How to Create Conflict

Guest Post by Walter E. Williams

How to Create Conflict

We are living in a time of increasing domestic tension. Some of it stems from the presidency of Donald Trump. Another part of it is various advocacy groups on both sides of the political spectrum demanding one cause or another. But nearly totally ignored is how growing government control over our lives, along with the betrayal of constitutional principles, contributes the most to domestic tension. Let’s look at a few examples.

Think about primary and secondary schooling. I think that every parent has the right to decide whether his child will recite a morning prayer in school. Similarly, every parent has the right to decide that his child will not recite a morning prayer. The same can be said about the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag, sex education and other hot-button issues in education. These become contentious issues because schools are owned by the government.

In the case of prayers, there will either be prayers or no prayers in school. It’s a political decision whether prayers will be permitted or not, and parent groups with strong preferences will organize to fight one another. A win for one parent means a loss for another parent. The losing parent will be forced to either concede or muster up private school tuition while continuing to pay taxes for a school for which he has no use. Such a conflict would not arise if education were not government-produced but only government-financed, say through education vouchers. Parents with different preferences could have their wishes fulfilled by enrolling their child in a private school of their choice. Instead of being enemies, parents with different preferences could be friends.

People also have strong preferences for goods and services. Some of us have strong preferences for white wine and distaste for reds while others have the opposite preference — strong preferences for red wine. Some of us love classical music while others love rock and roll music. Some of us love Mercedes-Benz while others love Lincoln Continentals. When’s the last time you heard red wine drinkers in conflict with white wine drinkers? Have you ever seen classical music lovers organizing against rock and roll lovers or Mercedes-Benz lovers in conflict with Lincoln Continental lovers?

People have strong preferences for these goods just as much as they may have strong preference for schooling. It’s a rare occasion, if ever, that one sees the kind of conflict between wine, music and automobile lovers that we see about schooling issues. Why? While government allocation of resources is a zero-sum game — one person’s win is another’s loss — market allocation is not. Market allocation is a positive-sum game where everybody wins. Lovers of red wine, classical music and Mercedes-Benz get what they want while lovers of white wine, rock and roll music and Lincoln Continentals get what they want. Instead of fighting one another, they can live in peace and maybe be friends.

It would be easy to create conflict among these people. Instead of market allocation, have government, through a democratic majority-rule process, decide what wines, music and cars would be produced. If that were done, I guarantee that red wine lovers would organize against white wine lovers, classical music lovers against rock and roll lovers and Mercedes-Benz lovers against Lincoln Continental lovers.

Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena. Again, the prime feature of political decision-making is that it’s a zero-sum game. One person’s win is of necessity another person’s loss. If red wine lovers win, white wine lovers would lose. As such, political allocation of resources enhances conflict while market allocation reduces conflict. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict. That’s the main benefit of limited government.

Unfortunately, too many Americans want government to grow and have more power over our lives. That means conflict among us is going to rise.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Click to visit the TBP Store for Great TBP Merchandise
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
12 Comments
Vixen Vic
Vixen Vic
June 12, 2019 10:34 am

As usual, Walter Williams is right.

Hollywood Rob
Hollywood Rob
June 12, 2019 1:20 pm

Can’t argue with that. Whenever you abdicate your responsibility for your own life you cede it to someone else and they will always then seek more power over greater aspects of your life.

gatsby1219
gatsby1219
June 12, 2019 4:36 pm

“We are living in a time of increasing domestic tension. Some of it stems from the presidency of Donald Trump.”

You spelled Obama wrong.

Anonymous
Anonymous
June 12, 2019 4:38 pm

I’d argue that government is steering automotive trends and mandates.
Pun intended.
Hell, just read a sampling from Eric Peters.
-besides funding Musk’s crazy notions, there is:
-the push toward electric hybrids, away from 6 cyl. IC engines;
-the corn crop subsidizing to goose ethanol (ruins engines)
-minimum fuel mileage mandates in future years;
-computers on board to track everything…speed, location, etc., and now WiFi on board;
-cash for clunkers obsolescence;
-stricter EPA criteria for emissions;

Maybe not Lincoln over Mercedes, but Obummer’s ‘czar’ forced Chrysler’s hand to marry Fiat, and GM’s bailout protected the rank & file typically Dem voters, at the expense of bondholders who got hosed.

And on, and on, and on…

yahsure
yahsure
  KaD
June 12, 2019 8:10 pm

I always wondered about all this extra stuff that minorities get/need? So someone has decided that your group? Needs special help against the white folks? Someone has decided that you just can’t play on a level field? Kind of strange way of looking at people. and them going along with this thinking. I figure every person no matter their skin color has the same chance to excel. It would help if their parents weren’t idiots.

M G
M G
  yahsure
June 13, 2019 4:01 am

Do you remember the “Reinventing Government” effort by Al Gore? The big publicity stunt with the truckload of government paper he was going to destroy? And the book he sold?

I was in college at the time taking a lot of PoliSci courses because I felt like I didn’t understand the rationale of what was happening to the world my son had just been born into.

There was, within Reinventing Government a concept called “Distance Travelled.”

The concept suggested that the reason people were unsuccessful with the equal opportunity in our country was simply because of socioeconomic reasons. They were born poor, so they lacked access to good education. Their parents were illiterate so they lacked an understanding of why learning was important. and so on…

The “do gooders” like Al Gore were convinced solving the problem of “inequality” was as easy as giving those who could not catch up a head start. So, for the poor, the uneducated and the LAZY, they moved the starting line and allowed them to start way ahead of everyone else.

Then, when those types still were unable to finish the race, they decided that the outcomes also had inherent inequality. Therefore, quotas.

It was another example of the Social Scientists using the principles of Physical Science to justify their own lust for power. Everyone in politics knows how you win elections. You pander.

(Osborne and Gaebler, 1993.)

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Reinventing+Government&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss

I have the book but do not want it any longer. I would be happy to gift it to anyone wishing to peruse it rather than buy it. It was a textbook in CS Rosenthal’s course on Public Policy: The Politics of Inequality. At one time, I entertained the idea of a double major because I realized how important the Bureaucracy really is in government power.

They are not elected. They never stop reinventing government. Their jobs as government bureaucrats are made more lucrative and more necessary the more complicated government becomes.

The bureaucracy is hardest of all to change.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty
June 12, 2019 7:16 pm

Government is ALWAYS at the root of EVERY societal problem.

M G
M G
  MrLiberty
June 13, 2019 3:39 am

Because Government doesn’t exist without the People’s MONEY…

M G
M G
June 13, 2019 3:35 am

I believe it all comes down to the lack of understanding about what Equal Opportunity really means.

This discussion was a good one also.

Dr Death
Dr Death
  M G
June 13, 2019 4:48 am

Interesting videos, M G.

Jordan Peterson is almost always worth a viewing, no matter who posts it.

Vixen Vic
Vixen Vic
  M G
June 13, 2019 10:30 am

I think you hit the nail on the head there, Maggie. Either they don’t know or they don’t care what it means. But that’s the gist of it.