This is a very interesting book. Definitely worth reading.
PhD. Sowell is very knowledgeable, and he explains in a way that is very easy to understand. In this book he basically compares two types of visions of how things work. On one side the constrained vision, which is pessimistic about human nature (institutions keep us at bay); on the other side the unconstrained vision, which is optimistic in its perspective (institutions malign us).
He makes very good points on the assumptions of both sides, and though he makes a good case (it's quite obvious he favours the constrained vision), at times his pessimism doesn't seem to follow the evidence with regards of some societal changes. Particularly with regards to law (and morality) I think he's mistaken. At one point he states that the issue is not values tainting our visions, but the other way around, which could be true, but it seems to me that a "you're on your own" mentality heavily implies a different set of values than "you're too fragile, and can't do anything by yourself".
Ultimately, because of the different perspectives, how much do we own to each other is a question that he doesn't care to answer. Though I quite agree with that human nature is flawed, it seems to me that education, culture, and values matter. Some things are teachable.
Finally, he says that the thing that the constrained vision favours is the process, and not the results. But that is a blanket statement that cannot be used in all occasions. Lack of good results could be due to a flawed process.
With that said, PhD. Sowell does states that improvement should be pursued in things that need to be improved. It's just that times his view of the constrained vision seems borderline tautological: whatever is good is good; but how are we to determine that if not through the results?

I've been increasingly a fan of Thomas Sowell. He's a brilliant and logical thinker on economics and social issues, and the breadth of his knowledge and research is astonishing.

I read that – from among the 20 or so books he's written – this is his favorite.

Back in 1987, Sowell looked at the landscape and wondered how people – with seemingly so much in common, and even with similar values and goals – could so often be on opposite sides of political issues; and not just political, but also economic, legal, military, and social issues. What's driving that?

A Conflict of Visions examines that question and seeks the root causes of this intractable issue. The framework he uses to make sense of it is the concept of one's "vision" of mankind.

What is the nature of man?

Sowell's framework presents two opposing views on this central question.

One is that man is essentially flawed and represents Sowell's "constrained" view, most often associated with a conservative perspective. The other is that man is essentially good, and represents what Sowell refers to as an "unconstrained" vision, commonly associated with a progressive or liberal view of the world.

So it's not values, but a one's vision of man that lead to fundamentally different ways of looking at practically everything – and thus coming up with almost opposite views on the same sets of facts in many areas.

Sowell acknwledges that this is an imperfect framework -- no issue or person is 100% one way or another. Further, he explores how some people change over time and on various issues.

It's extremely technical and dense reading. The depth of his research and citations is astonishing, so it was (for me, at least) a very difficult read.

He goes back two hundred fifty years or so, and traces the thinking - and reasoning behind the thinking – of all kinds of political, economic, legal, and social scholars on either side of the "constrained – unconstrained" visions of man.

While dense and theoretical, a Conflict of Visions helps to explain things in everyday life – why some are happy with judicial activism (generally those with an unconstrained view) while those with a constrained view of man view the Constitution as something not to be tampered with.

These differences are everywhere.

For example, Sowell cites a number of Supreme Court decisions, including a landmark case on preferential treatment. He highlights the arguments on each side and the "visions" underlying each perspective. The example clearly shows how even at the Supreme Court, "the two visions argued past each other."

This was about the most difficult book review I've ever written, but I felt it worth the time to share my thoughts on Sowell's favorite work (it would make a great college course!). This is an important book for our time – for all time, in fact – because this is not a new phenomenon.

It's important to note that this is not a "conservative" book, though Sowell is often associated with conservative thought. It is a dispassionate and balanced analysis of what drives thinking.

It highlights something rarely examined and perhaps not not even understood by even the most educated – what drives our thinking? And why?

Een grondige beschouwing, maar daardoor echt veel herhaling en niet bepaald makkelijk te lezen. De main thesis kan je al goed begrijpen door een korte samenvatting te lezen, maar dit boek vertelt je wat filosofen en rechtsgeleerden er de afgelopen 200 jaar van vonden. Niet dat ik dat de schrijver kwalijk neem, het boek heeft een bepaald publiek dat daar vast van geniet.

