Occasionally a good idea, or was before I got so old.
In any event, I must take issue, as I always do, with the Era when it editorializes about beer sales:
Today we quote the president of the PA Malt Beverage Association, who says hey - you, Joe Consumer, already have plenty of convenience when it comes to buying beer, and you don’t need any more:
To make his point, Shipula cites U.S. Census Bureau figures showing there are 2,400 gas stations, 2,700 supermarkets and 2,900 drugstores in Pennsylvania.
Compare this, he says, to 1,300 beer distributorships, which sell beer by the case or keg, and 500 “deli” license-holders that allow people to buy up to two six-packs to go. Then add 12,000 bars and restaurants, many of which sell beer to take out.
“If there is power in numbers, that’s proof that we have convenience of access to beer,” he wrote.
Maybe it’s proof we don’t have enough access to drug stores.
In any event, the Era notes that he’s got an ax to grind, but follows up with this:
Yet the numbers he has come up with are convincing, particularly to those — like this newspaper — who think it’s not the state Liquor Control Board’s business to encourage beer sales.
They’re convincing, in other words, for those who want to be convinced.
My question is, if it’s not the LCB’s business to encourage beer sales, why is it the LCB’s business to discourage those sales?
Why is it government’s business to do this?
How about, government neither encourages nor discourages businesses from selling beer.
Conservatism is supposed to be predicated on a minimum of governmental involvement. But conservatism as it actually exists thinks the government should be plenty involved when it comes to moral issues - whom you may marry, when and where you may buy beer, where and how you may gamble.
Conservative government knows what’s best for you; government knows what’s moral.
Far be it for a liberal to say this - but government doesn’t know what’s best for me, and probably doesn’t know what’s best for you, either.
Prohibitionism isn’t an example of conservative governance; it is probably the last gasp, and greatest failure, of the Progressive era, back when people really did think it was government’s job to ”improve” society. Those who have worshipped at the altar of Reagan - who told us government was the problem - make no sense when they try to retain this aspect of government moral interventionism.
The simple fact of the matter is that the state wants to revise our outdated liquor rules because the big breweries, among others, are pushing for changes; and the state has this idea, probably correct, that revising the rules could increase tax revenue.
Less government intervention that produces more tax revenue is something a true conservative should support. Unless their chief concern is that you might be having too good a time.
