Classical Values :: If you think government is fair, go to the grocery store and buy me a six-pack!

If you think government is fair, go to the grocery store and buy me a six-pack!

Well, at issue before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the right to buy a six-pack.

More properly, the right to sell six-packs to the public. Pennsylvania has a medieval liquor control system under which beer is supposed to be bought by the case at so-called "beer distributors." (Or at bars and places which offer sit-down consumption, where beer can be sold by the six-pack at much higher bar prices.) The beer distributors are specially licensed creations of the state, so naturally they have a powerful lobby, now battling a large retailer which wants to sell beer to go:

The case grew out of a central Pennsylvania chain's long-running attempt to capitalize on the state's arcane liquor laws and sell six-packs at one of its convenience stores. A victory for Sheetz Inc. could produce new profits for such chains and supermarkets.

It could also mean major competition for the hundreds of traditional beer distributors. They worry that customers will stop buying the cases they sell and start buying six-packs elsewhere.

"It's the nail in the coffin," said Chris Fetfatzes, part of the family that owns Bella Vista Beer Distributors at 11th and Fitzwater Streets. "This is our passion. This is our blood, our source of income."

A decision favorable to Sheetz could also affect the thousands of bars and taverns where Pennsylvanians now go to buy six-packs.

On the other hand, a loss for Sheetz could force the Liquor Control Board to review its interpretation of existing law - and that could affect who gets the coveted beer licenses.

"It has the potential to change the way the laws are interpreted," LCB spokesman Nick Hays said. "It could have a tremendous impact."

The beer distributors are not merely a lobby, but like most lobbies they are real people, many of whom worked their asses off, played by the rules, and want to preserve what they feel they earned:

That [a decision in favor of Sheetz] could mean a floodgate of new competitors for beer distributors and tavern owners.

According to the Pennsylvania Beer Wholesalers Association, the economic impact of beer-related businesses to the Pennsylvania economy totals nearly $7 billion. Directly and indirectly, it says, beer employs 80,873 Pennsylvania workers.

Tom Berry, president of the Pennsylvania Tavern Association and owner of Tommy's Tavern in Collingdale, said small businesses like his would take a hit: "It will take away 50 percent of the take-out six-pack sales we make, at a minimum. You can't compete pricewise with, say, a Wal-Mart."

Shawn March, 41, owner of Beermill of Chester County in West Chester, said that allowing beer sales at places like Sheetz would lead to beer sales at big-box national chains, undercutting small businesses such as his.

"I was a high school kid. I worked for a beer distributor, learned to manage a beer distributorship. I worked for 10 years and bought the beer distributorship. I then spent 10 years investing my time and money" in the business, March said.

I am not unmindful of their plight, and frankly, this goes to the heart of how government regulations -- especially where restrictive licensing is involved --distort the free market and wreak havoc with ordinary people's lives. Everyone from cab drivers who bought medallions to guys who bought radio licenses from the FCC can be depended on to defend their livelihood to the death. Who could blame them?

This touches on human nature, and the idea of fairness. Is it "fair" that beer distributors be screwed? While most adults realize that life is unfair (notwithstanding attempts by clueless adults to teach kids otherwise), there is nonetheless a self righteous sense of moral indignation which can be triggered when the state messes around with things like the free market and the work ethic by creating and enforcing "rules."

We are taught as children that rules must be obeyed. That life may not be fair, but that the same rules are supposed to be there for everyone, and that obedience to the rules is the closest thing to fairness. A corollary of this is that if you obey the rules, play by the rules, and are rewarded accordingly you have legitimately "earned" something which someone who didn't play by the rules has not. That is why hard working people tend to resent those who are seen as getting "something for nothing" as it distorts the adult view of fairness. The beer distributors who have built up family businesses under the prevailing system can therefore naturally be expected to be just as resentful of the guy running a grocery store a block away suddenly being allowed to sell beer as a cab driver might be to see cab medallions suddenly available to anyone who wanted one. (Or, worse, if a lawsuit by "pirate" cab drivers forced the government to give them something they are seen as stealing.) Taxpayers have a similar view of tax cheats, and resident aliens who followed the rules and spent years waiting to enter the country have a similar view of illegal aliens. This is human nature. Cynical assholes like me (along with immigrants from countries where corruption is not kept in the closet) realize that the government is inherently corrupting, and tend to see regulatory agencies not as forces based on fairness, but as petty tyrannies. Seen this way, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, the FCC, the Berkeley Rent Board, and the IRS are vested with no inherent moral authority. This does not mean that they can be disobeyed, because they have the power to enforce their will -- at gunpoint if necessary. Only a fool would challenge them on the moral ground that they have no moral authority, because they have legal authority. This means, though, that they're sometimes subject to attack on legal grounds, and only then does "fairness" enter the picture (usually as window dressing on a legal argument).

