Sheriff Joe Arpaio getting the (much deserved)Federal Shaft.

[Josh]

Vigilance, essentially.

Over-strong governments and over-strong corporations are both generally hateful things, though I'd tend to prefer an over-strong company because an over-strong company can be broken by money, law, competition, whereas an over-strong government generally is only displaced through violence.

However, the tendency is for the centers of power to merge and we end up with this government/corporate alliance that fucks everyone who is not part of the inner circle.

Ideally, private enterprise and the government should be at a continual level of friction, just like the friction between the three branches of government. The competition keeps them honest.

How do we get there? I don't think we do with the current system.

Also... Canada had effects from prohibition besides making fistfuls of loot off the folly of our idiot temperance activists? Do tell more please.

[Cynical Cat]

Canada had prohibition during WW1 so grain would go to food to freed the mighty British Empire instead of holy lubricating libations. Temperance wasn't the issue, but that still meant law changes. Afterwords booze was legal again, but my province ended up with a bewildering maze of liquor laws in part thanks to temperance/social reform idiocy. As a result we have government run liquor stores and for a long time it was hard to get booze any other place (not anymore). Furthermore, Vancouver has a couple of old movie theaters left. One of them, the Ridge, got a liquor license so it could sell beer at the theater. It was then told it's license prohibited from showing movies. This made the news because of its absurdity and they've been granted a reprieve and allowed to sell beer and show movies, but it brought attention and heat to how absurd our liquor regulations are.

[Josh]

The law will bind and beat you.

Cool to know, thanks.