Libertarian Party of Allen County, Indiana: Fort Wayne Republicans

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Fort Wayne Republicans

The Fort Wayne City Council is considering creating a "munincipal riverfront development project."

This would allow Fort Wayne to issue more liquor licenses then we currently have. Liquor licenses are currently issued based on population. The price of a liquor license in Fort Wayne can be as high as a couple of a hundred thousand dollars... Their price is determined by economic and supply and demand.

Our large government City Council is considering changing all of that. If they create a "munincipal riverfront development project" downtown that will allow them to issue more liquor licenses to business owners in the aforementioned district...

This will certainly drive the cost of existing liquor licenses down...

In this evenings News-Sentinel there is a revealing quote from one of our large government Republicans. Tom Smith is discussed in the article. He is given credit for the following paragraph.

Councilman Tom Smith, R-1st District, leans toward the proposal but only if the city establishes guidelines to select the best applicants, citing as examples businesses that would voluntarily be nonsmoking and not allow video gambling machines.

With Republicans like we have on our City Council who really needs Democrats?

Has Tom Smith heard of the free market?

Does he realize that it should be up to business owners what kind of establishment they run not 9 City Council members?

Discussions like this depress me.

They make me wonder if there is ANY HOPE of saving Fort Wayne from the Republicans and Democrats who run it...

It also makes me wonder if there is really ANY difference between Reps and Dems in Fort Wayne... I do not think they are ANY different from each other.

What do you think?

P.S. The News-Sentinel article can be found at:
<http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/local/15779254.htm>

14 comments:

Robert Enders said...: Ideally, all responsible bar owners should be allowed to have a liquor license for the cost of processing the application and conducting any required inspections. Limiting the number of licenses distorts the market and limits the choices available to consumers.

However, if we did what I proposed tommorow, it would upset all the current bar owners who shelled out thousands for the licenses. So if Fort Wayne does what I proposed above, there needs to be a way to compensate bar owners for the headaches that have been imposed in the past.; 17 October, 2006 20:00
Anonymous said...: At least the city council is finally coming up with a solution that will raise tax dollars instead of squandering millions of dollars to renevate downtown. Unfortunately, I am sure this plan is still part of their other plans to move the baseball stadium, build a new hotel, and continue seizing people's property for no good reason.

I don't so much have a problem saying we will issue x number of new licenses but they have to be downtown in the river front district. They should first offer them to the exsisting businesses in the district and then on a first come first serve basis.

There is no way they should be allowed to pass moral judgement on whom they give the licenses too. That gives them the power to be Big Brother!; 17 October, 2006 20:37
Andrew Kaduk said...: Wow, in the time it took me to type a post over at The Record on this topic, Robert and Anonymous chimed right in echoing my sentiments! I'm glad that I am not the only one thinking along these lines.; 17 October, 2006 20:52
Andrew Kaduk said...: Or was I echoing your sentiments?; 17 October, 2006 20:53
The Conservative UAW Guy said...: Good Lord.
Who needs Democrats, indeed.; 17 October, 2006 21:36
Tim Zank said...: Gotta tell ya boys, I don't miss Ft. Wayne a bit. Things just seem to get more convoluted.

Growing up there in the 60's and 70's, it was a pretty conservative town. Sounds like you've gone from the city of churches to the city of nannies.....; 17 October, 2006 21:43
Robert Enders said...: One more thing. Is it really a good idea to build next to the river? I hope they are able to determine whether these proposed sites are floodprone.
If somebody wants to take the risk of having their business flooded, fine. I really do not care so as long as they do not expect the government to bail them out with taxpayer dollars.
The city has spent thousands on buying up and tearing down homes in flood prone areas. It would be foolish for someone to start sinking a lot of money into a project that could end up being washed away.; 18 October, 2006 09:04
Jim Wetzel said...: So, why exactly should there be any such thing as a "liquor license?"

Or is that too libertarian a question to ask here?; 18 October, 2006 11:46
Anonymous said...: AAARRRGGGH! It would appear that the council is made up of a bunch of *Do-Gooders*.

Yecchht! I loath do-gooders. Here is a quote from C.S. Lewis about people like that:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
English essayist & juvenile novelist (1898 - 1963)

One Radical Libbetarian; 18 October, 2006 11:56
Robert Enders said...: You are probably correct in that there should not be such a thing as a liquor license. When we control both houses of the state legislature, maybe we can fix that. Until then, baby steps, Bartleby, baby steps.; 18 October, 2006 14:23
LP Mike Sylvester said...: Bartleby:

I tend to agree with Robert Enders on this one...

I think that we way over-regulate the liquor industry...

I think the cost of a liquor license should be a small fee that covers the governments cost of issuing them...

What doyou think Bartleby?

Mike Sylvester; 18 October, 2006 16:13
Jim Wetzel said...: I guess I'm having a hard time seeing why such a thing as a "liquor license" should exist. I mean: I have booze and want money; you have money and want booze; we reach an agreement and make the exchange. What part of that requires the state's help?

As far as I can tell, Mr. Enders agrees, but would want to keep that agreement secret until the LP takes over the statehouse. Then, surprise! That's not honest.; 18 October, 2006 18:05
Andrew Kaduk said...: Bartleby,

As close as I can tell, there is only one task at which ANY government is capable of excelling beyond the capabilities of private enterprise, and that, my man, is the collection of taxes.

That is why the liquor license exists, and solely for that reason does it continue to do so. It reminds me of that old saying about putting makeup on a pig, or polishing a turd, whichever you prefer.; 18 October, 2006 23:45
Jim Wetzel said...: Andrew,

Clearly, you're correct: that's why there are such things as liquor licenses. But my question was: why should there be such things?

The closest thing to a justification that I can think of (drinking can be bad for some of us, and there are fewer opportunities for drinking under a licensure system than there might be without one) is laughable.; 19 October, 2006 19:24