But there's no getting around the expectation of fairness. It causes a lot of heartache. Especially when the government is seen as the parent.

Perhaps one of the reasons so many new immigrants are successful in businesses that no American family would start is that they don't expect fairness. They see the various regulatory and taxing authorities the way their ancestors saw them. As equivalents of warlords, mandarins, pashas, and caudillos. Not as dispensers of fairness, but powerful human beings who simply have to be paid.

Nothing fair about power.

(Except in artificial settings called "meritocracies," but that's another subject.)

You think this is bad? Just wait till they start taking anthropogenic global warming seriously.

UPDATE: Wow, I just saw that Glenn Reynolds linked this post, and all the great comments are flowing! Thank you all for coming, and if you're interested in the fairness issue, don't miss the post I wrote after this one about the fairness of taxing cigarettes used as self medication for schizophrenia.

Comments

I for one would love to see this old system of squeezing people go away. If Sheetz is successful maybe people will finally see that the whole world won't fall to pieces if the corner store can sell beer. I live now in Pennsylvania after long stretchs living in Georgia and New York, both places where you don't have to search all over town to finally find a place that can sell you less than a case of beer. You forgot the rest of the anti free market system in Pennsylvania...State run liquour stores where the prices are set by the state and there is no competition.

doug · August 31, 2007 11:12 AM

Thanks Doug. Obviously, I think they should allow beer to be sold in grocery stores.

I didn't forget the state liquor store system (which I also oppose, although it's a bit different); I just stuck with the beer.

Eric Scheie · August 31, 2007 12:16 PM

Well, they don't call them "State Stores" for nothing, you know.

geekWithA.45 · August 31, 2007 12:51 PM

Well, they don't call them "State Stores" for nothing, you know.

When I first moved into PA, I was like, "What (tf) is this 'beer distributor' of which you speak?"

geekWithA.45 · August 31, 2007 12:52 PM

This is almost exactly how it was done in the state of Missouri until about 15 or 16 years ago.

You know what? The world didn't fall apart when this old, antiquated, and expensive-for-the-consumer system disappeared.

Tony G · August 31, 2007 01:01 PM

I suppose Medicare Part D was tremendously unfair, using your logic, because pharmacies that made their bread & butter by charging much higher cash prices than they now get from Med D are taking a bath.

The consumers are a helluva lot better off, though.

FairInTheEyesOfWho · August 31, 2007 01:06 PM

The byzantine Pennsylvania liquor laws and it's equally archaic liquor control board are quite easy to understand. One must only remember that the PLCB and it's denizens were never contrived to assist Pennsylvanians in their aquisition and purchase of alcohol in varied form, but quite the opposite. This bureucratic behemoth was spawned in the era of prohibition to prevent us from enjoying any and all adult beverages. It has been, and continues to be, quite effective. Nearly as important ,it is loaded with positions for patronage jobs and ghost employees. A government employees and politicians nirvana.Finally, the unions that represent all of the employees bludgeon anyone who suggests dispensing with this monstrosity. Commonsense and logic are never known to prevail when it comes to PLCB.

Edward Lunny · August 31, 2007 01:07 PM

"...allowing beer sales at places like Sheetz would lead to beer sales at big-box national chains, undercutting small businesses such as his."

All right then. Explain to me why consumers should pay a higher price for this product to subsidize the archaic system?

the wolf · August 31, 2007 01:12 PM

Tony G., I grew up in Missouri and I'm not clear what you mean? I remember there was a change that allowed liquor sales on Sundays in the 90's, but I don't recall any "buy by the case only" rules before that.

Gene · August 31, 2007 01:15 PM

Was it fair when they took my great-granddaddy's slaves away and didn't pay him a damn penny?

