…comes from page 236 of Bruno Leoni’s 1961 work Freedom and the Law (3rd Edition, emphasis original):
If we consider it well, there is nothing “rational” in voting that can be compared with rationality in the market. Of course, voting may be preceeded by argument and bargaining, which may be rational in the same sense as any operation on the market. But whenever you finally come to vote, you don’t argue or bargain any longer. You are on another plane. You accumulate ballots as you would accumulate stones or shells – the implication being that you do not win because you have more reasons than others, but merely because you have more ballots to pile up. In this operation you have neither partners nor interlocutors but only allies and enemies…The political language reflects quite naturally this aspect of voting: Politicans speak willingly of campaigns to be started, of battles to be won, of enemies to be fought, and so on. This language does not usually occur in the market. There is an obvious reason for that While in the market supply and demand are not only compatible but also complementary, in the political field, in which legislation belongs, the choice of winners on the one hand and losers on the other are neither complementary nor even compatible.
JMM: This difference between the market and the political realm is utterly lost on those who advocate for government directing of the market: those who argue for “trade wars” or “minimum wage” or any other government interventions. Markets are about cooperation, not violence. When China sells goods to the US, it is not a battle, China is not the enemy. When Wal-Mart hires workers at a given wage, it is not Wal-Mart exploiting workers or some great battle between labor and management, but rather cooperation between the two.
Political language easily lends itself to conflict and violence. But to use that same language in the market is to fundamentally misunderstand what the market is.