OK, I admit it.  Many of you suspected it all along.  My espousal of libertarian principles is really just a cover for my selfish, material interests.  An ideological superstructure, if you will.  Except, it’s not money that motivates me.  It’s beer.

I am a lover of craft beer, and a homebrewer.  And the fact is, freedom makes for good beer. Just look, for example, at the American experience.  Prohibition in the 1920s destroyed what had once been a surprisingly successful and diverse American brewing industry, leaving only a few large brewers of cheap, flavorless swill in its wake.  It wasn’t until the 1980s that innovative, interesting, flavorful beers began to reappear on the American market, driven in part by Jimmy Carter’s legalization of homebrewing in 1978.  Many of today’s most innovative professional brewers got their start as homebrewers – Alesmith’s Peter Zien, Rogue’s Jeff Schultz, Dogfish Head’s Sam Calagione, New Belgium’s Jeff Lebesch, and Sierra Nevada’s Ken Grossman, for example.

Or consider Belgium.  A lot of people still think of Germany as the greatest beer country of Europe.  And Germany does indeed produce some of the world’s finest lagers.  But that’s about it.  Belgium, in contrast, has over 125 breweries producing an incredible range of styles, incorporating everything from wild yeast such as Brettanomyces, to cherries, daffodils, you name it..  If you’ve sampled a bottle of Chimay from your local purveyor, believe me, you’ve only just scratched the most commercially-savvy part of the surface.  Part of the difference between Belgium’s celebration of diversity and Germany’s relatively narrow expertise might be cultural, I suppose.  But a big part of it is due to regulation.  Thanks to the Reinheitsgebot, brewers in Germany simply weren’t legally allowed to engage in the kind of experimentation that their neighbors to the West were undertaking.

Beer admits of a tremendous variety – much more so than wine.  The latest version of the Beer Judge Certification Program Style Guidelines (a must-read for any beer-lover) contains 80 unique styles.  And several of those are catch-all categories like “speciality beer,” admitting of an infinite number of permutations.  But those styles can only flourish in a regulatory environment that permits producers to experiment, and consumers to learn about and purchase the results of that experimentation.  And while the United States has done well, it could do much better.

A good starting place to read about the ways in which the US system falls short of a free market is Glen Whitman’s  Strange Brew: Alcohol and Government Monopoly, which discusses the “three-tier” system that dominates the US alcohol industry, and how it stifles innovation and consumer choice.  But the internet has been abuzz lately with stories detailing the pernicious effects of US alcohol regulation, including several pieces on the blatant rent-seeking of large brewers in Wisconsin, a Reason spot on Pennsylvania’s ridiculous “wine kiosks,” and another piece from Reason on laws that prohibit craft brewers from telling their Texas customers where their products are sold.

On a brighter note, though, there’s always this other Reason piece on the effects of deregulation on Japan’s craft brewing scene, this terrific Reason.TV interview with Anchor Brewing Company’s Fritz Maytag, a good New York Times piece on homebrewing, and an interesting piece from Cato on the relatively laissez-faire atmosphere toward beer distribution in…of all places…Washington, D.C.  Reason’s Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch also have a nice discussion of liberty and the American craft beer scene in their new book, The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America.  Hmm.  Come to think of it, I’m starting to notice a bit of a trend with all these Reason links.  Looks like I’m not the only libertarian with a hidden agenda.

 
  • http://acroyear70.livejournal.com/ Joe Shelby

    You didn’t mention it, but some of the biggest enemies of craft brewing in this country are the *distributors*, as most of them are also owned by the mega beer companies.  Many of these megabrewers have bought large stakes craft brewers (e.g., A-B owns or co-runs Red Hook and Dominion, among many others), and set up monopoly distribution licenses with the others they don’t run.

    They then turn around and lobby the states (they did this VERY successfully in Maryland) to give them exclusivity rights under the auspices that only that way can the states actually ensure they’ve collected their taxes (this is, of course, the “big lie”).  Thus, craft brewers can’t sell directly to restaurants and venues.  They have to sell to distributors and hope those distributors push their wares to the restaurants they want to reach.  The enforced exclusivity contracts also mean that if a venue doesn’t like a particular distributor and refuses to work with them, they are then excluded from all of the products.  A-B has a near-total monopoly on all craft brewers in Maryland, so if you don’t want to use the A-B distributor in Maryland, you are forced to only carry national-level brands through the others.  “Drink Locally” can’t happen without A-B making a buck off of you, whether you like it or not.

    This law has also pummeled the state’s wine industry at precisely the wrong time in its economic growth, because most of the wineries are just too small to even be picked up by distributors and their only business was selling directly to restaurants, which they can’t do anymore.  An entire wine industry is on the verge of collapse because A-B wanted to make a dollar more per bottle on beer they don’t even make…

    • http://blog.hecker.org/ Frank Hecker

      Yes, exactly. As I recall, distributors in Maryland were also the driving force behind regulations that prohibited wineries from shipping wine directly to customers. (This was justified to the public in large part on paternalistic grounds, i.e., preventing minors from ordering cases of cabernet sauvignon delivered to their doorstep while their parents were otherwise occupied.) This direct shipping restriction was relaxed in the last legislative session, but only partially.

  • Hyena

    But there’s very little discussion of this sort of thing. I think Matt Yglesias and Reason are pretty much alone in consistently lamenting the economic and freedom-reducing effects of petty regulations. In fact, it seems like concern for this issue is inversely proportional to how often someone says “liberty” or “freedom”, yet it is probably much more important to actual lived freedom than policies which get most of the discussion.

