On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

• Blog front page
• Add this blog to your RSS reader

Who speaks at the legislature for the Colorado consumer? No one, sadly, and the proof is that some of the most obnoxious anti-consumer laws survive with little or no vocal pressure to batter them down.

Take Colorado’s strange rules governing the sale of alcoholic beverages — the topic of a lively Rocky editorial earlier this week. Now, editorials by their nature employ can-do logic, so this one appealed to lawmakers to let supermaket chains sell a full line of booze in each of their stores, as you’ll find in a number of other states. Liquor stores, naturally, would be liberated to sell a range of food items, too (pretzels, anyone?)

But rest assured, we weren’t born last Saturday here in the Commentary section. We realize that lawmakers are about as likely to let you buy snacks with your beer, or enjoy one-stop shopping, as they are to rename Pikes Peak after Benedict Arnold.

Never mind the high-minded notion of fostering convenience, competition and lower prices on consumers’ behalf. Lawmakers won’t act because there’s no value in it for either political party.

Too many Democrats would find it awkward to do anything that might benefit big companies such as Safeway, Target or Costco given the corporate bashing that laces their rhetoric. Too many Republicans would be reluctant to take on a vested economic interest such as the independent liquor-store lobby.

Meanwhile, the big chains don’t care enough to make an issue of liquor sales, and consumers themselves are unorganized and voiceless. Finally, most so-called consumer groups drifted long ago into the political left, where they spend their time pushing for more regulation and less competition.

Up at the Capitol, the only time consumers count is when their interests happen to align with that of a powerful political or economic lobby. And that does happen sometimes. When it doesn’t, though, consumers might as well be ghosts for all they get noticed.

No simple matter

Most of us go through life without ever having our courage tested under truly high stakes. How would we have behaved as ordinary Germans or Russians under the Nazis or communists, for example?

We might imagine our own heroism — surely we would have rescued our persecuted neighbors, we suppose — but how do we know if this is merely an exalted self-conceit?

It was with such a backdrop in mind that I read the fascinating tale in Tuesday’s Rocky of a 29-year-old Romanian woman who discovered that the grandfather she adored was also a communist-era informant — one of the lowest forms of life, in her eyes. How to reconcile her image of him as a principled teacher with the fact that he was a stoolie, too?

“I was more radical before I read his file,” Cora Motoc said. “I was ready to point fingers . . . I can’t really judge him because I don’t know what I would have done.” Wise words. After all, she reasoned, he may have taken on this tawdry task in order to secure his freedom after his own run-in with authorities.

There are times, of course, when we can confidently predict that we’d rise to the occasion when faced with a moral obligation. If we stumbled into a backyard arena in which a savage dogfight was being held — to cite one example much in the current news — most of us would retreat in horror and call the police.

But such decisions usually entail none of the risk involved in taking on a police state.

Too often today, history is recounted by writers who seem to lack the imagination to put themselves in their predecessors’ places. If someone cut a deal with the devil, these moralists suggest, he must be evil himself.

Motoc knows better after reading the secret police file on her grandfather. Reality is usually more complex — and more chastening.

Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.

READER COMMENTS

What do all of these statements have in common:

"...the big chains don’t care enough to make an issue of liquor sales...";
"...Democrats would find it awkward to do anything that might benefit big companies ...";
"...Republicans would be reluctant to take on a vested economic interest...";
"Lawmakers won’t act because there’s no value in it..."; and finally:
"...consumers themselves are unorganized..."

I will answer it for you: NO ONE IS INTERESTED IN THIS. If all the parties involved (think legal terms... not political affiliations) then, why in bloody AYCH EEE DOUBLE TOOTHPICK, would you waste time on this subject?

You mentioned 'convenience'... well, I find it would be extremely 'convenient' if i could just work from home, get gasoline for free, have 4 star restaurants deliver food to my door at 1:00 in the morning. Yeesh!! It seems that you are throwing common sense out the window in favor of 'convenience'. (common sense being my point that nobody, save you and a few of your friends, perhaps, are interested in this.

So, which Democrats did yu speak to, exactly, before making your idiotic assertion? I'm a democrat, and I support repealing the blue laws because they represent state support of one particular religion, Christianity, at the expense of others. The state should not be in charge of sabbath enforcement.

Its interesting the timing of your blog supporting liquor sales in grocery stores considering the groups behind this move are seeking legislative and editorial help to pass this change in the law. I wonder where your motivation came from.

Typical VC. Idiotic to a fault.

I too find it very interesting the timing of this article in relation to what grocery stores are trying to do with legislation. After spending much time in California, I have seen what happens to the wine, beer & liquor selection when large chains get into the game! The prices do become very cheap, but consumers pay the price with a very limited selection, and an unknowledgeable staff who knows nothing about the products they are selling. The other areas that are effected, is that you have a 16 yr old checker with the ability to sell alcoholic products to their underage friends. Lastly, in certain areas of California there are large chain stores within yards of public schools, which promotes the ability for underage people to either attempt purchase, or simply steal the alcoholic beverages that they desire. I understand why this article was written, but feel that there are both pros and cons to changing some of Colorado's current laws! I just ask that you also flip the coin over and see that there are also some possible harmful effects; loss of jobs, underage consumption, lack of selection, & countless others.

One last issue, there is a reason that people wish to move to Colorado! We are and always have been a different and unique state which in many cases, we do things a little bit different than other parts of the country. These small, subtle differences is what drives people from California, Arizona & across the country to move here!

Ritter's "Blue Ribbon" commisions on education and healthcare are pro-monopoly, totalitarian and dictatorial where the "elite" few decide what's best for everyone else. And consumers always pay more and get less service when monopolies control educational, healthcare and anything else.

More choices and the ability for consumers to shop the system in our own best interests are the answers. Vouchers and free-market healthcare alternatives are the solutions. Unfortunately, Ritter does not trust the consumer to make the best decions for themselves. Nobody is looking out for the consumer.

geez Matt, maybe you should move to Utah and their state owned liquor stores. Either that or you own a liquor store. Afraid of a little competition? That is the way of the world in a capitalist society. I love competition, it is better for all of us.

POST A COMMENT

• Carroll: Slippery holiday slope
• Carroll: Parental gall
• Carroll: Clearing the air
• Carroll: Blather about business
• Carroll: The 'Truthers' cult
• Carroll: Numbers game
• Carroll: Brownouts by design
• Carroll: Poor judgment