In a control state, however, prices cannot float effectively to meet market demand. Rather, these states impose uniform government-mandated markups that lead to situations where a bottle of bourbon that might be worth $2,000 on the secondary (illegal) market is selling for $100–200 dollars in a state-run store. Inevitably, the rush to obtain these bottles is enormous and creates ideal conditions for insider jobs and abuses of power.

In contrast, if a private liquor store owner in a noncontrol state decides to hold back numerous bottles of rare whiskey for himself, he only hurts his own bottom line—and potentially turns off customers who would otherwise frequent his store. The customers themselves, in turn, can vote with their feet and instead start buying their booze from the competitor down the street.

In Oregon, there is no alternative—just insiders who get special access to rare whiskeys, and outsiders in the public at large who will rarely, if ever, be able to get their hands on such bottles. Oregonians have attempted to privatize their state liquor system on several occasions, including most recently this past year when a voter initiative was aborted before making it onto the ballot.

[Put more simply: Power corrupts. Unaccountable power corrupts even more. And there is no reason for the state to run a market for consumer products, except as a power grab. — Ed]