You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Thomas Sowell’ tag.
1. Compared to what?
2. At what cost?
3. What hard evidence do you have?
While reading Richer Morrison’s essay called Self-Defeating Environmental Activism this particular paragraph caught my eye ( I recommend reading the entire essay).
“I call this unconstrained in part as a reference to the distinction the economist Thomas Sowell advanced, of a constrained vs. unconstrained view of society and government. The constrained view—broadly consistent with the ideas of our Founding Fathers—suggests that human beings are by nature given to abusing and fighting over political power, and thus governing structures have to be limited and divided. The constrained view also acknowledges that our most important societal problems are not amenable to permanent solutions but are simply a matter of competing interests and values and thus can only be balanced toward a least bad resolution. The unconstrained vision—more amenable to Progressive theorists—holds that governments should be empowered to require good outcomes and eradicate bad outcomes, and obviously then assign behaviors to one of those categories.”
The constrained and unconstrained views of society are important theoretical and ideological origins for understanding how our views are shaped and reinforced. With the recent seismic changes to the body politic on the Left(the move toward a totalizing activist identitatarian ideology) I’ve had to reevaluate many of the positions I’ve taken in the past and come up with new ones, or at least different stances on the issues.
I’d like to say the process is finished, but much work remains in order to rationalize and reorder the priorities of one’s world view. Adopting a more constrained view of government’s role in society is part of the ideological framework that I am adapting toward.
I think the distinction Morrison mentions (quoting Sowell) is fertile ground for the recasting the theoretical lens of how society is viewed.
This is why we need to be so careful with our language and people who want to deform it for their own political ends. The activist Left uses the same vernacular as most ordinary people do, but also have a second meaning which also use that reflect their true intentions. In an argument, they flip between what is commonly understood and their special meaning of the word. Until you stake out exactly what they mean, and get them to define their terms they will run you around the mulberry bush bouncing between the different definitions of the same word.
Need an example – Take the word “inclusion”. See what you think it means, then find out what how the activist Left uses the term.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…