I wrote the following to Radley earlier, but feel it is also appropriate for this current string of posts on WtP:

Long-time reader, enjoy your work very much. I consider myself to be
a libertarian with possibly a soft spot for the environment where I
have not been totally convinced that government protection of certain
lands is inappropriate.

I am writing in response to your recent entry on anti-smoking efforts
now focusing in on homes of smokers with children. I am 100% on board
with the libertarian proposal that businesses should be allowed to run
their establishments as they see fit, whether that means smoking or
non-smoking, or some combination thereof.

Although the anti-smoking crusade is just now getting around to
smokers smoking privately in their homes if they have children, I
believe it is more in line with libertarian principles than the
business ban *if* the science on the effects of second-hand smoke on
children is solid.

I know that this is a very, very slippery slope upon which to perch,
but I think it is at least worthy of analysis. Children have very
limited freedom by which they can avoid a parent who smokes. It is
not analogous to me avoiding a restaurant because I don't want to
breathe second-hand smoke and I know they allow smoking there. A
parent who smokes subjects a child to that smoke whether they have
consented to it or not--and in the case of infants and toddlers even
before they have the physical capacity to object.

A libertarian would reject outright a course of action that *forced*
one adult to subject themselves to another adult's second-hand smoke.
Yet we allow exactly that when it comes to a parent and his or her
child because it conflicts with the principle that parents should be
free to parent and raise children as they please. I am not
necessarily convinced that the rights of the parent in this case
outweigh the rights of the child. Children do not have the same
rights as adults, but that does not make them non-persons.

I acknowledge the slippery slope aspect of this discussion, that
parents can damage their children's health when it comes to the food
they choose to feed their children, or how much exercise they require
of their children. Parents can stunt their children's intellectual
capacity via the types and amount of television they subject their
children to. Parents can warp their children mentally and emotionally
via family disfunction or verbal abuse. If we allow anti-smoking
fascists this victory, what parental choices will big-goverment
liberals go after next?

I don't know, except that I don't believe that in and of itself is a
sufficient reason to reject the original premise without
consideration.

In any event, I didn't know whether you had considered this or whether
your reaction in your blog to the latest anti-smoking effort were
merely an extension of your anger at their prior efforts related to
businesses, which I agree with wholeheartedly.
Jim | 12.19.05 - 3:25 pm | #

Sorry, that last was a bit of cut-n-paste from an e-mail I had written, so it didn't wrap like I thought it would.
Jim | 12.19.05 - 3:26 pm | #

Jim, thanks for the thoughtful post even if it's just a cut-and-paste (no need to reinvent the wheel). You raise some very good issues that I had not considered. While I'm sceptical that second hand parental smoke hurts kids, there is room for possible state action if true. Although I would probably rather let kids suffer (assuming it's mild) then create the slippery slope in this area. Parents that feed their kids fatty foods probably also harm their kids. For that matter, so do parents who teach their kids certain beliefs (racism comes to mind).
cicero | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 2:31 pm | #