Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles sums up the constrained visions focus on process:
A social process has freedom to the extent that it refrains from interfering with the choices of individuals-whether or not the circumstances of those individuals provide them with many options or few. A social process has justice to the extent that its rules are just, regardless of the variety of outcomes resulting from the application of those rules. Power is exerted in social processes ... to the extent that someone's existing set of options is reduced - but it is not an exertion of power to offer a quid pro quo that adds to his existing options. Equality as a process characteristic means application of the same rules to all ...[pg. 247]
But, this now highlights how those with that vision are viewed by the unconstrained:
In the unconstrained vision, in which man can master social complexities sufficiently to apply directly the logic and morality of the common good, the presence of highly educated and intelligent people diametrically opposed to policies aimed at the common good is either an intellectual puzzle or a moral outrage, or both. Implications of bad faith, venality, for other moral or intellectual deficiencies have been much more common in the unconstrained vision's criticism of the constrained vision than vice versa. [pg. 248]
... Historic evasions of evidence are a warning, not a model. Too often the more fact that someone is known to disagree widely on other issues is considered sufficient reason not to take him seriously on the issue at hand ("how can you believe someone who has said?") In short, the fact than an opposing vision has much consistency across a range of issues as one's own is used as a reason to reject it out of hand. [pg. 253]
Enough already. This concludes my 6 weeks of quotes from Sowell.