Mike G · August 31, 2007 01:22 PM

Medicare Part D is tremendously unfair because I shouldn't have to pay for your blood pressure pills after you've spent a lifetime of eating bacon and eggs for breakfast.

***

Wisconsin is having a similar debate; microbreweries inside restaurants have a limit on the number of barrels they can brew each year because selling the beer to their customers with dinner "unfairly" cuts out the beer distribution network. Interestingly, most of these places would probably throw more business at the distributors if they had more beer to sell--why should I have to drive five hours to get a brew from the Angry Minnow in Hayward when they could make an additional few thousand barrels for sale in Milwaukee?--but potential for more business doesn't outweigh the fear that they might lose business (as if suddenly everyone in WI will stop drinking Miller at home and only drink craft beer on site, or something).

Heather · August 31, 2007 01:30 PM

The consumers are a helluva lot better off, though.

Present consumers, yes. But don't expect any marvelous miracle drugs when you retire. You're eating the seed corn right now, dumfuk.

Carl Pham · August 31, 2007 01:30 PM

The current beer dist system is insane. If you want to buy a 12 pack of Lite & 12 pack of MGD, you can't. You must buy a case of each.

I once heard a beer dist owner on a Pittsburgh talk radio show defending the current system. When a caller asked why they couln't sell mixed six packs in the same case, he replied that the business would be left with lots of six packs that would never be sold. To which the caller replied: "Well how do they manage to do it in the other 49 states?

That said, the PA State Legislature has never met a lobby that couldn't bribe, uh- I mean convince- them that the current system is perfect. And of course MADD will chime in that its all about protecting the children.

steelheader · August 31, 2007 01:31 PM

Those archaic rules do have an upside for the consumer...

"But honey, this is Pennsylvania! I had to buy a whole case of beer..."

John · August 31, 2007 01:39 PM

At least you can drive through a beer distributor and have the beer loaded in your trunk.

And why would anyone want to buy less than a case?

mike · August 31, 2007 01:46 PM

RE: global warming. My city has just authorized a paid position as a global-warming coordinator. Some city-councilors held out for a bottoms-up volunteer citizen group to start the process...but the city employees said they didn't have the bandwidth to support a citizen group.
Jeez.

Jim,MtnViewCA,USA · August 31, 2007 01:50 PM

One thing I liked about Maine was that local grocery stores not only sell beer and wine, but even hard liquor. When I moved to massachusetts I was shocked that I couldn't buy beer at the supermarket.

Ryan Frank · August 31, 2007 01:54 PM

I don't see the word monopoly anywhere in this. Ask Carlos Slim of Mexico telecom fame how sweet it is.

JayBee · August 31, 2007 01:56 PM

I live in PA and hate these damn blue laws. For instance, I believe that in the state of PA, you cannot sell gas and alcohol in the same building, the way Sheetz tried to get around that is by splitting the property that the gas station and connivence store sat, you had to pay at the pump, you couldn't go in to pay, and you could buy a six pack inside. The reason laws like this are on the books are to protect the children from drunk drivers.

John · August 31, 2007 02:12 PM

For-consmuption-later liqour laws are convoluted no matter which two states you compare. Washington state, for example, only allows sales from state-run stores.

In Oregon, on the other hand, you can find a complete selection of liquors at any supermarket.

And here in Colorado, chain supermarkets are only allowed to have complete liquor selections in one store; all others are limited to 3.2% sales. But, liquor store licensing is not too onerous and there are both stand-alone and chain liquor stores all over the place -- they just aren't allowed to sell on Sundays.

Go figure.

anony-mouse · August 31, 2007 02:36 PM

I recently moved to PA from a state where we could buy beer at Costco, so I'm all for some modernization.

Cris · August 31, 2007 02:56 PM

I moved to Pittsburgh for College from St. Louis. The idea of the alchohol of my choice not being available in the local grocery store was at best mind blowing.

And lets not even point out that it is not as though you can just go to the liquor store to get a case. The Beer distributors don't sell wine or hard liquor. The Liquor stores don't sell beer. So if you're throwing a party that's a minimum of 3 stops (Save More Beer & Pop, Wine and Spirits and then Giant Eagle if you want any kind of perishable non alchoholic beverage, or y'know, food.)

