Beer Smash Photos

Call it the Denver Beer Party. A friend who attended the March 13 "Beer Smash" sent in the photographs reproduced below. The event was to protest beer protectionism and advocate liberty in beer sales, particularly the right of grocers to sell regular beer to consenting adults. See my first write up and link to the YouTube video, then my follow-up based on comments from the Denver Daily News.


Denver channels 2, 4, 7, and 9 came out for the event.


Earl Allen, Ari Armstrong, Amanda Teresi, and David Williams spoke at the event.


Justin Longo (at right) also helped with the logistics.




Notice the large plastic sheet and rags to contain the mess.










We interrupted the speeches to get to the beer smashing, as one of the stations was broadcasting live. Then Dave finished up his remarks and Earl argued that we should repeal this remaining vestige of Prohibition.


Hasta (la vista) Manana. (Manana was one of the beers I smashed.) It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Notice that the mess was contained within the plastic and rags. I did get a bit more splatter than I anticipated, so I carefully cleaned up the area using a damp rag. For good measure we also picked up additional trash, such as cigarette butts, left by others.

I thank my fellow freedom fighters for their help with the event.

Beer Smash Protests Protectionism

This morning some friends and I hosted a media conference in Denver to advocate freedom in beer sales and to protest beer protectionism. Earl Allen, who spoke at the event along with Amanda Teresi and Dave Williams (and me), put together a YouTube video:



Here's the release I sent out yesterday:

ISSUE: Allow Grocery Sales of Real Beer, End Protectionism

PHOTO OPPORTUNITY: Smashing Beer Bottles to protest beer protectionism and advocate liberty in beer sales

WHEN AND WHERE: West Steps, Colorado Capitol, 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 13

SPEAKERS:
Ari Armstrong, publisher of FreeColorado.com
Amanda Teresi, founder of Liberty on the Rocks
Dave Williams, president of the Gadsden Society
Additional speakers pending [Earl Allen became the fourth speaker]

"Grocery stores have a right to sell regular beer to consenting adults, and beer drinkers have the right to shop at stores of their choice. By killing Bill 1192 Wednesday, the legislature maintained unjust protectionism at the cost of individual liberty, property rights, and freedom of association," said Ari Armstrong.

Armstrong will smash beer bottles from Colorado brewers who endorsed protectionism. The event will feature appropriate measures for safety and cleanup, so no beer or glass will be left on state property.

"The protectionists are smashing our liberty, so it's only appropriate that we smash their beer," Armstrong said.

Brewers who opposed 1192, thereby endorsing protectionism, include the following:

Bristol Brewing Co.

Del Norte Brewing Company

Colorado Brewers Guild

I do think it's a mistake to think that the Brewer's Guild necessarily speaks for all its members. I don't mean to suggest that Bristol and Del Norte are the only or primary offenders; they're just the ones I learned about. (Bristol's oatmeal stout is spectacular, by the way, so I was especially pained to break bottles of that.)

I support Colorado's beer and wine industry, and I have supported the freedom of brewers to produce and sell their products. Beer and wine producers, above all other businesses, should understand the devastating power of political intervention. Their industry was legally squashed for years in this nation. So why do some brewers support using political force to squash certain business transactions now? They should know better.

Other things equal, I'd prefer to buy my beer from producers who stand up for freedom rather than trample individual rights. So if anybody knows of any Colorado brewers who opposed the protectionist measures restricting grocery beer sales (or that even took an officially neutral position), please let me know, and I'd be happy to promote those brewers and go out of my way to buy beer from them.

I support liberty, and I try to support businesses that support liberty.

7 News broadcast the event live just after 11:00 a.m. CBS4 also published a story on the event, as did 9News.

Blogger Richard Combs writes, "I agree completely with Ari that this is unjust protectionism, and that the State of Colorado should long ago have abandoned this vestige of prohibitionism... But… the idea of smashing perfectly good, drinkable bottles of beer just disturbs me deeply."

I hear you, my friend, but what's truly disturbing is the political smashing of our liberties.

