My Immigration Research Paper Essay Example for Free

My Immigration Research Paper Essay In this paper I will use the ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology, as well as the perspective of ethical egoism, as they pertain to the issue of immigration. Living in a state bordering Mexico [New Mexico], this is indeed becoming a pressing issue as tens of thousands of illegal immigrants flood my state and neighboring states. This issue brings up many questions such as: 1 – What is our moral obligation to these immigrants? 2- What is our moral obligation to U. S. citizens that are affected by this influx? 3- Is it morally right for smugglers to profit from the pain of those seeking safety, security, and a better life? 4- Is it morally/ethically right for parents to subject their children to the long, lonely, dangerous journey to the United States. By applying the theories and perspective noted above, I will show that if this issue is not handled immediately, the consequences will be detrimental to both U.S. citizens and the immigrants as well. The desire of the immigrants to obtain a better life does not preclude them from following current laws and processes. While they act from a position of self -interest, their actions impact many others in the process. From October 2012 through September 2013, the Border Patrol has apprehended about 24,000 unaccompanied children at the border. Between October 2013 and the end of June 2014, the number rose to 57,000. It is estimated this number could reach 90,000 by the end of September 2014. Most are coming from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Once the immigrants arrive in the United States, what is our moral obligation to them? Under current law, these children are placed under the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services which works to place them with family members in the U.S. while awaiting a court date. The influx has created the largest backlog in immigration courts. â€Å"In the first half of the year there were 366,724 pending cases. As of March the average wait time for  a case was 578 days, according to the Justice Department records.† Experience has shown many immigrants never show up to these hearings.† Deontology claims an act is to be evaluated in terms of its accordance with a set of rules. Consequently, it is clear that these immigrants have broken the immigration laws of the U.S. both in the way they entered the country and in their refusal to attend court hearings. Their flight to this country clearly is done for the person’s self- interest. They hope to flee the dangers and poverty of their home countries to seek a better life in the United States. However, does the actions of the immigrant outweigh the effect of this influx on the population of the United States? Once here, national, state, local and charitable organizations are being used to house, feed, provide medical care, and other assistance to these immigrants. Meanwhile, United States veterans, homeless, mentally ill, and the elderly go without needed services. Should our own citizens not be our main focus? In my state of New Mexico, one of the poorest in the nation, we are currently housing and processing hundreds, if not thousands of these immigrants. My town of Las Cruces has opened its churches to house and care for the immigrants, even though many of the children here do not have enough to eat or a proper living environment themselves. Once the immigrants arrive at our local shelter, they are given a cot, clean clothes, a shower, hot meals and health checks. After eating, they file into rooms to collect hygiene supplies, diapers, clothes, and suitcases. Children can choose one toy from a large box of donated stuffed animals. Down the hall, volunteers assist the immigrants to call their families across the country and book train, bus, and plane tickets, depending on how much the families can spare. With the system the church shelter has developed, most immigrants will be on their way to relatives within 2 days. President Obama is seeking billions of dollars to increase the number of facilities for these immigrants, to tighten border security, and expand the number of U.S. immigration judges. Should huge amounts of U.S. money be expended to deal with illegal activity or more properly used to alleviate problems of legal U.S. citizens? Governor Rick Perry of Texas has ordered the National Guard to help protect the border because of Congress’s inability to act on this issue. Again, this is taking resources that might be needed elsewhere. While most Americans understand and empathize with the reasons for this influx,  the cost to the American public is substantial. One of the less publicized sides of this immigration issue is the smuggler’s profiting from the distress/fear of others. The smugglers are referred to as ‘coyote’ smugglers. One smuggler described â€Å"shipments of thousands of dollars in human cargo from slums of Honduras and highlands of Guatemala to cities across the United States. It is business; sometimes business is very good.