I'm sorry that it isn't fair to these businesses, but I didn't think it was particularly fair for me to have to drive 3 extra miles just to get some beer. Think of all the carbon emissions we could have saved if they'd just made achohol easier for college students to aquire. Obviously the PA liquor laws are contributing to global warming!!!

Shinobi · August 31, 2007 02:56 PM

I live in PA and the rules are ridiculous. If I want a beer, I have to drive 30 minutes round trip, passing a dozen convenience stores and 2 supermarkets to get to the nearest beer distributor. So lets change the law and say we did it for global warming.

And then I am forced to purchase an entire case even if I only want a six pack. Sop lets change the law and say we did it to stop fostering alcohol dependence by forcing people to purchase more beer than they want.

It's impossible to try different beers since nobody wants to risk buying an entire case of something they may not like. So lats change the law and say we did it for consumer satisfaction.

And screw the beer distributors. NY sells beer in 6 packs on every corner of the state and the beer distributors still do very well.

John · August 31, 2007 03:02 PM

You're eating the seed corn right now, dumfuk.

Med D doesn't hurt manufacturers, it hurts retail pharmacy. It's Canada and the rest of the free-riding world that hurt R&D, dikbrain.

putz · August 31, 2007 03:02 PM

In Minnesota you we've got that creation of government called 3.2 beer. It can be sold in grocery stores, you need to go to liquor stores to buy real beer and wine.

Kevin · August 31, 2007 03:02 PM

PA has the worst, most antiquated liquor distribution and licensing laws in the world. The PLCB is completely corrupt (in addition to the rest of the state's gov't). The state will never change what with the moralizing American Gothic frumps in the rural parts of the state and the state store employees union. I don't understand why anyone lives in that state let alone in Philadelphia where you can pay both the state AND the local income tax and drown in litter and interact with the mouth-breathing, illiterate population. So glad to be out of there!

shockcorridor · August 31, 2007 03:11 PM

Wow, and I though Massachusetts was bad. moving to New Hampshire was the best single thing I ever did to improve my quality of life.

I can now drive to a gas station, on Sunday morning (including holidays), and buy as many six-packs or single bottles of beer I want, while openly carrying a loaded handgun on my hip.

And then drive home with no seat belts on, without violating any laws.

Bruce · August 31, 2007 03:14 PM

Let's also not forget that even the six-pack places aren't allowed to sell you more than two six-packs in any one transaction. So if I want to buy some Yuengling for me, some Harp for my brother, and some Coors Lite for my parents, I have to buy the first two and then leave the store (that is, walk out to my car and put the beer in it) before I can buy the third.

I must say that I've never met a beer-distributor proprietor who wasn't a total asshole, so I wouldn't complain too hard about their "family business" going under. This really is one place where we have the buggy-whip manufacturers going out of business.

One thing I'll note: I've moved to San Jose, and I notice that there are still plenty of liquor stores around. This is because winos aren't allowed in grocery stores...

And we've also got specialty-beverage stores in the area, because the grocery stores don't necessarily carry anything but mass-production stuff. The aforementioned Harp, for example, is only found at BevMo.

DensityDuck · August 31, 2007 04:10 PM

Gene, you're right Tony G is wrong. I lived in Mo all my life. My step-father bought single quart bottles and six-packs. Only the blue and crossing the state line laws existed and were done away with.

oligonicella · August 31, 2007 04:12 PM

Seems like forcing cases on sixpack buyers would lead to more people being Sheetzfaced.

rhodeymark · August 31, 2007 04:31 PM

I live in Montgomery County, PA within 5 to 15 minutes of two distributors who have better selections of microbrews than anything I've seen in the supermarkets of other states. Yes, you have to buy a case but since I'm able to divide by 4, I've found that supermarket six pack prices in other states are higher than at my PA distributors. For example, Sierra Nevada costs more per bottle at Von's in CA than my guys in the Keystone State.
Be careful what you wish for.

PAbeermeister · August 31, 2007 04:54 PM

I grew up in Montgomery County PA as well (Hatfield and Lansdale area). Making beer runs from parties and such always sucked. So inconvienent.

Moved to Florida 10 years ago, and I'll happily get my beer and liquor when and from where I damn well please from now on.

F%@k PA's blue laws.

mateo_g · August 31, 2007 05:32 PM

Grew up in PA and moved back here from CA. I like the blue laws and wish more were in force. Get rid of the Wine and Spirits Shoppes and bring back the State Stores.

