Austin Has Lost Its Mind

[RstyShcklfrd]

I do drive a car. I also don't sit down next to my muffler and breathe deep. Smoke all you want, I could care less. I would prefer to not have to deal with it at a restaurant though. As for bars, that's on me if I want to go in there, but I should be able to enjoy dinner without cigarette smoke.

And sure, yeah yeah yeah, I get it the .gov is controlling my life. Yeesh. I'll try to use that as an excuse the next time I get pulled over for speeding. "I should be able to speed all I want, it's my own choice, quit trying to control my life!"

 

[RstyShcklfrd]

And this is also something I find funny,

I can see how regulation of gun laws and gun control can lead to the destruction of our constitutional right to bear arms, of course I can see that - or else I wouldn't be a part of this forum. I however, cannot see how regulation of paper/plastic bags will lead to the destruction of our constitution as a whole.

 

[JADB]

A friend of mine had a really successful restaurant here in dfw making tons of money been there for 20 years but the building owner won't let people smoke in there anymore and his business dropped off to nothing he's probably going to have to close his doors pretty soon.

Really? Really?? No offense, but if your friend made tons of money for over 20 years and now he has to close ONLY because you can't smoke there, then it wasn't a good restaurant to begin with.

 

[Younggun]

On bags, I feel it's an individuals responsibilty to dispose of them properly. With all the crap going on I find it rediculous they are spending time on paper or plastic.

Smoking, Every one has a right to clean air, resteraunts should have a right to allow smoking. If i want to eat at a restourant that chose not to allow it I have the right to go there and not smoke inside because I like the food or go somewhere else and enjoy a cig after my meal. If you don't smoke you have the right to not eat at the restaurant that allows it or tough it out if you like the food. Why is this so difficult.

 

[stx kid]

Do they even make those stupid recycled bags in different sizes? I've only seen the one size they have in grocery stores. I often end up buying things too big to go in those.

I love how the idiot eco-nut lies about it too, saying retailers are in favor of it. Then the Texas Retailers Association guy is like, uuuuh no.

they do, all sorts of sizes, colors, and shapes. In fact go splurge on the 15 dollar model! it's got a main pouch, a side pouch, two straps on one side and get this.. a zipper..

 

[Vaquero]

What about the plastic shopping carts? OMG!!

 

[2ManyGuns]

If his business model CATERED to smokers then it could very well fail, regardless of FOOD QUALITY. If he was serving a niche market then that market was taken away due to .gov interference then it is a .gov issue. To many people here blinded by 2A issues only.

 

[hkusp1]

Really? Really?? No offense, but if your friend made tons of money for over 20 years and now he has to close ONLY because you can't smoke there, then it wasn't a good restaurant to begin with.

The restaurant being good or not doesn't have anything to do with it the area happens to prodominately inhabited by smokers and the bar area was a big attraction for customers and nobody wants to go drink in a Restuarant/bar you can't smoke in anymore so they all went to the Applebee's up the street because you can eat, drink, and smoke in there. Point being because 1 person stuck his nose in something that didn't effect him at all and 90% of the customer base were fine with a family owned business that has been there for 20 years now has to close it's doors and hand all his business over to a sub par corporate restaurant with a crappy bar and crappy service. If you don't like smoke don't go to a smoking establishment instead it's that simple.

 

[2ManyGuns]

A business owners right is to decide what type of clients he wishes to provide a service to, for example smokers. YOUR right is to either PATRONIZE that business or to NOT PATRONIZE that business. Everyone gets a choice that is not infringed upon by anyone. If you as a non-smoker don't like that the business owner allows his patrons to smoke, you have NO RIGHT to FORCE your POV upon those who disagree with you.

 

[M. Sage]

I do drive a car. I also don't sit down next to my muffler and breathe deep. Smoke all you want, I could care less. I would prefer to not have to deal with it at a restaurant though. As for bars, that's on me if I want to go in there, but I should be able to enjoy dinner without cigarette smoke.

And sure, yeah yeah yeah, I get it the .gov is controlling my life. Yeesh. I'll try to use that as an excuse the next time I get pulled over for speeding. "I should be able to speed all I want, it's my own choice, quit trying to control my life!"

So find a non-smoking restaurant or bar. They existed in San Antonio before the city council stupidly and wrongly enacted a smoking ban.

And that's coming from a non-smoker.

And this is also something I find funny,

I can see how regulation of gun laws and gun control can lead to the destruction of our constitutional right to bear arms, of course I can see that - or else I wouldn't be a part of this forum. I however, cannot see how regulation of paper/plastic bags will lead to the destruction of our constitution as a whole.

Pop quiz!!! It's open to anybody that wants to participate, and I want to see everybody's answers, but I especially want to see yours, Rusty.

Where do rights come from?

What is a right, anyway?

What is the single legitimate purpose of government?

 

[2ManyGuns]

A1: From the creator

A2: A right is the ability to excercise and maintain the ability to excercise ones free will

A3: The purpose of the goverment is to provide the means to excercise the will of the people

I'm not the "speechifying type" I hope I clarified my thoughts.

 

[M. Sage]

A3: The purpose of the goverment is to provide the means to excercise the will of the people

Follow-up: What constitutes the "will of the people"? Do we modify that to the will of the majority?

