Consequences do not disappear when governments interfere

HARBESON: Laws create a smoking gun

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — Up until last week when I learned that Indiana is one of several states that passed what’s known as “smoker’s bill of rights” legislation, I thought it was only the nonsmokers who were willing to use government force to get what they want. I had no idea that 20 years ago smokers did the same thing.

In 1991, Indiana politicians passed legislation that prohibits employers from making hiring decisions based on whether or not the prospective employee smokes and also prohibits employers from making smokers pay for the higher costs it takes to provide health insurance benefits.

That law, as well as the statewide smoking ban that comes into play next week, should have never been passed. Neither law would have either, if everyone respected two very basic concepts: property ownership and accepting responsibility for the consequences of one’s choices.

I’ve always maintained that government-mandated smoking bans ignore the concept of property ownership and the decision on whether or not to allow smoking in a given business belongs to each individual business owner. Patrons and other interested parties can certainly work to persuade a business owner to take a specific action, but the ultimate decision belongs to the owner.

Like the smoking ban, the “smoker’s bill of rights” legislation also ignores the concept of property ownership. The jobs that an individual business owner has available are his property and he should be free to make decisions about the requirements of a given job however he sees fit, which would include requirements regarding smoking.

The owner needs the ability to set whatever parameters he chooses for a given job and it doesn’t matter if you, I, or politicians disagree with his choices. None of us are the owners of the business; we are not taking the risks involved when creating a job and hiring an individual to perform the job.

There are many factors to consider when making any business decision and those factors can be quite different for each individual business. This is why the decision needs to be left to each individual owner. It may be a good choice or it may be a mistake but it’s the owner’s decision to make, not anyone else’s. Prospective employees can either agree to the job requirements or they can move on.

Government need not be involved.

It goes both ways though. The business owner should not get special government favors or protection from any consequences or costs of implementing their policies. The freedom to control the business and make decisions in how to run the business includes accepting all the risks, costs and consequences associated with those choices.

Much of the problem in regards to smoking, and most other issues where government gets involved I suppose, is a result of everyone trying to avoid the consequences of their choices by creating laws that force others to take on the responsibility they are unwilling to accept.

The smokers who supported the “smoker’s bill of rights” wanted to avoid any negative consequences resulting from their choice to smoke. They wanted other people to hire them even if those business owners did not want to hire smokers, and the smokers also wanted other people to bear the extra costs of insuring their health.

The nonsmokers who support government bans are no different in this regard though. They also wanted to push the consequences of their choices on to others. Instead of accepting that it was their responsibility to stay away from establishments that allowed smoking if they did not want to be near smoke, and/or actively working to persuade business owners to change their policies voluntarily, they were willing to use government to force business owners to comply with their wishes.

Using government to avoid consequences does not lead to a better society. The consequences do not disappear when politicians interfere — all that happens is that the responsibility for the consequences is transferred to others.

So, as special interest groups battle to transfer consequences back and forth, piling law upon law over decades, the consequence we now all must bear is a bigger, more intrusive government — one that is not going to suddenly stop with smoking.

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson wishes she could transfer the consequences of standing underneath that bird the other day.

Simplifying the Issue of Smoking Bans

HARBESON: Care for a smoke?

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — People who want to manipulate and control others will often make issues more complex than they really are, usually by avoiding basic principles like property ownership.

This benefits those in government because, in the confusion, inconsistent laws are created, which increases conflict and the illusion that even more government interference is needed.

How do we simplify issues so people can think about them in a clear and consistent manner? It’s easy — just frame the issue as if it only involved you and a neighbor or two. I’ll use the smoking ban issue as an example.

Let’s say your neighbor smokes. You prefer to stay away from smoke but you enjoy his company and you want to watch the Final Four games with him. So you invite him over and ask him not to smoke in your home. He can choose to accept your invitation or not. He doesn’t try to force you to let him smoke in your home. He accepts your property ownership claim and understands you make the decision.

Now let’s say it’s the other way around and he invites you over to watch the game and eat. He may smoke while you are there so you can choose to accept his invitation or not. You don’t try to force him to not smoke in his home. You accept his property ownership claim and understand that he makes the decision.

This mutual respect of property ownership is what helps the two of you live peacefully as neighbors. You are free to decide how, or if, you will to interact with each other. You are free to make any arrangements and agreements you wish in regards to smoking without government involvement.

Now let’s say the same neighbor invites you in to his business as a customer to eat and watch the final championship game. He may decide to smoke. Does it now seem valid to go to the government to have them force your neighbor to not smoke or let his friends smoke because you want to be there too?

If you think this is valid, why? What has changed in the individual relationship between the two of you? You are still an invited guest and he’s still the property owner. The only difference is that rather than just eating his food, you will pay him for it.

