The Right to Smoke

[John Dibble]

Article from www.deanesmay.com

The Right To Smoke? (Michael Demmons)

I'm a (half-hearted) smoker. It's just something that I do, on occasion. And it is, I think, is the stupidest decision I ever made. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. Not only that, but I'd be willing to bet that almost every smoker out there feels the same.

That said, I continue to be astonished with the subject of smoking bans. I understand that hospitals would ban smoking on their premises. And I don't even mind when it's been banned in government buildings. But a statewide or country-wide ban on a perfectly legal activity doesn't make a lick of sense to me - none whatsoever.

Now, it's Italy.


Italy's 14 million smokers prepared for a new way of life with new legislation banning smoking in all public places such as bars, restaurants, discotheques and offices. Plainclothes police will patrol the country's 240,000 eating and drinking places on the lookout for miscreants, press reports said. Customers face fines of 275 euros (360 dollars) and offending landlords up to 2,200 euros.

I've always believed that one of the greatest freedoms we have is the freedom of association. That means that owners of bars, restaurants, discotheques, and offices get to choose who they'd like to have (and keep) as clients. Additionally, you get to choose which of these establishments you'd like to patronize.

If a bar allows smoking, for example, you're perfectly able to choose NOT to walk in. If a lawyer allows smoking in her office, you're free to ask to meet her somewhere else or to choose another lawyer. In Italy, as in many states and countries around the world, the government has stepped in and taken away that choice. Yes. Smoking is unhealthy. But it is legal, and people know that the bar they're walking into allows it. Sorry, but there's a bar down the street that's smoke free. Use it.

The purpose of this post is to bring up two points:

1. If a bar owner has been ordered by the government to disallow smoking, a perfectly legal activity, in his establishment, 20-30% of his partons may decide they no longer wish to frequent the bar.

2. Conversely, if the government did not order the bar owner to ban smoking, smokers could still frequent his bar, and non-smokers would have the choice to either come in for a drink, find a non-smoking bar, or drink at home.

By banning smoking in private establishments, whose right is the government protecting? Before you answer, remember one thing: you do not have the "right" to go into this person's bar. It is a privilege. It is a private establishment and the bar owner is under no constitutional obligation to allow you inside. He can set rules. He can ban smoking. He can mandate that ripped clothing is not allowed.

Sure, smoking stinks and it's tremendously unhealthy. And non-smokers who walk into bars and restaurants know that and they do it anyway. The smarter non-smokers stay away or choose other bars and restaurants. They're bright enough to not need the government to coddle them, and the free market lives on.

My position is this: if the government can ban smoking in bars and restaurants, they can use the same logic to ban it in your home. What do you think?

[John Dibble]

This is sick.  Of course, the left will conveniently overlook this civil right that has now been revoked.

Unfortunately, this isn't a 'left-right' issue. I know a number of normally right-wingers who are perfectly fine with banning smoking in 'public' places.

[John Dibble]

1. Workers in bars - if they indeed have a problem with it, why are they working at the bar in the first place? And who ever said you had a right to a clean, safe workplace? You don't - hell, coal miners have a dirty job, and it ain't that safe. Of course they usually get more in pay due to the hazards. And speaking of rights, what about property rights?

2. 'Easier solution' - Yes, it may be easier for a smoker to just go outside, but this non-chalant attitude is pretty much telling me that you are willing to throw away freedom for the sake of convenience.

3. Non smokers have to be smart - yes, they have to, welcome to this little thing called the price of freedom. When dealing with a free society you have to deal with the decisions of others - whether it be free speech that offends you or a restaraunt owner exercising his private property rights by allowing smoking.

No, the free market is not always the solution, but the free market isn't meant to make every single person happy. Basically you want to throw around the power of government for your own convenience - just don't bitch to me when the government uses it's power to stop you from doing something you enjoy for someone else's convenience.

4. 'No there would never be something like that' - One word: PROHIBITION. Need some more? Three more words: WAR ON DRUGS. The government has and still does forbid people to consume substances within the privacy of their own homes. Don't tell me it couldn't or wouldn't happen - it can, it has, and it does to this very day.

