Many of those who advocate privatized, personal solutions in preference to collectivized, public ones do so out of a frank abhorrence of politics as such. They view politics as essentially a distributional struggle, and they suppose that all those efforts devoted to redistributing things from one to another could better be devoted to producing more things for everyone. “All float higher on a rising tide” as the saying goes among all those worldwide who admire the “Asian tiger” combination of high-growth economies and a minimum of democratic encumbrances.

Politics, on this view, constitutes a deadweight loss on a par with legal fees in divorce courts. It is joint madness, which could only afflict couples no longer capable of joint decision making, to squander a quarter of their joint assets squabbling over the distribution of those assets between them. It would be far better for both parties to forswear costly legal arguments and agree (by just flipping a metaphorical coin) on any settlement falling within the broad region bracketed by those prospective legal fees.

Similarly, those who view politics as a mere distributive squabble say that it is far better for all of us if we avoid mutually canceling efforts at snatching things from one another – efforts that, taken together gain nothing for anyone – and to devote those efforts instead to productive endeavors, which would make more for everyone.