I'm going to end my evening, of course, with a beer, and a toast to liberty.

Time to Bring Beer Sales to Ballot

It is a classic case of cowardly, unprincipled, anti-freedom legislators pandering to "concentrated interests" at the expense of justice and the dispersed populace.

Grocers have the right -- the right -- to sell products of their choice, including regular beer, to willing buyers (who are adults). And consumers have the right to shop for the goods and services of their choice from willing sellers. That is, grocers and their customers have the right to freely exchange goods on mutually agreeable terms.

Yet Colorado law violates this right of free exchange by restricting grocery store sales (except for a single store of a chain) to low-alcohol beer, which only weenies drink. The law is wrong, it is protectionist in nature (meaning that it protects special interests at the expense of select merchants and consumers), and in the name of justice and liberty it must be overturned.

Last year the legislature overturned the law banning Sunday liquor sales at stores. Some liquor stores went along in the hopes that they'd pick up more business. But the justification of the law -- and many politicians and reporters are confused on this matter -- was not any impact it might have had on overall sales. The justification of the law was that it expanded liberty and protected individual rights, in however small a way.

Now it is time to complete the repeal of Prohibition.

If 38 other states can allow the sale of normal beer in grocery stores, why does anyone think the sky will fall in Colorado if the unjust restriction is repealed?

First beer brewers, teaming up with liquor stores for the protectionist racket, argued that the protectionist legislation expands the number of beers sold. I pointed out that, first, the argument is likely false, as grocery stores would offer an expanded market to many breweres, and, second, that the argument is irrelevant, because sellers and buyers have the right to sell whatever products they want on mutually agreeable terms.

Then the protectionists joined with the social activists to argue that protectionism is needed "for the children." I answered that protecting minors does not require and does not justify violating the rights of adults. Besides, beer sales would be at least as tightly monitored at grocery stores as they are at liquor stores.

Thankfully, the forces of freedom are not backing down. The Denver Post reports:

Bill sponsor Rep. Buffie McFadyen, who delivered 66,000 signatures from shoppers favoring expanded strong-beer sales, said she thinks the issue could end up on the 2010 ballot.

"And they will certainly want to include more than just beer," said McFadyen, D-Pueblo West, hinting that wine and spirits could be included in a future initiative.

Of course, restrictions on liquor store food sales should also be lifted.

Though the Post claims the bill was defeated by a 7-4 vote in committee, the legislature's page reports that House Bill 1192 was killed in the House Business Affairs and Labor Committee killed the bill on March 11 by a vote of 8-3. (I called the capitol to verify this.) Following is a list of legislators who voted for and against, again according to the legislative web page. (The vote was whether to "postpone indefinitely," or kill the bill, so a "Yes" vote was a vote to kill the bill.)

For Liberty, Against Protectionism
David Balmer, Republican, Arapahoe
Larry Liston, Republican, El Paso
Edward Casso, Democrat, Adams

Against Liberty, For Protectionism
Laura Bradford, Republican, Mesa
Sara Gagliardi, Democrat, Jefferson
Kevin Priola, Republican, Adams
Su Ryden, Democrat, Arapahoe
Christine Scanlan, Democrat, Eagle, Lake, Summit
John Soper, Democrat, Adams
Amy Stephens, Republican, El Paso
Joe Rice, Democrat, Arapahoe, Jefferson

So Republicans on the committee voted against the measure by 3-2, while Democrats voted against it 5-1, even though McFadyen, the bill's sponsor, is a Democrat. On net, both parties continue their hostility to property rights and freedom of association. (The Denver Business Journal reports that "several legislators said that while they agree that the state's liquor-sales laws need reform, they felt it should come in comprehensive fashion, not just in a piecemeal bill that benefits grocery and convenience stores." But when is more liberty ever a bad thing?)

It is time for the people of Colorado to take back their liberty.

New Tariff Wars?

