Excellent response bastiat.
However, I am not satisfied.
You are trying to put me to bed without supper, but I think a few points need to be brought into sharper focus.
1. Your response is predicated on the notion that:
a. The person who took the job at the smokey place knew in advance that they would have to deal with the smoke.
b. The person who took the job with the lecherous creep did
not know what they were getting into.
Since the root of this monkey circus is the notion of private property rights, and the right of the owner to do as he pleases with his property, I feel compelled to point out:
In example "a", the owner can smoke or allow smoking at any time. This means that the employees could be in a smoke free environment for a few years, then the owner takes up smoking and hires a few human chimneys and suddenly, they have to choose - stay and suck smog, or pound sand.
In example "b", it is entirely possible that the sexual harassment could begin in the interview - with something of a casting couch arrangement. Maybe the owner does not do anything overt to his employees - maybe he just starts playing porno on the TV in his office and on the TV in the break room. Perhaps like the above example, he just starts doing it one day.
The way the laws and the courts are right now, you can be busted for S.H. simply for telling your buddy a sexual joke in confidence - but if someone overhears it, you can get pinched. Even worse, if I am in the room and I overhear it, but am not party to it, I can get pinched as well. I think in some cases the law goes too far, but I tend to agree with the spirit of the law.
So - if it is your private property, should you be able to post up X-rated pictures and play adult movies at the job site? I think that is a lot more analogous to smoking than just "put out or you're fired".
A lot of people view porn as harmless and a lot of people view it as addictive, corrosive, destructive, degrading and evil.
Kinda like a certain other product
Like someone mentioned, you cannot just burn your place down, neither can you shoot next to someones head. Some things are just considered too dangerous for society.
So, as I mentioned in the post on TFL, if you think "society" cannot ban or regulate certain behaviors, where do you draw the line?
If we say smoking should be legal for the cause of liberty, then what about:
Fire regulations for theaters?
Health Codes for restaurants?
OSHA codes for industry?
What about laws that require building inspections and require you to dispose of your garbage and sewage in a certain manner?
Could you not make an arguement that these are all infingements on the rights of private property owners?
Certainly.
Now I do realize that right now, the anti smoking laws are at the state and local level. Perhaps you would all be happier if there was a Federal law?
The Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to regulate commerce. It would be a small matter indeed to make the point that allowing smoke in public businesses is an issue that affects interstate commerce. (You know, tourism, the tobacco trade, etc - hey, if they can use it to ban machine guns...)
Ok, I had a few more points, but I am pretty tired right now... someone else run with this.