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.
I love Sowell. He and I learned economics from the same school, literally, of thought, shared by our colleges. In fact our degrees were interchangeable with no credit lost or gained. Tight, disciplined and very hard. None of the feel good, control freak (think Krugman, et al. ) nonsense that passes for economics now. The current prevailing, academic,, model economists are really European socialists in disguise. When I say 'prevailing', there is a current school of 'economists that believes that they are not really economists, but behavioral psychologists. They think of themselves as Freud on the chair while the country is on the couch.
Having read the book, I know what these terms mean in the context of using them when talking about politics and current events.
I can use these terms with another who has read the book and we will understand perfectly what we mean when we use these terms. Those who have not read the book will see just the words as having meanings little beyond what a dictionary would define.
It must look a bit odd and confusing.
It makes the use of the terms a little bit like using jargon or code words. I would like to have a way to refer to them that offers a definition so that those who have not read the book can understand what is meant when the terms are used.
I like the cleanliness of the terms. They lack the baggage of "left and right" or "liberal and conservative." I think the terms can be very useful if we can easily make the terms understandable.
I do not have hard copy of the text. Is there a clear definition of the two terms in the book?
Additionally- when my friend and I discussed the visions, and I brought in the societal evolutionary aspect of the constrained vision, she brought up a good term for the unconstrained vision in the language of Darwin- unnatural selection.
I was speaking to a friend on the phone tonight who has not read the book, but does have a classical education and easily grasped my analogies.
At this time, I wonder if 'enlightenment vs authoritarian' works as modifier.
I will think on that.
I worry that Enlightenment and Authoritarian are too broad. I am not sure how the term Enlightenment can exclude the thinking that brought about the French Revolution.
Are Robespierre and Rousseau what we would associate with the constrained? If Wikipedia describes these two men as being Enlightenment philosophes, does that mean that using the term enlightenment would be more confusing to the uninitiated then not?
Additionally- when my friend and I discussed the visions, and I brought in the societal evolutionary aspect of the constrained vision, she brought up a good term for the unconstrained vision in the language of Darwin- unnatural selection.
This speaks more to my personal impression.
I see the constrained as being inherently biased towards "natural" solutions, meaning things that work because they have evolved with tradition and habit over the course of time. (The wisdom of the ages.)
Conversely, the unconstrained seeks unnatural solutions, that is, solutions that are derived rationally even though no example of that "rational" solution has ever been known to work and fails in the "natural" coarse of human interactions unless the threat of deadly force is brought to bear on its behalf.
It's a rough start- the trick is how to best protect the enlightenment ideals. It still needs elaboration. I see the constrained vision as two spheres of power. The individual's rights, and the government. The law you can see as the grey line between the two spheres. The constrained vision accepts human nature will want to push this line in either direction, so they see the need in restraining power and upholding the law to maintain that balance.
The unconstrained sees no need for this grey line at all- since they know better than the rest of us anyways how everything ought to be, if we'd just follow along.
I have taken out my copy of the Federalist Papers, along with a book published by the House Republicans in 1995, and an old civics text book I picked up at a used book store.
I looked at the rhetoric used by the House Republicans book on the balanced budget- and they called it a moral imperative. Where did that morality go the last 8 years? Pretty much, when they kicked Newt out, the fiscal morality left the party.
Subsidizing social issues, where the unconstrained is ruling the day- has led to these moral issues where others now see an opportunity to offer their idea of a solution. Instead of stopping the source of this moral decay- the government subsidizing it- they seek to impose a different answer.
I see this sphere as open to hybrid visions - which leaves those of a constrained vision more ideological opponents. Socialists, marxists, and fascists (for lack of better terms) all stand opposed to the constrained enlightenment approach our Founders envisioned.
When I was very young, I used to play with a block set that was made up pieces shaped like buildings and skyscrapers.
It was a lot of fun to lay out the little city to my whims content. But it always seemed to me to be something that can only be played with and never really made to apply to the real world. People would own those buildings and the dirt they stood on. It would not really be possible to create a city by design as such. Cities evolved. They were natural and unplanned, beautiful and functional, born in chaos and serendipity.
I had no concept of planning boards, permitting and eminent domain. Such things still seem an abomination to me, even to today.
Why would people want such things? Can they really want to play god over that which they do not own? What makes them think they have the right? Can't they see that if they can invalidate their neighbors property rights that they must invalidate their own?
-
You are right about the problem of the gray line of the law. To the constrained, the law is powerful because we know that to treat it too frivolously or too cavalierly is to risk living in a world ruled by whim of the gun, where as the unconstrained do not even think they risk anything when the make the law unpredictable and capricious as it is used to right whatever perceived wrong they stumble across.
-
Thinking aloud . . .
The unconstrained seems in some ways to me to behave like a centrifugal force on civilization, always pulling at it, forever breaking it here and there, forever wishing for Rousseau's happy unicorn state of nature paradise. They crave "sauvage (wild as in wildflower)" innocence so much that they would destroy everything that makes us more than brute animals to do it. Only a brute animal is neither good nor bad, existing in full innocence of what it means to be good or bad.
I think we are getting closer to understanding the true peril of N2L3. This has been very revealing research into the very volatile, award winning* compound we discovered, imo.
That may well be. But maybe it is the just nature of the unconstrained to never be content with just one form of any one thing. Always they must rationally reinterpret it, never letting what has been decided by those in the past restrict the new way they can bend or fold an idea or a concept.
What was Sowell's quote on Hamilton's complaint? something about always being unsatisfied with their innovations?
I think we are getting closer to understanding the true peril of N2L3. This has been very revealing research into the very volatile, award winning* compound we discovered, imo.
That is soemthing about this that keeps banging about in the back of my mind as I think about this stuff.
The unconstrained seem to me to be very narcissistic, very much inclined to discount everything anyone has every said or thought in favor of what ever they can pop out of their head at any given moment.
That is soemthing about this that keeps banging about in the back of my mind as I think about this stuff.
The unconstrained seem to me to be very narcissistic, very much inclined to discount everything anyone has every said or thought in favor of what ever they can pop out of their head at any given moment.
They have contempt for the masses and the collective body of wisdom that system has through traditions, social institutions, and natural societal evolution through discovery, innovation, technology, knowledge, and free markets.
You can't be a Real Country unless you have a BEER and an airline - it helps if you have some kind of a football team or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a BEER.
Frank says: