RedShirt: "I don't agree with the state running the liquor stores, and
I think that most conservatives don't agree with it either."And yet the state liquor store system is remarkably persistent in a state
where the legislature is held by a conservative supermajority and the governor
and AG are conservative Republicans. If "most conservatives don't
agree with it," why isn't it repealed? Are the legislators not
"true" enough conservatives? If so, are there any conservatives
anywhere?Let's revisit and revise an earlier statement of
yours:There is a hypocrisy among conservatives. They will fight against
socialism saying that government should not be engaged in business, then have no
problem socializing their pet projects.Would you agree that it is
still a valid statement?That's the point I was trying to make.
Hypocrisy is a human thing, not a liberal thing.Sorry your good name
got poached. You have to expect it. It comes with the territory. After all,
redshirts are disposable and interchangeable.4th/final comment.
To "Lagomorph" I don't agree with the state running the liquor
stores, and I think that most conservatives don't agree with it either.The user redshirt007 is not me, that is some liberal that I have no idea
who it is.
@RedShirt: I'm referring specifically to the Utah Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control. What little private production of alcoholic beverages exists
in the state is strictly regulated with respect to quantity, alcohol content,
marketing, and sales. Wholesaling, distribution, and retail sales of wine,
liquor, and full strength beer are done through a network of state owned and
operated liquor stores. Decisions about product inventory, staffing, prices,
etc. are made by the government, not determined by the free market. By your own
definition it is socialism.You miss my larger point that blanket
generalizations about any group of people, whether liberals, conservatives,
immigrants, stoners, or tea partiers, are counterproductive when they are really
based on universal frailties of the human condition. Do liberals occasionally
demonstrate hypocrisy? Of course they do. So do conservatives, academics,
convicts, and airline pilots. Like motes and beams, it's easier to see
hypocrisy in your ideological opponents, but we are all guilty of it. It
doesn't further a discussion to paint in broad strokes as you do.BTW, has someone hijacked your handle? I'm seeing comments by
RedShirt*** (where *** is various text) in other comment threads that I actually
agree with. What gives?
To "Lagomorph" what to Red States do that is " The wholesaling,
distribution, and retailing of an entire market sector is run by the
state."?You don't understand capitalism. The markets
don't "run unfettered". They operate within the bounds of the law.
Anarchy is allowing markets to "run unfettered". Socialism is when the
government owns the means of production and distribution.
@RedShirt: Point taken. I try to be cautious and judicious in making broad
generalizations regarding hypocrisy and double standards because as soon as you
point one out, a counterexample pops up to bite you. I see a tendency towards
hypocrisy as a general human trait not confined to any ideology or demographic
category. There is plenty to go around across the entire human spectrum. It
can be useful to point out cases of hypocrisy, but I don't see it as a
strong argument to paint with as broad a brush as you do. You could take your
last paragraph, swap a few words, and have an equally valid statement about
conservatives.F'rinstance: Conservatives fight for free
markets. They say that socialism is the ruin of economies and societies and can
never be justified. They say let the markets run unfettered. And yet in the
reddest of the red states, where freedom and entrepreneurialism are lauded,
where the GOP reigns supreme, we find one of the purest cases of socialism you
can find anywhere in the world. The wholesaling, distribution, and retailing of
an entire market sector is run by the state. Go figure. Other examples abound.
To "Lagomorph" I have no problem with incentivizing businesses. I do
have a problem with liberals who complain about tax breaks given to oil
companies, despite the fact that the federal government gets more money in taxes
from oil and oil products than the oil companies make in profits.There is a hypocrisy among liberals. They will fight against tax breaks
saying that government should not subsidize businesses, then have no problem
giving tax breaks and subsidies to their pet projects, many of which LOSE money.
JHP: "...bad movies mostly not worth watching."Like
Napoleon Dynamite, Austenland, The Brave Little Toaster, and Hoosiers?@RedShirt: As joseywales pointed out, it's a business decision. All of
the incentives cited in the article add up to well under a million, but they
bring in $69M in spending. Take 5% of that as sales tax (never mind lodging
taxes, etc.) and you get 3.5M in revenue. Not a bad ROI. Why aren't
conservatives rejoicing that the incentives are local, not federal, as champions
of small, local, decentralized government should?
JHP- It's a business decision. Sundance brings a truckload of money into
PC, and giving back a little, or using special offers is something that all
cities or states do to businesses that are bringing in big money. It's
simple, Sundance goes elsewhere, so does their money. As a local, I would hate
to see it leave. But's that's just the businessman in me speaking.
Two reasons why this decision is bad: 1) government favoritism; 2) government
sanction of bad movies mostly not worth watching.
This is so weird. I don't see any of the typical liberals ranting about
how evil it is to subsidze the Sundance Festival? Where are the liberals
telling us how government should not give money to private businesses?The only logical conclusion is that liberals are hypocrites when it comes to
subsidies for businesses. They favor subsidizing their favored groups and want
to punish those that are not.
The festival was actually founded by Sterling Van Wagonen. Redford jumped on
with Van Wagonen who was his wife's cousin.