Skip to main content

Enemy of Free Market Retires

By Matthew Hayward


Happy Bill of Rights Day! Opening the paper this morning to read retiring liquor control board chair Sharon Foster's passionate comments against the free market was wonderful.

While the privatization of liquor sales was voter-approved, Sharon says it was "the dumbest thing we ever did in our state." She then went on to point out that privatization has "led to higher prices and increased shoplifting of alcohol, especially by minors. We've heard stories there may be alcohol brokers in every high school,” 

Let’s start with higher prices; the State is punishing the people with sin taxes and making more money than ever. Next shoplifting; yes, there will be an increase in shoplifting of a product when you now have the product. Sharon fails to mention adjustments made in security measures without State regulations.

When liquor was first opened up for sale in the general marketplace, many store owners foolishly placed their products insecurely in open aisles. In short, most stores moved their liquor into secured cases, behind registers, or very open areas near cash registers. Shoplifting has dropped dramatically after store owners promptly secured their assets.

Lastly, let’s talk about minors and high school.  Long before the privatization of liquor sales, when I was in high school (1997), I sold liquor, beer, and cigarettes. Why? Because there was a market for them due to probation for minors and the scarcity of availability. It was easier to acquire marijuana in high school than alcohol, thus making business more lucrative.

The real issue surrounding minors and “alcohol brokers in every high school” is prohibition. If we simply legalized freedom, we would put the black market out of business.

Oddly Sharron recognizes that “another voter-approved initiative, the recreational sale of marijuana, needs amending. Lawmakers should lower marijuana taxes if the state wants to take business from the black market, she said.” Oddly, she understands the market when it comes to marijuana but not alcohol.
What is really disgusting is her role in helping “ban caffeinated malt liquor drinks.” In fact, that is what she hopes to be remembered by. “I’m very proud I was a part of that,” Foster said.

This is one statist I am excited to see leave. Sharon Foster exemplifies the nana state and could not be a more anti-free market. One day we can simply abolish the liquor control board altogether.   






Labels:
Location: Olympia, WA, USA

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...
Post a Comment
Read more

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...
Post a Comment
Read more

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...
1 comment
Read more