freedom2choose are taking on the government in the courts regarding the smoking ban. I think they have the right idea in challenging it on the basis of the ban being a violation of property rights. Unfortunately the law their legal people are using is the Human Rights Act of 1998. This states;

"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of the State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

These rights apply except when we say so.

Rights is an emotive issue and it is also heavily laden with false propaganda. Many things claimed as rights are not rights but priviliges. The one true right that has been attacked for more than a century by ill-meaning people who pretended to be caring is the right to property. This can be acknowledged by governments but where do they think they get the right to grant it?

A few centuries ago kings ruled by "divine right". The king could rule over everyone else because he was appointed by god to do just that. His laws and actions were also above question because, being appointed by god, he was obviously doing god's work. At least that was the justification preached to the masses. In truth the king ruled by virtue of having an army.

Today governments still rule by virtue of the threat of violence but they pretend they act on the "will of the people". And perhaps they do but the "people" are the very select few who tend to control things like the BBC and The Guardian. There is very little agreement on anything governments do amongst the riff-raff. We are kept fighting amongst ourselves through the glory of democracy and are seldom undistracted enough to see who the real enemy is.

I digress. The Human Rights Act is nothing but a PR document. It gives all manner of power to the government and very little to us. I will submit to smoking a complete tin of Erinmore should this case succeed on the basis of that law.

The fact is that, whether or not there is any law anywhere that acknowledges the right of property owners to control what they can do with their own property, we have a fundamental moral right to do so. Exceptions having to do with the "good of society" are pure statist bullshit.

We don't need to go to court for permission to exercise our rights.