If you want to find out whether or not someone is a libertarian at heart, ask them how they feel about smoking; more often than not, the fascistic underbelly will shine through almost instantly …

I recently experienced the fantasy of nearly every red-blooded hetero-American (or other) man the other night: I was standing at a social event, drinking free beer and munching on free hors d’oeuvres, chatting with several rather tall, very attractive, pleasantly slender, clearly intelligent and creative single women: one blonde, one brunette and one a striking redhead.

What’s more, from my personal agenda, they were all songwriters, who had each come to Nashville, as I did initially, to pursue that craft and perhaps make a living at it. The fantasy continued to play out, as we chatted and got to know each other a bit better; staying “in the moment” became more and more difficult, at least for this little black duck.

And then the conversation turned, and not in a good way, as one of the women commented on the proposed state legislation, to ban smoking in all “public” places, expressing her heartfelt approval of the measure. Then, almost without skipping a beat, both of the other two goddesses chimed in, in total agreement. (Mind you, we were standing in the back-barroom of a local tavern/restaurant, just off Music Row, which — by the choice of the owner and his/her patrons (mainly tourist trade and music industry) — was already … “smoke-free” … voluntarily!)

[Update: June 1, 2007: The Tennessee House passed what the papers call a “watered down” version of the bill, which “specifically exempts bars, tobacco shops, restaurant patios, mechanic shops, small businesses with three or fewer employees, private clubs, private homes and residences as well as allowing a maximum of 25 percent of hotel rooms to be smoking rooms.” Although it is still draconian and mandates rather than persuades, it is at least a little less oppressive overall (nice that they include “private homes” in the list; we wouldn’t want to think we weren’t “allowed” to control our own property, now would we?) - SAT]

I tried to restrain my ire, replying only that this attitude was at the root of much of what was wrong with our society today: if the first impulse when faced with an issue is to pass laws prohibiting behavior, then the idea of “freedom” will always be secondary to the desires of whatever pressure-group happened to hold power. If one wished to see more non-smoking areas around town, one had only to patronize such places as existed, and boycott those that were not.

(Note: That “market pressure” has already created an ever-decreasing number of places where one may light up in public, along with “smoking or non-smoking” as a CHOICE — in restaurants, hotel rooms, and even the majority of the respectable bars in Greater Nashville. The most notable exceptions are either (a) well known as smoker hangouts, or (b) well-ventilated and high-ceilinged, so the effect of smoke on others is minimized.)

I also mentioned that I used to be a tobacco-smoker, many years ago, and now did my best to avoid smoke-filled rooms, did not allow it to be smoked in my own house, and applauded the many local music clubs and bars that had gone “smoke-free” over the time I’ve lived here. (The change in just the last 10+ years has been dramatic and widespread, so that now there really are very few public venues where proponents of this “filthy habit” are not either banished entirely, or at very least sequestered in a small and shrinking segment of the establishment’s environs.)

The response of one of the women, quickly agreed with by her sisters-in-disarmingness, was that this was “a health issue,” and therefore somehow transcended all other considerations. Moreover, she said, since only about 25 percent of Americans still smoke, clearly “the majority should prevail.” I resisted the temptation to make note to this alleged “progressive liberal” that without “minority rights” being upheld, most of the social changes she probably approved of would never have taken place.) She was herself quite determined to wipe out smoking, wherever she found it, because it was somehow her “right to clean air” that was involved here.

I barely restrained myself from pointing out that this was the same mentality as the one about keeping terrorists out -– which led to the passage by Congress, without even reading the text, of the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorists Act of 2001” (always remember and never forget; it’s only a devious acronym, and not “patriotic” by any stretch). I also barely resisted noting how subtly our rights to be left alone, if we so choose, have been severely eroded by a long string of much less draconian measures, which set the context for the more obvious major depredations (Gitmo, the Military Commissions Act and the essential repeal of habeas corpus, just for starters). Somehow I sensed it would only make more conflict, more shouting … and even less chance any of them would take anything I said to heart.

Then, one of the three women now chimed in, affirming more of this “majority rule” claptrap, and inexplicably began accusing me … of advocating “individual tyranny,” the supposed premise by which any one person could “rule” over even the overwhelming agreement among the rest of society. I tried to point out, still in a fairly even tone, the fallacy involved in comparing the preservation of a “zone of sovereignty” around each of us as individuals, with the “mobocracy” of the herd, in terms of what it leads to as a social order. She just prattled on, continuing with this essentially social democratic cant, attempting to deflect all reason and rhyme on this topic.

