[Soixante-Retard]

Just finished reading Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions", which I thoroughly enjoyed and thought gave a very even handed analysis between two visions; the "constrained" vision and the "unconstrained" analysis. Sowell sought to describe the etymological differences between people who implicitly subscribe to the "constrained" vision and people who hold implicitly subscribe to the "unconstrained" vision.

The two visions (where a vision is an ascribed set of assumptions that are not necessarily articulable) can be summarized as:

"Constrained" - More focused on results rather than intentions, seeks trade-offs rather than solutions; man is essentially flawed and limited by his own limitations.

"Unconstrained" - More focused on intentions rather than results, seeks solutions instead of trade-offs; man can be molded to more nobler ends.

In the book Sowell discusses how a proponent of each vision views the other and how sincerity is valued by each vision. People with a more constrained vision of man often see those with the unconstrained vision as well-intentioned but ultimately mistaken. That is to say, people with a constrained vision readily admit that people can read and look at the same thing as they do yet reach a different conclusion - an unconstrained vision - sincerely. However, those with an unconstrained vision find it suspicious that people could come to a completely different conclusion to theirs and so often try to explain why that is. Yet the explanations are often meaningless; "they" must have been "bought" and character assassinations such as incompetency because "they" are "prejudiced".

Sowell then goes on to explain how prevalent the unconstrained vision is in the media and how such disagreements or "conflicts" of visions often reduce to puerile name calling or instant dismissal of ideas by those in the media. I immediately thought of the most egregious example of this: Bill Maher and his Realtime Show. It's a very popular show and I use to watch it. However, I quickly started to notice a disappointing trend whenever Maher had someone on with whom he disagreed with - it would often turn into a tsunami of rationalizations such as "he must have been bought by the big businesses", in other words the the person could not be sincere in his beliefs otherwise if he were sincere he would believe what I believe - he must have been "bought".

What is it with trying to explain away apparent insincerity? Does it not occur to people that their adversaries could sincerely hold opposite beliefs? I am keen to hear and digest your thoughts regarding this disparity between "visions". If the disparity is true, why? What could explain this?

Cheers.

[Eran]

To a large extent, the unconstrained view has several "blind spots", primarily around practical and unexpected consequences of well-intentioned policies. Given those blind spots, holders of that view are unable to see any rational and justifiable reason others disagree with them. The only remaining explanation is that those others do not share our goals, and are thus evil.

For example, liberals often hold the attitude that "if you don't want government to provide X, it is because you don't want X (or you don't want poor people to have X)" whether X is education, health-care or safe cars.

People who hold the unconstrained view rarely possess the patience and discipline to see whether their policy "solutions" actually work. Rather, once a law has been passed, they declare victory and lose interest. Lose interest, that is, until, a few years later, the problem is even worse. Rather than recognize that their favourite solution is part of the problem, they tend to look for more-of-the-same solutions.

As you might guess by now, I (life Sowell, I suspect) have a strong preference for the Constrained view.

[Soixante-Retard]

To a large extent, the unconstrained view has several "blind spots", primarily around practical and unexpected consequences of well-intentioned policies. Given those blind spots, holders of that view are unable to see any rational and justifiable reason others disagree with them. The only remaining explanation is that those others do not share our goals, and are thus evil.

I'm fascinated with this. Is it that people with an unconstrained vision "have the one true faith"? I find it astounding that whenever a conflict of visions occur, both sides often see and argue straight pass their adversaries. While one side can readily admit that someone can disagree with them, the other side sees their adversary not just wrong but in sin.

For example, liberals often hold the attitude that "if you don't want government to provide X, it is because you don't want X (or you don't want poor people to have X)" whether X is education, health-care or safe cars.

That reminds me of a passage in Frédéric Bastiat's essay "What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen" where he discusses eliminating subsidies and summarizes with:

Our adversaries believe that an activity that is neither subsidized nor regulated is abolished. We believe the contrary. Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind. Ours is in mankind, not in the legislator.

I think it is fair to assume Bastiat was speaking from a constrained vision.

