voluntaryXchange

Quote 33 from Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"

Here again, Sowell, writing A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles in 2002, anticipated the Obama administration:

Given the horrors of war, and the frequent outcome in which there are no real winners, those with the unconstrained vision tend to explain the existence and recurrence of this man-made catastrophe in terms of either misunderstandings, in an intellectual sense, or of hostile or paranoid emotions raised to such a pitch as to override rationality. In short, war results from a failure of understanding, whether caused by lack of forethought, lack of communication, or emotions overriding judgment. Steps for a peace-seeking nation to take to reduce the probability of war therefore include (1) more influence for the intellectually or morally more advanced portions of the population, (2) better communications between potential enemies, (3) a muting of militant rhetoric, (4) a restraint on armament production or military alliances, either of which might produce escalating counter-measures, (5) a de-emphasis of nationalism or patriotism, and (6) negotiating outstanding differences with potential adversaries as a means of reducing possible causes of war. [pg. 153]

Unfortunately, just like the Clinton administration with cruise missiles, Obama's pursuit of this agenda is helped quite a bit by frequent use of drones.

Quote 32 from Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"

Sowell makes clear in a A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles that inequality of current intelligence is a key part of the unconstrained vision:

It is only when estimating the potential intelligence of human beings that those with the unconstrained vision have a higher estimate than those with the constrained vision. When estimating the current intelligence of human beings, those with the unconstrained vision tend to estimate a lower mean and a greater variance. [pg. 147]

Here's where it gets bizarre: wasn't Larry Summers chased out of Harvard's top job for saying something like this to a bunch of holders of the unconstrained vision?

Book Review: “The Blizzard” by Robert Bahr

I grew up in the Buffalo suburbs. The Blizzard of ‘77 is a prominent feature of my childhood.* As a robust 12 year-old, my parents wouldn’t let me out the door into the yard for 5 days!

Recently I read The Blizzard by Robert Bahr. It’s one of the few books you can find on Amazon about it.

This is the worst book I’ve ever completed. How would I describe it? How about as the novelization of a Weather Channel special?

* The vXwife and I decided that Roots would be a good thing to watch on family movie night (nights, as it happened). Watching it reminded us that it premiered and ran on consecutive nights when Buffalo was paralyzed by the Blizzard. Afterwards, she bought me some blizzard memorabilia, including this book and a video. Bless her heart for being thoughtful.

Technorati Tags: blizzard,77,buffalo

Quote 31 from Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"

Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles points out that:

... A vast chasm between the existing intellectual and moral capabilities of the common man and those of the intellectual elite has been an enduring characteristic of the tradition of the unconstrained vision.

...

While the unconstrained vision has featured egalitarianism as a conviction that people should share more equally in the material and other benefits of society, it tends to see the existing capabilities of people as far more unequal than does the constrained vision. [pg. 146]

So, inequality in intellectual and moral capabilities is a given, but inequality in results is something to be remedied (presumably by those with appropriate intellectual and moral capabilities).

Quote 30 from Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"

Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles now gets to the core of the disapprobation shown by so many with the unconstrained vision:

Many of those with an unconstrained vision and a passionate opposition to inequality of results assume that those who oppose them must be in favor of inequality of results, either on philosophic grounds or as a matter of narrow self-interest. [pg. 144]

It's never been clear to me why this argument, which is so silly when couched in terms of footraces or exams, is treated axiomatically when it comes to income or wealth.

Quote 29 from Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"

Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles lays out the approach of the constrained vision:

... The constrained vision does not defend existing inequalities, or any given pattern of economic or social results, as just. According to Hayek, "the manner in which the benefits and burdens are apportioned by the market mechanism would in many instances have to be regarded as very unjust if it were the result of a deliberate allocation to particular people." [pg. 139]

This is starting to get to the heart of the matter: the constrained think inequality is unjust only if it is deliberate, while those with the unconstrained vision think it is just to do something deliberate regarding inequality. No wonder they don't agree.

Quote 28 from Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"

Thomas Sowell sums up the position of A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles :

In short, attempts to equalize economic results lead to greater-and more dangerous-inequality in political power. [pg. 137]

And that inequality doesn't get discussed in polite society.

Quote 27 from Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"

Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles argues that the zero-sum game has long been part of the unconstrained vision:

It is not merely that some have little and others have much. Cause and effect are involved: Some have little because others have much, according to this reasoning, which has been part of the unconstrained vision for centuries. In one way or another, the rich have taken from the poor. According to Godwin, the great wealth of some derives from "taking from others the means of a happy and respectable existence." [pg. 134]

It's funny how this sort of reasoning always devolves into discussions of metaphorical cash in easy to carry bags. No one is ever concerned that the smart have taken from the poor because that would be silly. Yet somehow with cash it's different.

Quote 26 from Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"

There's an interesting take on the vision of radicals in Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles :

Marx was not inconsistent in using the concepts of the constrained vision for his analysis of the past and the concepts of the unconstrained vision for criticizing the present in comparison with the future he envisioned. His overall theory of history was precisely that constraints lessened over time, with the advancement of science and technology, and that social changes followed in their wake. As a system of contemporary political advocacy, it is an unconstrained vision-a theory that ills of our time are due to a wrong set of institutions, and that surrogate decision-makers, making collective choices with specifically articulated rationality, are the proper locus and mode of discretion for the future. [pg. 114-115]

This is tidy, actually: a radical's predecessors are guilty of nothing because they lived within a society where the constrained vision dominated, but are free to pursue their own goals in the future through an unconstrained vision.

Quote 25 from Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions"

Sowell drops a cute tidbit of trivia into A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles .

Some changes of visions tend to be associated with age. The cliche of radicals in their twenties becoming conservatives in their forties goes back many generations. Karl Marx predicted that the Russian radicals he met in Paris in the 1840s would be staunch supporters of the czarist regime in another twenty years-though he clearly did not expect any such conversion in his own case. [pg. 100]

Does any radical ever feel that they will be the one converted?