[John Dibble]

The simple fact is that second hand smoke causes harm.

The small amounts of damage caused by each individual cigarette makes the tort model of redressing the damage impractical.  That leaves taxation and regulation as the only viable ways of handling the issue.  If you are are anti-regulation, that leaves only taxation as a viable option.  I suppose charging a tax on restaurants, bars, and other public establishments that allow smoking would be one way of dealing with the issue.  They would then pass on to their customers the costs of this tax and thus those who choose to smoke in public would pay for their damage, albeit very indirectly.  Of course, you would then have to presume that the government would actually spend the money raised by the tax on those affected by second hand smoke, an ifffy proposition at best.

Better idea - ban smoking in places that are actually public, ie owned by government and therefore the people. This is perfectly acceptable to me. If someone goes to a place that allows smoking, it is private, and their choice to go, so they have no right to bitch about it since they chose to take the risk of entering a place with an unhealthy substance in the air.

[John Dibble]

So what, drugs and prostitution have been illegal in Italy and most countries for ages.  Freedom is incredibly rare.

Who the hell's talking about Italy?

The ban in the original post(once again, written by someone else, but I agree with all that he said) was in Italy.

[John Dibble]

Heh, just saw a great analogy in the original discussion for this article(go to the link I linked and find it).

Question for those who are bitching about this - would you walk onto a shooting range where you knew people were recklessly shooting their guns and then say it's their fault that you were shot, even though you knew they were recklessly shooting guns and you entered the area of your own free will?

[John Dibble]

(banging head softly on wall)

You're about to be doing more of it. Maybe even harder.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1. The right of Property is greater than the right of the Individual to be safe? What, as a side bar, if a strip club wanted to open 100m from a school? I'd this that the right's of those children would outway the right to use privet property as you see fit? would that not crupt the school children and turn them all to....drugs? And if you say that it would depend on the community and the community has a right to determin where and what busnesses set up, well then there is a curbe on the rights of property owners wouldn't it?
[/quote]

Let's get one thing straight - you don't have the right to work anywhere you don't own. Your employer, by his or her grace, allows you the privelege of working on his or her property - you have absolutely no right to be there if the employer does not want you there. Also, since slavery is illegal, you are obviously there of your own free will, and you also of your own free will accepted the wage or salary that was offered by your employer. So, as long as you are there of your own free will, you can leave of your own free will - don't like the risks, don't take them, find work elsewhere. Can't do that? Then start your own business and then you can make your workplace up how you see fit.

As for the strip club, Gabu sums it up - it is for the parents to ensure their kids understand such things. Also, I advocate school choice, with vouchers or other system, so parents should just be allowed to switch schools if such a place opened up. And I need you to think for a moment - if a strip club opened next to a church, how many people would go? Not many - there'd be priest or nuns constantly around and nobody really wants that on their minds when they are trying to enjoy themselves. Similar concept with schools - people will be too worried about being seen by people they know for the business to be successful.

Just another question for ya - if a school decided to open up 100m from a strip club, should the strip club be shut down because of the children?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm posting over the concept of smoking bans in general, and I really don't give a damn what the laws are in the EU - something being law does not make it right. And once again, people don't have the legal right to work anywhere - their employers allow it and the people work of their own free will in those places.

And I've also heard of a case in the EU where a man who was self-employed(writer or something) was forbidden from smoking in the very small building where he worked. The thing was he worked alone - nobody ever used the building but him, but he was still forbidden from doing so because it was a 'workplace'. His 'right' to a clean and safe workplace was forced upon him - as far as I know you have a choice whether to exercise a right. Some right this is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Tory pretty well sums this up - smoking won't kill you that quick. Working in a bar is like working in a coal mine - there are risks to the job. Big difference between regulating something like structure to ensure a mine shaft won't collapse and something like smoking in bars.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Throwing away freedom for the sake of convenience? O.k. My defination of freedom and yours are completly different. I hold freedom to be the ability to make your own decisions and is not narrowly defined what i can do as a consumer. and it is non-chalant my attude, because I am not being told that I can never smoke again and that it's banned forever. it's just that if I want to smoke I would be required to walk outside and have one.
[/quote]

You aren't being forbidden from smoking ever again YET. That does not mean it won't happen. Need I remind you that there are more non-smokers than smokers, and it would only take enough of them to vote to ban smoking altogether to really make it happen.

