Ban State From Wine Aisle

The far edges of theoretical Libertarianism might suggest that we all live, naked, in the woods, free to fend for ourselves in the absence of Connecticut’s Permanent Commission on the Status of Women, local planning and zoning commissions, and all 312 agencies and boards and commissions empowered to give away taxpayer money in the name of “economic development.”

In the more mainstream, “small government,” let-the-market-work-its-magic circles, government receives grudging endorsement to arrest the bad guys, plow the snow, defend the borders and attempt to educate the kids.

In the most frisky circles of the left-liberal General Assembly and, of course, in Obama-Land, government owns auto companies, wrests control of health insurance from the private sector, sets wage rates and fringe benefits packages, empowers land thieves through eminent domain, and mandates binding arbitration as a favor to state and local government employee labor unions.

The philosophical mess is a complex mix of ideology and politics.

The Libertarian instinct toward freedom and liberty and personal responsibility is deeply embedded in most Americans, even if they have been lulled into a sense of inevitability when it comes to government intrusion.

We could choose to stave off government intervention at the margin, when the issue at hand offers up little justification for government intervention. This hands-off directive to government might be limited to the most modest, mundane of things — but it would plant a seed for more grandiose dismantling of the nanny state.

Consider the current legislative effort to allow Connecticut food stores to sell wine. Driven in part by the notion that wine sales, and thus tax revenues, would rise as the bottles of cabernet flew off the grocery store shelves, this non-starter in years past is back, with more legislative enthusiasm than usual.

Why is Connecticut one of about 15 states that don’t allow grocers to sell wine? The most compelling explanation: the General Assembly is doing an ongoing favor to the mom-and-pop liquor stores.

Assuming the legislation isn’t quietly buried in committee, we may be subject to make-believe debate about the ease with which 12-year-olds could buy gallons of Gallo at Stop & Shop or how many hundreds of little liquor stores might close, creating a pool of unemployed who would be driven to drink grocery store wine to ease their pain.

The Libertarian instinct should come into play. The tax revenue potential, the evil-demon-rum fears that grocers would sell alcohol to kids; the conjecture that liquor stores couldn’t handle the competition — it should all fall by the wayside in favor of the most simple of Libertarian instincts: It’s none of the government’s business whether grocers sell wine.

George Washington did not rally the troops on the banks of the Delaware by promising that wine would be banned from grocery stores.

Most states already allow the wine-in-grocery-stores outrage, with no discernible threat to the public health and safety. The core issue for Connecticut: let government do what it is supposed to do with great competency; forbid government from frivolous, unnecessary intrusion in the routine commercial transactions.

This wine-sale issue cannot easily be described as a left-right debate. In New York State, for example, the same issue has prompted many lefty labor unions to join forces with the “leave us alone” conservatives. The conservatives really do want to be left alone to buy wine as they see fit; the labor unions are intrigued with the idea that grocery store wine sales would generate extra tax revenue to squander on government employees.

Drink a champagne toast to philosophical complexity. Buy the champagne at a liquor store. You’re in Connecticut.

Laurence C. Cohen is a local freelance writer.