I agree with you that law and order shouldn't be upheld by too much dominance and power because that would throw off the balance of a conformed society but I do believe that some is necessary. This is because it seems that the conflict theory would have a direct effect on conformity because the use of dominance helps to create conformity. Some examples of this would be that the biggest fish always has the most fish around them which is also like a mob boss and his crew.

With the use of rules there is a better balance of what is being affected. As for the dominance part, there usually is something that makes rules such as nature having its own rules because without oxygen fires couldn't start. If the use of law and order is creating negative effects instead of assisting, those who follow won't want to anymore. This could result in for example a change in votes or uprising. If the rules support the society then a greater balance will be achieved.

If they think that you don't care they'll move away and youll lose the vote. If you leave your car unantended it will be violated. Cops dont bother the rich people because they dont see them. They bother the poor people more because they can't hide and are more obvious because they are doing drastic things in order to survive.

Trade restrictions raise a number of problems in addition to those already mentioned. First, protecting one stage of production usually requires protecting downstream stages of production as well. Protecting the U.S. textile industry from foreign competition, for example, raised the cost of cloth to U.S. apparel makers, reducing their competitiveness. Thus, when the government protected domestic textile manufacturers, the domestic garment industry also needed protection.

Second, the cost of protection includes not only the welfare loss from the higher domestic price but also the cost of the resources used by domestic producer groups to secure the favored protection. The cost of rent