Conflicting Rights
The most difficult problem in laws and government is the resolution of conflicting rights.
A simple example is the right to smoke cigarettes and the right to not inhale cigarette smoke. How do laws resolve this? In the US is to rule unilaterally that one rule governs. For decades the right to smoke ruled. Recently the right to not inhale cigarette smoke is gaining ascendancy.
Why does it have to be all one way or the other? I recently heard a libertarian express the idea that individual establishments should be able to set their own policy—to smoke or not—and the patronage of the citizenry would then drive the establishments to the proper proportion that the citizens supports.
That sounds like the right idea to me. I don’t smoke. I don’t want to go to restaurants that allow smoking, but I am aware that many people (maybe 20% of adults) do smoke. If they want to be foolish in their pursuit of happiness, it is not in the government’s purview to stop them.
