Under the false
guise of health, anti-smoking zealots are massively hammering the rights of
citizens and business owners to make their own decisions. These fanatics exploit
the democratic majority rule to foist their interventions against a minority,
smokers and the entrepreneurs who cater to their wishes.
The property
rights argument is commonly regarded by smokers rights activists as a silver
bullet in the war against smoking bans. There is no silver bullet in this war.
There are only ordinary bullets. And we will be needing lots of them to rid the
world of the anti-smoking tyranny.
Smoking bans
are not a one-pronged assault on property rights. They are a multi-pronged
assault on liberty. Let us examine three major venues of assault.
Property rights
The most basic
assault that smoking bans represent are on property rights.
In a free
market economy there is private ownership of property and the means of
production. The owner of the property is at liberty to set rules of conduct that
apply there. Anybody that frequents the property is bound to abide by these
rules. The owner is at liberty to expel anybody in breach of the rules. In this
respect, it matters little whether or not the property is open to the public.
Government
rules overriding the owner’s right to set his rules of conduct are a clear
violation of the private ownership of the means of production. There is no
arguing that smoking bans are government intrusion in the property rights of
owners.
Using workplace
security considerations as a pretext for such intrusion is bogus. Smoking is not
part of the production process. It is a personal habit, and whether it might
affect others is of little consequence. It is still not part of the production
process.
Division of
labor
The second
assault is that on the division of labor.
The labor
market can easily separate those willing to expose themselves to other people’s
tobacco smoke from those who are unwilling. At the discretion of the owners of a
workplace, the smoking of tobacco can be allowed, restricted or entirely
prohibited. Those not willing to smell tobacco smoke are free to seek employment
in workplaces that prohibit smoking. Those willing to endure the hardships of
tobacco smoke may seek employment in workplaces that allow smoking.
Thus the
division of labor sorts out working conditions according to everybody’s wishes,
and adjusts itself to the exact desires of the workplace’s owners.
Government
rules prohibiting smoking at workplaces effectively shuts off the power of the
division of labor, something that belongs entirely in the realm of the free
market. It is an assault on the division of labor.
Further, in
places where this division has already taken place, government enforced smoking
bans attack the entrepreneurs who have catered to the wishes of those who have
voluntarily selected workplaces that allowing smoking. The livelihoods of the
employees are assaulted by such government meddling.
Destroying the
marketplace
Under
democracy, the majority rules. Any vote cast on the minority party is wasted.
Therefore, democracy caters only to the majority. If allowed to do so in an
unrestricted way it becomes a tyranny of the majority.
However, the
marketplace is different. In the marketplace, every vote counts. If a member of
a minority places demand for a particular product or service, their vote is not
wasted in the marketplace. Products and services will be delivered to the
minority according to their economic vote. This is a key mechanism behind
diversity in the marketplace. It is also a demonstration of the superiority of
the marketplace over democratic majority rule.
When the
majority in government places smoking bans on the marketplace, it extends the
majority vote into the marketplace. The government has no business dictating
which products and services the marketplace shall deliver. That is the business
of consumers and the marketplace that serves them.
Smoking bans
are good for business
One of the
false pretences behind smoking bans is that they are 'good for business'. It is
beyond economic comprehension how government intervention that breaches property
rights, the division of labor and the diversity of the marketplace is beneficial
to business. In any case, it is entirely beside the point whether smoking bans
are good or bad for businesses.
In order to
separate good from bad business, the marketplace needs to experiment with
different services and products. Some products and services will be successful,
others will fail. Indentifying what is good or bad on the marketplace requires
both the liberty to succeed and to fail. Failure is an indispensible tool in the
search for successful products and services.
When
governments mandate smoking bans under the pretext that it is good for business,
it is attempting to prohibit failure and mandate success. This takes away the
ability of the marketplace to fail, and hence to
separate
that which is good from that which is bad. How is anybody going to develop new
products and services, if the government passes legislation that disallows
failure and mandates success?
If smoking bans
are indeed good for business, then governments have absolutely no business
mandating them!
Conclusion
It is clear
that no matter how it is twisted or turned, government mandated smoking bans are
a great evil.
They accelerate
an already alarming trend towards tyranny of the majority. They destroy the free
market that everybody depends on for survival. They commit a great crime by
focusing citizens’ attentions on what can only be a tiny risk at the expense of
vigilance against much graver dangers.
It can only be
a question of time before the consequences of these failed tactics crystallize. |
