. All these preventative measures are in place to protect society as a whole and to prevent the innocent from being victimized.

These are not laws handed down by a tyrannical dictatorship. They were created and forged into law by means of a democratic process. In theory, they’re restrictions we’ve placed upon ourselves. If you don’t like them, you have only to convince the majority that your position is the correct one.

Also, your statement, “But if you don’t own it, then you can’t tell the person who does what he can do with it.” is true (in a sense). *I* cannot tell the owner what he can and can’t do with his place. But we the people can.

…and Jesus Christ! Ass is not a swear word! Like other words, it has many meanings. Since you can’t fit an ass in a Prius, you’re much better off with a Tacoma. Someone who travels with asses is likely to have cocks and bitches too.

I suppose my point is mute since you’re not going to hear any of this without some text-to-speech software.