"I hold freedom to be the ability to make your own decisions and is not narrowly defined what i can do as a consumer" - same with me, the only difference is you are willing to throw away your freedom of choice as a consumer. What if I am not willing to do so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I know what it is to live in a free socity. but i know that living in a free socity mean not just what I want all the time that sometime, and you should try this, you could think about others. That I'm not some two year old child running around demanding that everyone else let's me do what I want and to hell with the consequence to others and if they don't like it they can go somewhere else.
[/quote]

I do think about others - which is why I think I should allow them to make their own choices, even if they are stupid. Allowing someone to smoke at a restaraunt that I don't even own(and am at of my own free will) hardly affects me at all - that's far different from forbidding someone from stabbing me with a knife. And once again I'm not against banning smoking in government buildings - hell, I'm for that, as a citizen my tax dollars are forced to pay for them, so I better have a say in how they are run. The difference is I don't want to infringe upon the rights of others to decide basic policy on their own damn land - I go to restaraunts of my own will and pay for my meal of my own will, so since I'm not being coerced into anything(and neither are the whiners) it would hardly be fair of me to go demanding like a two year old child that people do what the hell I want(stop allowing smoking, in this case) and give in to my every whim.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I enjoy smoking and it was banned from pubs, i'm not bitching about it. i'm defending the rights of goverment to regulate certin behavour for the greater good, (i bet you just hate that sentance).  My rights are spelt out in our constitution, and not as an adendum and an amendment to the constitution, and it is only through a vote by the people that it can be changed. the same with the treaty establishing a constitution for eurpoe, the charter of fundemental rights.
[/quote]

Oh you're damned right I hate that sentence. The 'greater good' you say? A catchphrase used by communist regimes if I'm not mistaken - heck, they were all about the greater good, and you see how 'good' they reall were. Oh, and I also hate things like 'think of the children'. Phrases like these are just ways to stir up emotions and make people think ideas are good - intent does not make ideas good.

Also, the government has no rights - the government exists because the people allow it to. Your rights aren't gauranteed by the constitution - they existed beforehand. The Constitution, at least ours, only restricts government from infringing upon those rights, it doesn't create rights. Anything that the government grants you is privilege, and can be taken away.

I also don't give a rat's ass if it's one or one billion people who try to take my rights away - I'll fight them regardless. I've said before that democracy does not gaurantee freedom. Democracy is mob rule.

The only way to gaurantee freedom is to maintain reasoned self-interest. Contrary to what you may or may not believe, self-interest is not wrong. Self-interest is survival, the very substance of life. Through reasoned self interest, one can easily determine that the best way is to allow other people to lead their lives freely. To give in to the 'greater good' is to be a slave - I shall be shackled by no supposed 'greater good', for I am a free man and my life belongs to nobody else.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above. i have more fate in our system of government that you seem to have in your. and yes there have been things that governments in the past have done and i have disagreed with, but i know that i have my chance to change things....when the elections happen. and let me give you an example. in 1982 the government wanted to place V.A.T. (Valued Added Tax) on shoes and there for childrens shoes, and the government fell and an election was held and the government parites got a pasting on election day and it didn't happen.
[/quote]

Your faith(I assume that's what you meant) is mere foolishness. Do you honestly believe you can trust the government, just because people decided to vote down a tax? Don't make me laugh - of course they did, people hate taxes, especially ones that constantly assault them, like sales taxes(income taxes are much more easy to get by people, since they discriminate against the rich as well as you never actually see the money you lose). However, what makes you think that the mob won't vote against your rights at a future point in time? Just because the people can vote doesn't mean that they won't vote to restrict freedom. BEHOLD THE GLORY OF DEMOCRACY

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

well that may be the case in north america, but in ireland (and a good porten of western europe) smoking advertising is banned. that's really going to get up you nose it's it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But it is the duty of socity, which is expressed in the form of the government, to make sure that children are not going to be influnced into smoking by slick advertising. and don't tell me that advsetising dosen't work or they wouldn't spend so much money on it. Now i'm not saying, and i will never support, government replacing the parents of the child but it can provide help to parents through things like banning advertising on tv and billbords.

