The glass hinted a golden-cloudy pour like a typical wheat beer. I was very satisfied after drinking and abstained to just one of the two bottles I was lucky enough to get my hands on. Way to go Woodchuck!

The free market should not have to bear these costs, but they do via onerous taxes and regulations, the costs of which they pass on to the consumer. I’ll take it a step further, taxpayers should not have to bear the burden of these costs either, though that also is certainly the case today and will be getting worse in the very near future.

The entity responsible for bearing the burden of these costs is the individual that incurs them to begin with. No one forces a person to drink, no one compels a person to drive a car drunk, no one is compelled to drink in excess – let alone to an excess that causes damage to the liver. At some point we have to examine the fact that individuals who enage in certain activities have to be held to account fo their conduct and be held accountable for the costs such behavior incurs. The Alcoholic has many resources at his/her disposal to turn to that are not of big business, nor of taxpayer-supported government with which to address their illness, and find help to control it. The drunk driver has to be held to account for the harm he/she causes others through criminal laws and civil tort actions. The same applies to someone who sufferes liver damage from excessive cosumption of alcohol. Again, no one forced them to drink, but there are many who would be perfectly fine forcing others (businesses and individuals) at the brute force of government power to pay for the reckless individuals own voluntary personal choices.

It is this entitlement thinking…this abuse of government power that is cause of so much that is wrong not just with the fiscal health of society, but with the moral and ethical health of society as well. Look at Greece, their society is breaking down exactly because of people who think like Matt…indeed the whole of Europe is in a deep crisis of massive proportions exactly because of people like Matt. The United States is headed in the same exact direction as Europe, only we are not doing so at the same breath-taking speed…yet – because of people like Matt. We must begin choosing freedom and private property rights over government and collectivism…or we will either be enslaved by government or anarchy…neither of which is anything close to a civil, free, and open society.

Yeah, it seems like her idea was to do what the “big guys” do, but better. Problem is, the market of people that purchase from the big guys don’t care about anything better.

And it’s your internet, too.

Also, in this editorial setting, considering his audience, Conlin should avoid emoticons if he wants his argument to be taken seriously.

Would this trend have continued without the three tier system? Advancements in refrigeration, transportations, and national media might have created the sort of large ubiquitous brands we know today without the three tier system. It also possible that vertical integration may have positioned others brewers to be able to compete on a smaller more local level thereby stunting the growth of larger brands.

Maybe without the three tier system many more breweries and beer styles would have flourished. In this scenario there would have never been a need for craft beer revival since a wide selection of an array of styles would have never ceased to exist.

Again back to the tone, I do believe you might need to look up the definition of that word. In terms of addressing whether or not your opinion about what you have interpreted to be my opinion, I have no idea what to do with that because it makes no sense.

Let me break this all down for you because I am fascinated that you are so lost in your internet.

“Buyers are part of the problem too.”

This is a sentence which signified there is more to the whole issue, as in there are parts. One of those parts are buyers. This may come as a shock to you, but I am a buyer.

“The whole beer trading world, which is entirely illegal (right or wrong), has to shoulder some of the blame.”

This is a sentence which clarifies part of the buyer world, ie people who are into “trading beers”. This may come as a shock to you, but I’ve traded beers before and is something I will continue to do if the mood strikes me. It seems in reality you have been terribly hung up on the use of “entirely illegal (right or wrong)” which is beyond me because it was really just a simple statement of fact, it is entirely illegal, whether that is right or wrong is something that probably needs to better debated, I’d argue it is wrong for it to be illegal, which is ultimately what creates a black market via semantics on sites like Ebay.com.

“I’m sure Kate the Great is a very good imperial stout but it can’t be THAT much better than the hundreds of others available.”

This last sentence was a simple nod to the fact that I think the hype of all these beers has now exceeded the market realities. It was poorly worded in retrospect as it really does not give some points of comparison to allow it to stand on its own.

But in short, I don’t hate myself, nor do I hate my friends, who “trade” beers.

But I do have a measure of disdain for people who call me “Bro” and can’t read three simple sentences correctly without adding their own baggage to it.

If I’m wrong about the tone, then why have you not addressed whether or not I’m wrong about your opinion? It’s because you don’t like traders but did not intend for that to come through in your post, not consciously anyway. I think your maypole is wound too tight.

Cheers, bro.