Don't enter the property where it is allowed then.
What don't you undertand about that simple principle of voluntary co-operation?
That's just added on as a passing thought - he states his main aim is to change society via force of the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
How have you reached these figures? I'd certainly be interested in reading a survey of all the scientists in the world which concludes somehow that 10% are anti-AGW and 90% are pro-AGW. But as Climategate I and II proved, even the scientists saying it's real agree with me that the temperature has cooled over the past decade... of course they didn't publically say this and we only know because of Russian hackers exposed it, but still that tells me all I need to know.
And anyway, often science has been about breaking the old concensus that existed beforehand.
I never said it was 100% healthy, just that it has been blown up to be much more dangerous than it actually is. If the state had such a concern for public health, then why does it not ban gay sex for the reason that although it's illegal to not tell somebody you have HIV - many people don't and therefore a blanket ban should be implemented for the sake of society as well as 'saving the NHS money' like we always hear with the smoking ban argument? I could easily make the harm principle fit into an argument for banning gay sex.
But even if second hand smoking was very dangerous, why should this triumph over property rights? If you aren't willing to take the risk then do not enter the premises. The same for gay bathhouses which are incredibly risky if you enter them and engage in those activites, why not ban them as they spread a lot of disease?