I thought Sowell's book was one of the most original analyses of political conflict that I have read. Given that we live an increasingly divided time, I think it was a particularly relevant read as well. His claim, that the origin of conflict across fields like economics, politics, and law is ultimately due to different fundamental visions of human nature, is well-defined, coherent, and unified. This is a man who understands what he is talking about and goes to great depths to make his analysis. However, that does not mean he makes himself easy to understand. This book was probably also one of the most difficult to read, I had to go back and re-read sentences 4 or 5 times before I could grasp what I think he was trying to say, or give up trying. So if you have an excellent reading level, and you like high-level academic reading, go for it.

Excellent! Should be required reading for every society. Sheds so much light on our differences in politics, economics, social sciences and more. Sowell's simple rubric of the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision holds a lot of weight, and goes a long way to explain our differences. Helped me understand the underlying conviction and logic of many of the positions and arguments I have encountered, as well as my own.

Great book on deciphering the talking points between modern liberals and conservatives. Sowell calls these two poles the 'unconstrained' and the 'constrained' vision (respectively). Very helpful book for sizing up people in terms of their political views, which !always! merely comes down to what people value, how they wish to interact with society (via property rights vs. taxation), and contradictions in their thinking (such as how the use of force is applied). Human nature is also a pivotal point, the poles seeing it in different light (man as correctable vs. man as not, which comes down to evil = error/ignorance vs. evil is real).

If you're going to read anything by Sowell, read this one. Even if you are a modern liberal/socialist, you should know the other side (otherwise your views are held via prejudice).

A scholarly exploration of the fundamental worldviews of human nature that separates conservative and progressive ideologies.

It would be a great foundation before reading Haidt's Righteous Mind or Chua's Political Tribes on the topic.

The central premise of this book is a rather useful concept, the idea of visions, and especially of two competeing visions: the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. Sowell does a good job of defining the essences of these positions and explores the consequences of taking one vision as central rather than another. A "vision" here is something less than a theory (it is not that fleshed out), but more like a way of viewing things in stronger generality. So an unconstrained theory takes the view of society as capable of being morally/intellectually improved overall, and the most morally/intellectually improved people should make decisions to improve society overall. The constrained theory sees society as being bound by rules and systems with a smaller variance in moral/intellectual capabilities and changes to society should come from systemic changes (tradition and the slow change of tradition) by the population at large rather than by the moral/intellectual elite.

My quibble with Sowell's conception is that the constrained vision (which I would presume Sowell favors based on my reading) is often conflated with a middle position. For example, Sowell considers people like Adam Smith in the constrained vision, even for Smith's position on slavery, which for the society of the time seems to me like Smith's views are of the unconstrained type. He argues those of the constrained vision simply look at trade-offs and so Smith simply balanced the constraint against the evil of slavery, whereas the unconstrained vision have their imperatives. I think it would be fairer and more true to the theory if constrained was "ultra-constrained" (so that one should almost always if not always look to tradition for answers) and a person's views could have different elements and gradations (to be fair to Sowell, he addresses this at the beginning of the book, but wants to keep the binary visions to explore their consequences).

Sowell does a good job of going over the implications of the two visions, and offers interesting commentaries on all sorts of issues related to justice, freedom, and rights. While Sowell's preference for markets and systemic processes (constrained vision) often does come through, he offers some insights on both visions (I think more on the constrained vision). It seems to me as if both visions have weaknesses. The constrained vision doesn't really ever explain how change in a society happens, and it is not clear how one can decide what is a success, while the unconstrained vision often assumes too much of what people can or are willing to accept in terms of change imposed by an authority [and what an authority could even possibly envision as the consequences of the changes].

I think this is worth reading, though I liked "The Three Languages" by Arnold Kling more (I thought it was a more neutral presentation and offered more interesting insights into American politics/arguments). I am also struck by how this would dovetail with Hofstadter's "Anti-Intellectualism". The constrained vision's skepticism of intellectuals' abilities is very similar to what Hofstadter was talking about, and I think Sowell does a good job of explaining how this viewpoint can be thought of from an intellectual point-of-view. It's not overly long, though not short, and if you want to read a provocative book (you will almost certainly find things to disagree with, as I do with most things I read) with a variety of insights sprinkled in, I think this is a good choice. Hopefully it will at least let you think about how you would defend your "vision".

I think Sowell has hit on a profound explanation for political differences. It strikes me as right on the money: explaining why people's positions on so many different beliefs are correlated: effect of minimum wage, social justice, free markets, military spending, etc etc. The only problem is that it is written in a very dense and academic way.

