.. i.e. it's illegal to serve tainted food or not to have fire exits
And why, Glenn, is that kind of thing illegal?
According to your previous statement, you don't agree with ANY mandatory laws imposed by the government.
Yet the government, our government is supposed to be by the people (unfortunately, I don't think it is anymore, at least not under the current system, but that's just me bleating). The government IS the people, right?
So it's just the people setting up agreed upon rules. Like banning tainted meat. For the common good of the people. You don't want to die from eating tainted meat; I don't want to die from eating in smoke-filled restaurants.
And that "right to not work" you mention? When you're on the bottom end of the old socio-economic scale, you get damned few choices about where you "choose" to work and not work. So when the choice comes down to making a living, or feeding your kids, or staying off of welfare and food stamps and the alternative of working in a smoke-filled workplace, what's that worker going to do?
Sorry, I've been in places in my life where the only right to not work was a right to starve. I did what I had to do, and put up with people who were being unreasonable, if not downright sadistic and cruel, because the only "right" I was allowed was the right to earn a living for me and my family. Go without food for about three days, and you'll see how important those rights are.
I think it is eminently reasonable in a human society to request people to obey certain communally-agreed-upon restrictions. And I think allowing public-traffic places to be free of carcinogenic cigarette smoke is reasonable.