† The vast majority of immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally do so with the help of a network of smugglers. It is a high risk, high yield business estimated to generate $6.6 billion a year. The immigrants pay $4,000 to $10,000 each for this illegal journey. The smugglers in turn pay off government officials, gangs operating on trains, and drug cartels. The experts estimate a profit of $3,500- $4,000 per person if the journey goes as planned. The smugglers are profiting from the rising violence in gang-ridden cities of Central America. Many of the immigrants travel to the U.S. because they believe they will be allowed to stay. The U.S. generally releases children to parents, relatives, or family friends. Their cases take years to go through the immigration courts. This gives rise to rumors of a new law or amnesty for children. The coyote smugglers spread those rumors to drum up business. In a July 23, 2014 issue of the Las Cruces Sun-News it was reported that the Homeland Security Department arrested 192 people along the Mexico border in South Texas on immigration smuggling charges and seized more than $625,000. A crackdown called â€Å"Operation Coyote† took place over the last month, part of the 90 day effort to target smuggling groups. The White House stated that smugglers are exploiting U.S. policies and the crackdown was a message to the smugglers that â€Å"our borders are not open to illegal immigration.† Analyzing this issue from the perspective of ethical egoism, the immigrants and the smugglers are both looking out for themselves, one to seek freedom and a better life, the other to procure as much money as possible. From a deontology perspective, clearly both the immigrants and smugglers are not following the law. The immigrants are entering the U.S. illegally while the smugglers are giving payoffs to drug cartels, gangs, and government leaders. Finally from a utilitarian standpoint the course of action of both the illegal immigrants and the smugglers certainly does not maximize the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. The illegal immigrants may benefit in the short run, but  if eventually returned to their countries may indeed be subject to even greater hardship. The corruption supported/used by the smugglers does nothing to create a better life for the majority of people. And once again the financial and emotional effect on the U.S. is wide spread. Another question/ concern raised by this influx of mostly unaccompanied children is related to their safety, both in their home countries and related to their long journey to the United States. Homicide, extortion, rape, and gang recruitment have risen to epidemic levels in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. â€Å"Immigrants’ rights advocates in the U.S. say they are seeing more children from Central America who are not only fleeing gang recruitment and random violence, but who have been targeted themselves.† This violence is seen as the key reason for driving immigrants north. But let’s look at the very imminent danger of death these immigrants face by not only placing themselves in the hands of smugglers [whose only concern is money] and the desert journey they face. The smugglers receive money from the immigrants and their families [both in their home country and in the U.S.] This in turn places more of a financial burden on these families, while a successful outcome is not assured. Along the journey, these immigrants are still subjected to the threats of gangs, drug cartels, and corrupt government officials. They are subjected to the extreme heat of the desert with little food or water and often just the clothes on their backs. Recent news reports put a face to this crisis when Texas authorities identified a decomposed body found recently near the border with Mexico as that of an 11 year old Guatemalan boy, Gilberto Francisco Ramos Juarez. He was identified by calling a phone number etched into his belt buckle and by family members describing the clothes he was wearing when he left home. A recent interview of a rancher in Brownsville Texas reported him also finding a body on his ranch. He reports having to keep a constant vigil all day and night as illegal immigrants enter his land, approach his house and car, and seek aid. Hector Espinal, the Honduras spokesman for UNICEF, stated â€Å"The message is that governments should do what they need to do to stop the violent conditions that are making these children leave.† How to stop violence in Honduras is a subject of much debate. Two major gangs- The Mara Salvatrucha and Barrio 18, have grown into transnational criminal organizations. Drug cartels use Honduras as a point to move cocaine into the United States.  First Lady Garcia of Honduras says her country needs its own U.S. funded anticrime program similar to Plan Colombia or Mexico’s Merida Initiative to fight the gangs and cartels. Vice President Joe Biden recently visited Guatemala. To coincide with that trip, President Obama has pledged $93 million in new programs to reduce violence in Central America. This includes $40 million to reduce gang membership in Guatemala, $25 million to build 77 youth outreach centers in El Salvador and $18.5 million to build 77 outreach centers in Honduras. The White House is currently requesting approximately $3.7 billion in emergency funding with $300 million for international programs to aid Central America. However, the House Republicans recently passed legislation to address the crisis. The new $694 million version would send migrant youths back home without hearings, and contained a companion bill that could lead to deporting more than a half a million immigrants to whom the Obama administration granted temporary work permits. This companion bill could prevent more than 700,000 people who’ve already gotten work permits, from renewing them. Lawmakers objected to sending any more money to President Obama without a strong stance against the two-year-old deportation relief program that they blame for causing the current border crisis by creating