Given that view, disagreement and a fight over who is going to be forced by government to give what to whom follows by necessity — so it makes no sense to complain about 'divisions' when you demand that government use one person for the sake of another.
One so-called 'liberal' minded co-worker looked at me quizzically, as if I had said something that was obviously false — but other than that, he did not respond to my point. It was as if he believed that if someone did not agree with his chosen distribution of other people's labor, there was no point in even discussing it — never mind if there were any justification for an initiation of force from government to begin with.
There is a kind of dishonest denial here — it is as if many would throw a match into a large bucket of gasoline, and then complain about the ensuing explosion. If you do not desire an inevitable outcome from a particular action that you engage in, it makes no sense to complain about that outcome, as if you did not participate in producing it.
If you do not like the divisions created by government from the exploitation of one individual for the sake of another, then you should stop supporting government policies that pit people against one another. That is, you should be fighting to minimize government power, as well as attempting to educate people regarding their dishonest sense of entitlement to a particular quality of life — as if even bare subsistence is not a product of human labor, and so can trivially be provided without initiating force against others, and thereby violating their rights.
Here is a tweet which provides a good summation of the liberal mindset. It supposedly contains a quote from John F. Kennedy, but for the purposes of this discussion who said it is not relevant — only that such statements resonate with many so-called liberal minded people —
https://twitter.com/PIWillia/status/840964106777694212
https://archive.is/PZuWQ
Notice that the tweet above, and the quote it contains, are perfect examples of moral preening — that is, posturing to create the impression in the minds of others of a caring, thoughtful person.
If you really care about the welfare of other people, like, say, their housing, for example, then you take action to facilitate the production of affordable housing, or you contribute to charities that take action in that regard. You might contribute to, or volunteer for the 'Habitat For Humanity', as just one example —
http://www.habitat.org/volunteer/near-you/find-your-local-habitat
That is, you actually do something yourself to improve the welfare of others — you do not just tell others that you care, because obviously that accomplishes nothing with regard to improving anyone's welfare — other than make you feel superior to others (and it is baffling why it would even do that).
And then you might tell others about your work with that charity (tweeting or otherwise), or the value of contributing, and how that charity actually helps real people. That is, you show your concern for real action, and actual impacts, rather than attempting to create an impression in the minds of others that you care.
And certainly, you never try to use the political process to create an initiation of force from government to achieve your supposed goals regarding helping others, since that stands in direct contradiction to the supposed concern for 'the welfare of the people — their civil rights, and their civil liberties', as stated in the tweet above.
Of course, that is the liberal lie — the primary goal of a majority of liberals is to initiate force against others, in order to make a public display of their supposed caring — that is, to engage in moral preening. The actual outcomes created by such attacks on individual rights and liberties are not a concern for the typical liberal — the public pretense of displaying their morals is what is key.
As demonstrated by the content of the tweet shown above, the goal is to posture to others as to what 'I am ...', and not to succeed at any actual achievement. As the old saying goes: 'Actions speak louder than words.' And it should be obvious why — nothing is easier than talking, but following through with action can take a great deal of time and effort — but only action proves an intention.
And when liberal action is aimed primarily at initiating force against others, to make them pay, what intention does it prove?
A concern for the welfare of others does not come to mind.