I finally snapped, and probably said some things that ensured not only that my back-of-the-mind fantasy would never be fulfilled, with any of these darlings, but that the potential for future friendly encounters with any of them might also be discounted. How, I wondered to myself as I began to spout off, could all of these women — each seemingly so aware and perceptive, and fairly tuned into current issues — fail so completely to grasp the concepts of “choice” and “rights” … concepts which not only lie at the heart of the most essential “women’s issue,” but whose foundations are so essential to creating a civil society in the first place? Why were they so quick to endorse the “point of a gun” legislative methods, instead of seeking to convince and persuade people of the value of their viewpoint, thereby raising consciousness around them in the process, and removing any need for some edict from the throne?

And it hit home, at long last, the question I’ve been wrestling with for some time now: How can we as libertarians -– believing each of us has the right to remain uncoerced (even “ungoverned” in any practical sense), as long as we do not aggress against others — ever hope to convince the world of the validity of our (absurdly simple) position … if at the first sign of conflict, most folks still jump to (as Congressman Ron Paul so aptly put it, back in the first GOP “debate”) the governmental Hobson’s Choice (“prohibit it or subsidize it”) as a paradigm for social change?

Sadly enough, this was not an isolated incident; a few days later, at a party held in a private home (where smokers were asked to go outside to puff, as was the right of the homeowner/tenant/party host), another fully grown woman (apparently rational otherwise) was also appalled, when I suggested that she was perfectly capable of choosing to avoid places where people chose to smoke, or where the property-owners wished to allow it.

To her, it was somehow her “right” to go anywhere she pleased, and be able to know there would be none of those evil tobacco-fiends in her midst. When I expressed my disagreement, mostly with a sad grimace and the beginnings of stating the case, she ended the conversation abruptly with “this is turning into an argument, and I do not wish to have one at this time” … and walked away.

I’ve also had a conversation since then, with a longtime friend -– novelist, publisher, bookseller and Internet entrepreneur Pierre Beaumier -– who’s not only a libertarian, but is also the most courteous and considerate chain-smoker I’ve ever met!

Although he is severely addicted to the danged things, coming into his house is not an encounter with smoke-filled rooms: He’s very careful about room-ventilation, the placement of his cigarettes, etc.; he also keeps several parts of the house smoke-free, with barriers between areas of his own home — out of consideration for his guests, as well as the overall ambience of the house. All in all, I’ve stayed with him and his family on numerous trips, and have never left there coughing or otherwise feeling compromised healthwise, let alone smelling of smoke myself or in my clothing. It can be done, and he proves it, over and over.

Meanwhile, I’d note that in several situations back here in Nashville, when I have entered some of the clubs where smoking is still the norm, I’ve had to leave after a while, just to catch my breath, often being raspy-throated for several hours afterward. I don’t go to those places very often. Meanwhile, one establishment, where I have recently begun to host and book a weekly songwriters’ night, is a smoking-permitted bar/restaurant. However, the place is well-ventilated, high-ceilinged and often features an open-air environment (they remove a portion of the front wall during all but inclement weather, to allow for better airflow).

The challenge there, for us non-smokers (including the songwriter/players) is to pack the place mostly with our fellow non-smokers, who also come to hear the music, instead of to drink, smoke and talk loudly over the tender ballads. I would no more outlaw the smoking of this latter group, than I would attempt to silence their conversation, except by suggestion. It is fairly obvious that this can be resolved with conversation instead of confrontation, and that the only effects of passing this proposed law are twofold:

(a) it lets a lot of politicians take credit next election for changing something that was already in progress naturally; and

(b) it gives a small but vocal minority, whose rights will be severely curtailed, another thing to be angry about. Such a beautiful thing, this participatory demoncrazy is!

Anyway, my friend Pierre also mentioned during the chat that at least one town in his native state (guess which one? Hint: I left there well over a decade ago!) is now on the verge of passing the next step in anti-smoker tyranny: Very soon, it may be possible for a police officer to pull over a motorist for not wearing a seatbelt … and then ticket/fine that person additionally — if even the aroma of tobacco-smoke is detectable within the vehicle. (I told him he must be mistaken, that such a law would be unconstitutional on its face; he said it’s about to be voted on, at least in that town, and is reportedly being watched by those in several other municipalities who would emulate it. I researched it myself, and discovered he’s correct, though the decree is still being held up by a few of the saner town-elements.)

