I feel it's more anecdotal than actual correlating evidence, especially regarding something as hot a potato as privatization / state ownership. There are many good examples of previous state owned businesses which has been a huge success to the market and customers, while simultaneously there are also examples of privatized businesses which turns out extremely poor.
But we are not talking about generalized examples, we are talking about the specifics of the liquor industry.
There are reasons to be against privatization that are very honest. Selection is not one of them. I challenge you to find a single example of a state monopoly store where selection of product and consumer choice declined after privatization. You won't.
Getting distributors isn't easy in any business and I think a lot of wholly privatized markets would really want to have that option of having a state-owned (or really big) distributor and logistic business be able to distribute their brand so easily and cost-free. Kinn bryggeri for instance aimed straight to getting a regional market by going through Vinmonopolet as soon as they got their wares allowed.
Capacity alone does nothing without consumers. Private sales like what you are talking about is what created the market. Nothing the monopoly does will suddenly make consumers want to buy it. Private stores only carry things that will sell, this is true. But microbrews sell, and thus they are caried.
Yinpu. It's brewed in china but it's distributor is InBev so it shouldn't be so unlikely to see it in European market but for some reason I've only found in shops in Norway. Mind you, shops not Vinmonopolet where I don't actually think they have it in store.
So what you argued was irrelevant then?
The online store isn't as comprehensive, that's absolutely true. A reason for that is that they have a "select variety" which they try to have and changes on a yearly basis. But the possibility is very large as have you have the option of "private import" which means you just buy something via Vinmonopolet in just about any brewery you can find and you'll buy it for production fee and no delivery cost. It'll be a bit extra due to the VAT but it's actually hell of a lot more cheaper than buying directly from the brewery (due to toll regulations and delivery fees).
Anywhere in the world? I find that incredibly doubtful. That's not how distribution channels work. Unless I am mis-interpreting you.
Since privitization in my province, product selection has increased ten fold. When it comes to the liquor industry elsewhere (and really, retail in general), privitization leads to more selection. This is a fact borne out again and again and again.
Speaking plainly to you, there is absolutely zero reason to defend a state monopoly liquor store on the grounds that privitization will lead to less selection. All the evidence we have suggests the complete opposite, and I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that assertion to be true. If you have some evidence you'd like to present, be my guest. Thus far, all you have done is supported the opposite. You list an example of a beer not available at the monopoly store thanks to private sales. You talk about microbrews that owe their existence to private sales. And, the state store lists a paltry selection. The best part about that is that either their online service is incredibly terrible (which is very believable based on my experience with government-run retail in multiple countries) or their selection really is paltry. In either case, it is definitely paltry compared to private sales. Your state store lists beer from about 25 countries, almost all of them in the EU. My private stores have beers from 55 countries. In my province that is far less wealthy and less populated than your country, I have access to a literal world of difference that didn't exist before.
If you want to talk about the actual pitfalls of privatization, I can tell you those too. They have been extensively studied in my country because the debate is ongoing. But lack of selection is laughable.