You make your claim that I am deluded based on what data?

BamBam, I called you deluded because you suggested that there was a conspiracy involved in the verdict of that trial. No, it’s not “a viable possibility”.

BamBam, if you think that verdict was a result of a conspiracy, you are seriously deluded.

I suggested it as a possibility. In the face of everything we know about Team State and cops/prosecutors/judges, and the massive amount of things we DON’T know about Team State, it’s a viable possibility.

You make your claim that I am deluded based on what data? Instead of name calling, how about posing a logical argument. Name calling shows you have nothing, possibly in the intellectual department (see, insults can be hurled both ways).

Why does nobody blink an eye when blatant protectionism is used as a presumptively valid argument? Ridiculous.

My first thought as a principled libertarian is: why should there be any “liquor laws” (or licenses, or any other form of regulation) at all? If you, as a vendor, want to sell distilled spirits (or any other form of fermented liquid) to willing customers, that is your right. If you, as a consumer, are averse to any form of alcoholic beverage, then don’t buy any – but leave others alone to do so as they wish. It’s just a simple illustration of the NAP in action.

“Liquor laws,” “dry counties,” and other such statist creations are nothing more than the imposition of tyranny, usually for perverse reasons having nothing to do with sobriety, by those who hold the reins of political power. While one would be tempted to say that such laws represent the dominance by the majority over the minority, it’s actually the reverse in this case. If you’ve ever lived in, or even visited, a “dry county” in any state in the U.S., you will generally find that alcohol consumption is higher per capita in these counties than in “wet” localities. That would seem to indicate that “dry laws” are a burden imposed by a political or ideological minority of teetotalers upon a majority of drinkers.

Whether one is “wet” or “dry,” the point is that all such laws interfere with personal choice and self-ownership and should be anathema to anyone who believes in individual liberty.

corrupt system, top to bottom. i wonder how many jurors were plants or threatened. there is no logical way all 12 could decide guilty. there’s no point in letting yourself be arrested with such a stacked deck.

So the decision is a double win! I’ll be able to stimulate the economy and be environmentally friendly at the same time. Woo!

It really is stupid a law. Happy to see it go.

It reads as if, if Kentucky had stuck to “No alcohol in grocery or drug stores” they’d still have the prohibition law. The Judge appears to be saying “You can have Prohibition laws for a real reason, but you can’t just jerk people around with them.”

They either do or don’t have the power to strike down laws that offend their delicate sensibilities. Which is it?