This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Several bills will attempt to change the current licensing of liquor, both on and off sale. I will keep you informed on which, if any, I will support [Olson, MDL, 2008.01.14, p.3].
Well, you don't have to wait until next week's installment of the Legislative Report to find out which bill Olson supports. The Legislature's web site lists Olson as a co-sponsor of HB 1142, "An act to authorize additional off-sale retail liquor licenses in certain municipalities."
Olson doesn't mention this bill in his first Legislative Report, but he makes his position pretty clear with a ringing defense of the free market:
Currently, licenses are limited by population. I have never understood why, in a free market economy, we have a system that limits the opening and operating of a business, if there are patrons to support it [Olson, 2008.01.14].
Ringing defense... ringing hollow. If Representative Olson really believed in letting the free market rule unimpeded by government regulation, he would not be supporting HB 1240, "An Act to increase certain vehicle dealer license fees" (hey, do Prostrollos know about this?). Don't vehicle dealer license fees "limit the opening and operating of a business"?
Why would he be supporting HB 1151, more nanny-state legislation* to limit the operation of "adult-oriented businesses." By Olson's stated principles, if there are patrons to support a porn shop at all hours of the day, or within a quarter mile of a school, park, or church, the state shouldn't stand in the way of the free market.
Why, for that matter, doesn't Olson support repealing South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 22-23, which outlaws the practice of the oldest profession, a service that could surely find patrons to support it in our fair state (it always does). We followed Vegas in gambling; let's do it with prostitution! License the brothels and tax them to make up for the shortfall in the transportation budget (Look out for Four for the Future's new slogan: "Hookers for Highways!").
The answer is obvious: society has an interest in regulating business, especially business that can harm society. Porn shops degrade women, promote unhealthy behavior, and coarsen public discourse. Thus, we limit where and when they can operate. Prostitution is just bad, so we outlaw it.
Alcohol contributes to all sorts of social problems. Even if the market would support a bar at every bump in the highway and a liquor store on every street corner, that wouldn't necessarily be the healthiest state of affairs. (And I still haven't heard anyone make the case that it's just too hard for a guy to get a drink anywhere in this state.)
South Dakota appears to have all the booze and booze licenses that consumers need, and not enough resources (argue the counties) to pay for the law enforcement and other services necessary to clean up for the mess booze helps make. "Free market forever!" is a nice line to trot out to defend one's legislative agenda, but we all have to remember that the free market is not the end-all, be-all of political philosophy. The free market is not an end in itself, but just a tool, secondary to the greater good of the general welfare.
-------------------------------
*Funny Dakota War College gets all over Senator Jerstad for trying to regulate smut shops, but ignores his pal Russ's efforts on the House side.
I'm guessing Prostrollo's (Russell's financial backer) and any established auto dealer is in favor of increasing the fees to get a dealer's license, not opposed. By raising the fees, less people will try to open a car lot in competition with existing dealers. No different than if you owned a liquor license. Nobody who owns one or had to pay a hefty sum for a liquor license wants the cost to decrease or have more licenses available, which cuts into their equity and value of their business. Survival of the fittest...Or fattest, when we're talking business.
ReplyDeleteI have heard that allowing more liquor licenses would allow for more restaurants, i.e. more Olive Gardens and Red Lobsters. These places naturally serve alcohol, and are therefor limited to which municipalities they can operate in, depending on the price of the yen. I mean depending on the availability of licenses.
ReplyDeleteSome more thoughts...
ReplyDeleteBecause I am relatively an Absolutist when it comes to morality, I am curious as to how you percieve more liquor stores harming society? Is there anything inherently or intrinsicly bad about liquor stores, or would they just be bad for South Dakotan societies?
I ask, because I can imagine legislation to either limit and/or increase the number of abortion clinics. I can also imagine that some would argue that these clinics "harm" society, not just in the probable killing of my sowed oats, but also because it is against the culture of some, let's say almost but not quite half of SD populace.
.....where did I put my soma....
Good question, Joe! Alcohol itself facilitates a lot of badness. More places selling alcohol means more places where people can get alcohol, more places where maybe kids could get booze without being carded.
ReplyDeleteThen again, if, as I contend, South Dakotans already have access to all the hooch their hearts desire, then maybe more places to get it really wouldn't increase the overall badness going on. Heck, maybe it would even unconcentrate the badness: maybe more booze outlets spread out the drinkers.
But do we really want alcohol available on every street corner? Do we want more people to be able to make a living off alcohol?
Something interesting to note about tiny Howard, SD. One can get booze at:
ReplyDelete3 bars (beer and liquor)
the bowling alley (beer and liquor)
the drug store (beer and liquor)
the gas station (beer)
the supermarket (beer)
the sole restaurant in town (beer)
8 places to get booze for 1100 people. Granted, Howard supplies for the whole county.
I don't want liquor stores on every street corner. It bothers me to no end already the casinos on every street corner. But I also don't like the smell of theocracy when I see the Weslyans and Baptists in Brookings limiting the town to one, city owned, liquor store.
Alas, there are two fighting sides within me.
The elitist who wants to allow all of this stuff, in hopes that natural selection will claim the stupid and mankind might better from it, or at least keep the Proles happy/distracted so as to keep myself in power ala 1984.
And then there is the elitist side were I know what is best for society, despite what the majority thinks they want, and can therefore limit alcohol,drugs, make seatbeat laws, helmet laws, etcetera....
Am I an elitist?
You're not an elitist, Joe -- you're just thinking.
ReplyDelete