Thursday, January 20, 2011
Gov. Perdue Comes Out Against Privatization of Liquor
"Under the Dome" is reporting ... from this morning's appearance by The Guv in front of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (a meeting which, incidentally, no Watauga County commissioner attended).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I am wondering how the people who post here feel about this issue.
Should the state be in the liquor business, or should it be privatized?
Why?
I am ambivalent too. I have lived most of my adult life in NC but I have off and on lived in states with private liquor stores. I prefer NC's system of clean, well-maintained, usually stand-alone ABC stores to the kinds of outlets one sees in, say, Florida (some had drive-up windows, which I find appalling). I'm glad the General Assembly recently required the state ABC board to clean up abuses. But if we had private stores, might towns and communities not be reluctant to use zoning or other enforcement powers to deal with unscrupulous merchants, unkempt stores, or other nuisances that might arise? Do many not towns operate a smaller enforcement base, and do we want to have our local police spending additional patrol time at liquor stores? Think how much more vigilance would be required in a college town like ours. Also, the temptation to graft and corruption is greater, it seems to me, if the liquor trade were privatized. You can say "the market" would take care of abuses. I don't have a lot of faith in the free market where alcohol is concerned. In, say, L.A. it's legendary that the corner liquor store is a place of crime and violence, but I can't recall the last time a state ABC store was held up, can you? So while it may be true that we would raise revenue if we sold off the ABC system, or that consumer prices might come down on booze (is that such a good thing?), I think the regulatory headaches would be greater with the burden falling more on the local communities. I do not come at this from some kind of ideological angle: perhaps I tend to be more pro-regulation than some, but I do find it interesting that many on the religious right agree with wanting to keep the existing ABC system (I guess if Demon Rum has to be available it's better it keeps its head down as low as possible). BTW I enjoy a liquor drink once in a while but mostly beer and wine are my alcoholic beverages of choice.
BrotherDoc- I didn't have an opinion before, but you make a good case.
The state should not be in competition with any legitimate business. It should certainly not have a monopoly by being the only thing that can provide a good or service.
thanks brotherdoc for your opinion and your reasoning.
I don't know exactly how I feel about the issue yet and appreciate hearing different points of view on the subject.
The state needs not be in business at all. The should govern and not be running for profit business ventures.
The state should be governing not running for profit business.
The repeal of Prohibition (by the 21st Amendment to the Constitution) gave to the states the power to regulate the trade in liquor into and within its own borders, i.e. the liquor trade is exempt from federal regulation under the Interstate Commerce clause. So it's in the Constitution (all genuflect and bow down) that there is not a "free market" in alcohol, that the state governments have an express role in making laws governing it. You can read a lot more on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Free market dogmatists need to understand that America is not and has never been a slave to your beliefs. Anyone is entitled to put Libertarianism at the top of his/her Values but please note that on many issues the majority of the people don't agree with you.
Brotherdoc, not one post said the state couldn't regulate the sale of alcohol in a way that gives them a monopoly. They said it shouldn't.
Post a Comment