Being the rebel he is, he was planning, if they passed the thing, to drive through the town and pass by a cop -– with his window open and a smoldering cigarette held in plain sight — and then flick the butt in the officer’s direction as he passed him by. I suggested he stop short of tossing the butt, since that might actually be interpreted as an “act of aggression” against said officer, and would also technically be “littering.” He decided instead he would simply drive by and greet the cop with a smile and an extra-long drag on his cigarette.

Anyway, for some reason, I now seem to be stumbling onto a fairly steady stream of otherwise apparently intelligent, thoughtful, caring people — the kind who wouldn’t dream of pushing someone out of their way on the street, or stopping another person from taking a peaceful (even if “undesirable”) action in their presence — who nevertheless see nothing wrong with imposing their preferences on others … as long as they can get the government to do the dirty work for them! (Not a huge surprise, in many ways, but still disturbing to me.)

To bring this home for us liberty-activist types, let’s consider the task before us, in trying to persuade (since we abhor coercion) enough people in our society (since they are the ones who value demoncrazy and so require majorities for action) of the value of personal autonomy, self-responsibility, property rights and all that comes with that: We do unfortunately live in a society, largely composed of the products of Prussian-model public-schooling and mass media indoctrination, that holds that someone’s personal preferences can be turned into mandates, at the mere wave of a majority vote, in whatever political structure is available and deemed appropriate. (I try to remind folks of the wonderful (yet grisly) definition our own L, Neil Smith,/a> made for demo[n]cracy: “The premise by which 51% of a group may vote to KILL AND EAT the other 49%.”

It is thus no wonder so few people “get” what Ron Paul did to (Ru)dolph Giuliani a few weeks ago, in exposing the ignorance and duplicity of both him and the other GOP (and by extension, Dem) wanna-bes for the Penn. Ave. throne. It’s also not all that surprising that the supposedly “enlightened” elements of left-liberalism, self-actualization and spiritual enlightenment have not jumped forward to defend Paul, and to recommend to their fellow locksteppers that the best way to change the Presidential arena might be by expanding the Texas Congressman’s reach, doing all they can to keep him in the debates as well as intoi next spring’s GOP primaries.

(To his credit, Bill Maher had Ron back on his HBO show since then, and rumor has it Jon Stewart will have Rep. Paul as a Daily Show guest in June. Only a few people, mostly self-identified libertarians, have noted the obvious déjà vu potential, comparing Ron Paul to “Clean Gene” McCarthy, in his potential for bringing down a tyrant, and speeding the end of an undeclared “war” overseas, whether or not he becomes “electable” in the process.)

Or how about the value of the work Cindy Sheehan was doing, when she opened her focus from Shrubbo and his neocon RepublicanT toadies alone, and began to chide the sacred Demoncraps for their own hypocrisy and ineptitude about ending this damned “war on Iraq” (You know, the one Congress never bothered to declare in the first place?). She finally gave up on “speaking truth to power,” when it became evident that the whole antiwar movement has once again been usurped by the hardcore socialists, and the Democratic Party leaders -– just as it was back in the Sixties ( “MOVE On” is only the most obvious evidence)!

Sheehan now says, quite correctly, that her son “died in vain, and for no good purpose.” Had her alleged allies joined her in broadening the targeting to encompass ALL the tyrannies involved, instead of turning their wrath on her for speaking truthfully, one wonders how much effect there would have been, both during and since the last elections.

What’s my point? I’m not sure I have one, except maybe this:

I’ve been claiming for years that the real “critical mass” leading to a paradigm-shift toward greater liberty in our land would come from among the so-called “left liberal” ranks, instead of the “right wing conservative” camp. Now, seeing how utterly stupid and myopic many of the folks on that “wing” of the spectrum actually are, and encountering almost daily those allegedly “progressive” pundits and spokespeople (who either don’t have the foggiest notion of what they are saying and advocating –- or do, and are therefore knowingly and blatantly lying to their followers?) … I’m re-assessing that judgment.

I’m still fairly sure the answer ain’t coming from the “right” side of the aisle; I’m now far less sure the “left” one holds much more promise. If even the folks who seem to comprehend some of the basic aspects of personal freedom (gun issues notwithstanding) can’t even grasp the simple concept of choice over mandates in property rights and “public” venues, we have a long way to go, indeed!