Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles delinineates how the language of good intentions is a key part of the unconstrained vision.
Given the wider capabilities of man in the unconstrained vision, the intentions which guide those capabilities are especially important. Words and concepts which revolve around intention - "sincerity," "commitment," "dedication" - have been central to the unconstrained vision have often been described in terms of their intended goals: "Liberty, equality, fraternity," "ending the exploitation of man by man," or "social justice," for example. But in the constrained vision, where man's ability to directly consummate his intentions is very limited, intentions mean far less. Burke referred to "the Beneficial effects of human faults" and to "the ill consequences attending the most undoubted Virtues." Adam Smith's entire economic doctrine of laissez-faire implicitly assumed the same lack of correspondence between intention and effect, for the systemic benefits of capitalism were no part of the intention of capitalists. [pg. 30]
The bywords of the unconstrained vision sounds like the claims of students who have forgotten to do their homework: intending to do it is as important as actually doing it.
Comments