    • Damien S.

       I  was rather appalled to learn about the Boston taxi market.  Fixed number of now very expensive medallions, plus the whole urban area is in lots of cities, and taxis can’t pick up streetside people out of their base, e.g. a Boston cab going to Cambridge can’t pick up someone waiting for a cab in Cambridge, though they could respond to a phone call but who does that?  So limited supply and lots of one-way trips.  Outright deregulation would help, but there’s a very common perceived safety problem of completely unregulated taxis. This is one case where more centralized government would improve things, e.g. a taxi authority for the whole Boston area.

      Interestingly, I’ve seen it claimed that the medallions are now valuable property, with hundreds of thousands of dollar per medallion, such  that simply issuing a lot more let alone abolishing them would be fought in court as a ‘taking’.  Deregulation runs into property protection.

  • Nathan Westbrook

    Matt, are you on BeerAdvocate? Here’s my BA profile page: http://beeradvocate.com/user/profile/PhiloPsych

    • http://www.sandiego.edu/~mzwolinski Matt Zwolinski

      I am, and used to be fairly active on it.  Haven’t been there for a while though, except to use their BeerFly service when I travel!  I’m waiting for them to come out with an Android app.

  • M Lister

    The link to the PA wine story goes to the Madison story.

    Pennsylvania is good case for economic distortion of regulation.  Officially beer can only be sold in “package stores” and only in cases.  But, restaurants can sell beer “to go”, and so most 6-packs and large bottles are sold from pizza places or “delis”.  Often these “delis” get nearly all of their sales from beer, and have sandwich sales only because they must.  I’m sure they’d rather have more space for beer.  (The state stores are also stupid, though rather differently.)  It’s really a dumb situation. 

    • http://www.sandiego.edu/~mzwolinski Matt Zwolinski

      Thanks – the link’s fixed now.

  • http://twitter.com/VelizCF CFV

    In München steht ein Hofbräuhaus: Eins, zwei, g’suffa!

    PS: But the beer-hall and the brewery is state-owned (“Die Staatliches Hofbräuhaus”): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofbr%C3%A4uhaus_am_Platzl

    • Anonymous

      Sure it’s state owned but the state doesn’t have a monopoly on the beer market, distribution, manufacture or retail. Again, this is one of the libertarian positions, no fundamental problem with government attempting to produce some good or service but not as a monopoly. Typically, and I think most here would agree, government’s core competence is not an economic goods/service production so it shouldn’t attempt to enter such markets as a producer.

      • http://twitter.com/VelizCF CFV

        j_m_h,

        “Again, this is one of the libertarian positions, no fundamental problem
        with government attempting to produce some good or service but not as a
        monopoly.”

        I don’t think this is the default or conventional position for libertarians.Not only anarcho-capitalist libertarians, but also minarchist libertarians strongly oppose state-owned enterprises beyond the provision of security services (police, military, perhaps parts of the current judiciary system). Many are also strongly against any involvement of libertarians with state property. Thus, libertarians should not use public toll, teach in public universities, etc. If they are correct, libertarians should not go to the Hofbräuhaus to have a beer!

        • Anonymous

          I agree, it’s not the default position. There would be a large hurdle to get something started, how’s the investment made for one thing. Still, it’s a common thing for libertarians to talk about paying for government services and that such services should not, in general, be provided via monopoly.

          This might be an interesting area to look at — what things do libertarians see as needing a monopoly provider, by government, and why and the same for progressives. 

      • http://twitter.com/VelizCF CFV

        “Again, this is one of the libertarian positions, no fundamental problem
        with government attempting to produce some good or service but not as a
        monopoly.”

        I don’t think this is the default or conventional position for libertarians.Not only anarcho-capitalist libertarians, but also minarchist libertarians strongly oppose state-owned enterprises beyond the provision of security services (police, military, perhaps parts of our current judiciary system). Many are also strongly against any involvement of libertarians with state property. Thus, libertarians should not use public toll roads, teach in public universities, etc. If they are correct, libertarians should not go to the Hofbräuhaus to have a beer!

  • Anonymous

    Belgium beer, feh. Hate the sugars, way to bitter on my pallet. Belgium Lambics on the other hand…yum. 

    Oddly enough the best “koelsch” beer I’ve had was in Brussels.

  • Pingback: Brewing the Best Beer | Charter of the Creative

  • Pingback: Bollettino settimanale noiseFromAmeriKa, 29-2011 » Ricordare

  • Pingback: A green revolution? » Anonymong

  • Shane

    Jimmy Carter responsible for: airline deregulation, home brew deregulation, and Paul Volcker, who licked inflation. Why does he still have such a bad reputation among many self-styled free marketeers?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Giberson/100000176233472 Michael Giberson

    Followed the link to the Reason article about Texas’s law prohibiting craft brewers from telling customers which retail outlets carry the brewer’s products. Apparently, in defense of the three-tier system, the point is to prevent producers from providing useful services to retailers (advertising) in ways when may entangle retailers and producers. As the Reason piece reports, “a rule that was supposed to discourage
    monopolies has become anti-competitive.”

    (Don’t tell the Texas ABC, but a certain California-based brewer did post online the retail locations in Texas where their “Enjoy by 12-21-12″ beer was available.)

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Giberson/100000176233472 Michael Giberson

      Checking out said brewers website, now I can only find mention of their Texas area distributors, not retailers. I guess they’ve been contacted by the long arm of the Texas law… :(