I encountered a curious contradiction the other day. A teacher of mine asserted in class that the U.S government lacks an arm that produces a product or service. The assertion sat in my head, and I kept looking for an element of government that did produce a service. I eventually ruled out the federal government; I only see it as an intermediary that transfers citizens’ money to a product or service. However, some state governments do act as monopolistic retailers.

Almost all college students should be aware of the North Carolina monopoly on liquor. The ABC stores that allow us access to the harder side of alcohol are completely government owned and operated. From an economic standpoint, as a retailer the state government is a producer of customers for the manufacturers of the product. The profit from these government-sanctioned monopolies can go toward social programs and government employee salaries.

North Carolina is a part of the National Alcoholic Board Control Association, which advocates for 19 states they label as “control states.” NABCA says on their website that after the 1933 repeal of national prohibition, some states chose to handle alcohol distribution in their own way.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to simply say the state government has no business partaking in business. On sheer principle over the matter, our governments were established to limit the role of government in our daily lives. State control over an entire industry is a very invasive use of government’s guiding hand.

There are less invasive ways to accomplish the goals of the NABCA. The mission statement on their website says they would like “to improve the effectiveness of alcohol control systems in the responsible sale and consumption of beverage alcohol.” If this is the goal, a more efficient and economical way to sell alcohol would be to allow monopolistic competition to take place with private retailers.

When monopolies act rationally, they incur a cost to society that translates into an increased price to our products. This inefficiency is lessened by an increase of competition paired with availability of information. I propose we “improve the effectiveness” of alcohol distribution by decreasing this inefficient social cost by privatizing the retail industry.

The social ramifications of opening up the distribution of hard liquor to a perfectly competitive system are great enough to dismiss going that far. The government should create sin taxes to curb overconsumption. They should continue to educate students of the dangers in alcohol consumption. Licenses should be issued to the distributors of alcohol to ensure stores don’t crop up near schools or playgrounds. With these limitations, the market would best be described as monopolistic competition.

In a July 29 press release, Virginia Gov. Robert McDonnell announced a town hall tour that will include his efforts to convince the state to privatize its ABC store system. He believes the government shouldn’t be involved in the business sector and that additional revenue from selling the infrastructure of ABC buildings to the competitive market will benefit the commonwealth. Like him, I imagine we can still maintain the same tax revenue from alcohol through sin, sale and income taxes in a more competitive alcohol industry. However, the government does not need to hold onto depreciating infrastructure. The sale of the buildings in Virginia will raise between $400 million and $800 million, according to The Wall Street Journal.

I have never consumed alcohol, even though I’ve been in an American college for two full years. But I see an ABC store and I think of socialized industry. As students, we shouldn’t stand for such blatant government control. Let’s let the government continue to do what it does best: tax consumers. Leave the business to us.