tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post273301934958258120..comments2023-10-16T15:59:02.445+01:00Comments on NEIL HARDING: Longrider's Liberty.Neil Hardinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-2257966882309770232007-09-20T19:33:00.000+01:002007-09-20T19:33:00.000+01:00Of course being popular is not in itself a justifi...<B>Of course being popular is not in itself a justification but in terms of liberty surely it matters if the majority's liberty is enhanced at the expense of a minor inconvenience to a minority. Overall liberty has increased.</B><BR/><BR/>I own a house with a garden. I have a back gate that leads out on to road A, and the drive at the front of my house leads to road B. As it happens, my garden would make a convenient shortcut for people that live on road A to walk in to town. The houses on road A are of modern construction, and there is no right of way through my garden.<BR/><BR/>Following your argument, it is clear that the convenience of the large number of people living behind my house outweighs the trifling inconvenience of my not being able to use a part of my garden as I see fit, so I should be compelled to allow the public to walk through my garden on the way to town.<BR/><BR/>Should the convenience of the many ride roughshod over my rights over my garden? After all, it would clearly, in your terms, increase overall liberty.<BR/><BR/>Yes or no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-20058092748119945782007-09-20T17:57:00.000+01:002007-09-20T17:57:00.000+01:00Sam, the point about liberty is that before the sm...Sam, the point about liberty is that before the smoking ban, those that wanted to go out to enjoy a beer or music in a pub that was smoke-free, well, realistically they had now choice. Now they have that choice. Their liberty has been greatly enhanced. The cost of this is a small loss of liberty to some smokers - but to briefly step outside to have a cigarette is clearly a lot less inconvenient than being denied the choice at all of going to a pub that is smoke free. There was also a lot more people that wanted the ban than opposed it. Of course being popular is not in itself a justification but in terms of liberty surely it matters if the majority's liberty is enhanced at the expense of a minor inconvenience to a minority. Overall liberty has increased.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-56929189152417854142007-09-20T17:23:00.000+01:002007-09-20T17:23:00.000+01:00Sam: I really don't see any contradiction. Like I ...<B>Sam: I really don't see any contradiction. Like I have already said. Fat people want to be thin but still overeat , smokers want to give up but carry on,</B><BR/><BR/>What you are describing is either a person who has an addiction, or a person who is lying to himself. If a fat person goes to his doctor and asks for help with his eating problem, one of the first things that the doctor will tell him to do is to stop frequenting McDonalds. If he feels compelled to wolf down a Big Mac every time he smells the McDonalds smell, and he wants to eat less, he needs to not go to McDonalds. This might mean that his kids don't get to play in the McDonalds play area with Ronald the clown.<BR/><BR/>He can make that choice - that is liberty. You want to force McDonalds to stop frying chips and start selling tofu salads. That's not liberty.<BR/><BR/><B>It is popular and accepted</B><BR/><BR/>People like the results. I don't think most people have really thought about the difference between "I would like pubs not to be smoky" and "I want to ban smoking in pubs". Nevertheless, the fact that something is popular doesn't say anything about whether it enhances or suppresses liberty.<BR/><BR/>Here's an example for you. In Malaysia, there is a woman named Lina Joy. She was raised as a Muslim, and converted to Christianity. She has recently been refused permission to change her "official religion" from Islam to Christainity, on the grounds that apostacy is not permitted under Islamic law. (Malaysian law treats Muslims and non-Muslims slightly differently). This is a popular decision in Malaysia. It should be obvious even to you that it is not one that increases liberty. <BR/><BR/><B>and in a few years time, people will not understand how it was ever accepted to smoke indoors infront of others.</B><BR/><BR/>You seem to be conflating what should be legal, what should be polite and what should be moral in to one big list of "things Neil likes". It is not accepted - at least in moderately polite society - to reach into your trousers and scratch your balls in public. It's rude, but it's not (and shouldn't be) illegal.<BR/><BR/> <B>Very few people would now propose that cinemas or public transport should go back to allowing smoking.</B><BR/><BR/>Nobody disputes that, but that's hardly the point (and no libertarian would propose that cinemas "should go back to allowing smoking". They may well, however, propose that cinemas should be free to set their own smoking policy.)