Using that logic you can excuse any crime.

"What was he doing living here in this city anyway?"

"If he didn't want to be poisoned, why didn't he just give me his money and move away? Stupid uncle Bob!"

"He was in my way. He put himself in harm's way. He could have been in Nebraska and I wouldn't have shot him."

I think you are confusing somebody's choice to be positioned at X for reason Y (with Y != "wanting to breath smoke") with somebody's choice to be positioned at X for reason Z (with Z != Y).

In the examples above, three people obviously decided to put themselves in harm's way. But they didn't do so because they willingly accepted the harm or the risk. They did so because they liked the city, wanted to keep their money, and didn't want to live in Nebraska. None of these reasons are the same as a declaration that they wanted to be shot.

Note that knowing about the risk does not change the situation. Even if it is known that not being in Nebraska means immediate danger, our third guy still has a right to walk on a street outside Nebraska. The knowledge of the danger must be used, by government, to stop the danger, but it must not be used as an excuse to take away the victim's freedom of movement.

 

Again, the difference is, it is a privately owned place we are talking about.  You don't have a RIGHT to be there.  You have the choice, you have the freedom, but you don't have the RIGHT.  If you are given a warning of the concequences of entering a PRIVATE place, it is then your responsibility. 

If you come to my house, should you have the right to demand I don't smoke in my house?  No.  So why should the government be able to tell me that I can't smoke in the building that I own?  People don't have to work for me and people don't have to do business with me.  If I want to stay in business and see that smoking is costing me business, I have the right to ban smoking from my building. 

Your logic is flawed.  If you want to compare apples to apples here the appropriate analogy to use here is if a bank is being robbed and a client of the bank knows that it is being robbed but decides to enter the bank anyway to attempt to make a deposit or withdrawal.  At that point it is the clients fault if they get hurt because they could have more easily chosen to return to the bank on another day when it wasn't being robbed.  As for the clients in the bank as the robbers entered they are not at fault for being put at risk because they did not knowingly enter the bank whilst it was being robbed.

Now to take that analogy and apply it to a business that allows smoking the patron knows before entering the establishment that smoking goes on so they are accepting the potential second hand smoking risk when they enter the business.  There is nothing requiring them to go to the business.  Now if the business had been smoke free and decided to change to allow smoking after the patron (or employee) entered the business then the business is at fault.

It is NOT the government's job to remove all danger and risk from life.  Part of living in a "free" society is accepting some amount of risk, freedom != safety.  Personal responsibility needs to play a role in our lives.

No, it's the robbers' fault, obviously.

 

No. Living in a free society does not mean accepting some amount of risk that one wouldn't have to accept in a non-free society. And personal responsibility means that an individual is responsible for his actions; it does not mean that others have a responsibility to accomodate and change their own lives to allow whatever it is you want to do.

 

That's an interesting quote seeing as it contradicts everything you posted before. If it's not other peoples "responsibility to accomodate and change their own lives to allow whatever it is you want to do" then why should the Gov't (basically other people) be involved at all?

So if someone is dumb enough to put themselves in harms way knowing harm will occur it is still somehow the other persons fault who did the harm? Interesting.

I think we are seeing the same scenario in 2 different ways. When I talk about a shooter, I am not talking about someone going around shooting people. I am talking about someone who could be hunting or at a shooting range.

If you knowingly put yourself in harms way it is YOUR fault that harm comes to you.  If you jump off a cliff is it the cliffs fault for existing or is it your fault for jumping off?  In my analogy I wasn't saying that the robbers have no blame, I was simply stating that if you enter a bank while it is being robbed then you must accept the risk that you may get hurt.

There is absolutely no way that anyone can live in any amount of freedom where there is also no risk of harm.  It's just not possible.  Everytime you enter your car you are taking the risk that you may not make it to your destination because you may be involved in an accident.  The only way to eliminate that risk is to take away the freedom to be allowed to drive.

You just shot your argument in the foot here.  The smoker is responsible for their actions, why should they have to change their own lives to allow for whatever it is you want to do?

No. It's exactly what I have been arguing the entire time.

