Some whiny libertarian is complaining about New York City's sensible and long-overdue ban on dogs in bars:
. . . this is a ridiculous regulation. Dogs near food service areas do pose some risks. But as anyone who has a dog and a kitchen at home knows, they are fairly easy to minimize. More fundamentally, most people can readily understand the (very small) risks involved and decide for themselves whether they want to patronize a dog-friendly bar or not. Market incentives can and do supply plenty of dog-free watering holes for those who don't want to take the risk of guzzling beer near canines, or simply don't like dogs.
One of the major advantages of of private property rights is that they provide outlets for people with a wide range of different preferences. Dog-lovers can patronize one set of establishments and dog-haters another. As Thom emphasizes, this kind of diversity also enables communities to flourish, as well as individuals:
Oh, come on now. Private property rights? Since when do those trump the right of the collective right to not be annoyed? Diversity that allows different kind of people to choose different kinds of places? What right do people have to decide what kind of places they want to frequent? Let people decide for themselves whether to accept the risk of patronizing a dog-friendly bar? Without supervisison?
This is the same kind of dangerous individuality deployed against the banning of public smoking, and the same kind of public health hazard is uneleahsed. Yes, there is such a thing as third-hand dog hair -- it gets on you, then you pass it along to some unsuspecting innocent bystander who years later will still be suffering from the horror of it all.
