My First Letter to the Editor (re: Wisconsin Smoking Ban)

[calmB4storm]

Let's hope it gets printed. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I wrote a response to this article (http://tinyurl.com/3xbvmj), which ran in Saturday's newspaper.

Cliff Notes of the article:
[ QUOTE ]
The state has a long history and a strong precedent of regulating what restaurant and tavern owners may or may not do on their privately-owned property, especially when the general public's health is concerned. It seems, then, that the state can also pass a law that prohibits smoking in restaurants and taverns in order to protect the health of customers and employees.

So, while there may be many arguments against a law prohibiting smoking in restaurants and taverns, the reasoning that such a law would invade the private property rights of restaurant and tavern owners does not seem to be a valid argument. Those against this new proposed law must find other arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

And here is my response:
[ QUOTE ]

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right

I am writing in response to Gerold Grosenick's commentary in the August 18th edition of the Post-Crescent. He claims that the state's current regulation of many aspects of the food service industry provides all the necessary justification for forcefully imposing further regulation in the form of a smoking ban. I wonder if Mr. Grosenick has ever heard the old saying: "Two wrongs don't make a right". Just because the state is currently violating the property rights of both restaurant and bar owners doesn't mean that it should have free reign to continue such activity. The popularity of the proposed smoking ban demonstrates that the demand for non-smoking dining and drinking establishments definitely exists, so why do we need the state to forcefully impose this demand? Business owners should be free to designate their restaurants and bars as either smoking or non-smoking, and customers would then be able to voluntarily choose which type of establishment to frequent. These voluntary choices and actions are mutually beneficial, and any state intervention inevitably causes more harm than good. Property rights must be recognized and respected at all times. Any attempts to undermine property rights in the name of "the greater good" (in this case public health) are selfish, short-sighted, and even immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts? How did I do?

[CallMeIshmael]

overall good.

2 points

1) I think it might be better to use an example of when it would be silly to conclude that the state is justified in doing something simply because, in the past, the state did something similar. Examples are easier than abstractions.

2) "These voluntary choices and actions are mutually beneficial, and any state intervention inevitably causes more harm than good. Property rights must be recognized and respected at all times. Any attempts to undermine property rights in the name of "the greater good" (in this case public health) are selfish, short-sighted, and even immoral."


You've made some pretty bold statements here, without really putting forth an argument for it. And much of your target audience is going to be predisposed to disagree. I think that would alienate a good chunk of your audience. Either leave it out, or explain why government intervention is always bad.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any attempts to undermine property rights in the name of "the greater good" (in this case public health) are selfish, short-sighted, and even immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts? How did I do?

[/ QUOTE ]

You did excellent if your goal was to shout unsupported assertions based on subjective value-based differences.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any attempts to undermine property rights in the name of "the greater good" (in this case public health) are selfish, short-sighted, and even immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts? How did I do?

[/ QUOTE ]

You did excellent if your goal was to shout unsupported assertions based on subjective value-based differences.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a lot better than about 90% of letters to newspaper editors.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
You did excellent if your goal was to shout unsupported assertions based on subjective value-based differences.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I didn't realize that all differences in moral opinion were merely differences of subjective opinion

2) It's a 'letter to the editor', so I don't think anyone is required to defend their positions with full philosophical arguments...

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any attempts to undermine property rights in the name of "the greater good" (in this case public health) are selfish, short-sighted, and even immoral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any thoughts? How did I do?

[/ QUOTE ]

You did excellent if your goal was to shout unsupported assertions based on subjective value-based differences.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a lot better than about 90% of letters to newspaper editors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hooray.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You did excellent if your goal was to shout unsupported assertions based on subjective value-based differences.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I didn't realize that all differences in moral opinion were merely differences of subjective opinion

[/ QUOTE ]

When one says that working for the greater good is "immoral", then it most definitely is based on a subjective opinion.

[ QUOTE ]

2) It's a 'letter to the editor', so I don't think anyone is required to defend their positions with full philosophical arguments...

[/ QUOTE ]

Then mo need to post here to ask for feedback.