What if the majority is wrong?

 

[Rhino]

Hey guys, might I suggest that you pick up a copy of Folks, This Ain't Normal, by Joel Salatin? It may be too weird for some of y'all, but I thought it was helpful, and that's coming from VERY conservative perspective. If you know me, you'd know I'm NOT a hippy by any stretch of the imagination. It might help your perspective on the bags. I'm NOT for city council banning them, but I'm ALL for them disappearing. Also, if you have property (like a ranch) you should know that those pesky bags ARE a problem. We use waaay too much plastic in this country, and someday our grandchildren will wonder why we left all that rubbish behind, when we could have found a better method. I'm sick of the tons and tons of packaging trash.

 

[RstyShcklfrd]

Holy Hell. I did not intend to make this into a philosophical debate. I think where I personally stand on this issue is blurred a bit. I'm all for keeping my "Creator" given rights, I will not deny that. I believe in strictly following the constitution as well(which we seem to not do anymore). So here, let me try to best to answer your questions without digging a hole for myself.

Where do rights come from?
Like the previous guy said, the "creator".

What is a right, anyway?
What a difficult definition. A right, to the best of my ability to define it, is something I am able to do. I'm not really sure how to define it other than that.

What is the single legitimate purpose of government?
Also a tough question, to me at least. To govern and prevent anarchy.

 

[RstyShcklfrd]

Let me try to rephrase everything I've said. I think I may have painted an inaccurate picture of how I really feel about the .gov. Do I agree that they should regulate our lives? Negative. Is some regulation okay? That all depends. It is little things like paper/plastic, that do not concern me. If I was forced to use a recycled/reusable bag, would I complain? Probably not, because I just do not care enough about that choice in my life. It is not something I spend my waking hours fearing. So basically, it is simply that, I just do not care enough about this issue to push it either way. If it happens, it happens. If it doesn't, my life doesn't change. Samesies with the smoking thing, do I like that you can't smoke in restaurants? Yes, I'm not going to sit here and lie to you. If it wasn't like that, would I be complaining - no. I would just simply go on living my life.

It's when government oversteps boundaries which are not meant to be overstepped, that I get upset. Like I said earlier, regulating what we can and can't eat, for example. You can call me a hypocrite, if you want, but I do believe there is a balance between regulation and outright "do-whatever-you-please".

 

[M. Sage]

It's not so much philosophical as it is a US civics question. The Founders said right in the Declaration of Independence that the purpose of government is to secure rights. To do that, government has to make criminal and civil laws. Criminal laws are supposed to prohibit and punish offenses against people (murder, assault) and property crimes (vandalism, theft). The civil side is to do things like enforce contracts and settle other disputes that don't fall into violent or property crime.

This bag law obviously steps WAY outside of that one purpose of government. They are not going after people who are victimizing other people. They're going after anybody who buys groceries in Austin. They're not helping enforce a contract, they're prohibiting a mutually beneficial aspect of a contract from happening.

They're not securing any right. They're actually attacking store owners' rights to provide a service (bagging) to their customers, and attacking the customers' right to be provided a service. And that service, in and of itself, harms nobody.

Someone else compared this to gun control and was very wrongly ridiculed for it. He was 100% right in the comparison. Instead of punishing guilty parties, it's a blanket ban that at the very least inconveniences innocent people.

It is not legitimate governing to punish the innocent. It never is, and it never will be. To punish someone, you have to do so through a proper court trial. Anybody crowing about how the people of Austin "deserve" this should be ashamed.

FWIW, I'd bet the farm that everybody and anybody that pushed for and supports this ban hasn't ever got off their fat ass and picked up the litter they complain so bitterly about. Have I? Hell, yes. Truckloads of the stuff.

 

[M. Sage]

Also, FWIW "anarchy" is misused. Anarchy means "without a king" or without government. People ignorantly (or even stupidly) use it when they mean "chaos" or "unrest".

 

[RstyShcklfrd]

I've learned a lot by your post. But I still disagree somewhat. This is no where near the severity of gun control. An inconvenience to people's grocery shopping is not equal to rewriting the constitution.

But regardless, touche M. Sage, touche.

 

[RstyShcklfrd]

Also, FWIW "anarchy" is misused. Anarchy means "without a king" or without government. People ignorantly (or even stupidly) use it when they mean "chaos" or "unrest".

Fair enough, let it be noted that in my post, anarchy = chaos. Although there are several definitions for anarchy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy

 

[M. Sage]

I've learned a lot by your post. But I still disagree somewhat. This is no where the severity of gun control. An inconvenience to people's grocery shopping is not equal to rewriting the constitution.

But regardless, touche M. Sage, touche.

It might not be to the same level, but it's still on the same model. The Founders never intended for the rights listed in the BOR to be the only ones we had, hence the 9th and 10th Amendments, but specifically the 9th: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." They recognized there were other rights beyond things like free speech, worship, keeping and bearing arms, etc. They just listed the really important and fundamental ones.

I really haven't spent enough time learning about these things, but I have at least one or two good resources I could send you via PM. I really need to sit down and read through the Federalist and Anti-Federalist sometime. It's just that I know I'll get lost in there for a loooong time, heh.