Television advertisement of cigarettes is banned here as well. Magazines and billboards are still allowed to do so. Hypocritically, alcohol is not under such restrictions - do you advocate that it be done as well? If you don't you are a hypocrite.

The 'help' the government is giving in your example takes away responsibility that should be the parent's. Parents who claim to need such help are simply lazy.

[John Dibble]

God that post is awful, European. The 'Preview' button exists so you can correct those quote mistakes. And does the word 'capitalization' mean anything to you? And let's not even begin on the spelling errors. If you want your argument taken seriously, make sure you bother presenting it in proper fasion. Sheesh. (please don't take this too seriously, but I seriously mean it, you wouldn't show up at a business meeting in your pajamas, people will listen and take you seriously when you present yourself as someone to be respected)

Anywho, on to business.

First off, you lack the fundamental difference between rights and privileges. More on this later.

1. Once people are elected, there is little way to keep them from wreaking havoc during their term. Sure, sometimes they can be impeached, but great damage can be done. Of course, this is why we hold elections every few years - to curb the damage bad officials do. Of course, based on the caliber of the candidates we get these days, I don't have much faith in the system anyways - it's like picking your poison, Arsenic(R) or Cyanide(D), put a checkbox next to which one you would like to kill you. That's why government should be restricted in it's abilities - even a democratic one - because it prevents damage from being done to people. This is hardly an alien way of thought - it is quite similar, if not the same, to the thinking of many of the men that founded this country.

2. The "common good" is always propaganda - ALWAYS. Anytime someone purports some proposed law for 'the common good' it is because their argument must not hold enough merit on its own to convince people it needs to be done. It doesn't even matter if the person using the argument has good intentions or not.

Wizard's Second Rule: The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.  It sounds a paradox, but kindness and good intentions can be an insidious path to destruction.  Sometimes doing what seems right is wrong, and can cause harm.  The only counter to it is knowledge, wisdom, forethought, and understanding the First Rule.  Even then, that is not always enough.

3. The government has no rights - what you have shown are merely powers granted to the government. The government has no right to them. This is the fundamental difference between rights and privileges - rights are inalienable, privileges are granted and can be taken away. You admitted yourself that the government can only exist with the consent of the people - the people can abolish it at any time, it has no right to exist. Since it has no right to exist, it really has no rights at all, now does it? To think that the government has no right to exist but at the same time has other rights is a contradiction.

Wizard’s Ninth Rule: A contradiction can not exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole. To believe in a contradiction is to abdicate your belief in the existence of the world around you and the nature of the things in it, to instead embrace any random impulse that strikes your fancy – to imagine something is real simply because you wish it were.

4. Your rights are not granted - they are inalienable. You have every right to exist. If the government was indeed the force that granted rights, that would imply that the government has the right to take them away. If indeed that is true, or at least what you believe, then the government can take away your right to exist by whim alone. But your right to exist is inalienable - it is granted to you by nobody(except perhaps your god, if you believe in such things), it is inherent, and nobody has the right to take it away from you without provocation. So, once again the Bill of Rights is merely a restriction on government to help ensure it does not infringe upon your inalienable rights, it does not grant them because you already have them.

5. I'm only more likely to be free under a democratic government if I'm in the majority. Otherwise I'm more likely to have my freedoms voted away as the minority. Democracy is a horrible form of government - did you even bother reading the article I linked? The government must exist in some form or another, but only because it is a necessary evil that prevents greater evils from trying to take away our freedom, but because it also has the potential to do the same it should be kept minimal in it's power. Give it more power and it will likely take away more freedom, democratic or not. The U.S. Government was originally supposed to be set up in a way that kept power minimal and divided, so that it would be very difficult to restrict freedom. The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic, a form of government that has democratic elements but is not a true democracy. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - give absolute power to the majority and they will absolutely corrupt. The U.S. system held checks on the power of the majority, as well.