<BR/><BR/>I far prefer not to sit in smoky pubs. I used to sit outside in the middle of winter rather than sitting inside in the smoke. My parents' local had one bar that allowed smoking and one that didn't - guess where I went?<BR/><BR/>There is no question that my personal day-to-day life is better with pubs that don't permit smoking.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, I vehemently oppose the smoking ban - because it is wrong to make authoritarian diktats to constrain people's choices for my convenience. It is wrong even if people like me are in the significant majority.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-12609188369110895462007-09-19T22:33:00.000+01:002007-09-19T22:33:00.000+01:00Sam: I really don't see any contradiction. Like I ...Sam: I really don't see any contradiction. Like I have already said. Fat people want to be thin but still overeat , smokers want to give up but carry on, people want smoke free pubs but don't want to offend or miss entertainmentat etc. Sometimes they need help. There is nothing wrong in the government providing that in the form of a smoking ban. It is popular and accepted and in a few years time, people will not understand how it was ever accepted to smoke indoors infront of others. Very few people would now propose that cinemas or public transport should go back to allowing smoking.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-22644574716632890032007-09-18T17:55:00.000+01:002007-09-18T17:55:00.000+01:00This does not mean there is not a lot of demand fo...<B><BR/>This does not mean there is not a lot of demand for smoke-free pubs (as the popularity of the ban demonstrates), just that non-smokers will choose their smoker friends, favourite beer, bands, djs etc and tolerate the smoke even though they do not like smelling like an ashtray. The only way to give non-smokers a choice is to have ALL pubs smoke free.<BR/></B><BR/><BR/>Oh dear, Neil. You're contradicting yourself again. First you tell us that the majority of smokers support the smoking ban - in other words, they think it's a good thing that pubs are forced to make them go outside if they want a smoke.<BR/><BR/>Then you tell us that these same altrusitic smokers who are happy to support legislation to prevent them from smoking in pubs aren't willing to voluntarily go to a non-smoking pub and go outside to smoke when in the company of their non-smoking friends who don't want their clothes and hair to smell of smoke and don't want the extra risk of lung cancer.<BR/><BR/>Your smokers appear to be unwilling to act voluntarily to safeguard the health and comfort of the people that they claim are their friends, but more than willing to support legislation that compels them to act in this manner.<BR/><BR/>They sound like very confused people...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-88549784286889970472007-09-18T12:28:00.000+01:002007-09-18T12:28:00.000+01:00Cleanthes: What I am on about is market dysfunctio...Cleanthes: What I am on about is market dysfunction. There clearly is a large number of people who want smoke-free nights out who are not catered for by the market. The suggestion from you seemed to be that, because pubs were smoky there was no demand for smoke free. You now seem to not be saying this. <BR/><BR/>Smoking is a violent act - it causes harm to people who do not desire that harm. It was socially accepted in the past whereas violence in general (bare knuckle boxing?) is not. That was the main difference. The ban will never be lifted so this thread is thankfully all academic anyway. For once I am defending a good law that has happened rather than waiting for one that never comes.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-30724331461214744172007-09-13T22:14:00.000+01:002007-09-13T22:14:00.000+01:00"Cleanthes: I suppose I didn't really want a smoke...<I>"Cleanthes: I suppose I didn't really want a smoke free environment when I worked in a smoky office for 6 years? I suppose I didn't want a smoke free environment every time I went to the pub? I suppose I should have quit my job and never gone to the pub otherwise I obviously WANTED it to be smoky. What utter bullshit!"</I><BR/><BR/>Ummm? What?<BR/><BR/>What on earth are you talking about? Where on earth did I ever say anything else?<BR/><BR/>If that is how you feel, then I'm fairly sure you would campaign vociferously in favour of a pub remaining smoke free. So looks like my pub plebiscites will work then. Perhaps you would like to withdraw your objection to them.<BR/><BR/>And you can cut the crap about ALL pubs reverting to allowing smoking.<BR/><BR/><I>"When you go out there is a small risk you might encounter violence. But just because you DO go out doesn't mean you accept the violence and it is justified. Same goes for smoking."</I><BR/><BR/>Smoking = violence. Let's run with that. When you go out <B>with your friends</B>, they want to take you to a place where you know that they will beat you up. In the past, most people generally accepted getting beaten up. <BR/><BR/>Whoops! the analogy seems to be broken.