The conflicting visions he describes in the book are the constrained or tragic view of human nature and the unconstrained or utopian view. People with a more constrained view of the human condition see mankind as hopelessly flawed. They see inherent limits to human betterment. We might want to end war or poverty or racism, they say, but that’s probably not going to happen. Therefore, our focus should be on putting in place institutions and processes that help society deal with problems we’re never going to eradicate.
On the other side, you have the unconstrained or utopian view of human nature, which rejects the idea that there are limits to what humans can achieve. This is the belief that nothing is unattainable and no trade-offs are necessary. According to this perspective, by utilizing the proper amount of reason and willpower, we can not only manage problems like war, poverty, and racism but solve them entirely.
Depending on which view they embrace, Sowell explains why two people, similarly well-informed and similarly well-meaning, will reach opposite conclusions on a whole range of issues including taxes, rent control, school choice, military spending, and judicial activism.
When Kant said that from the “crooked timber of humanity no straight thing was ever made,” he was exhibiting the constrained view. When Rousseau said that “man is born free but everywhere is in chains,” he was voicing the unconstrained view. When Oliver Wendell Holmes said his job as a judge was to make sure the game is played according to the rules, whether he liked them or not, it was a constrained view. When Earl Warren said his job as a judge was to do what he thinks is right, regardless of the law, it was an unconstrained view. This is the philosophical framework that explains Sowell’s writings on almost any topic.
-Jason Riley (The Continuing Importance of Thomas Sowell [Hillsdale College Imprimus])
This insight tells us why, when we debate the other side, we MUST define terms/words used in such a debate. This process MUST highlight the differences between each side and then make the attempt to use the standard definitions of those words. Example: gay now means homosexual and no longer, from the Flintstones cartoon, hilarity and fun as in “a gay old time!”. “CIS” is now the new term for what used to be called “straight” or heterosexual.
The list goes on and on and then graduates not only to other “new terms”, equity doesn’t mean what it used to and pronouns have become weaponized in the social justice politics to sow chaos into the debate. By allowing the Left to continuously change the language, you lose. But that’s not the only part.
Riley correctly points out that your starting point MUST be established first before your Leftist “friend” sets the tableware. Too often we have done the “polite route” – and by saying “after you”, you are what’s for dinner.
It is one thing to think nicely of others. The problem is that too many people AREN’T nice – all one has to do is study prison recidivism rates to see that there is a large percentage of the population that cannot be “elevated” and “improved”. Fact is, you may become that statistic because you insist on “changing them” and not realize, in doing so, that you will be on their supper table – literally. They will take advantage of your niceness.
The unconstrained view never seems to want to see that their processes to forcefully “improve” us fail the majority of the time. They refuse to admit that their view of human behavior is flawed and will not work.
And like we saw this week with the two SCOTUS decisions on Second Amendment (NY City gun law) and Dobbs (abortion), how the Left doesn’t get that there is a whole bunch of us they don’t understand and refuse to acknowledge “you’re right”. And then they act like spoiled brats.