An analysis of the role that visions - intuitive, sometimes pre-reflective ideas of the nature of human beings and the way the world works - play in conflicts over politics. Sowell distinguishes, in principle, two types of visions: an unconstrained and a constrained vision. In the former, human nature is largely free from constraint and capable of being molded to achieve desired societal results. In the latter, human nature is not infinitely malleable, and thus the desirable goals are processes that protect society as a whole from human hubris.

The scheme isn't perfect (Sowell acknowledges this), and as a Christian I don't think the system accounts for transcendent truth claims in the realm of individual morality or societal goals (I found Sowell's discussion of rights to be weak; in his analysis, neither constrained nor unconstrained visions have a place for pre-political, pre-social rights). Yet overall very useful.

This book is a relatively diplomatic attempt to articulate the fundamental presuppositions of the two sides that have been fighting now for several hundred years.

Sowell breaks the two sides into the constrained view advocated by Hayek, Malthus and Adam Smith and the unconstrained view advocated by Godwin and others. Interesting enough Sowell believes Fascism and Communism as well as Utilitarianism are hybrid visions that combine both aspects. I disagree with him on the first two points but I also see what he means.

A hilarious but true quote from the Intro "We will do almost anything for our visions, except think about them. The purpose of this book is to think about them."

The constrained vision sees man has having intrinsic limitations that are impossible to effectively eliminate and the best we can hope for is to deal with them in a productive way. Life is infinitely complex and there are just too many variables for any one person to be aware of and make perfect decisions. Knowledge is therefor dispersed and collective as in cultural traditions such as the law or regulated like prices in a free market. The constrained vision places great emphasis on adherence to laws, customs, traditions, and the traditional fulfillment of roles in society such as husband and judge. Knowledge in this vision is largely unarticulatable, such as what is a woman, and is dispersed therefor and not centralized. There is little difference in intelligence between intellectual and working class people.

The unconstrained vision sees man as having some constraints but nothing that the rational articulation certain values can't fix. The specialist or intellectual with the proper rational training can solve all of societies problems given he has the proper sentiments. Knowledge and decision making is normally centralized although as in Godwin he disperses it so long as each person makes decisions that are best for society and not for himself because he believes everyone will soon be able to attain his level of enlightenment. The unconstrained vision believes in decision by proxy instead of people making their own decisions in areas that will affect them. Knowledge is thus centralized and there is a big difference in intellectual capacity between intellectual and working class people in intelligence and decency. Since the unconstrained vision believes pure rationality can be achieved and thus all problems solved the only reason people don't is because they are not sincere in fixing the problems. Thus constrained vision has normally conceded decency to their opponents while the unconstrained vision hardly ever can do the same.

Interesting passages and points:

"Where two lives are jeopardized and only one can be saved, to save the one who is your father may be an act of loyalty but not an act of justice. Thus, in behavioral terms, gratitude and loyalty are intertemporal commitments not to be impartial - not to use future knowledge and future moral assessments to produce that result which you would otherwise consider best, if confronting the same individuals and situations for the first time. From the perspective, loyalty, promises, patriotism, gratitude, precedents, oaths of fidelity, constitutions, marriage, social traditions, and international treaties are all constrictions imposed earlier, when knowledge is less, on options to be exercised later, when knowledge will be greater."

Quote by Godwin: "An enlightened and reusable judicature would have recourse, in order to decide the cause before them, to no code but the code of treason. They would feel the absurdity of the other men's teaching them what they should think, and pretending to understand the case before them before it happened, better than they who had all the circumstances under their inspection." This is such blatant will to Power it's nauseating anyone could be so stupid to think this is anything else besides the grossest tyranny.

The term social sciences is from the unconstrained vision since it believes social issues can be analyzed to such a degree as to make them an exact and rational science. The constrained vision rejected this a pretentions delusion making claims it cannot back up.

"Freedom to Hayek means "freedom from coercion, freedom from the arbitrary power of other men" but not release from the restrictions or compulsions of "circumstances"."

Peace and War in foreign affairs:
The unconstrained vision see's that peace is normal and war is abnormal and irrational. Peace should be pursued by being rational, disbanding our military, decreasing patriotism and nationalism sentiments, avoiding treaties that might provoke war, talking can solve the issue of war.
The constrained vision see's that war is normal and peace is abnormal. To achieve peace we should build a military and increase patriotism and nationalism so people will be willing to go to war to protect the nation. Basically peace through strength as a deterrent.