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"This is why they have accepted the pub ban so easily because deep down they know it is wrong to inflict smoke on others. "</I><BR/><BR/>Correct. And now that they know that, and that everyone knows that they know that, the ban has served its purpose and is now illiberal. Now that the ban has given non-smokers a chance to see what life can be like, the market can take over and the ban can be lifted.<BR/><BR/>You can't have both.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-45490834151581126472007-09-13T17:49:00.000+01:002007-09-13T17:49:00.000+01:00Cleanthes: I suppose I didn't really want a smoke ...Cleanthes: I suppose I didn't really want a smoke free environment when I worked in a smoky office for 6 years? I suppose I didn't want a smoke free environment every time I went to the pub? I suppose I should have quit my job and never gone to the pub otherwise I obviously WANTED it to be smoky. What utter bullshit!<BR/><BR/>Everything I say is proved by the fact that before the ban there was no non-smoking pubs to be found. There was no choice and you know it. The ban may have changed some attitudes but I can bet I would still have to tolerate stinking of smoke to see my favourite band or go to my local for a decent beer and that is just not right no matter how much you try and dress it up.<BR/><BR/>When you go out there is a small risk you might encounter violence. But just because you DO go out doesn't mean you accept the violence and it is justified. Same goes for smoking. Smoking is unpleasant for a lot of people and damages their health without their explicit permission. It is anti-social. If smokers want to damage their own health, fine, but it is not right to harm someone else for your own pleasure.<BR/><BR/>As for restaurants - nearly all were non-smoking and smokers were reluctant to smoke in those that did turn a blind eye because they knew it was wrong. This is why they have accepted the pub ban so easily because deep down they know it is wrong to inflict smoke on others.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-11039712091755756152007-09-13T15:52:00.000+01:002007-09-13T15:52:00.000+01:00"DK, I am sure there were a very few exceptions, b...<I>"DK, I am sure there were a very few exceptions, but all the restaurants I knew in Brighton, London, the Mids and North West were smoke free long before the ban."</I><BR/><BR/>In that case, might I suggest that you get out more? Here's some restaurants in Edinburgh that were smoking right up until the ban: Jacques Bistro, Off The Wall, Maison Bleu.<BR/><BR/>Here are some restaurants in London that were smoking right up until the ban: Rules, Archipelago, the Savoy.<BR/><BR/>I went to all of these personally. Now, I'll admit that they are a little exclusive and the poor workers may not have been able to afford them but that's what made them exclusive, you see. The hoi poloi don't go there.<BR/><BR/>DKDevil's Kitchenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13832949569501846730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-17438978782339664242007-09-13T15:30:00.000+01:002007-09-13T15:30:00.000+01:00And what about Private Members' Clubs?A club, of w...And what about Private Members' Clubs?<BR/><BR/>A club, of which I am a member, had a smoking room, and yet is included in your ban. Whilst I don't really smoke, the three or four times a year where I smoke a cigar, I now have no option but to go outside in the cold - and not have my drink with me!<BR/><BR/>It's the members' club, and as such we decided pre ban who could smoke where. Yet we're now forced by this bansturbating to have our freedoms curtailed.Angry Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03833530546886122812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-90026309067229728882007-09-13T14:16:00.000+01:002007-09-13T14:16:00.000+01:00"People can support something but act differently"...<I>"People can support something but act differently"</I><BR/><BR/>In which case, they don't really support it - that's the whole point. it's called a demand revealing referendum. It's not until you ask people to put some commitment behind a statement that you REALLY find out what people think.<BR/><BR/>That's why your earlier sh*te about ID cards was shot to bits: the polls superficially (and with horrifically set up questions) that some people supported them, yet the support fell off a cliff when presented with the likely cost.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"In restaurants, the market moved in favour of the non-smoker so all exclusive restaurants became smoke free. "</I><BR/><BR/>Bollocks. Total Bollocks. The exclusive restaurants were the ones that retained the sale of cigars. <BR/><BR/>Whatever the case may be, I'm not even going to dream of allowing you this get-out Neil: <BR/><BR/><I>"the market does not provide the choice because any marginal financial advantage is followed by ALL."</I><BR/><BR/>Have you ever even *looked* out of your window? Do you have a secret tunnel that leads straight from your bedroom to the HQ of the Brighton council for the proletariat revolution? So that you have to meet or interact with anyone except those who share your entirely blinkered world view?