I am finding that I like dividing people and policies along the line of Constrained versus Unconstrained.

It seems to greatly reduce much of the confusion of overlap that you find with Left versus Right.

re: #1 Syrah

I am finding that I like dividing people and policies along the line of Constrained versus Unconstrained.

It seems to greatly reduce much of the confusion of overlap that you find with Left versus Right.

Indeed- the left-right dichotomy has done nothing for me since starting this book. The Visions dichotomy works much better, although I am still frustrated by trying to articulate it effectively.

re: #2 Sharmuta

Indeed- the left-right dichotomy has done nothing for me since starting this book. The Visions dichotomy works much better, although I am still frustrated by trying to articulate it effectively.

It is a little difficult to explain in a quick short-hand way. Left and Right work for most people because they already think that they know what they mean.

I can read Carl Sagen's Contact and tell that the man was very much of the Unconstrained. I know likewise from reading Keith Laumer's Retief books and see that he is of the Constrained.

I am not sure how I would explain the difference to someone yet. I will have to work along that line.

re: #3 Syrah

We're just going to continue these discussion threads until we can both work it out. In the meantime, I keep trying in various threads hoping something will click for someone out there.

Also- I keep pushing the book.

Killgore posted this comment earlier:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

I responded to him that I was being pushed to read this book, but I've decided that I'm not going to because of Dr Sowell. Interestingly enough, that got a ding- there are others aware of the visions who see the problem in Atlas.

re: #4 Sharmuta

I am trying to think of what is the core division between the two sides. If this division can be articulated simply, I think it will ease explaining what its all about.

I think, at least for the moment, that the core division between the two sides is over weather one thinks that Man is perfectible or limited.

The unconstrained seems to always be focused on creating the next level of the New Man. The constrained do not see man as Perfectible. They may believe that individuals may be minutely improvable, but that Man as a species is unlikely to ever be motivated purely by virtue alone.

For the constrained, the world of Golding's Lord of the Flies is and will always be just on the outside of civilizations door. We fear the state of nature because we know in our hearts that We are all capable of the most unspeakable uncivilized behaviors if we were to find our selves outside of the bounds and protections of civilization. I do not think that the unconstrained fear that so much. For them, the state of nature is a pure and clean state where evil is just a construct of culture and or tradition.

I like to use multiple axis when trying to figure out where people are at in an imaginary political spheroid in my head.
statism vs liberty
Stasism vs. dynamism
collectivism vs. individualism
Traditional left vs right

re: #7 Thanos

You should read this book- it will change that.

What I see now is the Enlightenment vs the anti-enlightenment, the rule of law vs the rule of men.

re: #5 Sharmuta

Scott Galupo is onto something.

He is correct. It is a pitiful way for an opposition party to behave. Atlas Shrugged is not a "how to" for political success. Far from it. It a political polemic dressed up as work of fiction. While I think it is worth while to read, I do not think it is a guide for how a party or movement should or even could behave.

We know from our reading of Sowell and our understanding of Ayn Rand, that Rand is of the unconstrained. For her, it is nothing to trash the past and tradition to build anew. I think it is a big part of why she has never really caught on in big way with conservatives. I don't think she ever really will, now matter how much the sales of her book improve during this first flush of the Obama Administration. Free-markets and Classical Liberalism are great things to be in favor of for a conservative, burning down the house to get them, . . . not a good idea. (Its that Lord of the Flies problem that the constrained have. We would rather work through a poor system then risk losing everything in the chaos of revolution.)

I like Atlas Shrugged. I would still encourage you to keep it on your reading list. It is a lousy religious tract and a terrible if not ghastly revenge strategy, but it still offers some good discussions of how and why Classical Liberalism and Free Market Economics are morally defensible and arguably preferable to all other systems existent.

I think in fact that both Ayn Rand and Galupo speak to one of the major failings of the conservative and constrained movements.

Free Market/Classical Liberal philosophy and the Constrained Vision both suffer from being poorly argued for. The Free Market is not superior because it results in better mousetraps, it is superior because it is more moral. The Constrained Vision likewise is better not because it accounts for and makes allowances for Man's limitations but because it makes being "good" and "virtuous" naturally easy and doable for most people.

Many big problems.

No simple answers.

Those who are hoping that Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged will lead them to the promised land are in for some disappointment.

re: #7 Thanos

I like to use multiple axis when trying to figure out where people are at in an imaginary political spheroid in my head.
statism vs liberty
Stasism vs. dynamism
collectivism vs. individualism
Traditional left vs right

I like the multiple axis thing too. It is still inadequate. Human beings like things to be simple. The axis thing is not simple. It is useful in an academic sense, but not in an arguing at the local saloon sense.

I am not sure how the differences between the Unconstrained and the Constrained can have another axis added. What would the other line divide?

Constrained and unconstrained may be descriptors more suited to penning out in a linear spectrum than with a x and y or even a z axis graph.

Sharm,

I'll second Syrah's suggestion to keep Atlas on your reading list. The theme isn't about revenge however, or a political road map, the explicit theme is, “the role of the mind in man’s existence—and, as corollary, the demonstration of a new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest.”; to that end you can get a part of that idea from this poem (The Thinker) by Berton Braley in about 5 minutes of reading.

I'll add this book to my list in order to try and participant in these discussions.