 

It is government's business to enforce the law, including even laws that protect me from people who want to do me harm.

 

I don't know how much clearer I can say it. It is ALWAYS the fault of the person doing the deed. I didn't imagine until now that this is controversial. The robber's decision to rob a bank does NOT take away anybody else's right to walk into the bank.

It is probably stupid to walk into a bank while it is being robbed, but everything that happens will be the fault of the bank robber, not of the idiot passer-by who is morally (and probably legally) in the clear.

I don't think "dumb" is a moral value.

Before a court the defence that the victim was dumb and walked into the bank while the robber was robbing it probably won't do much good for the robber. Shooting dumb people is still a crime, regardless how dumb the victim was.

 

Neither am I. I mean any shooter.

If the bullet hits someone standing behind the shooter, the shooter is at fault. It's an accident, sure, but somebody will have to pick up the medical bill. And I don't see why it should be the victim.

 

No. It is the attackers' fault.

 

A cliff is not a moral agent. But if somebody pushed me off the cliff it would be solely HIS fault, even if I walked into his range while he was pushing other people off the cliff.

 

I must accept the risk because physics says I must. But the responsibility lies absolutely and solely with the bank robbers.

 

Because they don't have a right to harm me. I thought I already made that point.

I am sorry if somebody's choice of lifestyle includes actions that violate other people's rights. But the onus is on THEM to change their lifestyle, not on everybody else to accomodate it.

The communist is responsible for his actions too. But that doesn't mean that he can steal my computer. He will have to change his life to allow me to keep my property, thank you very much.

 

This whole conversation seems to be running in circles.  Having somebody outside the US try to have a stand on US law doesn't work for me, either.

The US was founded on personal freedom- the freedom of choice.

Now, nobody is forced to work in a bar.  I don't like bars- I don't work in one.  I also don't like heights, so I don't work in construction.  I really don't like dead animals, so I don't work at the Humane Society. People can choose where they want to work- that is freedom of choice.

People don't have to go to a restaurant or bar or anywhere else that allows smoking- it's freedom of choice.

The more laws that the government (especially when it gets to a federal level) puts on people, the less freedom of choice the people have.  It becomes a very slippery slope- where does it end?  Who is to decide whose freedoms are more important? 

I'm pretty sure that people working at toll booths inhale way more harmful fumes in a day then they should- should we outlaw cars?  Nurses and Doctors get exposed to all sorts of disease, what are we going to do about that?  The government should protect us!

(JU screwed up quoting. Checking if it works in the next comment.)

It should. It adds a new perspective and I think it also helps that I live in a country where smoking in bars is illegal (which means I know how this actually works) and that I come from a country which is much more liberal about smoking than the US (which means I also know how well complete freedom of choice for smokers works).

I know it is more convenient to have such discussions only among people who see everything the same way. I grew up in West-Berlin. I still make fun of East-German and Soviet television where such "discussions" were often aired.

In America you can always find a party, in the Soviet Union the party can always find you.




No. The US was founded on freedom and responsibility for one's actions.




People can also choose not to work in a factory that doesn't implement safety regulations. But society has decided that safety regulations are a good thing still. Are you saying that you would prefer to live in a country where mines and factories are death traps like they used to be?




The smokers, apparently.

Why is it a slippery slope when non-smokers' right not to be harmed outways smokers' right to do harm? Perhaps it is a slippery slope as it is now. Allow one group of people to cause harm to others in the name of "freedom"... how is that not a slippery slope?




No. But I think we should outlaw installation of carbon-monoxide inducers in tall booths, even if tall booth workers could "decide" to work elsewhere.

Some risks are inevitable in a job, some aren't. I have no problem with outlawing the reasons for risks that people do not have to take. That's what safety regulations do.




The government does. That's why there are safety regulations for hospitals in order to reduce exposure to disease to a minimum.

Try to sue the "attacker" for damages that you incur because you knowingly put yourself in harms way.  The court should toss out the suit.  Again I'm not saying the robbers were blameless in my scenario, I was merely stating that when you knowingly enter a bank that is being robbed you must accept responsibility if you get injured.