Maybe not everything should be seen through a “Democrats==Statists” “Republics==Lovers of Liberty” lens? There’s a great deal of liberty-hate on both sides. The main difference is Crazy Uncle Liberty calls himself a Republican while being shit on by their primary electorate. Maybe when his son gets the same treatment libertarians will wake up to the fact that the Republican party has no place for their ideology beyond laissez-faire for their cronies.

Fortunately, I mostly drink beer.

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/23/the-abcs-of-state-liquor-control/#more-50562

We have previously discussed the socialistic nature of state liquor boards even in conservative states. Radley Balko takes exception to the “salvo” at conservatives and links to two states, Virginia and Pennsylvania, wherein he claims Republicans are trying to privatize their state’s liquor business, while Democrats oppose their efforts… In Pennsylvania, Republicans control both houses of the legislature and the governorship. In such a situation, not assigning responsibility to Republicans for the lack of even this minimum level of privatization, is unconscionable.

If someone says “its generally republicans doing…”, that is NOT a semantic distinction. The word “generally” is being used in a common and transparent way, where both sides understand it to mean “often though not always”.

For contrast, here’s what a semantic argument looks like:

You just used the “semantics” to mean: “what happens when someone points out a word that is inconvenient to your point.”

I counter that “semantics” actually means: “what happens when I point out that you have used the words ‘semantics’ incorrectly.”

THAT is semantic argument, about the meaning of the word “semantics”.

It’s especially interesting you bring up Virginia, considering McDonnell couldn’t pass the bill through either house, even the one Republicans controlled House. He obviously doesn’t care for data that doesn’t fit his theory, like this from the Washington Post article:
“McDonnell hopes to blunt the criticisms of his plan from Democrats and some Republicans.”

It would be easier to take Mr. Balko seriously as a non-partisan libertarian if he actually was one.

Supposedly the OLCC is loosening its rules here and there on who can sell what. I think my favorite politco gaff with the OLCC was when the director in ’06 resigned after getting a DUI.

My sister lives in Nanjing and says much the same thing. You are fortunate to live in a country not steeped in Puritanism and founded on faux christian ethics. Liquor laws in the US are all, without exception, based on cockamamie christianism. And thus, should all be declared unconstitutional and abolished.

The extent of liquor laws here are pretty much 1) don’t drive drunk and 2) don’t throw empty bottles at the cops (politely handing them full bottles is encouraged, however).

From what I can tell from the pubs I frequent, to sell alcohol, you need a health certificate and a standard business license. There is no drinking age, there are no lock-out times for sales, there’s no “bar time”. It’s standard practice for a group of friends to go to a bar, order a case of beer, and have all of the bottles opened up and placed on the table (or in the special rack under the table). I can buy booze at the grocery store, at a restaurant, at a liquor store, at the newspaper stand, and at the fancy mall down the street (in the corner next to the children’s clothes and the Lego collections.

I can walk down the street with a bottle of beer in my hand and nobody will care.

A 20-oz bottle of Tsing Tao (blue-collar ox-piss) is 50¢ (3RMB). A 750ml bottle of Jack Daniels is about $25 (150RMB), a 700 of Jamieson’s is the same. Local hooch is dirt cheap until you get into the very high-end stuff.

Oh… and–I kid you not–I’ve seen a store selling dry cleaning and cigarettes.

Costco spent millions recently to have Washington State do away with state owned stores. Costco’s referendum won at the ballot box.

Costco’s new law states that only large stores (based on Sq Feet) can sell liquor. So there are no small, independent sellers in Wash, only large corporations (with a few exceptions located where the population is very sparse). Costco hinted that prices would fall (a reasonable assumption for the voters). Now prices have actually risen for booze, Costco (and the other large grocers) have a new revenue stream retailers in Idaho, who were initially worried fewer Washingtonians would drive across the border for their purchases are doing more business than ever before.

Not that I trust Costco that much, but I believe there has been manipulation by the state authorities with the taxes. They went up significantly just before the transfer (the WSLCB said they needed the revenue). Before the change over there was a price per liter tax and the typical 8% sales tax. Now it is a price per liter tax and a 22% tax. And I think they are taxing along the chain of distribution which is increasing the taxes even more.

Marx favored statelessness and economic cooperation in the same way that some rapists hope their victims will somehow turn into consenting partners.

That is: he spent his life building an ideology that would empower the state and destroy economic cooperation in the only form in which it has ever existed, and in the midst of all that he says “of course later on everything will magically turn into its opposite, and the proletarian dictatorship will give way to utopia.”

But just as the rapist has no right to expect violence to become consent, so did Marx have no right to promise or predict that.

Yeah that was disappointing, we talked about it at length here when the legislation first came up. At first it seemed like a good idea until others pointed out the unreasonably restrictive clauses included in referendum.

Just goes to show: Absence of government control =/= free market.
We have to fight the protectionism too.

Costco’s new law states that only large stores (based on Sq Feet) can sell liquor. So there are no small, independent sellers in Wash, only large corporations (with a few exceptions located where the population is very sparse). Costco hinted that prices would fall (a reasonable assumption for the voters). Now prices have actually risen for booze, Costco (and the other large grocers) have a new revenue stream retailers in Idaho, who were initially worried fewer Washingtonians would drive across the border for their purchases are doing more business than ever before.

BTW, I agree that Turley’s piece is unfortunately tainted by tribalism. Expanding on Dave Krueger’s analogy, the typical Democrat-versus-Republican or conservative-versus-liberal tribalism is well represented in a situation where there are two neighborhood bullies, one who claims he likes me and one who doesn’t. Both of them abuse me and others on a regular basis, but I kinda tolerate the former, as long as I avoid paying too much attention to what he does, and I don’t like the latter. Tribalism is lining up behind “my” bully when there is a conflict between the two of them, instead of recognizing that they are both assholes and feeling no need to defend either one. Or it’s being quick to criticize the “bad” bully for his thuggery and pretending it makes him worse than “my” bully, even though they are both thugs on a regular basis.

In a given discussion, political tribalism values (typically unearned) allegiance to a political team over honest evaluation of the policy that team may support. The mentality is childish and harmful in politics. In sports, there is typically no moral, practical, or ideological reason to prefer one team over the other, so preferring my school’s team (or my home town’s team, or whatever) over the other is harmless. But, in the political realm, too much is at stake to ignore the impact of specific policies and to base one’s support support or rejection of them merely on which team supports or rejects them.