Fairweather Liberty
I had a disappointing discussion a few weeks back with a colleague. My friend is a smart young man, earnest and sincere, but all too representative of today’s brand of thinking when it comes to issues of liberty and public policy.
The topic was smoke-free bars in the City of St. Louis. I hate smoking, for the record. I think smokers have a nasty history of being thoughtless in the pursuit of their habit. I am surprised at how offensive I find the smell. Long gone, the stink of cigarettes linger in public spaces where smokers have traveled. The curbs are clotted with filthy little butts. I see nothing whatsoever to recommend smoking…except that it is perfectly legal.
In discussing the liberty aspects of a bar owner choosing whether or not to offer a smoke-free environment, my friend noted that he was surprised that the free market failed to provide more smoke-free environments. He planned to vote in favor of a smoking ban because he liked bars but hated smoke.
First, free markets are not a guarantee that we will eventually get what we want, but that in generally, the free market will provide enough of something to meet demand at a given price, all things being equal. As smoking has become less popular, I don’t think we will get a wide variety of smoke-free bars to choose from, but rather enough to meet demand. Eventually. All things being equal.
The statist is an impatient creature. Once they settle into their heads they wish something, they will get it however they feel they can. Smoking ban fans are certainly well-meaning, and the “work environment” arguments about employees who work in bars and their exposure to smoke have a solid point not easily defeated. Still, my friend was simply voting in favor of a ban because he wanted more smoke-free bars.
It disturbs me when an American will go to the government to demand of a property owner a thing that the owner is not willing to provide. My friend is not being denied a smoke-free bar based on race, color, creed or religion. He is being denied because the bar owner thinks there are more customers to be had by allowing smoking in his bar. While there is a principled argument on health to make about a smoking ban, simply voting for the ban for my own preference of environment is simply participating in mob rule.
Nobody has the guts to just ban cigarettes. If they are so damn dangerous, then just ban the stupid things. The thing is, they are not dangerous enough to ban in the mind of the public, so nanny-state do-gooders get together and nibble at the edges. This is bad enough, but to join in in a form of soft tyranny for no other reason than to expand your selection of watering hole is downright un-American. We are either free men, or we are slaves to the mob. Unfortunately this sort of me-centric thinking is very common today, and I don’t see it changing anytime soon.
