|
|
Setback for Consumer Choice in TN
Quiet Declarations
4/15/2009
Quiet Declarations
Calmly Rational — Slightly Personal — Usually Cynical
Setback for Consumer Choice in TN
The state representative who sponsored the bill to allow wine sales in Tennessee grocery stores has withdrawn the bill due to lack of support from fellow lawmakers. Thanks, bootleggers and baptists, for reminding us that liquor retailers and moralists who don’t think they can win a fair fight for their products on the open market can continue to look to government to ensure their interests prevail at the expense of consumer choice.
And in case you are wondering whether I actually compared small businesses who use government regulations to try and gain an unfair market advantage to bootleggers who use government regulations to try and gain an unfair market advantage — I most certainly did. From this week’s Post editorial page:
Invoke small business, and the inevitable response is the policymaking equivalent of awwww, how sweet. Suggest that a proposed change might hurt small business, and you might as well be advocating torturing puppies. Now we like a cute puppy as well as the next editorial board, and we’re all for small business, too. But the problem with the way this argument is deployed is that the facts often do not support the claims of harm.
I think puppies are cute too, but when a puppy nips at me, I slap its nose. And when a puppy bites me, I kick it across the room. The moral of this story is that small businesses do not trump consumer choice just because they are small businesses, or hometown businesses, or family-owned businesses, or any other kind of “awwww, how sweet” business. People who believe government ought to engage in this form of protectionism over their businesses are morally equivalent to ExxonMobil or General Motors or Halliburton or any other corporation that lobbies government for special benefits at the expense of other businesses or the public interest.
If you choose to buy from particular stores for any of the aforementioned reasons, that’s awesome and I fully support it, but these are not constitutionally protected classes and I resent that consumers face higher prices and reduced access to products because some group who thinks it deserves special protection can devote enough time and money to convince enough politicians to play favorites at the expense of the citizens they represent.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 at 11:42 AM and filed under Regulations.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 (XML) feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.
Copyright 2009 Quiet Declarations
Calmly Rational — Slightly Personal — Usually Cynical
Setback for Consumer Choice in TN
The state representative who sponsored the bill to allow wine sales in Tennessee grocery stores has withdrawn the bill due to lack of support from fellow lawmakers. Thanks, bootleggers and baptists, for reminding us that liquor retailers and moralists who don’t think they can win a fair fight for their products on the open market can continue to look to government to ensure their interests prevail at the expense of consumer choice.
And in case you are wondering whether I actually compared small businesses who use government regulations to try and gain an unfair market advantage to bootleggers who use government regulations to try and gain an unfair market advantage — I most certainly did. From this week’s Post editorial page:
Invoke small business, and the inevitable response is the policymaking equivalent of awwww, how sweet. Suggest that a proposed change might hurt small business, and you might as well be advocating torturing puppies. Now we like a cute puppy as well as the next editorial board, and we’re all for small business, too. But the problem with the way this argument is deployed is that the facts often do not support the claims of harm.
I think puppies are cute too, but when a puppy nips at me, I slap its nose. And when a puppy bites me, I kick it across the room. The moral of this story is that small businesses do not trump consumer choice just because they are small businesses, or hometown businesses, or family-owned businesses, or any other kind of “awwww, how sweet” business. People who believe government ought to engage in this form of protectionism over their businesses are morally equivalent to ExxonMobil or General Motors or Halliburton or any other corporation that lobbies government for special benefits at the expense of other businesses or the public interest.
If you choose to buy from particular stores for any of the aforementioned reasons, that’s awesome and I fully support it, but these are not constitutionally protected classes and I resent that consumers face higher prices and reduced access to products because some group who thinks it deserves special protection can devote enough time and money to convince enough politicians to play favorites at the expense of the citizens they represent.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 at 11:42 AM and filed under Regulations.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 (XML) feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.
Copyright 2009 Quiet Declarations