the perception that once here, young migrants would be allowed to stay. The new GOP border bill adds $35 million more for the National Guard, reimbursing states for guard deployment. It would increase spending for overwhelmed border agencies, add more immigration judges and detention centers, and alter a 2008 anti-trafficking law. We can apply the theories of utilitarianism and deontology and the perspective of ethical egoism to the above question much in the same way as we did before. Once again the immigrants, but also the smugglers, are acting in their own self-interest. One wants freedom, the other seeks money. Both the illegal immigrants and the smugglers are breaking the law, both in their home countries as well as the United States. By focusing on their own interests, the illegal immigrants forget the bigger picture. Would it not benefit the greater number of people to focus on the root problems in Central America? No one doubts the dangerous conditions in these countries. However, other dangerous conditions face the immigrants on the journey to the United States. Is one danger greater than the other? If these immigrants indeed make it to the United States, most will be returned to their home countries  to be placed in the same conditions, disillusioned from the loss of their hopes and dreams. Only by a concerted effort to improve conditions in their home countries, can the greatest benefit result for the greatest number of people. The issue of immigration is perhaps one of the hottest issues facing our country today. As tens of thousands of illegal immigrants make their way into the U nited States, many moral and ethical issues arise. Do the individual rights of the immigrant to seek a better life, outweigh the negative effect their actions place on their own families as well as the citizens of the United States? Do the immigrants have a right to break laws, both in their home countries, as well as the United States, in order to obtain their dream? Is it the ethical/moral responsibility of the United States to care for the illegal immigrants once they arrive? And lastly, is it morally /ethically correct to send children from one dangerous situation into another one, rather than trying to fix the core issues precipitating their illegal journey to the United States? By applying the theories of utilitarianism and deontology, as well as the perspective of ethical egoism, I have attempted to answer these questions. Utilitarianism stresses the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. In the case of illegal immigration that would seem to be that more effort should be aimed at correcting the core issues in Central America. Deontology stresses evaluating an issue in terms of its accordance with a specified set of rules. Obviously, in the case of illegal immigration, the laws are not being followed. And lastly, ethical egoism argues that acts should be done out of a person’s own self –interest. Clearly, this is what drives the immigrants. But the impact in the long run, both to the immigrants, their families, and the citizens of the United States, may be too big a price to pay. References 1 Exporting Mayhem across the Border. [2014]. Bloomberg Businessweek, [4379], 10. [Permalink]:http://search.ebscohost.com.prox-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=truedb=bshAN=96077008site=eds-live 2 Grillo, Ioan [2014]. Honduran Children Deported From U.S. Back to World’s ‘Most Violent City. Time.Com, p1-1. 1p. [Permalink]:http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=truedb=bshAN=97074587site=eds.-live. 3 LaFranchi, H. [2014July]. Border crisis: Kerry asks Central America to help combat ‘false information’. Christian Science Monitor. P.1. [Permalink]: http:// search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=truedb=crhAN=96897036site=eds-live 4 Preston, Julia. The New York Times. U.S. looks to tide illegal border crossings-Biden goes to Central America to discourage illegal immigration- deportations of central americans will be accelerated. Accelerated by the Lexington- Herald [Ky.] [June 2014]. [Permalink]: http:// search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=truedb=edsnbkAn=14E97D7C018E48F0site=eds-live 5 Schearer, M. [2014]. Obama in Political Bind over Unaccompanied Immigrant Minors. Time. Com, 1.[Permalink]: http:// search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=truedb=bshAN=97059415site=eds-li ve 6 Micheal,Shear, W.[2014 July 10]. Obama seeks $4 b for border crisis- United States- Immigration- 150,000 children projected to flee Central America. The Sydney Morning Herald [Australia]. P 17. [Permalink]: http:// search.ebscohost.com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=truedb=edsnbAN=14EF984EBA4C6788site=eds-live 7 E. Edurado Castillo and Christopher Sherman of the Associated Press. Migration spotlights Mexican ‘coyote’ smugglers retrieved from The Las Cruces Sun – News [2014 July 22]. 8 Christopher Sherman and Will Weissert of the Associated Press. Gov. Rick Perry will send National Guard to border. Retrieved from The Las Cruces Sun –News [2014 July 22]. 9 Kuhnman, Jim The Associated Press. How a flood of kids upended immigration debate. Retrieved from The Las Cruces Sun –News [2014 July 21]. 10 Anderson, Lindsey The Las Cruces Sun News. Cots, Clothes and Compassion [2014 July21]. 11 The Associated Press. Gov’t arrests 192 for smu ggling. Retrieved from The Las Cruces Sun –News [2014 July 23]. 12 Werner, Erica The Associated Press. Hose Oks border crisis bill. Retrieved from The Las Cruces Sun-News [2014 August 2].

