Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
This book is so good that some rat-bastard broke my car window to steal it tonight.
(Poor meth-addled freak probably thought there was a computer in that book bag. No such luck for him. [I would have liked to have been there when he found out that he got little more than a few lined paper note pads and a Thomas Sowell book. I would have enjoyed laughing at him . . . and then beating the crap out him] Unfortunately for the crook, I live in a small town full of bad cops. If they catch him, they may do worse to him then I could.)
I am chalking it up to a close encounter with one of the reasons why I lean heavily towards the constrained vision.
I still have the audio version. I have been through that once. I will sit though it again here shortly.
Oh, Syrah! I'm so sorry you lost your book! Well- as well as having your car damaged.
Thankfully- the book is not expensive, and you can replace it. You could pick it up used and save a few bucks.
Sorry I was tired the last few nights, and we haven't had a chance to get into discussing points in the book. Let me review a few things I marked and underlined, and I will make a few of those comments shortly.
I'm currently on the chapter "Visions of Equality", and I'm marking up almost every page- lol. So far, my favorite quote Dr Sowell uses is the one by Milton Friedman:
A society that puts equality- in the sense of equality of outcome- ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.
For me, this quote gets to the heart of the matter. I support equality of opportunity. Not everyone is cut out to make it in sports, as an example, but everyone is welcome to try out for the team.
It seems to me, reading this chapter, that the constrained vision accepts that life isn't fair but everyone should get a shot at trying their best, while the unconstrained vision thinks they can correct this unfairness and supply success to those who haven't merited it.
Your quote struck a chord with me as well. It speaks to the fundamental core of the constrained. I wonder how that quote is heard or interpreted by a person of the unconstrained vision. I suspect that both sides would see truth in it, but would it be the same truth? I wonder.
I think that one of the central things to take away from this is that both sides may use the same words and phrases when talking to each other, but in fact, they mean different things when they use them.
It also helps explain why to each, the other side looks and sounds like they are stark raving bonkers.
We use the same language, but we mean very different things.
This is why so often we find ourselves wondering if we are in fact just talking past each other.
Here's a related thought about a habit of being politically unconstrained, in this Hayek essay, Why I am Not a Conservative:
"Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them. Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people."
Frank says: