[sjcsjc]

I don't doubt that your point applies to some people who call themselves libertarians. But not everyone's views of right and wrong are based on what benefits them. As a small example, in the UK it's now illegal to smoke in pubs. I benefit quite a lot from that regulation. But I view the law as morally wrong. The non-aggression axiom [1] is a philosophical principle. I suggest that people who choose to apply it only when it benefits themselves are not really libertarians.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

[RemoteWorker]

How is that law morally wrong? Couldn't they forcing you to breathe smoke be seen as an aggression? The same way they blasting you with very loud noise would be an aggression. Just because it's invisible or not solid it doesn't mean it's not violence. Let alone the danger of literally playing with fire in a closed space.

[sjcsjc]

You can choose not to frequent the bar in question. Another bar could (freely) choose not to permit smoking. I'd go there instead.

[mkautzm]

It's less about the customers and more about the folks that work there. "Getting a different job" is not always an option.

[ForHackernews]

> some people who call themselves libertarians

No True Scotsman?