|
By
Donald J. Boudreaux, J.D., Ph.D.
Conservatives
and other free-market types spend a good deal of
time complaining about the current state of the
Constitution. They point out the many ways that the
noble document has been interpreted to permit
government to exercise powers that would have
horrified the Framers.
While
many of these complaints are valid, let’s not
forget that the Constitution has succeeded
spectacularly at one of its central aims – to
enable all Americans to weave themselves together
into a vast free-trade zone. From its ratification
in 1789 until now, the Constitution has stood firm
against attempts by state and local governments to
interfere with their citizens’ rights to purchase
goods and services from Americans living in other
states.
Staying
true to this beneficial constitutional tradition is
one powerful reason for Virginia’s
state government to stop telling us Virginians that
we can’t purchase alcoholic beverages
directly from out-of-state sellers.
If
I want a bottle of Pinot Noir from the
Willamette
Valley
in Oregon
or a Hermitage from the Rhone Valley of France, I am
not allowed to purchase it directly from the vintner
or from a wine wholesaler. Instead, I must buy it
from an in-state retailer who, in turn, must have
purchased it from a wholesaler.
Freedom-lover
and wine-connoisseur Thomas Jefferson would be drunk
with rage.
By
protecting wine retailers and wholesalers in
Virginia
from the competition of out-of-state sellers, this
restrictive legislation increases the price that we
Virginians pay for wine and shrinks our selection.
The only winners are the retailers and wholesalers
whose profits swell as a result.
Freedom-lover
and constitutional-stalwart James Madison would
soberly explain that one of the chief reasons for
calling the 1787 Constitutional Convention was to
craft a commerce clause to prevent just such
state-level protectionist interference with the
rights of Americans to engage in peaceful and
voluntary exchange with each other.
Of
course, the State of Virginia
denies that its motives are protectionist. Its real
motivation, allegedly, is to ensure that alcohol is
distributed responsibly in the Old Dominion and that
minors are prevented from going online, lying about
their age, and, after a few clicks, having a
shipment of Chateau Pichon-Longueville-
Lalande or
Mad Dog 20/20 delivered to their doorsteps.
But
this excuse holds no water, Perrier or otherwise.
First,
if the state government was really motivated by a
concern to protect children, it would not permit
Virginians to purchase and order wine directly from Virginia
wineries. But such in-state direct purchases are
legal. I can’t order wine directly from Caymus in
California,
but I can order it directly from Prince Michel in
Culpeper. Unless
the politicians can explain why
Virginia
wine is less harmful to minors than is non-Virginia
wine, the “we-want-to-protect-our-
children”
argument is nothing more than a ruse.
Second,
there is a way to protect children without
simultaneously stomping on the freedom of
Virginia
’s
adults – namely, the General Assembly can simply
require that each shipment of wine delivered to a
Virginia
address be signed for by an adult. Problem solved. No teenager ordering wine
from wine.com or directly from other out-of-state
sellers will be permitted to receive the wine, but
no adult wishing to buy wine from out-of-state
sellers will
be stopped from doing so by power-drunk
politicians.
Not
surprisingly, the state government also worries that
direct purchases of out-of-state alcohol will shrink
the tax revenues it receives from alcohol sales.
Perhaps
it’s true that restoring Virginians’ freedom to
buy alcohol directly from out-of-state sellers will
make it more difficult for Virginia’s
revenuers to rake in tax money. But this concern is
beside the point. The whole point of constitutional
protections is to keep government power limited. If
such limits cause the state government to suffer
lower tax revenues, so be it. That’s central to
the idea!
Furthermore,
the Commerce Clause contains no exception to protect
tax revenues. The
straightforward purpose of the Commerce Clause is to
protect each and every American from
state-government-imposed “protectionism.”
Because each state government could legitimately
claim that restricting out-of-state imports would
enable it in a wide variety of circumstances to
gather more tax revenues, the Framers of the
Constitution wisely included no such exception.
Fortunately
for Virginians, U.S. District Judge Richard Williams
ruled in April that the state government’s ban on
direct purchases from out-of-state sellers is
unconstitutional. But the Commonwealth
of Virginia
has appealed. All Virginians – indeed, all
Americans – should raise a glass to Judge Williams
and hope that his ruling in Bolick v. Roberts
is upheld on appeal.
--
August 12, 2002
Donald
J. Boudreaux is chairman of the department of
economics at
George
Mason
University
.
|