<BR/><BR/>Markets don't provide choice? Do you actually believe any of the stuff you write? <BR/><BR/>You keep telling us that non-smokers hate smokey pubs. They have had a taste of them now. Are you seriously telling me that when ALL pubs have reverted to smoking, that NONE of them, NOT ONE, will think, "Hang on - there used to be lots of people who said they loved the smoke free pub: If I go back to smoke free, I'll be the only one in the town and the punters will come flocking".<BR/><BR/>Why will that NEVER [your emphasis] happen? Fuck it, Neil: if every single pub in a town did revert to smoking, I would - like actually would - go and buy a pub to make it non-smoking again. There would be a ton of money to be made. That's what real business people do: spot and exploit unserved market need.<BR/><BR/>The ban has revealed the need. Now it can be relaxed or, better, removed entirely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-26315103519915826522007-09-13T12:34:00.000+01:002007-09-13T12:34:00.000+01:00DK, I am sure there were a very few exceptions, bu...DK, I am sure there were a very few exceptions, but all the restaurants I knew in Brighton, London, the Mids and North West were smoke free long before the ban.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-83680496315869226382007-09-13T12:30:00.000+01:002007-09-13T12:30:00.000+01:00DK, People can support something but act different...DK, People can support something but act differently. Most smokers want to give up, most fat people want to be thin, most car drivers want to save the environment. This doesn't mean when they smoke, overeat or constantly drive, that they don't still think that way. There is no contradiction. People sometimes need government to open up choices they wouldn't otherwise of had. The smoking ban has done that, banning junk food adverts or increasing funding for public transport would also do that.<BR/><BR/>As for losing seats etc. that is crap - there is a constant turnover of seats and pubs have more seating now, because they have so much seating outside that is being used - refurbished terraces etc. In fact I would say the smoking ban has improved a lot of pubs and both smokers and non-smokers are enjoying themselves more.<BR/><BR/>People are smoking less cigarettes, is that a bad thing? Also beer sales have been relatively static - so there is little evidence it has damaged the pub trade significantly.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-56840320940772915742007-09-13T12:25:00.000+01:002007-09-13T12:25:00.000+01:00"As we could see with exclusive restaurants - very...<I>"As we could see with exclusive restaurants - very quickly all of them became non-smoking. Do you see the problem? - the market does not provide the choice because any marginal financial advantage is followed by ALL. In restaurants, the market moved in favour of the non-smoker so all exclusive restaurants became smoke free."</I><BR/><BR/>And this is simply an outright lie. My favourite Edinburgh restaurants -- and, believe me, most of them were almost certainly more exclusive than anywhere you've ever been -- allowed smoking right up until the day of the ban. Indeed, most of them sold cigars...<BR/><BR/>What <I>did</I> happen in restaurants is that smokers tended to curb the amount that they smoked so as not to inconvenience other people too much. This was done out of pure politeness.<BR/><BR/>DKDevil's Kitchenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13832949569501846730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-619365038762953422007-09-13T11:58:00.000+01:002007-09-13T11:58:00.000+01:00Neil,Are you telling me that you see no problem wi...Neil,<BR/><BR/>Are you telling me that you see no problem with these two statements (that you made in the same comment)...<BR/><BR/><I>"Mark, even a majority of smokers think the ban is fair."<BR/>...<BR/><BR/>Those pubs that allow smoking would be packed to the rafters and those smoke free would be empty this would mean problems financing these smoke free pubs."</I><BR/><BR/>Christ on a crutch, Neil, you've told us that the majority of smokers (and non-smokers) support the ban and then, barely one breath later, that smoking pubs would be packed.<BR/><BR/>If a majority of smokers and non-smokers support the ban, then the smoking pub should surely be empty? You are as consistent in your arguments as Polly Toynbee.<BR/><BR/>Whilst we are about it, going outside for a cigarette is not a minor inconvenience in a great many cases.<BR/><BR/>If there are just two of you, for instance, it means that you have to leave someone on their own; this means that you smoke the cigarette faster and are not able to enjoy it. So, it puts you on edge and, of course, every smoker knows what calms them, right? Yup, another cigarette.<BR/><BR/>Or, if you both want a cigarette, you have to take all of your stuff with you, or it might get nicked. Then you lose your seat.