There was an interesting discussion on NC Spin this morning concerning the banning of smoking in NC restaurants. Chris Fitzsimon made the point that it was simply an application of the general principle that the government has a right to set health standards for restaurants in general, for example cleanliness regulations. In fact he is right, if we accept this principle then the only way to argue against the banning of smoking in restaurants is to argue against the idea that second hand smoke is indeed unhealthy, rather than just an annoyance. This argument could have been made but wasn’t.
The fact is that the fundamental principle regarding the role of government is what should be challenged. It is not part of the proper role of government to set health standards for private establishments and this is why regulations regarding smoking in restaurants should be rejected. This does not mean that restaurants will be unclean and unhealthy. People prefer to eat in clean rather than dirty environments and businesses want first and foremost to please their customers. Furthermore, in a free market one could expect private organizations like UL, Consumer Reports, or Good Housekeeping to spring up. These organizations would offer their seal of approval for restaurants that meet their standards. Restaurants that didn’t receive the approval of such organizations would suffer in the market place. Furthermore, in a true free market any restaurant that served contaminated food or food that made their customers sick would be liable for any harm that was caused and would suffer from a loss of reputation. The recent ?finger food? problem at Wendy’s is a prime example.
The main issue is that if we do not defend the basic principle of liberty in the tough cases we will end up being caught up in our own contradictions.
