Longrider, Cleanthes and I have been having a crack at one of Neil Harding's posts in which he directly attacks Longrider in a fairly defamatory fashion. We narrowed the debate down to the smoking ban (as a litmus test of libertarianism). If you don't have time to read our comments and Neil's evasive replies, here's my final thought on the matter:
"I looked up alcohol licences, and they appear to be only a few hundred pounds a year, depending on size of pub.
So if the council charges £10,000 a year to allow somebody a smoking licence, only a few pubs would go for it and the council rakes in a shed-load of money for no effort whatsoever, a form of Land Value Tax, if you will.
Everybody wins.
The landlord only pays the £10,000 if he thinks he can increase his net profits by at least that much. The smokers win. The local council wins.
And most pubs would remain non-smoking - if all the pubs in any area paid the £10,000 for a smoking licence, then the advantage would be competed away, and some would give up the smoking licence again.
That's that fixed."
We don't need no stinkin' objectivity
1 hour ago
2 comments:
As I have explained on my blog. It wouldn't work because smokers would only go to smoking pubs and they would bring all their non-smoking friends (some reluctantly) with them. The smoke-free pubs would be empty - there would be an outcry - the licensing would end and we would be back to square one - all smoking pubs that give no choice to non-smokers.
There is no compromise on this one - its a smoking ban or ignore those who want a smoke free environment. It is less inconvenient for smokers to smoke outside than everyone to stink of smoke so the smoking ban is the right decision (and most people agree). The ban is spreading across the developed world because it is the civilised thing to do.
It wouldn't work because smokers would only go to smoking pubs and they would bring all their non-smoking friends (some reluctantly) with them
If we restrict the licences to two or three per postcode district, or one per ward, then this would not happen. The 70% of people who do not smoke, or the 70% of groups of people where a large majority would go to the non-smoking pubs, as the smoking puibs (following your logic) would be unbearably crowded.
For example, I am the only one in my department who smokes, and when used to go out to lunch or something we ALWAYS sat in the non-smoking section and it was up to me to sneak off (well pat smokes occasionally as well). So you are saying something THAT IS NOT TRUE.
The smoke-free pubs would be empty
No they would be full of non-smokers, who, you have said DEMAND non-smoking pubs. "non smoking pubs are very popular" you have said (I parahphrase).
There is no compromise on this one Yes there fucking well IS, we could allow a small number of pubs in each are to pay extra money for a smoking licence, which to be fair to other pubs, could be repaid to them as a negative licence.
Post a Comment