I was loaned Thomas Sowell’s book by a friend who warned me that it is brilliant but very complex. Many books are “page turners.” This book was also a page turner, but I was turning back to the previous page in an attempt to reconnect and comprehend. I would recommend anyone interested in what drives social and economic policies based on divergent political philosophies should read this book regardless of “political leaning.” I’ve found I can review a complicated book by giving a brief overview of the my impressions followed by some snippets I found interesting, and that’s the formula I’ll use for this book.
My interpretation is that the “Constrained Vision” is constrained by practical reality, and is driven by the policies found in property rights, free enterprise, and strict adherence to the Constitution. The “Unconstrained Vision” is that “Social Justice” can be achieved based on what is “fair, right, and good,” and urges activism by judges and “social responsibility” by businessmen. The constrained vision is that judges should never create the confusion that results when the rules are changed and that the moral duty of the businessman is to the stockholders who have invested their savings in his business. Adam Smith, the patron saint of laissez-faire capitalism (people should not be directed how to invest their capital), believed that moral and socially beneficial behavior can only be achieved by incentives that promote self interest. William Godwin, advocating for the unconstrained vision, believed that the willingness to selflessly create social benefit for others is the essence of virtue.
Dr. Sowell writes that social visionaries seldom adhere completely to one of the two visions. For example, Marx’s ideas were based on a hybrid of the two visions. His theory of history was mostly based on a constrained vision evolving over time into the unconstrained world of communism. I don’t know whether he envisioned how Western intellectuals would be able to ignore or explain away Stalin’s mass murders and slave labor camps.
Snippets
Special interests prevail when they can mobilize public support of a policy as they play the political game, but “…these individuals and organizations can be viewed a simply carriers of ideas, much as bees inadvertently carry pollen—playing a vital role in the grand scheme of nature while pursuing a much narrower individual purpose.” (8-9) Consistent with that theme, Smith observed that businessmen (capitalists) promote “the social good” in the process of competing for their own gain.
“The Constitution of the United States, with its elaborate checks and balances, clearly reflected the view that no one was ever to be completely trusted with power.”
Hobbes believed that intellectuals usually only want to demonstrate their own wit, while John Randolph “said that he knew men ‘who could not write a book or even spell the famous word Congress’ who nevertheless ‘had more practical sense’ than any intellectual.’’
The Liberal Godwin condemned constraints imposed by constitutions, marriage, etc., to be “based on lesser knowledge impeding better decisions based on greater knowledge that emerges later.” (My comment: I wonder how many liberal women encourage their husbands to continue to search for the perfect partner based on the theory that “greater knowledge emerges later?”
Burke considered “nation-building” as a fundamental misconception, because “Nations may grow and evolve but cannot be built.”
“A foot race is fair if it is run under the proper conditions—regardless of who wins or loses, or how often the same person wins.”
Bentham believed legislators should not strive to redistribute wealth because the outcome would result in “…insecurity of property (that would) reduce subsequent production.”
Adherents of both visions see Fascism as the logical result of the opposing vision. Those on the left see Fascism as “the far right.” Conversely, Hitler’s “national socialism” (Nazism) was indeed socialist.
Burke said that “all men have equal rights, but not…equal things.” Alexander Hamilton said all men were “entitled to a parity of privileges,” but that economic inequality “would exist as long as liberty existed.”
Friedman wrote that “the ordinary man has been able to attain levels of living never dreamed of before” when the free market has been permitted to operate. He also said that intervention in the economy by political leaders in attempts to equalize economic results in dangerous inequality in political power. Hayek’s theme in “The Road to Serfdom” was that “…the goal of simultaneously combining freedom and equality of outcome in democratic socialism… (as) unachievable” and would lead to despotism.
The constrained vision views people in the Third World as “a repository of valuable skills and capable of substantial adaptations to changing economic conditions, if only the elite would leave them free to compete…” “The left…depict the peasant masses as hopelessly backward and redeemable only by the committed efforts of the educated elite.”
Hayek said that social justice undermines and ultimately destroys the concept of the rule of law and expands the power of government to make determinations in domains once exempt from its power.
There is so much more to this book than what I’ve reviewed here. Dr. Sowell presents compelling observations about the law (activism versus strict Constitutional interpretation) economic theories, and war. Read the book, and be prepared to be challenged and learn.