<BR/><BR/>I have, believe it or not, been in a group in which 14 out of 15 people smoked and they all went outside at the same time -- leaving the one non-smoker looking like the world's most unpopular person.<BR/><BR/>DKDevil's Kitchenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13832949569501846730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-76211833533387862952007-09-13T11:25:00.000+01:002007-09-13T11:25:00.000+01:00Cleanthes: '[Either] non-smokers like the non-smok...Cleanthes: '[Either] non-smokers like the non-smoking pubs now that they have tried them or... they won't do anything to preserve the non-smoking status of their local? These two positions are mutually exclusive'.<BR/><BR/>No! My whole point is that these positions are not mutually exclusive. <BR/><BR/>As we could see with exclusive restaurants - very quickly all of them became non-smoking. Do you see the problem? - the market does not provide the choice because any marginal financial advantage is followed by ALL. In restaurants, the market moved in favour of the non-smoker so all exclusive restaurants became smoke free. <BR/><BR/>The market for pubs is still in favour of the smoker so ALL pubs will follow that to maximise takings, whatever ingenious scheme you propose. And even if you could design a scheme where a small minority of pubs were smoking (and I don't think your scheme will work) there is no guarantee that non-smokers will have to tolerate smoke just to get their favourite entertainment/beer/food etc.<BR/><BR/>For non-smokers to have a choice there needs to be pubs NEARBY that provide the whole range of music/beer/food etc. smoke free AND they need to persuade their smoking friends to forego smoking indoors and not feel they are being impolite in even asking. It is this last point that is the most difficult to change because it is cultural change that is needed. Special circumstances have allowed it to happen slightly quicker with cafes and restaurants where the groups who attend are smaller and contain more exclusive non-smoking groups, but without a smoking ban people were not going to get that choice in pubs.<BR/><BR/>Nobody was saying smokers were horrible people, just that they are only human and will choose what is most important and convenient to them. And to them smoking is VERY important. Their desire to smoke is more than the desire of people to forego going out because the pubs are smoky or to upset their smoker friends by demanding smoke free. This does not mean that the demand for smoke free is not there or that it is not significant! <BR/><BR/>It just means that there is a marginal loss to pubs of going smoke free and of course pubs have to maximise revenue to stay in business, so they ALL allowed smoking - hence no choice. Surely you understand this simple point?<BR/><BR/>Another point is that takings in pubs will be fairly static because this smoking ban is across the board. Any pubs that tries to go smoke free when smokers have a choice will see a significant drop in takings and make it more likely more pubs will suffer financially.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-7979795543192623902007-09-13T09:46:00.000+01:002007-09-13T09:46:00.000+01:00" and nobody wants your silly scheme."And that's w...<I>" and nobody wants your silly scheme."</I><BR/><BR/>And that's wrong too: Mark, Longrider, Urko and I want it.<BR/><BR/>And at least LR and I are non-smokers. <BR/><BR/>Oh and BTW: I absolutely detest smoky environments.<BR/><BR/>I prefer pubs to be non-smoking and love the OUTCOME - I just disagree with the method. The market could accommodate all of us with no problems, in precisely the way it did in restaurants until your ban destroyed the choice for smokers.<BR/><BR/>Do you know particularly why I cannot abide smoky environments? It's because I'm asthmatic Neil. <BR/><BR/>But even I can see that the ban is hugely illiberal - I have no right to dictate to others what they may or may not do in places that do not affect me. That is why I would allow pubs to decide which they wish to offer. <BR/><BR/>When I'm in a group, the smokers know to sh*t the f*ck up and control their cravings. They can when they put their minds to it. But then it's also because smokers are also people and many of them are very nice people. You seem to forget this in your desire to paint them all as an amorphous blob of nicotine crazed sociopaths.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-85007929027007323642007-09-13T09:38:00.000+01:002007-09-13T09:38:00.000+01:00"you have lost "I am crushed - utterly crushed - b...<I>"you have lost "</I><BR/><BR/>I am crushed - utterly crushed - by your superior command of logic, philosophy and minute grasp of the statistics supporting your case.<BR/><BR/>NOT.<BR/><BR/><I>" and nobody wants your silly scheme."</I><BR/><BR/>I'll pass over the obvious tetchiness appearing now and ask exactly when were the public offered the market solution?<BR/><BR/><I>"It is all arbitrary now anyway because people are liking the ban so much it is unlikely smoky pubs will ever return."