A Loosely Organized Rant

I complain about a lot, but I firmly believe that anyone should be able to do anything that does not harm the rights to life, liberty, or property of anyone else.

However, that doesn't mean that I cannot say that certain things that certain people do aren't just plain stupid.

There's a difference, you see, between that and what the neo-national socialist republicrats do and say. I say, "That's stupid." They say, "There should be a law against that."

It's not really such a fine line. There's a big difference between disapproving something and utilizing the coercive power of government against it.

To wit, if I don't like smoking in restaurants, then I will either not patronize restaurants that allow smoking, or I will begrudgingly go to one because I value the food above the tobacco haze.

Others, however, who dislike smoking in restaurants would seek to harness the violent power of the state to prohibit said practice.

Let's get this straight. Restaurants, bars, or any other businesses are not public. They are private. They are owned by a person or people, which makes them, by definition, not public. Public places would be defined as street corners, parks, or any buildings owned by government on any level.

As the owner of any establishment, any man or woman ought to be able on his or her own to decide whether or not to allow patrons to smoke. If you don't like it, then don't patronize the place. As for workers, no one has to work at any given business. If you don't like smoking, then don't apply for a job at a bar, nightclub, bowling alley, etc.

As for banning smoking in actual public places, that is ridiculous. The argument that second hand smoke is harmful is merely an hypothesis. No actual data exists to prove it. Even if it were, in open areas like parks or sidewalks, the amount of second hand smoke actually inhaled by non-smokers is so negligible that to make it an issue is as silly as to argue--as the old theologians did--if angels could be small enough to dance on the head of a pin.

All this said, I'd like to mention something that I found stupid.

I took my family to Burger King (some national socialist republicrats would like to prevent such a meal, of course, but I digress). Both kids ordered kids' meals, and they were delighted to find that the meals came in a Simpsons bag with Simpsons toys (Mark got Barney, and Natalie got Apu).

What I thought was stupid was that on the bag, in smaller print, below The Simpsons, was printed something like, "This film is rated PG13--Some content may be inappropriate for anyone under the age of 13."

As if anyone under 13 is ordering kids' meals! The reason that Burger King had to place that warning is that they wanted to promote The Simpsons to kids, but they also wanted to be able to say, "Hey, we said that it's not for kids."

What's next, a Paris Hilton Sex Video kids meal--some content may not be appropriate for anyone under age 17 or with an ounce of taste or conscience?

I, as a free thinking, rational, good parent will allow my children to eat their kids meals and even play with their Barney and Apu toys, but I will not allow them to watch The Simpsons movie.

The opposition, however, will try to say that Burger King should not be allowed to market the movie to children. It should be against the law, they say. Which is tantamount to saying that violent force should be used (or at least threatened) to prevent them from doing so.

If that is your opinion, then keep your kids from the theater and leave me alone. Sure, you can tell me that I shouldn't allow my children to watch such material, but you should not be able to forcibly prevent me from doing so (pardon the split infinitive). Take care of yourself and your own. That's your job. Leave me and mine alone. If you're better, then the results will become obvious. However, every time in history that the puritans have taken over, we've gotten more problems then we started with (e.g. witch trials, prohibition-era violence, the drug war, etc.).

If you truly believe in freedom, then you cannot advocate anything that prevents anyone from doing anything as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Pay attention to the main verb of that last clause. "Harm" is not synonymous with "annoy" or "bother" or "irritate." If something pisses you off, then create a blog and post your whinings (as is my preferred method).

Ron Paul for president.