Fundamental para entender melhor as diferenças entre a visão conservadora (restrita) e a visão progressista (irrestrita) da política, leis, sociedade, etc. Imparcial, Sowell conduz com clareza e objetividade o entendimento sobre essas questões, sem dúvida dificeis e apaixonantes. Uma visão baseada em processos (sociais, legais, politicos, econômicos) e a outra baseada em intervencionismo para resolver problemas sociais considerados urgentes (pelos próprios progressistas). As implicações de ambas as visões ao longo do tempo são desafiadoras. Expõe as limitações e adequações de cada uma das visões. Cresci muito (intelectualmente) com a leitura do livro. Para reler.

Not a thrilling read, but a foundationally important read for seeing and understanding worldviews at a 40,000 foot level.

It's rhetorical, but I wonder if one's political affiliation may influence the opinion of conservative economist Thomas Sowell or his book, "A Conflict of Visions". (Disclaimer) I have a strong aversion to politics at this stage of life. However, I still maintain a drive for a more equitable society, while favoring individualism over collective or state control.

Sowell’s thesis on the origins of political strife is thought-provoking. While one can argue that Sowell's view of the data points may be skewed, there's no denying that humans will have a set of assumptions and abilities in terms of themselves and how they view others. Hence, groups will gravitate toward a constrained or unconstrained view of society. I had a hard time finding detrimental steps in his argument, making this book a stimulating read.

I’ve always wanted to read Thomas Sowell. I finally did. It was extremely fair and impactful. I would say this is a great starter book for anyone who wants to scratch the surface of this amazing man & mind.

One day, when I am less academically busy, maybe when I'm old and have the energy for it, I will reread this and take notes. I learned a lot, as an overall summary, but I don't think I retained as much. Very helpful book, but imo a reread is needed in the future.

Incredibly interesting to get a neutral analysis of fundamental assumptions embedded within political ideologies.

In talking politics with others, the premises that shape the logic of our opinions often go unspoken. We may be unaware of them ourselves. Perhaps you’ve sensed this while debating politics with a friend or relative: there’s a disconnect you can’t pin down; you’re somehow talking past each other but unable to correct it. When the foundational assumptions of our opinions are out of alignment with each other, everything built on them will be misaligned as well.

That’s roughly what Thomas Sowell’s book is about. Specifically, it’s about two incompatible “visions” of human nature that he argues have been at work in the politics of the West for the past three centuries. He calls these the “constrained” and the “unconstrained” visions. Often unacknowledged, they respectively inform, in varying measures, conservative and progressive politics. Sowell does not argue for one or the other here; he only wants to identify them historically and show how even the most well-intentioned interlocuters proceed from the logic of their assumptions to contradictory ends.

According to the constrained vision, human nature is a what-you-see-is-what-you-get proposition. It is constant over time and not susceptible to improvement, though it may express itself differently one generation to the next. Among individuals, the distance between the best and the worst of us (intellectually and morally) is not deemed to be very great. This low view of human nature encourages a cautious view of social institutions. They are honored as the consolidated experience and wisdom of prior generations, and they may be valuable in restraining our worst impulses, but they may also need checks, since those who lead them are made of the same troublesome stuff as the rest of us. Changes are made cautiously and incrementally. Tolerant of unequal outcomes, the constrained vision emphasizes procedural equality (e.g. equality before the law).

By contrast, the unconstrained vision has a higher view of human nature and potential, seeing it as essentially good and capable of improvement. If society is burdened by poverty, drug addiction, crime, etc., the fault (according to this vision) is generally found in our inherited institutions. The distance of the morally and intellectually best from the worst is assumed to be greater, and it becomes the duty of those at the vanguard to abolish or radically reshape institutions to engineer the moral and material betterment of all. Change is embraced rapturously. Unlike the constrained vision, which looks for trade-offs in the management of social ills, the unconstrained vision looks for solutions to eliminate them. Less concerned with procedural equality, it makes equality of outcomes a primary goal.