</I><BR/><BR/>Can we stop with the "people like the ban" bullshit already? People are not expressing favour for the BAN, they are expressing favour for the OUTCOME.<BR/><BR/>The very fact that people like the OUTCOME shows that your scare stories of all non-smoking pubs vanishing if the ban is relaxed are nonsense.<BR/><BR/>So what is the danger of allowing a number of smoking licences, if everyone loves the non-smoking pubs so much? Now that the public has had a taste for it, the market has appeared: non-smokers now know PRECISELY how much they lose by conceding to the smoker's demands to go to a smoky pub. Non-smokers are now empowered when being strong-armed into going somewhere that they now know that they positively hate. They can say "NO: actually none of us want to end up reeking of smoke: we're going to pub x and you can smoke outside if you are so desperate".<BR/><BR/>Which is it Neil? Non-smokers like the non-smoking pubs now that they have tried them or that they won't do anything to preserve the non-smoking status of their local?<BR/><BR/>These two positions are mutually exclusive. You can't have both. Unfortunately, only the second gives any support for the continued *need* for the ban and the support it does give is limited at best.<BR/><BR/>More unfortunately, you've just told us that the first is true. I agree with that. <BR/><BR/>Now: here's my concession. You're right: it would have taken time - possibly a decade - for non-smoking pubs to appear. However, that was BEFORE the ban. Now that the ban has been in place for a while, the market has had time for the demand to be recognised. It's like a free trial period: once you've tried a new product (non-smoking pubs, not the ban) that you really do like, you are much more likely to object if it is taken away. <BR/><BR/>In fact, it really is a free trial period. People have not had to "pay" to get the ban, in the same way that you don't pay during a free trial period. Once the trial period is up, then comes the crunch: you have to put your money where your mouth is. THAT'S when the REAL preferences are revealed. Do you care enough, do you like the outcome enough, to do something about it. That is what we need now.<BR/><BR/>The ban allows the big market shift of latent demand - I too believe that the non-smoking majority have put up with a sub-optimal outcome for too long - to appear. Now it is not necessary. The demand is there, if your polling is correct, so your primary motivation for the ban - that non-smokers always lose - is not there. <BR/><BR/>The ban itself is now sub-optimal because it does not allow the two preferences - smoking and non-smoking - to co-exist.<BR/><BR/>Whilst we are on this topic: in what way is the ban in <B>restaurants</B> not illiberal?<BR/><BR/>Restaurants each decided their own policy quite happily. This worked. Everyone had choice. Why is the ban BETTER in restaurants, Neil?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-89259176393306869762007-09-13T00:46:00.000+01:002007-09-13T00:46:00.000+01:00By the way, I am a big believer in the market syst...By the way, I am a big believer in the market system, but I also recognise how it works best when it is regulated well. <BR/><BR/>Yes, we have to be careful how we regulate - but also if we regulate too little we get credit crunchs, recession, massive inequality, social problems, increased crime, destroyed environment etc. <BR/><BR/>So lets get away from this 'the market is always king' and that the 'less we regulate the better' because that is false. Yes, the state is rubbish at micro-managing but there are some things it does better - some R&D, innovation, infrastructure, healthcare, long term planning etc, etc. In a lot of areas we can make use of the market but fund it through taxation. I am also a big believer in the third way - neither state nor private - co-ops, trusts, waitrose, bbc, etc. No one ideology or system is perfect, we need a mixed approach as always.<BR/><BR/>I am sure you are in agreement with a lot of this but we probably diverge in that you want lower taxes and less public services and you are not worried about inequality, whereas I believe the opposite is needed.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-44251525370206371392007-09-13T00:30:00.000+01:002007-09-13T00:30:00.000+01:00Look, I really really hate smoky pubs - I am sure ...Look, I really really hate smoky pubs - I am sure we can agree on that. Yet.. if I wanted to see a band I would put up with smoke because if I wanted to see that band and have a night out I had no choice. Under your scheme there will ALWAYS be occasions where someone's favourite band/food/beer/dj etc. will be in a smoky pub and people will not have a choice of smoke free. <BR/><BR/>The quiz night I went to was great but very smoky and I had to put up with it or stay home. That is not a proper choice is it? There were plenty of nights I went home stinking of cigarettes because I went to places that were smoky. I suppose there is something about the social situation that makes it impolite for non-smokers to complain and piss their smoker friends off. There is no contradiction no matter how you try and twist it.