Legalizing Prostitution Will Not Work Response to Mark Liberators Arti

Legalizing Prostitution In the article 'Legalized Prostitution' the author, Mark Liberator, shares his views on legalizing prostitution. He believes because of women's specialized roles in society, they should be allowed to use sex as a service that can be bartered for goods and money, and by using these specialized roles, the author explains that allowing prostitution in the United States could lower a majority of murder and rape cases, and can decrease the amount of suicides and divorces. By making prostitution legal, Liberator also thinks that it will allow law enforcement to respond faster to more important crimes, help women that use prostitution as a career path, and will prevent teens from being trapped into prostitution. Though Liberator states his case strongly, and has statistics that help prove his point, his logic has holes that could even make cocaine, heroin, and other illegal drugs legal. Liberator states that our primal desires should not be ignored or suppressed, but instead should be manag ed. If this is the case, then should our first instincts to lie, cheat, steal, and kill should also be managed? No. Managing these things, and not suppressing them, means that we are making it legal to rob stores, lie about it, and kill anyone who disagrees with our reasons as to why we?ve committed the crime. Not only that, but if we make prostitution legal, it is possible that there could be an overflow of prostitutes, that would create larger drug chains, which could ruin our countries credibility as a safe place to live. I feel that legalizing prostitution is the first small step to that future, and that we should avoid making prostitution tolerable in America. Liberator starts his argument by giving a quick study on c... ...lizing prostitution will do nothing more than encourage the spread of STD?s. In closing, the argument that the author presents falls weak in most aspects. Though he seems to have positive end results to the issue, the immoral act of prostitution still is part of the solution. As proven before, legal prostitution could lead to an excess of prostitutes that could ruin the appearance of our country, it does not control ones animal-like impulses, but merely lets them run wild, it uses sex as a drug that could lead to an increase of sex ?junkies?, the crime rate could possible increase, rather than decrease, and the spread of STD?s will not be effected positively. The best way to fix the issue of prostitution is to continue fighting it, till eventually the message gets across that prostitution is wrong, and does not lead to a profitable life financially, or morally. Legalizing Prostitution Will Not Work Response to Mark Liberator's Arti Legalizing Prostitution In the article 'Legalized Prostitution' the author, Mark Liberator, shares his views on legalizing prostitution. He believes because of women's specialized roles in society, they should be allowed to use sex as a service that can be bartered for goods and money, and by using these specialized roles, the author explains that allowing prostitution in the United States could lower a majority of murder and rape cases, and can decrease the amount of suicides and divorces. By making prostitution legal, Liberator also thinks that it will allow law enforcement to respond faster to more important crimes, help women that use prostitution as a career path, and will prevent teens from being trapped into prostitution. Though Liberator states his case strongly, and has statistics that help prove his point, his logic has holes that could even make cocaine, heroin, and other illegal drugs legal. Liberator states that our primal desires should not be ignored or suppressed, but instead should be manag ed. If this is the case, then should our first instincts to lie, cheat, steal, and kill should also be managed? No. Managing these things, and not suppressing them, means that we are making it legal to rob stores, lie about it, and kill anyone who disagrees with our reasons as to why we?ve committed the crime. Not only that, but if we make prostitution legal, it is possible that there could be an overflow of prostitutes, that would create larger drug chains, which could ruin our countries credibility as a safe place to live. I feel that legalizing prostitution is the first small step to that future, and that we should avoid making prostitution tolerable in America. Liberator starts his argument by giving a quick study on c... ...lizing prostitution will do nothing more than encourage the spread of STD?s. In closing, the argument that the author presents falls weak in most aspects. Though he seems to have positive end results to the issue, the immoral act of prostitution still is part of the solution. As proven before, legal prostitution could lead to an excess of prostitutes that could ruin the appearance of our country, it does not control ones animal-like impulses, but merely lets them run wild, it uses sex as a drug that could lead to an increase of sex ?junkies?, the crime rate could possible increase, rather than decrease, and the spread of STD?s will not be effected positively. The best way to fix the issue of prostitution is to continue fighting it, till eventually the message gets across that prostitution is wrong, and does not lead to a profitable life financially, or morally.

