Should the government control certain products? For example, here in Utah, the State is the only entity allowed to sell wine and spirits. There are State owned and operated Liquor Stores. Are they doing a good job? Well, who knows for sure. What scares me is the logic used to justify the government's control over alcohol: retail establishments can't be trusted to eliminate sales to youths.
Using this logic, shouldn't the government be controlling more products? What about prescription medications? The abuse of these drugs far exceeds that of alcohol. Kids can get prescription meds easier than alcohol now.
For that matter, how about gasoline? If the government controlled the gasoline with government owned and operated stores, wouldn't the cost be lower? Take out the profit margin, leave the taxes, and the government still makes money.
My question for discussion is should the Government (State or Federal) control certain products? If yes, where does government control stop? If no, can we rely on supply and demand to accurately affect prices for consumers?
Using this logic, shouldn't the government be controlling more products? What about prescription medications? The abuse of these drugs far exceeds that of alcohol. Kids can get prescription meds easier than alcohol now.
For that matter, how about gasoline? If the government controlled the gasoline with government owned and operated stores, wouldn't the cost be lower? Take out the profit margin, leave the taxes, and the government still makes money.
My question for discussion is should the Government (State or Federal) control certain products? If yes, where does government control stop? If no, can we rely on supply and demand to accurately affect prices for consumers?
With respect alcohol, I think it should be a purely private market, but regulated. It's not an economic necessity like energy.
-D-
-D-
Let me ask this question. Seeing as how great a job govt has done by using accounting tricks and not even being able to balance the budget, should we entrust them with more? Lets take a toddler and make him run a 100 meter hurdle race.
Ok Don your for Gov't. control of everything else WHY NOT ALCOHOL? Does that enfringe on your personal rights?
Posted By: STUFFER8 Reply posted on:
Oct 18, 2008 - 7:51 am
Ok Don your for Gov't. control of everything else WHY NOT ALCOHOL? Does that enfringe on your personal rights?
===============================================================
I would suspect that any industry he considers essential the govt must control. Of course, alcohol is essential to some while not to others. Ask any alcoholic which is more important. So begins the slippery slope.
Oct 18, 2008 - 7:51 am
Ok Don your for Gov't. control of everything else WHY NOT ALCOHOL? Does that enfringe on your personal rights?
===============================================================
I would suspect that any industry he considers essential the govt must control. Of course, alcohol is essential to some while not to others. Ask any alcoholic which is more important. So begins the slippery slope.
I guess I agree but I just see DUHON and Obama saying only if I want it that way fuck everyone else.
alcohol is essential? Show me how.
Posted By: TEQUILAROSE Reply posted on:
Oct 18, 2008 - 1:01 pm
alcohol is essential? Show me how.
===============================================================
Go sit in a detox center then tell me how essential it is to the alcoholics. The point is that we can make a case for anything being essential but we still can't fit it into the part about "Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness".
Oct 18, 2008 - 1:01 pm
alcohol is essential? Show me how.
===============================================================
Go sit in a detox center then tell me how essential it is to the alcoholics. The point is that we can make a case for anything being essential but we still can't fit it into the part about "Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness".
The State of Utah has no business being in the alcohol distribution business. Monopolies are disadvantageous to consumers and this is an excellent example. They use a moral imperative as an excuse to impose ridiculous mark-ups and punitive taxation on a product for no other reason than revenue! The idea that we can only purchase 3.2% beer at a privately owned store is ridiculous as well. The fact that they don't sell alcohol on Sunday is an archaic vestige of a religious past that we would do well to eschew.
I have to say that for Don to extol the virtues of socialism in every area but alcohol distribution is curiously inconsistent to say the least.
I have to say that for Don to extol the virtues of socialism in every area but alcohol distribution is curiously inconsistent to say the least.
Dreamer,
Show me where I've applied socialism to everything.. Just education, healthcare and energy. READ FOOL READ! Perhaps you wouldn't get the fucktard cap, if you wouldn't make such stupid remarks. Now go sit in the corner and think about your transgressions.
Aklim,
They fall under the life part.
-D-
Show me where I've applied socialism to everything.. Just education, healthcare and energy. READ FOOL READ! Perhaps you wouldn't get the fucktard cap, if you wouldn't make such stupid remarks. Now go sit in the corner and think about your transgressions.
Aklim,
They fall under the life part.
-D-
DREAMSOFELYSIUM, I agree completely!!! I was making a counter argument just to see how it sounded. Government should stay the hell out of business....
Mav
Mav
I agree with the Alcohol, but not other necessities. Alcohol is a nicety. Power, fuel, water, food, healthcare, education... They're a need. So wants... no government... Needs... Yes, because greedy capitalists will fuck the little guy everytime.
If that were not true, they wouldn't be giving jobs to China, Mexico, India etc. We can thank unregulated capitalism for all of these issues.
-D-
If that were not true, they wouldn't be giving jobs to China, Mexico, India etc. We can thank unregulated capitalism for all of these issues.
-D-