<BR/><BR/>At the end of the day - you have lost and nobody wants your silly scheme. It is no big deal for smokers to go outside for a few minutes, whereas it was a big deal for a lot of people to stink of smoke and damage their health just because they wanted to have a night out.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-58597983210800486142007-09-12T22:49:00.000+01:002007-09-12T22:49:00.000+01:00Actually, there is another truism that you need to...Actually, there is another truism that you need to confront. It is this:<BR/><BR/>If the state has got something to work, the market is almost certain to make it work better, because the state cannot respond to incentives or changes in demand quickly enough and cannot cope with the infinite gradations of individual preferences.<BR/><BR/>Conversely, if the market has got something to work, the state will almost certainly f*ck it up.<BR/><BR/>You have only to look at nationalised industries to the see the destruction that you would wreak upon us all Neil.<BR/><BR/>This is not to say that the market ALWAYS works on its own: it is merely to say that if it can be made to work AT ALL, the market will do it better.<BR/><BR/>In order to uphold the smoking ban AT ALL, you have to rely on the fact that it cannot be made to work AT ALL - the market cannot make non-smoking pubs work. Yet you cheerfully admit that the market would probably have got there on its own in a decade or two. At which point, Neil, I would like you to concede that your ban will be sub-optimal: it will not represent the best solution.<BR/><BR/>We can argue about the potential scale of downsides during the intervening period (or not as the case may be, given that these passionate non-smokers don't care enough to do anything even when given the chance in their local pub plebiscite), but unless you are going to admit that there is a difference in outcome at the end of the period, we have nowhere to go.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-46357600926602697512007-09-12T22:06:00.000+01:002007-09-12T22:06:00.000+01:00"As 25% of the population smoke, this means most g..."As 25% of the population smoke, this means most groups would contain smokers and the smokers wish to smoke was clearly over-riding the non-smokers wishes for smoke free. Non-smokers just didn't want to piss off their smoker mates. "<BR/><BR/>And perhaps for once you can acknowledge the very telling fact that Mark has provided a very specific contradictory tale.<BR/><BR/>You are simply resorting to dogma to reject out of hand some very sensible suggestions because you have no conception of how anything outside your statist sledgehammer legislative approach could work.<BR/><BR/>Why do you assume that the non-smoker's favourite band is ALWAYS going to be in the smoker's pub? Where is the evidence of this? <BR/><BR/>You reject the informal pub-level plebiscite out of hand because you say that it can be manipulated. Why is it only smokers who are underhand and dastardly?<BR/><BR/>Why are you so certain that these large (or is it small, you can't seem to decide) numbers of non-smokers who have been yearning for so long (or not if that helps your argument at the time) for non-smoking pubs and who have a chance to have their long-ignored voices heard (or not as the case may be) will simply roll over and allow the smokers to vote them out?<BR/><BR/>You want to have it all ways at once: <BR/>- pubs, though packed to the roof with smokers, will not be able to afford the licence fee.<BR/>- the huge majority of non-smokers have been desperate for non-smoking pubs but apparently also couldn't care less.<BR/>- they hate the smoke but don't object to it<BR/>- the market solution giving a broader variety of offerings and therefore greater choice won't work because it will undermine the ban that it is there to undermine.<BR/>- the smokers pubs are awful and the non-smokers hate them, but all the non-smokers favourite stuff - selection of beers, food and music - will curiously only ever be on offer in smoking pubs.<BR/><BR/>You are just simply clutching at anything to try and disguise the fact that you dislike smoking and don't trust individuals to reach accommodations about differences in taste between themselves: The state must intervene.<BR/><BR/>Mark and I have patiently outlined the numerous and wholly obvious contradictions in your reasoning and you won't admit to any of them: the state - which is unable to determine the price differential between licence types - apparently knows better than individuals what they want.<BR/><BR/>You are willfully obtuse to a degree that borders on pathology.<BR/><BR/>You have been disgracefully disingenuous and rude to Longrider and persist in misrepresenting him even after your blatant distortions are served up to you with a side-salad.<BR/><BR/>You simply will not even acknowledge that your position relies on hopeless contradictions but that is because you have no conception of how ordinary small businessmen - such as pub landlords - manage stuff like this ALL THE TIME.