This story is bad enough on its own - a barman questioning a woman who was drinking a low-alcohol beer - but the poll that accompanies it showing three quarters of people thought he was right is just sickening to the nth degree.
I cannot believe how many people think they have the right to stick their noses into other people's business. Is it any wonder we have such a meddling, snooping nanny state. It's a mirror of its myopic minions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
You are right, Lindsay. Nobody in the modern community has the right to take an interest in the welfare of any other person, even if that other person is defenceless and unable to to speak up for themselves. Well done. Barpersons should just take the money and shut up.
You won't see the busybodies challenging the pregnant tart in the company of a couple of scribble-faces, who is chucking down the RTD bourbons...
Oughtn't the bar owner have the right to decide who he'll serve? If the owner is happy for the barman to restrict service to pregnant women, why ought we worry? There are many bars out there from which to choose....
Anon, She ordered a light beer for pete's sake. How much a pregnant woman should drink is controversial and the prohibitionists don't have any solid scientific evidence. Some GPs are quite happy with a small amount. I completely abstained with my first child and limited myself to one wine on any occasion with the second. After extensive reading that's the choice I made. I would not have welcomed being challenged by a barperson about it.
Dave has a stronger point. Sure if the bar-owner has a policy of not serving alcohol to pregnant woman that's his prerogative. How he is going to police that in the early stages of pregnancy, when apparently the foetus is more vulnerable, is beyond me. And why not extend the policy to not serving heavy drinking semen-suppliers who increase the risk of miscarriage?
This particular woman strikes me as a responsible grown-up. When there are so many people the likes of Oswald's example, singling this one out is laughable. I'm glad she made a fuss.
Libertarians would say there should be no line in the sand.
There need to be a willing buyer and a willing seller. The seller may withdraw consent to sell the product for any reason he wishes, even if he might be irrational on it.
The difference between this and the Nanny state is that Nanny interfers with willing buyers and willing sellers both.
A private citizen taken some private responsibility on its private property. Nothing wrong with that. Given the campaigns and information provided to the public about drinking and pregnancy, this man might have thought he would giving her an abortive.
I'm a bit disappointed about this post Lindsay. Like PC, the libz are all for private responsibility but if people take that and sex, drugs or alcohol is involved, libz tend to get extremely upset.
Berend I get "extremely upset" because this bartender was telling the women he had more care for her unborn child than she did. What an insult. I don't buy (and neither did she obviously) very light use of alcohol is damaging. The guidelines have just gotten tighter and tighter with no demonstrable evidence. The woman wasn't being irresponsible. Can't you see there are two issues here? Drinking at a rate likely to cause fetal alcohol syndrome and light drinking.
People with misinformation (usually promoted by government agencies) do not have a god-given right to tell others how to behave. Too many intrinsically believe everything the state tells them simply because it is the state. Damn right I get angry about this sort of stuff.
Lindsay, in your perfect libertarian world what did this barman do wrong? The government didn't force this barman to behave like he did. It might have influenced it, or it might not. The man has a duty to his customers, and he thought this was the most responsible way to behave.
You can't have it both ways: either the government determines the boundaries or we do.
Berend, I determine my boundaries. Not the government. I didn't turn this into a libertarian argument. Dave Crampton did, notwithstanding the bar owner was not in agreement with the bartender anyway.
I do not believe in a "perfect libertarian world" but have conceded that a bar can run a policy of not serving a pregnant mother ANY alcohol if it wants to but it is patronising, insulting and probably impossible to implement.
What happened here was a simple situation of one person trying to impose their view on someone else. Happens all the time. People are entitled to get angry when it happens to them or get angry on someone else's behalf.
Berend,
Both here and on PCs blog you seem to have confused an issue.
What a libertarian believes is someone's legal right may not be in line with they believe is sensible.
This is because libertarians do not believe in using legislation to force their opinions on others.
So Lindsay can believe that it's stupid for a bar-owner to refuse to serve a pregnant woman, but also believe it is his right to do so as the owner.
PC can think that it is stupid for a casino to chuck out a large breasted woman, but believe that it is their right to do so.
A belief in private property rights does not preclude you from offering an opinion on someone else's choices.
You'll notice that PC didn't say that the casino should be forced to take the woman in and Lindsay didn't say that the bar owner should be forced to serve her a drink.
To borrow from Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say [/do], but I will defend to the death your right to say [/do] it."
So no need for more comments of this ilk!
"Lindsay, in your perfect libertarian world what did this barman do wrong?"
Again, nothing says that a libertarian can't hold an opinion on someone's action, despite upholding their right to take that action.
You seem to think "legal" and "right" or "sensible" are synonymous - Not so.
In a "perfect Libertarian world" there is no reason an action can't be stupid but legal.
Lindsay, your post heading "myopic minions" has a subliminal "talkfest churning" magnetic quality.
"A belief in private property rights does not preclude you from offering an opinion on someone else's choices."
and
"You seem to think 'legal' and 'right' or 'sensible' are synonymous - Not so."
That's it exactly, CD. Well said.
Berend, my boy, you're annoying me! Like Leighton Smith once did, (no longer, though - I darn well saw to that), you seem determined to believe that all libertarians think and act as one on matters of sexual morality/personal behaviour.
Goddamn it, man! We simply accept that adults have the right to choose their actions, provided nobody else is violated in the process.
That does not mean to say we have to agree with the chosen actions. It's just minding one's own business. Consider your hand smacked!
(Oh, and Lindsay has already responded to the suggestion that the unborn child was being harmed).
Post a Comment