It is only those who want to ban smoking, which forces someone here. In this case it's just Mr. Kindl, which rises above the others, which hangs into an agreement between the two strangers an adult who unjustifiably usurps the right to tell others where and under what conditions they must work.
Tomáš Kindl na Finmag.cz in many of his articles he defends the need to ban smoking (in restaurants, public spaces and so on).
In the last article "It is not enough to type a cigarette"He pointed up absurdity your view on this issue. After concluding that the current legislation is unclear, a solution is reached: let's ban it everywhere!
Unfortunately, I do not understand the premise that, if smoking at work is not regulated by law, should be banned. If, at the end, he stated that the solution is to "allow smoking by law everywhere", it would probably turn out the same way.
The fact is that if we banned smoking in restaurants to 'protect workers', it would be a similar situation if, for example, managers were prohibited by law from stress at work. For proponents of a smoking ban, this is usually a "populist argument", but the fact is that the "private property" argument has earned this label mainly because it none of the prohibitors could refute it yet.
The principle is simple: as far as "my pub" is concerned, I am the one who should determine whether it is smoked or not. If I offer a job, I voluntarily offer a share of my sales to future employees who, voluntarily - based on their decision - can accept my offer or not. It's their businesswhether they want to work in a smoking or non-smoking environment. Me as pub owners, the owner of the job, the circumstances that lead those interested in the job offered to me to apply for the job may be completely stolen. If they are "forced" by some of their problems It is not my problem.
Who forces whom?
Therefore, the phrase "a person is often forced to work in a smoking environment" is not true. Human is not forced to work nowhere. Definitely not an employer. It is purely a matter of agreement between the two parties, what to agree on. Without mutual consent, it is difficult to reach an agreement.
In other words, without state intervention, we have a situation where both the potential employee and the employer either agree or not on the basis of their decision. No one is forcing anyone to do anything.
However, with the intervention of the state, a gentleman, for example, enters into this private relationship Kindlwhich says:
"Not so, gentlemen! Have you voluntarily agreed to a smoking work environment? You have to change that! ”
It is only those who want to ban smoking, which forces someone here. In this case it's just Mr. Kindl, which rises above the others, which hangs into an agreement between the two strangers an adult who unjustifiably usurps the right to tell others where and under what conditions they must work. In this case, it is only Mr Kindl who is helping here - perhaps unknowingly - to rebuild the command economy.
How they differ in principle coercion of certain working conditions, the result of an agreement between the employer and the employee, the customer and the supplier, from coercion method of production, distribution or sales? It is always a matter of completely unjustified interference in foreign affairs, in a voluntary agreement of foreign persons, where both parties can express disagreement.
In contrast, however, state orders are enforced. Disagreement is not possible. So it is the state and the people like Mr Kindl who are the aggressors here attacking the judgment and actions of others.
Health (fatherhood) is not an argument
However, the alleged attempt to "protect the health of employees" is in itself nothing more than another attack. Trying to ban smoking by law due to a health hazard is equivalent to any effort to enact the obligation to be in a good mood and to feel happy, because a bad mood does not benefit people and is "contagious."
It's just about wrapped in nice words messagethat "you are all unruly fools who are ruining their health, and we which the wise will prevent! "
Just as popular "The state pays for the treatment of smokers" is not an argument to ban smoking. If the state health care system is not able to meet the individual needs of its "customers", it is not the fault of the customers, but of that system.
Blaming a smoker for not being able to meet his needs is like blaming customers for wanting a tasty pastry that a local baker is unable to deliver.
Health is everyone's business, individual. It thus requires individual care, not the state capital that we have here at the same time - and which is the result of exactly the same considerations that led to the view that 'smoking in restaurants should be banned'.
Dictatorship for excellence
So today they want to ban smoking, tomorrow it will be alcohol and then? Then, for example, dangerously slippery linoleum in children's rooms, dangerously short sleep or unhygienic biting of nails.
When it comes to "dangerous thinking", dangerous travel and the threat to the foreign exchange economy. However, the beginning is always the same - it's the moment when someone says to himself:
"I know better than they do what is good for them. I will arrange the good for them by law. "
Right, Mr. Kindle?