The difference? The State Stores had no displays and did not market their product. You just walked up to the counter and asked for what you wanted from the catalogue. Now the PLCB pushes booze to maximize its revenue.

If we still had State Stores, it would be easy to envision how decriminalized drugs could be distributed. But with the degeneration of the State Stores, it is easy to see how in two generations, the State would turn into a drug pusher.

Mrs. Davis · August 31, 2007 07:39 PM

Speaking of Global Warming (sorry, a little off topic here).

Get a load of this thread in PZ Meyer's Pharyngula Blog:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/dont_look_to_bjrn_lomborg_thou.php#comments

There are comments in support of Lomborg and against. I posted that it is better to replace fossil fuels with realistic alternatives (nuclear fission today, nuclear fusion tommorrow, etc) than using government coercion. One of those who supported coercion and opposed me (MikeB comment #100) said this, "As Al Capone once said, 'You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone.'" That floored me!

Posters who acknowleged manmade causes of global warming but advocated alternate energy over coercion were vilified.

Oh here is an update with MikeB the Supreme Gaian Priest. The Dear Leader (MikeB) said (comment #114) in response to my astonishment of his Al Capone quote:

Frankly, I'm a little concerned that a) you seemingly refuse to believe that climate change is real, despite the truely massive amounts of evidence (just check out RealClimate for someone to answer your questions); and b) that you are 'floored' by my use of Al Capone's quote. It simply repeats the truth (which is evident to any parent) that sometimes asking nicely is not enough. If your shocked by that, you should get out more.

One, his quote in "a)" apparently means he ignored my statement that CO2 from fossil fuels could be a problem.

Two, and this is the best part, part b of Dear Leader's quote implies that adult citizens are children and Mommy government must babysit them. He even repeats that meme again!

The Gaians' fetish for power and control in the name of their faith is simply amazing!

Robert · August 31, 2007 08:01 PM

Try living in Canada.

Temujin · August 31, 2007 10:44 PM

I'm fascinated by the various arcane rules devised by state legislooters to control the sale of alcoholic beverages. Here in Kansas City, two liquor stores could face each other across State Line Road:

In Misery, the store is required to maintain at least 50% of its inventory in non-alcoholic items at all times.

In Kansas, the store is required to maintain 100% of its inventory in alcoholic items. It is illegal for a Retail Liquor Store in KS to sell a pack of matches, mixes, chips, dips, pretzels, ice, coolers, plates, or anything else one might wish to purchase to put on a party. Almost without exception, next door is a Party Shop, coincidentally owned by the liquor store's wife, that sells the non-alcoholic items for the convenience of the liquor store's customers.

Both of these states are convinced that these rules somehow protect the citizens against drunks, but I'm unable to understand how both of them could possibly be right about it.

The Monster · September 1, 2007 12:59 AM

PAbeermeister: See, the problem isn't that the per-beer price is higher--the problem is that at a distributor, I cannot buy fewer than twenty-four beers at a time. I hate Coors Lite, but my parents bitch from soup to nuts if I don't have any in the house, so if they're coming over I've gotta have some Coors Lite in the fridge. I'd rather buy a six-pack than a case, even at a higher per-pack, since whatever's left is just wasted space.

DensityDuck · September 2, 2007 03:56 AM

Of course these laws, and all similar, are insane. There's just no debate. All you have to do is look around the country and see that PA (especially its consumers) isn't coming out ahead in this deal.

Illinois has its problems with thieving beer/wine/spirit distributors and the politicians they bribe, but at least I can go to Costco and get a case of fresh imported German Oktoberfest or first-class weissbier for $20. The godawful mass-produced American swill is about $14. So for an extra quarter apiece, I can drink palatable stuff. Not too bad.

Of course, the distribution system means that Bell's can't be sold in the state for a year or something, since they wanted to change distributors. THAT is cocked-up.

And good brewpubs seem to be doing OK.

Chester White · September 2, 2007 10:31 AM

Maybe its just from living in PA my whole life, but I don't understand why anyone would want to buy less then a case of beer. When you buy a full case, bang, you're now stocked up on beer. I suppose some like having the option of buying less then a case, but I just don't get it. Although it would be nice to buy beer and liquor together.

PABeerDrinker · September 4, 2007 03:16 PM