Shakespeare Henry V

Henry V Shakespeare Essay After looking at the Lawrence Oliver's, Kenneth Branch's and the Henry V classic comics extensively, we have a clear view of what Henry V was really like. The re- telling of this famous story have shown that he was a humble, down to earth leader that wants the best for his army. In Lawrence Oliver's re-making of the famous Shakespeare play ‘Henry V, we see Henry V as a confident and influential man. Throughout the speech we see him yelling at the top of his voice. His army gets right into his speech which is showing that he is a persuasive person.This also shows that he is liked by his army. In Lawrence Oliver's version, we see a large and wide camera view which shows Henry standing above the entire English army. This view shows us the shear size of the English army and Henrys power above them. The soldiers are all dressed in shining armor and the background is nice and colorful. It makes the scene nicer to look at. During Henrys speech, his voice stay s at a loud level. The crowd gets into his speech. In Lawrence Oliver's version we can tell that he is liked throughout the English army cause the army is following him in his speech.After looking at Kenneth Branch's re-make of Henrys famous SST Christian's day speech shows us that Henry is a down to earth guy. In this version Branch makes Henry seems more apart of his army than he is King. We see this when he comes down from his high position down to the level of his fellow citizens. One technique Branch uses is camera position. We see the camera at the height of the army looking up at Henry. This shows us that Henry is powerful. We see him lower his voice lower down from a yell to unite the brothers.Branch gives us the idea that Henry is a loyal and down to earth person who cares about every single man in his army. In the Classic Comic ‘Henry V, we see Henry as a guy that's very powerful and a loyal leader. We see Henry leading a special formation of Calvary soldiers. He say s ‘For we today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother'. We see Henry from a high view to really show the formation of the men on there horses. We also see that there is a crowd looking up at Henry which really shows the power Henry has got.This lassie comic of Henry V really shows the power Henry has over his army. After looking at these three re-telling of the famous story of Henry V ‘s SST Crispin day speech, I have found out that Henry is a very powerful, liked, down to earth, loyal and honorable man. These three re-telling of this story have shown different techniques to show these characteristics of Henry. Some techniques used are camera height (how high Henry is above the army), voice projection, color of clothing and the way his army follows him. We see him as a man, leader and warrior, soldier and

The Logic of Collective Action by Mancur Olson

There are a lot of government policies, like airline bailouts, that from an economic perspective dont make any sense at all. Politicians have an incentive to keep the economy strong as incumbents are reelected at a much higher rate during booms than busts. So why do so many government policies make such little economic sense? The best answer to this question comes from a book that is almost 40 years old: The Logic of Collective Action by Mancur Olson explains why some groups are able to have a larger influence on government policy than others. In this brief outline, the results of The Logic of Collective Action are used to explain economic policy decisions. Any page references come from the 1971 edition. It has a very useful appendix not found in the 1965 edition. You would expect that if a group of people has a common interest that theyll naturally get together and fight for the common goal. Olson states, however, that this is generally not the case: But it is not in fact true that the idea that groups will act in their self-interest follows logically from the premise of rational and self-interested behavior. It does not follow, because all of the individuals in a group would gain if they achieved their group objective, that they would act to achieve that objective, even if they were all rational and self-interested. Indeed unless the number of individuals in a group is quite small, or unless there is coercion or some other special device to make individuals act in their common interest, rational, self-interested individuals will not act to achieve their common or group interests.