6. Social Darwinism and self-interest - you fail to see how self-interest works, because you are indoctrinated to always associate it with greed. All people have different self-interests. Ultimately, my responsibility is to myself, not to my fellow man, but that does not stop me from donating to charity every now and then. I also mad sure to specify 'reasoned' in front of self-interest. If I gave in to every self-interested thought, I probably would have killed, raped, and pillaged something by now, wouldn't I have? Putting thoughts on morality aside, because my self-interest is reasoned, I know that if I did those things other people would want to do the same to me, so out of self-interest I don't do those things. Now, I also think such things are immoral, but my self-interest gives me one more reason not do do such things. It's also in my self-interest to not go around restricting the freedom of others, because others will start wanting to restrict my freedom. This is why putting reason in your self-interest ensures freedom.

Wizard's Sixth Rule: The only sovereign you can allow to rule is reason.  The Sixth Rule is the hub upon which all rules turn.  It is not only the most important rule, but the simplest.  Nonetheless, it is the one most often ignored and violated, and by far the most despised.  It must be wielded in spite of the ceaseless, howling protests on the wicked.

You also probably think that self-interest can only lead to bad things, in which case you would be wrong. Let us say that we live in an area where the nearest butcher shop is 50 miles away. For us to get meat to feed our families is quite a burden on us. A man named Bob moves into town and opens up a butcher shop right down the street from our homes. He opens this shop to make money - he isn't here to help us out, he's here to make money for himself and his own family. Even though he opened the shop purely for his own gain, we still benefit from it - we save money on gas, we save time(which we can now spend with our family, working, or doing leisure activities), and we can get more meat more often from the above savings, not to mention other benefits we might receive. Rather than harming us, Bob's self-interest did us a lot of good.

[John Dibble]

7. Speed limits - This is a very different issue from smoking bans in restaruants, and I'll tell you why. It comes down once again to rights and privileges. For me to even enter a privately owned restaraunt on privately owned land is a privilege - I have no right to be there, and can only be there by the consent of the owner. Roads on the other hand, are owned by the government, meaning they are ultimately owned by the people - here democracy and government have more authority than I do on my own land, in which I am for the most part sovereign by right, because while I have a say in the use of the road, it is public property so here I have to compromise with everyone else. It's similar to joint property ownership - if more than one person owns property the owners must compromise on use. However, if the public does not own the restaraunt they don't have the right to vote on it's policies.

8. I'm my own man, nobody owns me - I made that comment simply because it is the stone cold truth. Society has no claim to me. Smoking is only part of that. And once again you confuse rights and privileges - I can't smoke anywhere I damn well please. Remember, I said that I would favor banning smoking in government buldings - i.e. public property, which as a member of the people I have a share of ownership in. I don't have the right to smoke or forbid smoking on someone else's property - first off, I am there of my own free will(barring they are holding me against my will, but considering they violate my rights by doing so it is a completely different case) and am only there by their consent, so being there is a privilege and not a right, and that consent can be withdrawn at any time for any reason. Since I am there of my own free will, but it is their property, I have to go by their rules or risk being kicked out. If they don't wish me to smoke, they can kick me out for it by right, but if they were to allow me to smoke(not that I would, it's a nasty habit I don't intend to start) that is their right as owner(s) of the property, but I do not have the right to tell the owners that they have to stop allowing smoking - to do so would say that property rights don't exist. If I own property, I have every right to smoke there. If government owns property, it is owned by me and all other citizens collectively and therefore policy is determined by the majority of the owners, which is perfectly fair so long as it does not violate certain absolute rights(like the right to life).

9. Society - society isn't a collective blob of everyone, it is a every individual. Individuals, alone or in groups, can express themselves in many ways - free speech for instance, free association, ect. A large chunk of society can get together and sat 'we like cheeses' and society has therefore expressed itself, or at least part of it has. There's never a case where all of society agrees, so all of society never expresses itself in the same way at the same time.

