Talk:Bootleggers and Baptists

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bootleggers and Baptists article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirits Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirits, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spirits or Distilled beverages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritsWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritsTemplate:WikiProject SpiritsSpirits articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirits WikiProject task list:

This list is transcluded from the tasks page, to edit it click here.

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Spirits:

Tagging all articles that fall under our scope with {{WikiProject Spirits}} and assessing their quality and importance to the project.

Other barriers to entry[edit]

What about lightbulb makers pressing for regulation to ban incandescent light bulbs? This would be in their interest, as energy efficient light bulbs require complex technology and have significant barrier to entry. Does anyone know what the stance of GE, Phillips, etc was on banning incandescent light bulbs?

This article sounds kinda libertarian. I think it should be deleted, or else turned into a nice pro-regulation piece of propaganda.201.213.48.54 (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're being sarcastic, right? In all seriousness and sincerity, I think we both can agree that Wikipedia should be as objective, impartial, and neutral as possible. That being said, I actually do think the article might lean slightly more towards being pro-libertarian (and anti-regulation), and on issues like this, I'm essentially a libertarian so if anything, one would think I would be more biased the other way (in being paranoid thinking it was anti-libertarian). At any rate, I would also like to see some other examples, such as the owners of adult entertainment clubs sometimes secretly siding with the religious right (and/or pressuring the same public officials/politicians) to put a competitor out of business, and I think more broadly, this might help shed some light on why so many "godless sinners" (drinkers, druggers, libertines, etc.) vote the same way as Bible thumpers do, at least in Red States. They must figure that the guilt that kind of religion causes makes the sinning all the more fun, and would hate to diminish or "cheapen" that fun by making all the naughty things they love to do legal, permissible, condoned, tolerated, etc. (it might also take away the "forbidden fruit" factor of teenage/youth rebellion, middle aged hypocrisy, etc.). Shanoman (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

War on drugs similar[edit]

This goes for the "War on drugs" too. It's the laws that make the victims, much more so than the substances themselves. 213.84.34.241 (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK porn ban similar[edit]

This would also apply to the UK porn legislation that has been introduced lately. On one hand politicians can take the moral high ground "for the children" and in the background a filter on undesirable content is placed on the internet. It's already been proposed that the filter apply to content that is not porn: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/uk-ban-on-extremist-web-sites-2013-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredsocks (talk • contribs) 08:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page needs work[edit]

Everything on this page past the "Analysis" section is incoherent. This article needs a lot of work. I would say that this article is not libertarian enough, considering that it is basically a public choice article (critical of government) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.15.155 (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a crack at rewrite[edit]

I agree the page needs a thorough rewrite both for accuracy and clarity. I'll give it a try.

I don't think there's a political issue here. This is a general point of microeconomics that is not controversial in itself. Libertarians dislike the effect, because it helps groups who would normally oppose each other form alliances for anti-libertarian practices. Other people might like it, because it allows good results to follow from bad intentions. But how you feel about it has nothting to do with whether or not the effect exists. AaCBrown (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did the rewrite. I tried to save as much of the original page as possible. I tried to address the libertarian philosophy versus economic theory point in as neutral a way as possible (it was hard finding a neutral source). I'm not sure it belongs in there at all. AaCBrown (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a literal example[edit]

I'm not sure if it adds depth to the article, but when I came across a news story about literal Baptists joining with literal liquor sellers to oppose legalization of alcohol sales, I decided to reference it, especially because the head Baptist mentioned similar alliances against pornography and gambling.

I'm not wedded to it, if anyone wants to take it out, I won't argue.

AaCBrown (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Shame[edit]

There is a tacit alliance between some social conservatives and members of radical gay separatist groups (like Gay Shame) over the shared opposition to gay mainstreaming and gay marriage. This seems like another example of this phenomenon. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bootleggers and Baptists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150114075546/http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-27/arkansas-liquor-stores-join-churches-to-save-dry-counties.html to https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-27/arkansas-liquor-stores-join-churches-to-save-dry-counties.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]