(pg. 2) We can see why this is if we look at the classic example of perfect competition. Under perfect competition, there is a very large number of producers of an identical good. Since the goods are identical, all firms end up charging the same price, a price that leads to a zero economic profit. If the firms could collude and decide to cut their output and charge a price higher than the one that prevails under perfect competition all firms would make a profit. Although every firm in the industry would gain if they could make such an agreement, Olson explains why this does not happen: Since a uniform price must prevail in such a market, a firm cannot expect a higher price for itself unless all of the other firms in the industry have this higher price. But a firm in a competitive market also has an interest in selling as much as it can, until the cost of producing another unit exceeds the price of that unit. In this there is no common interest; each firms interest is directly opposed to that of every other firm, for the more the firms sell, the lower the price and income for any given firm. In short, while all firms have a common interest in a higher price, they have antagonistic interests where output is concerned.(pg. 9) The logical solution around this problem would be to lobby congress to put in place a price floor, stating that producers of this good cannot charge a price lower than some price X. Another way around the problem would be to have congress pass a law stating that there was a limit to how much each business could produce and that new businesses could not enter the market. Well see on the next page that The Logic of Collective Action explains why this will not work either. The Logic of Collective Action explains why if a group of firms cannot reach a collusive agreement in the marketplace, they will be unable to form a group and lobby the government for help: Consider a hypothetical, competitive industry, and suppose that most of the producers in that industry desire a tariff, a price-support program, or some other government intervention to increase the price for their product. To obtain any such assistance from the government, the producers in this industry will presumably have to organize a lobbying organization... The campaign will take the time of some of the producers in the industry, as well as their money. Just as it was not rational for a particular producer to restrict his output in order that there might be a higher price for the product of his industry, so it would not be rational for him to sacrifice his time and money to support a lobbying organization to obtain government assistance for the industry. In neither case would it be in the interest of the individual producer to assume any of the costs himself. [...] This would be true even if everyone in the industry were absolutely convinced that the proposed program was in their interest.(pg. 11) In both instances, groups will not be formed  because the groups cannot exclude people from benefiting if they do not join the cartel or lobbying organization. In a perfect competitive marketplace, the level of production of any one producer has a negligible impact of the market price of that good. A cartel will not be formed because every agent within the cartel has an incentive to drop out of the cartel and produce as much as she possibly can, as her production will not cause the price to drop at all. Similarly, each producer of the good has an incentive not to pay dues to the lobbying organization, as the loss of one dues paying member will not influence the success or failure of that organization. One extra member in a lobbying organization representing a very large group will not determine whether or not that group will get a piece of legislation enacted that will help the industry. Since the benefits of that legislation cannot be limited to those firms in the lobbying group, there is no reason for that firm to join. Olson indicates that this is the norm for very large groups: Migrant farm laborers are a significant group with urgent common interests, and they have no lobby to voice their needs. The white-collar workers are a large group with common interests, but they have no organization to care for their interests. The taxpayers are a vast group with an obvious common interest, but in an important sense they have yet to obtain representation. The consumers are at least as numerous as any other group in the society, but they have no organization to countervail the power of organized monopolistic producers. There are multitudes with an interest in peace, but they have no lobby to match those of the special interests that may on occasion have an interest in war. There are vast numbers who have a common interest in preventing inflation and depression, but they have no organization to express that interest. (pg. 165) In a smaller group, one person makes up a larger percentage of the resources of that group, so the addition or subtraction of a single member to that organization can determine the success of the group. There are also social pressures which work much better on the small than on the large. Olson gives two reasons why large groups are inherently unsuccessful in their attempts to organize: In general, social pressure and social incentives operate only in groups of smaller size, in the groups so small that the members can have face-to-face contact with one another. Though in an oligopolic industry