Hamilton "all men have equal rights; but not to equal things"

"In an eighteenth-century world where most people were peasants, Godwin declared that "the peasant slides through life, with something of the contemptible insensibility of an oyster." Rousseau likened the masses of the people to "a stupid, pusillanimous invalid." According to Condorcet, the "human race still revolts the philosopher who contemplates its history." In the twentieth century, George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

Bauer presumably thinks: "Their hostility to the market and "contempt for ordinary people" are to him "only two sides of the same coin."

The unconstrained vision believes that power is not a restricting of options as in the constrained vision but whenever A can get B to do what A wants then A has power even if that's in offering B a job. If that is the case then I would say if a woke mob throws a fit and gets someone to change something then they are the ones with power. Which means white people can't be racist simply for holding power.

"Although the argument has been made that modern psychological and sociological thinking enables courts today to individualize punishments to the criminal rather than the crime..." this idea dates back to the 18th century.

"In the constrained vision, each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late."

In Summary:

The two visions see things very differently and often can't even talk due to defining words differently and seeing everything different as well. While the constrained vision seeks in equality, law, and economics a fair process. The unconstrained vision seeks in those same things equal results. Law is unjust if it results in different outcome results. Equality before the law is pointless if the results are not all the same etc.

Conflito de Visões foi para mim um livro transformativo. Antes dele, eu era uma pessoa que tentava me manter o mais longe possível de qualquer discussão política, sempre achando que a minha opinião sobre política seria inútil para qualquer discussão, já que nada seria mudado. Tudo isso mudou quando um professor me convidou para um grupo que passaria a discutir esse livro bimensalmente, capítulo por capítulo. Talvez o que escreverei aqui não seja apenas sobre o livro, mas também sobre o grupo, já que os dois juntos foram uma experiência que mudou a minha vida.

As discussões do grupo que sempre extrapolavam além do texto junto das minhas próprias reflexões sobre o livro me fizeram passar a considerar, pela primeira vez, o meu lugar na sociedade e onde eu planejava chegar nessa incessante busca pelo conhecimento. Decidi que aprender tudo que desejo aprender, tanto academicamente quanto pessoalmente, apenas para me afastar dos serviços indiretos que devo à sociedade como um cidadão me tornaria um desperdício de tempo e espaço. O texto de Sowell me ajudou muito a encontrar um caminho, mostrando-me que a política não precisa ser essa discussão barbárica que mais lembra brigas de torcida. A visão do autor, embora mais tendenciosa para o conservadorismo, foi suficientemente apolítica para mostrar o que ele queria mostrar. A ideia de Sowell dissolve a segregação da política entre apenas “direita” e “esquerda”, além de quase se livrar de toda a noção de moralidade tendenciosa numa população, afinal todos querem a mesma coisa: a melhoria das condições de vida de toda a humanidade. Porém, como querem chegar lá é o que causa toda essa dicotomia que vemos hoje em dia (e sempre existiu). Não entrarei em detalhes aqui, já que meu objetivo com essa entrada de diário não é explicar, e sim apenas registrar. Mas o básico é que a visão irrestrita acredita que o ser humano (alguns deles) é capaz de revolucionar a política e determinar leis e pilares da sociedade a partir do seu próprio julgamento, o que favorece diretamente a concentração de poder. Já a visão restrita prega que homem algum é prudente o bastante para criar algum sistema político do zero, então adotadores da visão restrita favorecem um governo que utiliza do passado (processos sistêmicos graduais geraram todas as leis de hoje) para moldar o presente e o futuro, tentando o máximo possível tirar o poder da mão de uma minoria intelectual/moral.

Quanto à minha opinião pessoal, eu me identifiquei mais com a visão restrita, em grande maioria. Mas assim como Sowell disse, forma de governo alguma é 100% restrita ou irrestrita. Portanto, após as discussões do grupo eu consegui identificar minha visão desde ideais conservadores à ideais reformacionistas. Mas não parou por aí. O livro incendeou em mim um desejo para entender mais e mais sobre a política moderna, desejo que encaixa como uma luva na minha atual odisséia para ler toda a filosofia ocidental. Nunca esperava que ficaria com ganas de ler O Manifesto Comunista de Marx ou qualquer outro tipo de livro político que agora ocupa minhas wishlists como se seu lugar sempre fosse lá.