Sowell is one of the most annoyingly smug and insufferable public intellectuals I have read, but fortunately this book is less like "Intellectuals and Society" and more like "Basic Economics" in that he attempts to provide neutral consideration, though in spite of that suspect I could guess his opinion.

The framework of constrained/unconstrained visions is interesting and his attempts to examine historical philosophies/worldviews with it range from fascinating to a bit unsatisfying. There are some great individual observations here, but he doesn't really discuss tweaking social processes to evolve society towards desirable outcomes which seems closer to my personal "vision" than anything he discusses. He also doesn't seem to consider the constraints of the constrained view as empirical questions that could be answered and inform the tweaking of social processes, which again seems optimal in my personal version of the vision.

I was also occasionally shocked by how similar some of the issues that were discussed in this 30 year old book, including a whole section on social justice, seemed completely relevant to discussions we're still having today. Centralization or decentralization, equality of outcomes or equality of opportunity, a lot of those discussions could be applied to today's headlines.

I finally made it through this one. This is not an easy read--it's like digging through a research paper. There are lots of supporting quotations from various sources--great for support, terrible for easy reading.

BUT, this is THE best explanation I have ever found for political differences. He explains that people tend to have certain 'visions' of society: "constrained" (conservative) and "unconstrained" (progressive). He explains that much of the tension between the two groups happens because they simply aren't starting from the same perspective. Things like freedom, justice, and power mean completely different things to each group.

You know it's a sound theory when suddenly everything around you starts popping out as either constrained or unconstrained. The end of "The Once and Future King"? Unconstrained.

Definitely worth a read, if you're up for some serious study. I kept trying to read it before bed and ended up re-reading sections because I was too tired to actually comprehend what he was saying.

Conflict of Visions feels like the work of genius. It’s the most lucid analysis I’ve encountered on the underlying patterns between many ideological conflicts...

Also; the Sowell himself seems like a legend. Raised by a poor family in Harlem, he joined the marines, fought in Korea & was a marine photographer, attended night school and eventually graduate magna cum laude from Harvard and studied under Stigler at Uni of Chicago

I don't know what Sowell was trying to accomplish with this book. I found some of his arguments for this division contradictory, he also stated not everyone could be classified in these two categories so what exactly is the point really? I do not know. I mean sure, it offered a good contrast of Adam Smith and William Godwin, but there isn't really a take home message as both visions failed to fully achieve a better society.

Thomas Sowell's, A Conflict of Visions is a well written balanced look at what is at the heart of the seemingly intractable political divide that exists in the United States today.

For those like me that have witnessed the deep political rift between those on the political left and those on the political right and then asked, what philosophy or philosophical visions are at the root of it all, this book is worth reading.

Sowell draws upon a wealth of resources and sources to provide and explanation of what he calls the constrained and unconstrained visions. Sowell is clear to point out that this dichotomy is by no means the only lens one can look at ideological differences of the political left and political right, it is, however a very useful lens that reveals the stark differences in the key underpinnings that drive each camp.

This is not a quick read book but it is packed with information for those wanted to dig deeper and to discover the some truth driving the politics.

If you are looking for a Left bashes Right or Right bashes Left book, this is not the book you are looking for. There are no zingers or political putdowns in this book. There are, however, some important pieces of the big puzzle here.

Highly recommend this book for the patient and inquisitive reader only.

Sempre que se propõe dicotomias eu costumo torcer o nariz. Tudo o que cria e resume um debate a dois pontos eu busco pular fora, pois normalmente se vem coisa ruim. Mas Thomas Sowell não é qualquer um, esse cara é um gênio e esse livro é um trabalho primoroso. Ele consegue apontar as limitações e a simplificação das dicotomias apresentando uma. Sem ser simplista, o cara faz um panorama sobre as divergências políticas de forma completa e direta, citando os expoentes de cada lado. O livro é excelente, me fez perceber o quanto os lados políticos têm ideias boas.

This book does an excellent job explaining the origins of political differences, as being based on vastly different premises about the limits of human knowledge. Thomas Sowell explores the work of ideological theorists that span several centuries, and makes sense of the consistency of ideas that frequently come bundled together. It is worth reading no matter your ideological beliefs.

2024 Review
Always solid reading Sowell. I particularly appreciated when he switched from describing the pure "constrained" and "unconstrained" visions and started describing how different philosophers mix the two.

2021 Review
IT IS BABY THOMAS SOWELL!

Just kidding. By the time he wrote this book, Thomas Sowell had well over a decade under his belt writing about issues of race, politics, and philosophy. But it still feels weird stepping back in time and reading a book by him that references the USSR.

This is a fantastic foundation if you want to explore the political and philosophical divide that separates the U.S. today. As always with Sowell, it is intellectual stimulating but easy to read. And honestly, despite the publishing date more than half the time it felt like a book that could have been written today. Do yourself a favor and give this one a try.

Political left and political right are labels that work because of simplicity. However, they are not very real in fact.

Succintly, to sum up this book from my point of view; beliefs about how the world works have a tremendous impact on what is seen as "fair" or "unfair".

Make yourself a favor and detach and scrutinize your own beliefs. It is my understanding that the more attached one is to personal opinions the less valuable and real those worldviews are. To the extent one is detached and aware of one's limitations, the miracle of understanding happens like in a continuum of evolution. Humility is therefore power. People who are a failure tend to define themselves by the political positions they align with. An evolved person wouldn't want that to happen.

What the world calls 'conservative' tends to be a practical place to be.

One of the best books I have ever read. A recommendation for anyone.

Helpful and illuminating for making sense of various social trends and their economic perspectives. In my opinion, Sowell sometimes paints with too wide of a brush, but his brush strokes often expertly capture or singularly explain phenomena that I have found perplexing. Though originally written in the 1980s, his analysis is still incredibly prescient today.

Incredible book about how and why people see the world the way they do. Sowell looked at liberals and conservatives, looked at their platforms and arguments, and asked the question why? On the grand scale, why do the many various groups of people / cultures / political parties think the way they do? How do people develop a belief and how do they change? What really is at the root of our current conservative vs liberal debates? And why can't we understand each other?

This book really helped me humanize the "other side" of the political spectrum. I feel like I have become far more understanding. In an argument I am now less likely to say "you must be an idiot to think the way you do!"

A clearly written right-left explanation of the world. Refreshingly good argument for rightist policies. They are not presented as a vague calling for going back to traditions I never had sympathy for; rather the rightist ethos is concerned with tested experience that is e.g. why old people are hailed by the right. In contrast left is connected with articulated reason. The dichotomy is presented by unconstrained (leftist: we can fix the world attitude) and constrained (rightist: the world is pretty bad but there is little we can successfully do about it) visions. I definitely recommend this book to people who like me were too deep in Frankfurt School and radical leftism thinking the right has literally no legitimate claims. That being said, the book does not address postmodernist leftism which though leftist would probably fall under constrained vision (a rightist side in the book) as the postmodernist argument from linguistics claims we have virtually no basis for claims of truth and we will never have one thus we are severely constrained in constructing basis for our political policies.