Last week, I wrote the Friday Daily Journal on whether the state should ban dogs from restaurants. Below is an email sent to me from an innkeeper who disagrees with me, and below that is my response to the individual.
I’ll let the exchange speak for itself. BTW: I recommend reading my column first.
The Email to Me
So, if the restaurant owner like to have flock of cockroaches around for visual excitement, and maybe a few mice to pick up the crumbs off the tablecloths, then that?s his decision? I suppose you would argue that the public can vote with its feet and the market will decide whether animals are a good idea. But this is more than a bit disingenuous. There?s a well-established community consensus that the police powers of the state are properly invoked to protect the public health and safety in reasonable ways. It?s an evolving standard, and the edge of reasonableness is sometimes fuzzy. But the principle is sound. Not everybody agrees that smoke-free restaurants are a good thing, but most people do. I think the same would be true of dogs. I?ve met some charming pooches in my favorite coffee shop, but I?ve watched others pee on the floor, pick fights and get into barking bouts. I turn away people every week who want to bring their ?well-behaved? dogs and 4-year-olds with them to my inn. That?s my right as an owner, of course, but some would argue that I?m impinging on individual rights to travel with a menagerie. Just as some argue that their personal constitutional right to commit slo-mo suicide by cigarette is violated here.
As a restaurant customer, by the way, I have actually witnessed a party at another table that included a dog sitting in a chair, eating off a plate. That?s not a situation where one can gracefully vote with ones feet.
As a small business owner who is subjected to twice-yearly health department inspections, I can testify to the maddening arbitrariness and occasional stupidities of the police power in action. But I muddle through because it goes with the territory. We have a license to operate and by consenting to that, we consent to an array of government intrusions, some of them more reasonable than others.
I could probably think of more compelling issues to take a stand on than
My Response
Thank you for your email.
You actually make my argument for me. You turn people away every
week?that?s exactly what restaurants can do. Regarding the police
power, it doesn?t apply here when people can make their own decisions
on health and safety. The restaurant can decide whether dogs are
allowed and patrons can decide whether they want to eat at the
restaurant.
As you mention, some may argue that they have a right to travel with a
menagerie or to smoke. However, they would be incorrect?they have no
such rights. The only rights in question here are those of the
property owners. I don?t have the right to smoke at your house or your
restaurant, but you certainly have the right to tell me I can?t smoke
at your house or restaurant.
Also, let?s be clear?this isn?t about whether dogs should be allowed in
restaurants. The question is whether the government should prohibit
the restaurant from making its own decisions regarding dogs.
Regarding the cockroaches and mice, there would be no way to have them
in a dining area without expecting them to also be in the kitchen?in
that situation, when they are in the kitchen and are hidden from view
from customers (they can?t make informed choices), I would say
regulation is appropriate.
I disagree that this isn?t an important issue?in fact, it is an
extremely important issue. It is another example of the all too-common
action by some to use the force of government to impose their
preferences on others with complete disregard for property rights and
individual choice.
When the government starts to prohibit actions and behaviors (which we
are entitled to engage in as a matter of right) because of alleged
harms that others could completely avoid or are indirect in nature, we
go down a scary slippery slope. This is the same type of mindset we
see when it comes to trying to regulate eating habits, sexual
behaviors, who can procreate (i.e. forced sterilization) and much worse.
All the best,
Daren Bakst, J.D., LL.M.
Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies
John Locke Foundation