Those are the basics. Sowell quotes historical champions of each vision, and some of the passages he cites – most of them from the 18th and 19th centuries – are fascinating. He teases out the implications (and sometimes the ironies) of each side when it comes to views on law, education, poverty, race, class, business, crime, and war.

What Sowell doesn’t address and what especially interests me, is the origin of the dichotomy he describes. Perhaps he attacks the historical question elsewhere, but halfway through reading A Conflict of Visions, I began to wonder: Was one vision born as a reaction to the other (and if so, what provoked it?), or did both arise simultaneously in the decay of a prior consensus?

I suspect the latter is the case. Absent in Sowell’s survey is any consideration of religion, and perhaps that’s a clue. As Sowell describes it, the cleavage first became apparent in the Enlightenment era when the influence of Christianity began to fade in the West, modern science was born, and democratic impulses began to assert themselves. Both visions are in their bare terms essentially secular rather than religious; neither involves transcendent claims. And yet it’s not difficult to see in each a fractured expression of the Christian religious inheritance.

You might say, for example, that the constrained vision coalesces around the Christian notion that human nature as we know it is broken, that man is fallen, given to sin, and with no checks on his passions will be the destruction of himself and those around him; that, unaided by grace, there are hard limits to moral improvement; that the final elimination of the evils of our condition can only be a divine act, and will only be achieved beyond this life.

The unconstrained vision, on the other hand, preserves an echo of the Christian understanding that human nature was good as originally created by God; that we were meant for higher and better things than we see around us in the human condition; that it is our duty to love our neighbor; and that God is offended by injustice.

Certain paradoxes present themselves. For one, orthodox Christians today will typically adopt the politics of the constrained vision, and yet that vision in its basic terms is the more strictly secular of the two. In politics it aims to restrain the worst in us and cautiously manage relative evils; it does not enjoin positive moral actions. Which is not to say that sharers of the constrained vision imagine there are no moral imperatives, they’re just less likely to root them in the realm of politics. As such, in its basic outline (see my third paragraph above) the constrained vision might just as easily be embraced by a Roman Stoic as a Roman Catholic.

By contrast the unconstrained model retains, in subtly altered forms, more easily recognizable elements of the old Christian moral vision. The perfected society it strives to achieve resembles nothing so much as the Church of the Book of Acts or the heavenly New Jersualem. What’s more, as Sowell argues, it’s through the unconstrained vision that secular Western societies derive their notion that human rights inhere in individuals unconditionally, which is very nearly a transcendent claim. Why, then, should the politics of the unconstrained vision be more commonly the default of secular, non-religious people rather than of devout Christians?

The answer, I think, is that while the unconstrained vision is the more “Christian” at first glance, it is a Christian heresy: inherited institutions are made the cause of suffering, rather than human sin; the division between the pre- and postlapsarian condition of human nature is erased; the moral and intellectual perfection of human beings and society, which the orthodox faithful look for in the life of the world to come, is made the goal of a political agenda here and now, and man usurps the place of God as the agent of that transformation. Liberal Christians may willingly trim their creeds to suit their politics, but these things are irreconcilable with the traditional faith.

In fact, the unconstrained vision is a form of atheism dressed up in the second-hand rags of Christianity. And yet for many of its adherents, it is a substitute faith worth every sacrifice, summoning them to a great and revolutionary struggle – nothing less than secular salvation – in the remaking, on improved lines, of man and society. They pursue it with zeal. There is less zeal for politics as politics on the other side because the ambitions of the constrained vision are more circumscribed. Those who hold to it may look at the passionate intensity of their counterparts and see a new Tower of Babel in the works. Often (perhaps too often) their only response is to mutter to themselves with dark foreboding.

I finally finished this book. it's amazing. I have a friend who once said, "Any book worth reading once should be worth reading again." I don't buy that - there are a lot of books i enjoy only once and wouldn't repeat. But this book would be on a short list of books if I were limited, because you could read it over and over and still have a lot to learn. it's dense - there are a lot of ideas packed in it. I would like to take a course with this as the text and explore modern politics with it.