Does this voluntary exchange create a property ownership claim that entitles you to use the government to create rules for his property that you prefer, even over his objections? If so, then why isn’t it equally valid to tell him what to do when you voluntarily enter his private residence?

Maybe you agree with me and don’t see any validity in the idea that an ownership claim in the property was created just because you became a paying customer. Many people do remain consistent at this point.

But let’s take this one step further — your neighbor offers you a job to serve food to the people watching the game. Again, he decides to allow smoking. Do you think it is now valid to go to the government and force him to ban smoking on his property? Why?

You are exactly as free to leave, or not even enter, this relationship with your neighbor as you were when he invited you to his home or invited you to his privately owned business as a customer. Never at any time did your neighbor point a gun at you and force you to enter either property, nor did he force you to work for him. At all times your relationship was based on voluntary interaction.

So what is it about the relationship that has changed that gives you, through the use of government force, a property ownership claim now, but did not exist when you were invited into his home and to his business to watch the game?

One more question to consider — if you want to use government force against your neighbor so he can’t allow smoking on his own property because you voluntarily agreed to employment, who is the aggressor in this situation?

— Clark County resident Debbie Harbeson likes to keep it simple. You can send her a simple message by writing to Debbie@debbieharbeson.com.

Indiana Smoking Ban Demonstrates How Government Works

COLUMN NOTES: Quite a few comments on the newspaper's website on this one. Very entertaining. Also, I have a strange feeling I used this photo before when writing about some other government actions. I guess that shouldn't surprise me though. (Photo is from wikimedia)

HARBESON: Smoking ban is for stooges

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — In what shall forever remain an undisclosed location, except to say it was somewhere in Indiana, I had a wild experience. Upon entering my room, I heard groaning, squealing and slapping sounds coming from next door. So naturally I put my ear against the wall. What I heard shocked me.

I had apparently stumbled upon a secret legislative caucus. I heard three distinct voices and the following is my reproduction of their conversation, as best as I can recall.

Moe: OK guys, looks like we need to pass a statewide smoking ban this year.

Curly: I don’t know Moe. Why can’t nonsmokers just refuse to patronize places that allow smoking?

Moe: Why I oughta poke you in the eyes for saying that! If people took care of themselves, why would they need us?

Larry: Hey guys, look! Now that I’m a legislator, I have almost 5,000 Facebook friends. They love me!

Curly: But Moe, should we really be telling business owners how to run their business?

Moe: That’s not what this is about you numbskull. Pay attention. This is about the health of the employees that work in these places. You don’t want to force them to breathe smoke while at work do you?

Curly: Soitanly not! But why don’t they get another job?

Moe: What’s the matter with you? You want to force those people to leave their jobs?

Curly: Gee, no. But, hey, what if some people lose their jobs because of a government ban?

Moe: They’ll just have to get another job of course.

(At this point I heard a slapping sound.)

Larry: I just put up a Facebook status, “Curly is slapping himself, ha ha.” Whoa, you should see all the “likes” I’m getting!

Moe: Listen Curly, you can’t think in terms of economics. The health of the people is at stake here.

Curly: Well, it would help I guess.

Moe: Attaboy. Now you’re thinking.

Curly: OK then, let’s ban it.

Larry: You mean, let’s “mostly” ban it. We can’t ban smoking in the casinos.

Curly: We can’t?

Moe: Of course not, dimwit. We get tons of revenue from casinos and lots of smokers gamble. So we can’t create a law that could negatively affect the casino business.

Curly: But Moe, I thought it was about health, not economics. What about the employees in the casinos?

Moe: Imbecile! As legislators we have to weigh things differently when government revenue is concerned. You don’t want to be irresponsible do you Curly?

Curly: Soitanly not! But I thought we were taking responsibility for people by banning smoking everywhere.

Moe: Geez, you just don’t get it. Listen, government revenue from casinos helps provide important government services.

Curly: Like gambling boats?

Moe: Yes. Wait, no. I mean like paying us to write new laws to fix problems.

Curly: OK, I get it. We need to keep people smoking.

Moe: Yes. What? No, we need to keep people gambling. No, wait, what I mean is that we need to give people the freedom to gamble and smoke.

Curly: In government approved areas.

Moe: Now you’ve got it.

Larry: Hey guys, I just changed my status update to “about to head off to lunch.” Wow, lots of people commenting on where we should go. I didn’t even know there was a restaurant called Hell. I wonder if smoking is allowed there.

Moe: Pipe down you slug! We still have one more item on our agenda. There’s a problem with that law we passed last year that forces businesses to card 80-year-old wine drinkers.

Curly: Yeah, we better create another law to fix that or everyone’s going to think we’re just a bunch of stooges.

— Sellersburg resident Debbie Harbeson swears she isn’t really in the habit of putting her ear against walls. She much prefers peepholes.