Herbert Hoover's tariffs were a major cause of the Great Depression. You'd think that, occasionally, we might learn something from history. But not today's Republicans. Diana Hsieh points to an article in the Telegraph:

The French government is facing calls to slap a massive import tax on Coca-Cola in retaliation for punitive American duties levelled on the salty, blue-veined, sheep cheese roquefort.

The American measures were taken as part of a trade dispute, now known as "cheese wars", in which the Bush administration took action against the European Union's ban on imports of US hormone-treated beef.

Last week, America imposed a 100 per cent import duty on a long list of EU products, but singled roquefort out for a 300 per cent tariff.

"Symbol versus symbol," said Philippe Folliot, a French member of parliament whose Tarn constituency contains many roquefort producers. "Since the United States has decided to surtax one of the most ancient (cheese) appellations, I think that the French government, with the European Union, must think about a heavy specific tax on imports of Coca-Cola concentrates produced in the US."

The correct response on tariffs is always the same, regardless of what other countries are doing: lower them. The last thing we need right now is a new round of tariff wars.

A Good Beer Needs No Political Force

The following article was published by Colorado Daily on January 26, 2009, under the title, "Free our beer: Stop telling grocers what they can and can't sell." It also appears on the Independence Institute's web page as "A Good Beer Needs No Political Force."

Game time is ten minutes from now. Tortilla chips, check. Salsa, check. Okay, where's the real beer? If you've ever wanted to buy food and fine beer at the same store, tough luck. State law says that's a crime.

Last year the Democrats pushed through the free-market reform of allowing liquor stores and their customers to conduct business on Sundays. Yet the Colorado liquor industry remains hampered by Prohibition-era controls. State law prohibits liquor stores from opening chains and selling food. It forbids grocery stores from selling anything but low-alcohol beer, and that's the big fight this year.

In a January 11 article for the Rocky Mountain News, John Carlson, executive director of the Colorado Brewers Guild, argues that the grocery-store restrictions promote "the diverse array of beer styles for which Colorado is nationally known... because independent liquor stores offer [craft brewers] vital access to market." However, truly "independent" liquor stores wouldn't demand protectionism imposed by politicians and their army of bureaucrats.

The point of the free market is not to maximize choices in beer or any other item, but to protect liberty. If having the most beers available were the goal, the state could force all liquor stores to carry every single beer brewed throughout the world. State law could also force existing brewers to expand ten-fold the styles of beer they produce. Somehow, I doubt the people paying Carlson's salary would appreciate such laws.

Free markets do offer consumers vast choices by protecting their right to exchange on mutually agreeable terms. People naturally seek a wide variety of goods and services. When politicians attempt to ensure "choice" by forcibly intervening in trade, they destroy people's choice to buy and sell as they see fit.

Choice does not justify force. For example, we have fewer choices today in horse-drawn buggies, hand-sewn clothing, and pet rocks. If politicians tried to force us to buy more of those things, they would undermine our choice to shop for other goods.

Carlson implausibly claims that grocery store sales would restrict the diversity of beer. The rise of microbrews is due to consumer demand, not protectionism. Some grocery stores would stock a wide selection, expanding the ability of craft brewers to get their product to market. Many stores would continue to compete for the business of those who just can't decide between that Smokejumper Porter and Mephistopheles' Stout.

Stores properly compete on diversity of selection, price, and customer service. Some people just want an ice-cold Coors. Others want the global sampler pack. Some shop for convenience, others for rare beers sold by knowledgeable employees. Telling grocery stores they can sell only low-alcohol beer is a bit like telling Wal-Mart it can sell only Britney Spears in the music aisle. We don't protect butcher shops by forcing grocery stores to sell only fatty hamburger.

By forcibly limiting the choices of shoppers who prefer a basic selection at lower prices, Colorado law forces some beer drinkers to subsidize those with more eccentric tastes.

Protectionism helps some businesses by harming their competitors. It violates the spirit of camaraderie, liberty, and free competition that craft brewers are supposed to represent. At game time, root for your team, and root also for the freedom to buy goods and services from anyone willing to sell them. And don't forget the salsa.


Ari Armstrong is a guest writer for the Independence Institute and the editor of FreeColorado.com.