On the fence between 4 and 5 stars because this is an incredibly dry read; Professor Sowell is not a great writer, don't expect to plow through this short 200 page book in 90 minutes. But, he is an amazing researcher, and astute thinker. The content of this book is an excellent explanation as to the origins of political disagreements over time. Highly recommended

Reality is far too complex to be understood by one human mind; enter visions, which are like maps. Details the “constrained vision”, which views humanity as being constrained by certain innate human qualities, and the “unconstrained vision”, which sees the potential of humanity as endless, and thus, the goal of government is to fix said humanity. Adam Smith thought this a foolish endeavor; example of if everyone died in China, how would it impact each of us, vs. losing our pinky (most would be more sad about the lost finger). Thus, in this view, people do the right thing for payoffs, to moral principles, concepts of honor and nobility, rather than simply out of love for one another. The constrained vision tries to work within what it sees as human nature, to produce a series of desirable tradeoffs, which will not cure all of humanity’s ails. The unconstrained vision, in contrast, seeks the highest solutions and best ideals to fix all of humanity’s problems. The constrained vision sees the “best” as the enemy of the good, as the best is not possible. Here, it is about what ones intentions are; that is virtue, regardless of the result. Many political ideologies of the unconstrained vision call for a transitory period that might be otherwise considered unacceptable, but it is okay for the sake of the vision. The dichotomy of the two visions does not encompass every ideology, but Sowell says a remarkable number of political ideas do fit into one box or the other. Thus, there is both the problem of what is perceived to be, and what the moral values ought to be to fix said problems. The two visions do not even agree on the language with words such as equality and justice. The constrained vision wants equality in processes, which is perceived as justice – it is a process focused vision. The unconstrained vision wants equality in outcomes, which is justice, even if it requires injustice via processes to produce said more equal outcomes. Thus, the unconstrained vision is based on a moral imperative, which can lead to promotion of the unconstrained vision as being generally more righteous, and can lead to condescension of the constrained vision; this has been documented throughout history -- points to Shaw calling working class detestable people with no right to live, and Rousseau calling the masses stupid, pusillanimous invalids. How much one person can know leads to opposite conclusions regarding who is to make the best social decisions; the masses, or the elite. Likewise, there has been a moral outrage on the left, questioning the right’s humanity, calling them single-minded, etc. The constrained vision bases its knowledge off of the history of mankind, while the unconstrained vision bases it entirely off of the reason of the individual. Author purports that normal people do not have the time nor inclination to delve so deeply into so many issues as to be able to effectively “Reason” on them. The unconstrained vision calls for a more exalted elite to lead the masses to salvation. Foolish and immoral sources explain the World’s evils, to the unconstrained; wiser, more moral and human policies are the solution; the constrained vision sees the evils of the world as deriving from the limited choices available, given man’s moral and intellectual shortcomings, relying on marketplace, tradition, and families, process that evolve rather than are designed. Evolution vs. Revolution. The constrained vision sees duty to ones various roles in society; the unconstrained vision sees it as a duty to directly benefit mankind. Says the constrained vision is not a static vision of the social process; its central principle is evolution, as with language, but it is not subject to a new master plan, with incremental changes. “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation” -Edmund Burke. “Tradition is not something constant but the product of a process of selection guided not by reason but by success.” -Hayek. Injustices in the constrained vision are inevitable; which process will result in the least of them. Injustice accepted in the unconstrained vision is unconscionable. At an extreme, constrained vision says “My country, right or wrong” while unconstrained vision is a “citizen of the World”; thus, patriotism and treason can become meaningless, while it is extremely important to the constrained. More rights for particular groups can make those groups worse off, claims Sowell (I.e. raising minimum wage, standards for housing conditions). The achievements of the elite in their intellect, morality, or dedication to the social good demonstrates to the unconstrained vision the possibilities of humanity; thus the revolution must be led by this elite, to defeat those who benefit from the current order. The two visions are doomed to be adversaries; constrained thinks it is impossible to base thinking off rationality, while the unconstrained thinks it impossible to think off