Their goal is to get politicians and government officials to use the coercive power of their offices to take what belongs to one American and give it to another or create a favor or special privilege for one American that comes at the expense of some other American --- we know who needs special favors, privileges and protection they enchain themselves and then cry to the courts they're a sad lot
On Jan 19, 11:01 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Why We're a Divided Nationby Walter E. Williams > Some Americans have strong, sometimes unyielding preferences for Mac > computers, while most others have similarly strong preferences for PCs and > wouldn't be caught dead using a Mac. Some Americans love classical music and > hate rock and roll. Others have opposite preferences, loving rock and roll > and consider classical music as hoity-toity junk. Then there are those among > us who love football and Western movies, and find golf and cooking shows to > be less than manly. Despite these, and many other strong preferences, there's > little or no conflict. When's the last time you heard of rock and roll lovers > in conflict with classical music lovers, or Mac lovers in conflict with PC > lovers, or football lovers in conflict with golf lovers? It seldom if ever > happens. When there's market allocation of resources and peaceable, voluntary > exchange, people have their preferences satisfied and are able to live in > peace with one another. > Think what might be the case if it were a political decision of whether > there'd be football or golf watched on TV, whether we used Macs or PCs and > whether we listened to classical music or rock and roll. Everyone had to > comply with the politically made decision or suffer the pain of fines or > imprisonment. Football lovers would be lined up against golf lovers, Mac > lovers against PC lovers and rock and rollers against classical music lovers. > People who previously lived in peace with one another would now be in > conflict. > Why? If, for example, classical music lovers got what they wanted, rock and > rollers wouldn't. Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made > in the political arena. > The lesson here is that the prime feature of political decision-making is > that it's a zero-sum game. One person's gain is of necessity another person's > loss. As such, political allocation of resources is conflict-enhancing, while > market allocation is conflict-reducing. The greater the number of decisions > made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict. It would > not be unreasonable to predict that if Mac lovers won, and only Macs could be > legally used, there would be considerable PC-lover hate toward Mac lovers. > Most of the issues that divide our nation, and give rise to conflict, are > those best described as a zero-sum game where one person's or group's gain is > of necessity another's loss. Examples are: racial preferences, school > prayers, trade restrictions, welfare, Obamacare and a host of other > government policies that benefit one American at the expense of another > American. That's why political action committees, private donors and > companies spend billions of dollars lobbying. Their goal is to get > politicians and government officials to use the coercive power of their > offices to take what belongs to one American and give it to another or create > a favor or special privilege for one American that comes at the expense of > some other American. > You might be tempted to think that the brutal domestic conflict seen in other > countries can't happen here. That's nonsense. Americans are not super-humans; > we possess the same frailties of other people. If there were a catastrophic > economic calamity, I can imagine a political hustler exploiting those > frailties, as have other tyrants, blaming it on the Jews, the blacks, the > conservatives, the liberals, the Catholics or free trade. > The best thing the president and Congress can do to reduce the potential for > conflict and violence is reduce the impact of government on our lives. Doing > so will not only produce a less-divided country and greater economic > efficiency, but bear greater faith and allegiance to the vision of America > held by our founders – a country of limited government. Our founders, in the > words of Thomas Paine, recognized that, "Government, even in its best state, > is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable > one."http://www.lewrockwell.com/williams-w/w-williams67.1.html -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
