If those are the choices, as indeed they appear to be in Farmington, N.M., then I say smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.

And if you don’t smoke, too bad, it’s my property. There’s some clean air somewhere else.

In that city, the city council is considering a proposed workplace smoking ban. Needless to say, the usual suspects are coming out in favor of what City Councilman George Sharpe calls “government’s role to mandate a healthy environment.”

The government already plays that role over and over and over again. They require seatbelts, which is the ultimate individual right decision. If you choose to take your seatbelt off, you aren’t forcing everyone else in the car to take theirs off as well, while if you light up a cigarette, your passengers are forced to join in. Like it or not, because of that law, more people wear seatbelts, and many, many lives are saved. . . .

A Piedra Vista student who is the hostess at a local restaurant shared her situation at a recent high school forum on smoking. Although she doesn’t like it, she is choosing to put up with the constant smoke because it is the highest paying job she could find.

Maybe she could find another job at a dollar an hour pay cut, or maybe she couldn’t. But she shouldn’t be forced to make that choice, and no teenager (or young pregnant mother) should be allowed to work all day in a smoke filled room, even if they are willing to. As we do with seatbelts, sometimes we have to help people make a healthy choice. — George Sharpe

And because of that, one bad law deserves another. While Sharpe claims to understand the property rights argument, he cites existing business regulations as his excuse for supporting yet more business regulations. Because we’re the government, we know best, and you must be protected from doing anything bad to yourself.

Sounds like Communism — or perhaps Fascism. Maybe a bit of both. In any case, it’s unwarranted and unnecessary, says at least one local resident.

The city will choose between two basic philosophies. The first is simply stated by the Communist Party: “We believe that all employers must provide a safe working environment for their employees. Where restaurants are filled with second-hand smoke, the workers are endangered.” (Source: ask the Communist Party at www.cpusa.org.)

The second is stated by the Libertarian Party of San Juan County: “In a free market, we have a choice. If we are concerned about second-hand smoke, we can choose to work or dine in a non-smoking restaurant. If we enjoy smoking after a meal, we can choose a place that allows smoking. Let businesses set their own policies, let workers and customers choose.”

Normally, local politicians don’t get away with implementing the Communist Party line, but they can do it while the people cheer if they invoke one or more of the “holy mantras.”

You’ve heard them before. “National security.” “For the children.” “The common good.” “Public safety.” “Public health.” “Public morality.” Under the guise of a holy mantra, the omnipotent state can crush any freedom with impunity. — Joseph Knight

Under this theory of government, the state can prevent you from doing anything it thinks is bad for you, whether it actually is bad or not, and even if you have chosen to engage in the activity.

“What’s even more interesting is that some people who criticize Libertarians as being extreme spend their time implementing fascist or communist public policy,” said Stephen Gordon, communications director of the Libertarian Party.

We fought not just a cold war, but a couple of hot ones, against governments which operated under this theory of the state. What’s happened to America, and is it too late to wrest freedom back from these Fascist-Communists?