of traditions and mores. Some visions offer a hybrid approach; I.e. Fascism, which invokes characteristics of the constrained vision of patriotism, authority, and willingness to fight, with no obligation to respect law, tradition, or decency. “It was certainly true: that nothing like an equality of property existed: that an inequality would exist as long as liberty existed, and that it would unavoidably result from that very liberty itself” -Alexander Hamilton. Hayek said there are irremediable inequalities, just as there is irremediable ignorance on everyone’s part. Friedman points to how much the normal man has benefitted from technological progress (I.e. modern plumbing, television, ready made clothes) -- the rich could already have all of these things, before progress, they just had to pay people to do them. “Some unworthy will succeed and some worthy will fail... partly on achievements and partly on mere chance” –Hayek. Adam Smith thought little of businessmen, pointing out how aristocracy, royalty, and the privileged or mighty in general were foolishly worshipped by the masses, even to the point of imitating their vices. “It is only when estimating the potential intelligence of human beings that those with the unconstrained vision have a higher estimate than those with the constrained vision. When estimating the current intelligence of human beings, those with the unconstrained vision tend to estimate a lower mean and a greater variance.” The constrained vision sees war as inevitable; the unconstrained vision sees it as caused by institutions. Thus, it has to do where the evil is located; if it is in people and institutions, it can be fixed and removed. Likewise, people commit crime because they are people to the constrained vision. Insofar as country-level development, the constrained vision seeks to explain prosperity, while unconstrained seeks to explain poverty. PT Bauer rejects “condescension toward the ordinary people of the third world, that they are helpless, and do not know what is good for them.” The constrained vision says power is the power to reduce someone’s options; unconstrained says it is to get A to do B. Hayek sees social justice as a dangerous expansion of government power, where it makes discretionary determinations in domains once except from power; thus paving the “Road to Serfdom.” Falsified data points to just how much people believe in their own visions, I.e Malthus population theory – humanity still hasn’t destroyed itself as predicted. Evasion and misperceptions can drive mistaken visions as well; visions can talk over one another’s heads. “A scientific paradigm which encounters discordant evidence is not usually abandoned in favor of nihilistic agnosticism, but is instead patched up and complicated until there is another paradigm to replace it.” -- the true believer. Thus, complexion can become a protection against evidence. The truth may lie with the vision, it may lie in between, it may lie in the other side; we do not know, the only way to know is to formulate a hypothesis and test with evidence. Beliefs about social causation are hard to test due to the complication that is society. New information can shake someone’s vision, but may not shake the underlying moral values; thus, what can easily change is perception of who or what is doing whatever, and why. Given the complexity of society, people cannot even agree on the reasons that gave rise to Hitler, or to the rise and fall of Rome. Points to people on both sides who had no real vested interest in either vision – economists were not actual businessmen (Adam Smith, Thomas Friedman, and Hayek); many on the left have been quite rich. Is it really rooted in a desire for self-preservation? “The moral impulse driving each vision cannot be jettisoned for the sake of winning, without making the victory meaningless.” What is the morally desirable goal?

I cannot give this book enough praise. Sowell has provided an incredible framework for understanding the nature of political struggles due to competing worldviews and views on human nature. This book joins my personal canon of current issues and politics.

He convincingly shows the logical extensions of two primary worldviews. It would be an oversimplification to say that the "constrained" and "unconstrained" worldviews he identifies are synonymous with "leftist" and "rightist". This book offers a mind-blowing insight into why people of varying political perspectives use much of the same language and even hold shared values, but talk past each other. Sowell writes fair-mindedly showing how two competing worldviews can remain logically consistent albeit starting from very different views on human nature and the nature of social causation.

I wish everybody who joined in political discourse could read this book. This book could easily be turned into a year long college course. Sowell is a sage!

3.5 or 3.7 or so. Some sharp insights (such as why leftists are so ungenerous to their opponents). Yes, he goes a bit too easy on conservatives, but that's not nearly reason enough to toss this one (see parenthesis in previous sentence).

من يفكر موجود من يفكر ويصنع دينا او فكرة او ايديولوجية يجرب افكاره في الشعوب ويتوسع على الاراضي....والله الفكرة او الدين نجح مع الشعوب جميل لم ينجح يغيرها