The latest column from Walter E. Williams notes how the increase in government decision-making in our lives also increases the level of conflict in our lives. He gives the following as an example:
Instead of free choice and private decision-making, clothing and beverage decisions could be made in the political arena. In other words, have a democratic majority-rule process to decide what drinks and clothing that would be allowed. Then we would see wine lovers organized against beer lovers, and blue jean lovers organized against three-piece suit lovers. Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena. Why? 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.
Similarly, the decision-making given over to the federal government in the new health-care “reform” law will also likely result in more conflict. Thanks for all the conflict, government!
Adam Fowler's Opinion Blog 
[…] But what exactly is a ‘special’ interest? Progressives call businesses ‘special’ interests, while conservatives call groups like labor unions ‘special’ interests. These devious ‘special’ interests are placed in stark contrast to the supposed good ‘public’ interest. But cannot all interests be considered ‘special’ in that not everyone holds them in common? In almost all political decisions, there are both individuals whose interests would benefit and those individuals whose interests would not. That’s one of the problems with the tendency in wanting to make more and more decisions political. […]