10. Advertising - I seriously have to question the effectiveness of smoking advertisement. You would have to show me a study that shows a decline in people starting to smoke after advertisement is illegalized(while taking into account other factors, like anti-smoking advertisement) for me to be convinced it is a major factor.

11. Personal Responsibility - Do remember that when you walk into a smoke-filled bar you are pretty much already aware of the smoke, or at least you are upon entering(if there are ashtrays and no smokers you should at least know that smoking is allowed). How is it that you have no responsibility for deciding to enter and stay within the bar? Would you enter a 'reckless shooting range' of your own free will, knowing people will be recklessly shooting guns, and blame other people when you get shot? Remember, every time you leave your house you take risks, and you are at least partially responsible for said risks. In the case of willingly entering a bar or restaraunt where smoking is allowed, you are completely responsible for what happens.

[John Dibble]

Now down to business......

Wizard's Second Rule:...........

Wizard’s Ninth Rule:...........

Wizard's Sixth Rule:............

Wizards Rule? This is life, not warhammer.

My response is.....Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, Niccolò Machiavelli, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Rachel Carson, Milton Friedman, John Rawls,  Bernard Williams, Charles Taylor, and Bernard Crick. Read them, like what they say. Don't like what they say, but at least read them.

Wizards Rule, is this the bases of all your political thought? As I was reading your post I had to stop and look it up on google. No wonder you have no problem justifying doing what you want.

I have no problem in you pointing out spelling errors and so forth but then to go on and pepper your argument with this drivel has killed any argument you can ever make.

Please go here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_philosophy
read, think, then come back, argue with me.

Warhammer? Sorry, wrong source. I don't even play Warhammer(I believe it is a game, if I'm not mistaken). The actual source is the Sword of Truth book series, written by best selling author Terry Goodkind.

I use the Wizard's Rules because they contain wisdom and thought. I know political philosophy. If you ever actually read the series you would know that it has a good deal of political philosophy in each book - just because they are works of fiction does not mean they contain no truth.

The rules, as written in the series so far, are thus:

People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything.  Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true.  People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true.  People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all easier to fool.

The greatest harm can result from the best intentions.  It sounds a paradox, but kindness and good intentions can be an insidious path to destruction.  Sometimes doing what seems right is wrong, and can cause harm.  The only counter to it is knowledge, wisdom, forethought, and understanding the First Rule.  Even then, that is not always enough.

Passion rules reason.

There is magic in forgiveness.  Magic to heal.  In forgiveness you grant, and more so in the forgiveness you receive.
Note: The forgiveness must be sincere.

Mind what people do, not only what they say, for deeds will betray a lie.

The only sovereign you can allow to rule is reason.  The Sixth Rule is the hub upon which all rules turn.  It is not only the most important rule, but the simplest.  Nonetheless, it is the one most often ignored and violated, and by far the most despised.  It must be wielded in spite of the ceaseless, howling protests on the wicked.

Life is the future, not the past. The past can teach us, through experience, how to accomplish things in the future, comfort us with cherished memories, and provide the foundation of what has already been accomplished. But only the future holds life. To live in the past is to embrace what is dead. To live life to its fullest, each day must be created anew. As rational, thinking beings we must use our intellect, not a blind devotion to what has come before, to make rational choices.

Deserve Victory.

A contradiction can not exist in reality. Not in part, nor in whole. To believe in a contradiction is to abdicate your belief in the existence of the world around you and the nature of the things in it, to instead embrace any random impulse that strikes your fancy – to imagine something is real simply because you wish it were.


Now read each, and you may notice that each one really doesn't have anything to do with real magic, wizardry, or any other such fantasy. They are pieces of advice, wisdom by which one can enhance how they run their lives. You think it is drivel, but the fact that you can not see the wisdom contained within something as simple as these shows your ignorance and closed-mindedness, not mine. You'll note I left out the 'Wizard's Rule' part this time - read each, consider, and tell me that they are really drivel. If I hadn't posted the Wizard's rule part in the first place, you wouldn't even consider it drivel, now would you?

