I am, however, inclined to support time-limited interventions into private decisions. It might be well to compel restaurant owners and patrons to try non-smoking on for size. People are reluctant to change, even for the best of reasons. But could we not, say, ban smoking for five years – and then go back to free choice? I suspect the effect would be permanent, but at least the government would no longer be a part of it.

Whoops, sorry Craig, forgot I was talking to a UVA guy. More rules to which people must submit.

My breaking point with more traditional libertarianism came when I decided that my liberties are best safeguarded by preventing any entity from accumulating enough power to take my liberties away. Power, therefore, must be diffused and decentralized.

Since power is both economic and political, however, a belief that economic power must be decentralized in order to safeguard liberty is enough to make me a heretic in nearly any libertarian circle. So I walk around calling myself a “progressive” which I can mostly define as I want.

I also think orthodox libertarianism suffers from human nature. If people are generally good, then laws and regulations are largely unnecessary. But if people are out to scam me and businesses are cutting corners on safety and/or quality and bribes/sweetheart deals are “part of the cost of doing business,” then I want laws and regulations to protect myself. After all, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

In short, I have similar apprehensions about economic consolidation as I do about centralized government. After all, if my taxes go up I can vote bums out of office. But if all the gas stations in an area are owned by one company and the price of gas goes up to $4, I really don’t have a lot of options. Or imagine if power companies were unregulated in Virginia; would I be able to do anything but protest loudly yet impotently if my electric rate were to go up 25%? 50%? 100%? Do I really have a choice?

My political liberties are best safeguarded by federalism, separation of powers and a multi-party system. My economic liberties are best safeguarded by preventing consolidation and enforcing quality and safety standards. If I’m not a libertarian, it’s because of a bad definition.

Oh, if I had a dollar for every CR who told me they were “really more of a libertarian” then told me how they supported closed borders or a smoking ban or something of that ilk….

Ah, to party like it’s 1999.

At this point I think if smokers aren’t willing to organize and push back a bit against the ban, it’s just a fait accompli and we should move on to debating the next expansion of the nanny state: High Fructose Corn Syrup.

My continued whining has more to do with the principle of the policy than any political results.

And I speak as a non-smoker who doesn’t really think the ban is necessary.