with only a handful of firms there may be strong resentment against the chiseler who cuts prices to increase his own sales at the expense of the group, in a perfectly competitive industry there is usually no such resentment; indeed the man who succeeds in increasing his sales and output in a perfectly competitive industry is usually admired and set up as a good example by his competitors. There are perhaps two reasons for this difference in the attitudes of large and small groups. First, in the large, latent group, each member, by definition, is so small in relation to the total that his actions will not matter much one way or another; so it would seem pointless for one perfect competitor to snub or abuse another for a selfish, antigroup action, because the recalcitrants action would not be decisive in any event. Second, in any large group everyone cannot possibly know everyone else, and the group will ipso facto not be a friendship group; so a person will ordinarily not be affected socially if he fails to make sacrifices on behalf of his groups goals.(pg. 62) Because smaller groups can exert these social (as well as economic) pressures, they are much more able to get around this problem. This leads to the result that smaller groups (or what some would call Special Interest Groups) are able to have policies enacted that hurt the country as a whole. In the sharing of the costs of efforts to achieve a common goal in small groups, there is however a surprising tendency for the exploitation of the great by the small.(pg. 3). Now that we know that smaller groups will generally be more successful than large ones, we understand why the government enacts many of the policies it does. To illustrate how this works, well use a made-up example of such a policy. Its a very drastic over-simplification, but its not that far out. Suppose there are four major airlines in the United States, each of whom is near bankruptcy. The CEO of one of the airlines realizes that they can get out of bankruptcy by lobbying the government for support. He can convince the 3 other airlines to go along with the plan, as they realize that theyll be more successful if they band together and if one of the airlines does not participate a number of lobbying resources will be greatly diminished along with the credibility of their argument. The airlines pool their resources and hire a high-priced lobbying firm along with a handful of unprincipled economists. The airlines explain to the government that without a $400 million dollar package they will not be able to survive. If they do not survive, there will be terrible consequences for the economy, so its in the best interest of the government to give them the money. The congresswoman listening to the argument finds it compelling, but she also recognizes a self-serving argument when she hears one. So shed like to hear from groups opposing the move. However, its obvious that such a group will not form, for the following reason: The $400 million dollars represents around $1.50 for each person living in America. Now obviously many of those individuals do not pay taxes, so well assume that it represents $4 for each tax-paying American (this assumes everyone pays the same amount in taxes which again is an over-simplification). Its obvious to see that its not worth the time and effort for any American to educate themselves about the issue, solicit donations for their cause and lobby to congress if theyd only gain a few dollars. So other than a few academic economists and think tanks, nobody opposes the measure, and it is enacted by congress. By this, we see that a small group is inherently at an advantage against a larger group. Although in total the amount at stake is the same for each group, the individual members of the small group have much more at stake than the individual members of the large group, so they have an incentive to spend more time and energy trying to change government policy. If these transfers just caused one group to gain at the others expense, it wouldnt hurt the economy at all. It wouldnt be any different than someone just handing you $10; youve gained $10 and that person lost $10, and the economy as a whole has the same value it had before. However, it does cause a decline in the economy for two reasons: The cost of lobbying. Lobbying is inherently a non-productive activity for the economy. The resources spent on lobbying are resources that are not being spent on creating wealth, so the economy is poorer as a whole. The money spent on lobbying could have been spent buying a new 747, so the economy as a whole is one 747 poorer.The deadweight loss caused by taxation. In the article The Effect of Taxes on the Economy, its illustrated that higher taxes causes productivity to decline and the economy to be worse off. Here the government was taking $4 from each taxpayer, which is not a significant amount. However, the government enacts hundreds of these policies so in total the sum becomes quite significant. These handouts to small groups cause a decline in economic growth because they change the actions of taxpayers.