Also, to further discount your argument that this is drivel, I will remind you that numerous other fiction authors have influenced political thought and philosophy in the past through their books. One such person is Mark Twain.

[John Dibble]

I've decided to go a bit farther on this subject. I will show in a few practical examples and explanations of how some of these rules can apply in the real world.

Look at the second rule: let's say I decide to help my friend with a school project. My intentions are clearly good - I want to help him where he wouldn't have had help before, I'm doing something I see as nice for him. It actually turns out, that in my attempt to help him I screw things up - I don't know much about the project, or the knowledge required to complete it. Ultimately, I end up just getting in the way, wasting his time, and he has to turn in an inferior project as a result. Had I used some forethought I would have realized my inexperience would just hinder him rather than help him. My intentions were good, but the results were bad. Simple, practical application of the second rule.

"Passion rules reason". The third rule is elegantly simple. It basically means that people have a tendency to let their emotions get the best of them, and they end up doing stupid things because of it. Knowing this will help you calm your temporary passions and bring you back to a state where you can make decisions based on careful thought rather than blind emotion. Look at crimes of passion - say a man catches his wife sleeping with his best friend, and he kills them. Now say the same man instead finds out from someone else what is going on, but he doesn't kill them. He's angry, sure, but he calmed down and used his head. If he had been able to keep his calm in the first situation, nobody would have died.

These are just a couple of many examples that could be used, and by no means encompass everything meant by the rules.

Also, they are not the basis of all my political thought, I just find them useful to quote. Terry Goodkind's books certainly influence me, because they contain far more than just the rules, but other sources also influence me - Jefferson, for instance, is a large influence.

[John Dibble]

I never said they were absolute truth. They are very general in nature. However that does not negate the wisdom contained within. No wisdom can be applied for everything. I applied them where I felt they would further my argument. Also, you seem under the notion that just because I referenced a fanatasy work it somehow negates my argument entirely - that says you are closed-minded.

And yes, it is fantasy, but that does not mean it has no value. Fables are clearly fantasy stories, yet their actual intent is more than just entertaining the reader - they are supposed to teach a lesson. The Sword of Truth series is much the same. The rules serve as plot devices and as lessons - each book in the series helps teach you something. Perhaps you've read books that were supposed to teach you something but you just missed the lesson.

Also, another fiction writer who has influenced political thought - Ayn Rand. Never read her books, but I do know they are fictional, and even you can not deny that they have influenced political philosophy. Ever read anything by Jonathan Swift? Heck, Gulliver's Travels were political satire, but they are clearly fantasy in terms of story. Fiction or fantasy, something can still be tought through such mediums.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The most important word in this rule is CAN. Because "sometime the greatest good CAN result from the best intentions." Changing one word changes the intention of the sentence, completely. I know that you don't care about it, but the European Union was founded with the best intention and it has caused the greatest good, especally when you consider the alternative.
[/quote]

Yes, CAN is important. But that does not make the rule itself invalid. Mere good intentions are never, ever good enough - intentions must be carried out with forethought and reason. Abandonment of forethought and reason is plain stupidity. Would you give money to every single beggar just because they need money? No. You'd eventually run out yourself. The lesson of the rule is not to let your good intentions get the better of your reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it dose. But reason rules passion, and it dose. It CAN.
[/quote]

I already explained that it could. As I said, the rules are not absolute. They are things to be cautious of.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

WHAT??? what a convoluted way of saying that forgiveness has a healing power. But looking back on the first rule  (people are stupid) and combining them together, why forgive them? It was probable there fault anyways. You now have the right to do anything that you want.
[/quote]

It is convoluted that you take this literally - does the word 'metaphor' mean anything to you? No, there is no physical healing power in forgiveness. It is more of a healing of the psyche(both of the forgiver and the forgivee), not the physical body. I know people have forgiven you for things you've done - does it not make you feel better when they do? Sorry, but this one is very difficult to explain without you having read the book, context is important. I'll do my best anyways.