Massage Licensing Rubs Special Interests

This article originally was published by Grand Junction's Free Press on August 4, 2008.

Massage licensing rubs special interests

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

We can rest more soundly knowing that muscle-rubbers will be fingerprinted, fined, and registered with the State of Colorado "in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare" as "an exercise of the police powers of the state," as Senate Bill 219 states.

Registering massage therapists, our legislature and governor have told us, "is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety." What a farce. How did Colorado survive for so many decades without such a program?

Is it any surprise that a July 28 story in the Free Press features glowing endorsements of the law by those whose competitors will now be outlawed?

Marilyn Veselack, owner of the Institute of Therapeutic Massage, told this paper, "This was a long time coming, with the Colorado Coalition of Massage Therapists working for years on trying to get what we think is respect."

They've got "respect" all right: now some of their competitors can be thrown in jail. We're not sure if that sort of "respect" is closer to that demanded by the Godfather or Rodney Dangerfield.

One way to legally practice massage therapy is to go to "an approved massage school." Coincidentally, Veselack owns just such a school, which charges $6,000 or $9,000, depending on the program.

Veselack said she currently has around 25 students. The math on that looks pretty good to us, even though Veselack noted that she's not currently paying herself a salary because of costs of moving and remodeling. We do not doubt her sincerity when she says, "My heart is with teaching," we just don't think such teaching should be politically favored.

So what are the pretexts for passing this legislation protecting special interests?

The first is that people are just too stupid to pick a good therapist without the help of the Great Nanny. A big concern is the distinction between real massage therapists and sexually-oriented massage. But we've never met anyone who is unaware of this difference. Massage therapists are good about advertising the therapeutic, non-sexual nature of their services.

Prostitution is a separate legal issue that should not be addressed through laws for therapists.

Your senior author's wife, Sharon, has used massage therapists for many years. Sharon asks friends, doctors and other therapists about the qualities and professionalism of therapists. Most clinics advertise high standards. You wouldn't buy a used car, hire a maid, or go on a date without checking into things; why would you treat massage any differently?

Ari once worked as an unlicensed tutor. He just hired an unlicensed house inspector. In a market, people are free to investigate services, solicit advice, and spend or withhold funds from whatever providers they see fit. Generally, people reward good service with their business.

Certification is no guarantee of quality: Ari has had some dreadful massages from certified therapists. Nevertheless, all the therapists we've ever hired and evaluated are certified, as that at least indicates a basic level of training. Yet there may be somebody, for instance, who has expertly practiced massage for many years in another country who is now subject to new barriers to entry here. The new law violates the right of contract between therapists and willing clients.

It's fraudulent to claim certification or expertise where none exists, and fraud is already against the law. We fully support certification by voluntary groups, much as Underwriters Laboratories certifies electrical appliances.

Veselack suggested that we "talk to the police department," especially in Colorado Springs, about human trafficking and other problems involving massage and nail parlors. Grand Junction Police Sergeant Bill Baker said massage is "not something we've been getting calls on."

In Colorado Springs, Lieutenant David Whitlock said he he hadn't heard of the bill. City Attorney Will Bain said, "I don't know anything about it." Sergeant Creighton Brandt said his department "didn't have any direct or even peripheral involvement in the passage of the legislation," though a lobbyist may have weighed in. The El Paso Sheriff's office didn't return our call before deadline.

Where human trafficking is a problem, obviously that's already illegal, and it should be addressed directly, not by registering all massage therapists.

Another excuse for passing the law is that it preempts a patchwork of arbitrary and conflicting local ordinances. We agree that preemption is a good idea in such cases, but such state-level preemption should free people from political controls, not subject them to more.

You may not think that registering massage therapists is a big deal. But our liberty is not dying by a single massive assault, it is dying by a million tiny cuts, with more every year. Such laws entrench protectionism and promote special-interest warfare. They give politicians ever-greater power over our lives. And they train citizens to think and act as children, dependent on the political class for their day-to-day decisions.

What we need is some liberty therapy.