People who hold the unconstrained view rarely possess the patience and discipline to see whether their policy "solutions" actually work. Rather, once a law has been passed, they declare victory and lose interest. Lose interest, that is, until, a few years later, the problem is even worse. Rather than recognize that their favourite solution is part of the problem, they tend to look for more-of-the-same solutions.

Could this be why people with an unconstrained vision are quick to rationalize discrepancies between intentions and results? That the explanations don't really explain anything by their ad-hoc nature? Is it because "not enough" money was spent on x, y & z programs?

[Eran]

I'm fascinated with this. Is it that people with an unconstrained vision "have the one true faith"?

Not exactly. What Sowell did was separate the content from the form of people's belief.

Unconstrained vision, while typically nowadays associated with liberal (or social-democratic) ethics, is not belief-specific. Rather, it is the form of the worldview, as you noted above, considered in terms of black-and-white differences, talking about "needs" (rather than "preferences"), intentions rather than results, etc.

Very often, adherents to different views may well share their goals (e.g. alleviation of poverty) while completely disagreeing on the proper means.

I think it is fair to assume Bastiat was speaking from a constrained vision.

Absolutely. As do all thinking libertarians.

Could this be why people with an unconstrained vision are quick to rationalize discrepancies between intentions and results? That the explanations don't really explain anything by their ad-hoc nature? Is it because "not enough" money was spent on x, y & z programs?

I wish people with unconstrained vision were indeed quick rationalize discrepancies between intentions and results. Unfortunately, results are rarely ever compared with intentions. The answer, however, is invariably the same - government needs more power and more money to "solve" the problem.

I hope you stick around. If you do, you will easily be able to detect the difference between the visions in how people here express themselves.

[Soixante-Retard]

Not exactly. What Sowell did was separate the content from the form of people's belief.

Very true. His description of J. S. Mill and Karl Marx both had a mixture of constrained and unconstrained (or were at least difficult to categorize), yet I doubt we could say they had the same content!

I hope you stick around. If you do, you will easily be able to detect the difference between the visions in how people here express themselves.

I look forward to it (or maybe not!). Are people on here quick to silence discussion with reactionary dismissals, character assassinations and unsatisfactory ad-hoc explanations, abandoning empirical evidence and logic in favour of repetition of assertions for explanations?

My favourite three quotes from the book are from Betrand Russell, J. A. Schumpeter and Sowell himself:

"Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day".
- Bertrand Russell

"The first thing a man will do for his ideal is lie."
- J. A. Schumpeter

and the quote that sums up the book:

"Dedication to a cause may legitimately entail sacrifices of personal interests but not sacrifices of mind or conscience."
- Thomas Sowell

[Eran]

Are people on here quick to silence discussion with reactionary dismissals, character assassinations and unsatisfactory ad-hoc explanations, abandoning empirical evidence and logic in favour of repetition of assertions for explanations?

Some are, but enough aren't to make for interesting conversations.

There is a good-quality contingent of enlightened "constrained" people around here which I hope you enjoy, as well as many with more conventional (or less conventional, but very different) views.

[SpaciousBox]

Very interesting topic, and by the sounds of it a very interesting read from the source material as well. I have been thinking about this a lot recently, especially in relation to outlandish political thought, though it was only when I entered this thread that I noticed my thoughts had names and subcategories. Having read the descriptions it seems just a simple and friendly summation of what most of us probably understand anyway. I certainly think I can see where the author is coming from, though also feel it opens up some very unanswered challenges and possibly generalisations, that I wish to tackle through this post.

It is firstly worth me mentioning that I identify as the second; an unconstrained. I'm not quite sure yet what I'm supposed to be unconstrained against, but feel the description of the belief and person fit my values and politics nicely. It is clear this is a world view that many do not approve of, and one that I feel might even carry negative connotations by those who are unconstrained themselves, but I also don't believe it necessarily has to be negative. One thing is for certain however, it will describe the founding value of any progressive or change based political movement, regardless of how the actual implementation of that political thought turned out. I guess, part of me is feeling a little duty bound to defend the unconstrained, as it is clear this line of thought has become assumed as negative in both this thread and possibly the original literature (quite possibly via association, I would argue), so I'm going to list a few points I drew out from the discussion so far and see what you both think.

