Consider this proposition:
Since the consumption of wine is legal in every state in the Union, and since wine travels well across long distances, any instance in which a consumer in any state can not obtain a bottle of wine when there is someone somewhere in the country willing to sell it to them means the system by which wine is distributed and sold in that state is not just broken, but a sure indication that corruption is the driving force behind the laws that govern wine distribution and sales.
This proposition implies there is a conspiracy in place to control commerce. It further implies that the conspiracy to control commerce is not one aimed at controlling it for the benefit of the consumer. It further implies that the conspiracy at hand, if not aimed at benefiting the consumer, must be aimed at benefiting someone.
I submit there is a conspiracy in most states to economically benefit wine wholesalers at the expense not just of wine consumers who are hurt by the laws that prop up unnecessary and cost laden wholesalers, but at the expense of every citizen of that state who is the victim of lost tax revenue.
At bottom, this proposition, if valid, means the three tier system, as currently formatted in most states, is or at least has become, a corrupt prop for a conspiracy to enrich a small clique of wholesalers.
So here's what I'm curious about:
1. What's wrong with the proposition.
2. If you agree with the proposition, what's wrong with it's implications
3. If you agree with the implications of the proposition and there is a conspiracy to support corruption, what's wrong with that?
4. If there is something wrong with that, what's to be done?