Today I listened to Deutsche Welle‘s English shortwave broadcast, specifically the programme called Inside Eurpoe. Three stories caught my attention.
The first was an interview with journalist Hans-Martin Tillack who is in all kinds of trouble over revealing corruption in the EU. He said that all governments have corruption issues, but the EU in particular because there is no accountability, no opposition, and EU officials often act to protect the EU from bad press. Tillack was arrested by Belgian police following his story in Stern magazine about corruption at the EU statistical office. He said that this was made possible because there are no laws in Belgium protecting journalists and their sources. The EU took advantage of this despite the EU position being that such laws should be enacted.
The next story was about organised crime in Bosnia. Some Bosnian police officers have been sacked for excessive force. They say that EU human rights laws are preventing them from doing their jobs.
Then there was a story about a new smoking ban in Italy. Apparently most Italians are happy to go along with it. Many were interviewed, including one restaurateur who said that she had already banned smoking in her restaurant, found it to be good for herself and for business, and yet missing the point still welcomed the ban. The only person interviewed who was against the ban also missed the point by claiming that people had a “right” to smoke in public places.
(For the record, the point is that private property owners should be free to decide whether they allow visitors to smoke on their property).
You can listen to the programme online (but it’s more fun to listen with a radio).
The point about private property ownership and smoking has limited validity, for two
reasons, if the property is used to run a business. First, because the business depends
on public infrastructure, the owner assumes certain reciprocal obligations, including the
obligation to comply with public policy objectives. Second, the employer owes employees a
duty of care.
Regarding public infrastructure, it’s hard to argue with that because such dependence is so hard to quantify. It also sounds like an argument that could be used to justify almost any kind of government control. After all, you can’t step outside of your house without “relying on public infrastructure”. It does sound like a good argument for private infrastructure, though.
The employer only owes employees a duty of care to the extent that the employees demand it as a condition of the employment. If I decide that the pay adequately compensates me for the risk of working in a smoky pub, who are you to stop me?