|
In response to
"why not? they regulate the hell out of it so are deeply involved as it is. Plus the buying power of a state run business allows for good volume deals. -- nm"
by
zork
|
That doesn't mean it's part of the government's core business though.
Posted by
Roger More (aka Rogermore)
Jan 31 '13, 06:52
|
Znu's point is a good one - the government doesn't need to be involved. Follow the same logic and you get the government owning all sorts of monopolies - telecoms, airlines, railroads - that can lose a lot of money, spend huge $$$ on white elephant projects, and lead to higher prices and less choice for consumers.
Properly managed and limited, like it is in Canada, it's not a big deal, but there's also no underlying reason for the government to have a virtual liquor monopoly, beyond a throwback to Victorian times
|