Constrained vs Unconstrained
I can completely empathise with the heart in the right place idea surrounding the unconstrained. It is a good description of the modern left who try to fix world issues with simple solutions and end up not really getting anywhere. This however, is arguably just as bad as the more Conservative approach that often ends up with nothing being done at all - we might usually associate that with the constrained grouping.

The separation of result and intention is certainly a correct assumption of the unconstrained, but doesn't that describe all political thought anyway? Can you seriously name me an ideology, party, or grouping that does not put it's own ideology (it's own intention) ahead of results? What are results anyway? And how do we measure them without taking ideology into account? A Libertarian may tell you how much money each family would save if we collapsed the government - that is result focused, right?, but it doesn't take into account the other effects that this action would cause on society which may "counter balance" that positive into a negative - however a Libertarian would not see that way, due to their ideology. On the exact same grounds, a communist would quite happily kill several thousand for the utopia they are creating as that is clearly a positive result, right? It is however, one driven by ideology and thus, intention. The entire of politics or philosophical thought is done from your own perspective, with your own values, beliefs, and thus makes it impossible for anyone to ever be focused on the result. An acceptable result will always be different for everyone, and always be connected to their specific ideology, making all of politics supposedly unconstrained as everyone is focused on their intention (or rather; how to gain the best result for that intention).

Ideological right and wrong
On a less philosophical point, I would imagine those in the unconstrained grouping are more likely to get along with those in the constrained. As mentioned above, if two groups with differing methods are trying to accomplish the same goal, it is a lot easier to just argue over methodology in a rational, and fairly standard way. The trouble starts when your actual intention is different, which will always bring conflict among groups set on intention. Having just argued that there are no groups not lead by intention, it's kinda hard to start talking about it again, but I'll bring that one back into the fold a little later. For now, consider the example of a Liberal group vs a Fascist group. The intentions are so very different that rationality is completely removed from the situation all together (they do not share common intention, so their rationality will be different). When two groups have the same aim, it is quite possible to argue your point of view, and see theirs, regardless of how wrong you believe it might be. But once the value, the end objective, the actual intention itself is changed, the two parties no longer have any common ground to be rational over. It is highly plausible, and in fact correct, that the demonisation would then begin - something you both picked up on quite quickly, and I believe even wrote as a criticism of the unconstrained grouping.

It all comes down to a strangely black and white point of philosophy; do you accept there can be such thing as a correct answer? Whether this is through an objective morality, an innate human right, or just pure logic and rationality, doesn't really matter. Because if you accept that you can be right, then you also must accept that another can be wrong. Extrapolate that and of course you have a situation where a group you disagree with can be considered evil. Now, I am writing this from a very middle ground approach, but I also accept this principle myself. I am not a Liberal who believes all points of view are equally valid. I do quite honestly believe fascists are bad people - and I have no shame in admitting this. Having come to such a conclusion, you can pretty much justify anything you want against your enemy, and also descend into petty bickering and name calling on particular online politics forums. I came to this conclusion in what I think is a fairly rational way (remember, our rationality each comes from our ideology, so this is a Liberal rational). In the idea of right and wrong, you either have to accept that there is a right answer, or you have to accept that there is not. There cannot be a middle ground there, as without a right or wrong answer you have no justification to act, and thus no right to make any decision that may effect others, period. I have often wondered if this is the conclusion Libertarians came to, but many of them believe in innate rights, which makes me assume their ideology must accept some form of right and wrong.

Everyone rationalises their own beliefs and ideology. It would be very naive to believe that another cannot look at the exact same piece of information as me and come to a totally different conclusion. It is because of our own needs for rationality that we then start making assumptions, or trying to explain away the actions of another. So in a way, the slandering of political opposites you referenced earlier is entirely rational. After all, if you are certain on something, then either you are missing a piece of the puzzle, or they are not really seeing the puzzle at all. As much as I can empathise with this being a quite standard criticism, I also think it is one many of us have just learnt to live with. Don't get me wrong! I honestly have trouble with it. I literally cannot work out why so few people agree with me - quite possibly why I spent so many hours reading academics. At the end of the day though, it comes back to the original point of intention, and thus perspective. We don't disagree because some of us are rational, and some of us are not. We disagree because our rationality is different from the start. Bring this back into the idea of political opposites, and we back at the right or wrong predicament again - which leads you around the loop to how you treat your opposite.

