Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:15:58 PM
I have two questions for the government, or those who support big government. They both relate to measures nominally intended to protect citizens from harm.
First, in Montgomery County and Virginia, there are laws limiting the sale of liquor to county or state run liquor stores. Bars till sell alcohol, but bars cannot sell "carry out" and liquor stores are run by the government. This is sold as a measure to control alcohol sales and protect individuals. However, exactly what safety is gained by having liquors stores owned by the states? It is not as if they do anything differently from private liquor stores. So, other than giving the government a monopoly and a source of revenue, as well as adding one more area of government meddling, what is the benefit of this scheme.
Second, what are the purpose of gambling restrictions? This struck me a few years ago when the Maryland legislature refused to allow slots to come to the race tracks for fear of bringing gambling to the tracks (ignoring those little windows where people exchange money for little slips of paper...)*. Apparently, the argument is that gambling is somehow harmful to people. Which is kind of undercut by the fact that Maryland not only has a lottery, and a lotto, but added afternoon drawings to the regular nightly drawings and an "every five minute" Keno game. So, apparently, gambling is harmful to people unless the revenues accrue to the state.
Which makes me ask, how much of this is about "protecting" people, and how much is about reserving monopolies in certain areas to the state. I have to think the state has used certain bluenoses to fight for monopoly power, pretending to oppose gambling and alcohol in order to ensure monopoly prices for themselves.
Can anyone tell me why I should take any different view?
--------------------------------------
* In truth this was a purely partisan position for many, as many in the legislature immediately decided there was no ethical issue once the new Democrat governor proposed the same thing. Some even went so far as to praise his "brilliant' plan, which was the same plan they deemed "unthinkable" when proposed by his Republican predecessor.