Negative Consequence #7: Polarization

A different cost of government intervention is polarizing society.  This occurs because interventions assume everyone should behave in a particular way. Imposing one position throughout society, however, forces many to accept policies they find disagreeable or offensive, and this generates anger and frustration.

The single best illustration is abortion policy and Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court’s 1973 decision prohibited states from adopting laws that ban abortion and placed severe restrictions on regulation of abortion.  This created a level of frustration among abortion opponents that could have been avoided with less intervention, such as leaving abortion policy to the states.

A different example is public schools, which must take stands on issues like affirmative action, prayer, dress and speech codes, curricular content, teaching methods, and more.   Some parents are strongly in favor of, say, school prayer, while others are strongly opposed.  Public schools have no room for compromise on this issue; they must accept the policy dictated by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment.   Vouchers, while not immune from this problem, facilitate compromise if government simply takes no stand on whether vouchers can be used at schools that include prayer.  In this way, parents can exercise choice.

Gay marriage is another case in point.  By being in the marriage business, government is forced to take a stand on what constitutes a marriage and therefore to be either for or against gay marriage.  Under a private contracting approach, government need never mention sexuality one way or another.

Still a further example is funding of science, which forces government to address issues like stem cell research.  Leaving all funding to the private sector would not eliminate opposition. But critics would not see their tax dollars used to support this research, so their basis for criticism and their degree of anger would be far lower.

In some instances, of course, polarized reactions might be something society has to accept; the Supreme Court’s decision on flag-burning is perhaps an example.  But there are far more instances where the benefits of imposing one view are hard to see.   This is one reason to keep most policies at the state rather than the federal level.

Comments

[vibram five fingers]

That makes sense! that's great！！！

[Belstaff Bags]

I thought it is going to be some boring old post, but it

really compensat for ours time. I will posted a link to the

article on our blog. I am sure ours.

[Belstaff UK]

Surely, I will revisit your site for additional info. Thanks for the article.

[Cartier Pendant]

Thanks a lot for enjoying this beauty article with me. I am

apreciating it very much! Looking forward to another great

article. Good luck to the author! all the best!

[Chanel Boots]

I have enjoyed reading.Nice blog,I will keep visiting this

blog very often.

[Dsquared Jeans]

This post too really i enjoyed going through it with

regards.

[Dsquared2 Jackets]

Pretty! This was a really wonderful post. Thank you for

your provided information.

[coach bags]

I love to read this type of stuff. Good and attractive information I take from it..Thank you for posting such a nice article

[belstaff]

The father was sitting in the middle of the computer to send his son QQ news: dear son small and. Long time no see, how good? Mom and dad all miss you very much. Sister has also grown a little. You also don't get to the Internet every day, remember to take more exercise. If available word...... Turn off the computer, come down with us for dinner?

[Cheap Microsoft Office software download]

HEjTyW The Author is crazy..!!