<BR/><BR/>Finally:<BR/><I>While the market can work wonderfully - it usually needs a shove in the right direction ...</I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely agreed. It would have been nice if you had admitted that right at the top. It would have saved a great deal of time.<BR/><BR/><I>"... and that requires regulation and planning ..."</I><BR/><BR/>Sometimes, and in very limited circumstances and only if you concede that the regulation also distorts the market as well.<BR/><BR/><I>"... and yes, sometimes this means banning things. "</I><BR/><BR/>Very, very rarely and certainly not in this case.<BR/><BR/>We have outlined some perfectly reasonable ways in which a tiny tweak in the regulatory framework for pub licencing, devolved to the lowest possible level - councils, wards then subsequently to the pub and finally to the invisible hand itself - would give something very closely approximating the perfect outcome.<BR/><BR/>You have ... dogma and a countrywide ban. It won't wash.<BR/><BR/>And one more thing: you need to retract your statement about liberty above. I need you to confirm that group rights play no part whatsoever in the illegality of murder please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-17977994279976723502007-09-12T18:50:00.000+01:002007-09-12T18:50:00.000+01:00Mark, Cleanthes, When I started this thread I didn...Mark, Cleanthes, When I started this thread I didn't expect a long discussion about the smoking ban. But you guys have made me realise that smoke free pubs would have been an impossibly long time coming without a ban. Because unlike cafes, restaurants and cinemas, most people go to the pub in bigger groups maybe four or more. As 25% of the population smoke, this means most groups would contain smokers and the smokers wish to smoke was clearly over-riding the non-smokers wishes for smoke free. Non-smokers just didn't want to piss off their smoker mates. With cafes, cinemas and restaurants etc (although it still took a long time to overturn the established status quo of smoking), there were more individuals and couples that did not include smokers who could express a clear preference to have a smoke free environment. You see, them market has its limits. Sometimes the state has to intervene to correct things and improve liberty. I know you won't accept that, as Mark is a Tory and Cleanthes also probably has absolute faith in the market as 'always right'. While the market can work wonderfully - it usually needs a shove in the right direction and that requires regulation and planning and yes, sometimes this means banning things.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-5542400564059697552007-09-12T17:27:00.000+01:002007-09-12T17:27:00.000+01:00Cleanthes: If smokers had a choice between a smoky...Cleanthes: If smokers had a choice between a smoky cinema and a smoke free one they would ALWAYS (ok 99% of the time) choose the smoky one and most of their non-smoker friends might go with them despite preferring smoke free. That is the crucial point that you seem not to get. We all know this is the case because we had ZERO smoke free choice for people who went to the pub before the ban.<BR/><BR/>As for your election idea - the surveys clearly show what the majority prefer and that is the smoking ban. If people don't like it they can vote for a party that will get rid of it. Your idea of mini-elections in each pub will be manipulated. We all know how much people's answers change depending on how you ask the question.<BR/><BR/>On the liberty question, if liberty increases for the majority and decreases for a minority when something is banned - the overall liberty has increased. So liberty is not always lowered as you claim. You are the one misunderstanding the sentence.<BR/><BR/>Mark, It is not a contradiction to say pubs could overbid for a licence even if they were full. Even if your licence scheme could be made to work - it would still mean people stinking of smoke in some places when all they want is a certain beer/gig/dj/food etc. That is limiting their choice and stinking of smoke and the associated health problems will always be worse than the current mild inconvenience that smokers are incurring. Heck some smokers actually like the ban and a majority think it is fair so you are just going to a hell of a lot of trouble for nothing really.Neil Hardinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01333739272733802133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14115431.post-50325902415152190262007-09-12T14:15:00.000+01:002007-09-12T14:15:00.000+01:00Cleanthes, I admire your determination, but I am s...Cleanthes, I admire your determination, but I am signing off for now, I have had enough. <BR/><BR/>Neil refuses even to admit that he keeps contradicting himself, with his ideas that pubs that are 'full to the rafters' would go out of business.<BR/><BR/>It's called Doublethink.Mark Wadsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07733511175178098449noreply@blogger.com