The editorial had to do with the annual attempt by Minnesota grocers to get a law passed allowing them to sell wine in grocery stores. Minnesota has antiquated liquor laws making it illegal to sell any alcohol, including beer and wine, in anything put licensed liquor stores. Liquor stores, furthermore, are closed after 10:00PM and on Sundays. This is very inconvenient to the liquor consuming public.
The Startribune agreed that grocery store should be able to sell wine, but wondered by we should stop there. Then the Startribune wrote this,
The Legislature's perspective should be broader than that. If more competition is a good thing, and it generally is, then be thorough about it: Inject more competition in Minnesota's liquor laws from top to bottom. Reaching into the morass of antiquated Minnesota liquor regulations to tweak just the parts that deal with wine sales strikes us as simply adding a new layer of slightly less-bad policy to old layers of thoroughly bad policy.
When I read this paragraph I almost fell over. Could it be that the Startribune understood one of the basic principals of capitalism? Could they understand that competition and free markets delivers prosperity by giving people what they want? It appears they might.
There may, in this editorial, be a glimmer of hope for the Startribune. Now if they can just take this a step further and apply this new found understanding of competition to education we may have something.