I have written quite a lot (sorry about that!) so I'll stop for now. I may have a few more points to discuss however. Overall a very interesting topic though!

[Soixante-Retard]

SpaciousBox, thanks for your post. Your "heart in the right place" bit made me think of a comment Milton Friedman gave when interviewed and was asked about what he thought of the advocates for minimum wage:

The people who go around talking about their soft heart, I admire them for the softness of their heart, but unfortunately, it very often extends to their head as well.

I thoroughly recommend reading the book; it isn't very long (circa ~260 pages).

Sowell does make it clear that vision is separate from ideology or content. That is why it is not simply Liberal vs Conservative, but more often the case Liberal vs Liberal, Conservative vs Conservative, X vs X etc. That is, because vision and ideology are separate it can lead to sectarian conflicts within ideologies.

Also, unconstrained and constrained are not categorical distinctions. It is more like a spectrum. If I had to place myself on the spectrum then I would be slightly more on the constrained side than the unconstrained side.

It is a thoroughly good read, quite the page turner.

Here is an interview with the author, Thomas Sowell, on his book A Conflict of Visions: [youtube]OGvYqaxSPp4[/youtube]
I especially like Peter Robinson's, the interviewer, keen observation between Plato and Aristotle that Karl Popper described in his The Open Society and It's Enemies.

[grassroots1]

Apparently Milton Friedman was implying that he did not have a soft heart? Perhaps this is one of the reasons he was able to justify his laissez-fairs philosophy to himself. Various people have said in this thread that those who hold the 'unconstrained' view (I think this is a pretty gross oversimplification of peoples' political thought processes) are well intentioned but unaware of the consequences of their preferred policies. I would say the same about some who promote free market capitalism. Some of those people suggest that free market capitalism would lead to the ability of all people to attain the necessities for a basic quality of life (adequate shelter, food, education, health care), but from my study of history, unrestrained capitalism has led to te exact opposite. It has heightened exploitation and extreme wealth inequality. Taxation, public services, programs to ensure good nutrition, etc., are extremely valuable and provide a base-line for less privileged people. Universal education can be an investment in the quality of a nation by producing intelligent, well-informed, and aware citizens. I've made the argument before that the greatest school systems in the world are public. This is the opposite of failing to understand the consequences of your actions, and is an example of forward thinking, progressive policy.

This is about having a heart in the sense that I want to see the greatest number of people possible reach their full potential as human beings, however it is also incidentally a 'productive' policy. The two things come hand in hand.

[Soixante-Retard]

Again, Sowell makes it clear that ideas or interests are separate from visions. An example, both Karl Marx and J. S. Mill had a mixture of constrained and unconstrained. However, they differed in their ideas. Marx was against economic liberalism, whereas Mill was in favor of economic liberalization. Another example, Thomas Paine and Adam Smith were both in favor of free trade (or laissez-faire), however Paine was speaking from an unconstrained vision of man, whereas Smith was speaking from a constrained vision of man.

It is not that those with the constrained vision see those with the unconstrained vision as "failing to understand the consequences of your actions". It is when there is a conflict between the two visions that it is the case. When there is a conflict, those with the constrained vision see those with the unconstrained vision as well-meaningful but mistaken (sincere). Whereas when the is a conflict, those with the unconstrained vision see those with the constrained vision as not only wrong but dishonest (not sincere).

The subtlety lies in that vision is separate from ideas. Consequently your example of public education is an idea and as such is not exclusive to one vision, excluding the other. Both visions can share the same idea, however, their respective rationales may differ.


Aside: I don't think Milton Friedman was implying that he had no heart, I inferred the opposite, after all he said he "admired" them which suggests he shared their feelings. Whereas I think you inferred incorrectly that Milton didn't have a heart.