I don't go about forgiving everyone for every transgression they cause. I forgive people who I feel deserve it. Even so, I don't go around harboring grudges for everything ever done wrong to me. I would be a hateful, bitter, hollow individual if I never forgave anyone. Now, I ask you to imagine what it would be like for you if nobody ever forgave anything you did, just consider it for a moment. Probably not pleasant, is it? People make honest mistakes - I forgive them for it. People give in to tempations - I forgive them. I don't expect people to be perfect, but so long as the one to be forgiven is at heart a good person who doesn't want to harm anyone, they usually deserve to be forgiven. Anyways, read the book and you might understand better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do deeds betray a lie? It is only through looking at the actions and the words of someone that you will understand that there is either truth or decide in there actions. What if someone believes a lie? There actions will conform to the lie that they hold to be true, and another thing. It is very hard to tell if someone is lying to you, just as it is to know if someone is telling you the truth. This is the essence of doubt.
[/quote]

If someone believes a lie, then they do not lie when they speak it - they say what they honestly believe to be true. First rule. It is the one who intentionally lies who's deeds can betray their lie. Example - my step-dad said he wasn't cheating on my mother, but he was. He had done it before. She knew he was lying because he acted in the same ways he did to cover it up the first time, and she caught him again - his deeds betrayed his lie. Had my mother only minded his words, she would still be married to a man who cheats on her. And once again there is 'can' in there. It is not absolute that deeds will always betray a lie, but in many cases they can. It is just a general good idea to follow.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a lie. There is no other word for it, passion is the thing that drives history forward. Passion is the thing that Has made men great and have visited the worst of tragedies upon us. A great man once said "A man who has not know passion has not lived"
[/quote]

This is very intertwined with the second and third rules. Passion drove Hitler - he was undoubtedly a 'great' man. Passion drove the formation of the USSR. Passion drives lots of things that were bad - madmen and brutes have passion too, you know. Yet, nowhere have I said that passion and reason can not coexist. The best leaders were very passionate, as were many of the worst(as I pointed out) - but the best used more than mere passion, they used their heads to think things through before they did them. If the intents of one's passion is not ruled by reason, you likely end up violating the second rule. Passion alone makes Nazis, communists, and the like. None of these men used reason. They allowed passion to be sovereign, and look what it ended up doing, either to themselves or to others, look at the kinds of leaders their passion brought them, and then you tell me whether passion or reason should be supreme.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Life is the past, because it is where we came from, it tells us who we are. The history we have of others actions is the life that we live today. Ignoring the past, as is implied in this "rule", and is to ignore it's lessons will only doom you to repeat them. It also ignores the fact the history is alive and well today. You told me that America isn't a democracy, you are right, it's a republic, based on the lessons of the Roman Empire. History alive and sort of well.
[/quote]

You leave out the bits that are convenient to you it seems. The parts you left out contain very important context.

"Life is the future, not the past. The past can teach us, through experience, how to accomplish things in the future, comfort us with cherished memories, and provide the foundation of what has already been accomplished. But only the future holds life. To live in the past is to embrace what is dead. To live life to its fullest, each day must be created anew. As rational, thinking beings we must use our intellect, not a blind devotion to what has come before, to make rational choices."

The rule states that yes, the past happened, and we can indeed learn from it and use that knowledge. However, we must not be obsessed with the past - we can't change it, but we can change the future.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is no conflict. Once again this comes down to context - you take things far too literally. "Passion rules reason" is a warning that people tend to allow their momentary passions to overwealm their rational thinking, and this is implied as a bad thing, because it is. The 6th rule builds on this and states that reason should be dominant over pasion, among other things. This is not a con

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If after all I have said you still think this, then you are hopeless. I do hope you actually read the books(you can find "Wizard's First Rule" in paperback in a number of bookstores, I assure you you will enjoy it, though at book 6 they get a little preachy, just to warn you). And I assure you, these 'catchphrases' have been very influential in many of my arguments, both in this thread and others - yet before I mentioned them you seem to have had great interest in reading my posts, you said so yourself.

[John Dibble]

To get this thread back on topic, I'm moving our discussion on these to another thread