Conflict of Visions and the Preamble

In view of the above I would like to ask: 1.) Is it possible for a person to hold a combination of these two visions without being self-contradictory in the extreme, or to gravitate toward one while allowing for the other? 2.) Is it possible to hold the “unconstrained” vision of human nature and still speak and act in accord with the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution?

The Preamble has six stated objectives from which every public office flows. As such it presumes an imperfect state of affairs that necessitates legal code, beginning with the text that follows. I would argue, therefore, that the Constitution operates from the constrained vision of human nature. That means, from a practical standpoint, that anyone who takes the oath of office should be examined along these lines. When questioning candidates for public office, the lines of inquiry ought first fall along this distinction rather than specific policy aims. Why? Because if the roots are sound, the tree will naturally bear the fruits of freedom and prosperity.

1.) Is it possible for a person to hold a combination of these two visions without being self-contradictory in the extreme, or to gravitate toward one while allowing for the other? 2.) Is it possible to hold the “unconstrained” vision of human nature and still speak and act in accord with the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution?

1. Yes, it is possible to hold a combination of views of the two visions and not be self-contradictory, or at least not obviously self-contradictory. Many people fall into such a category.

2. I think it is impossible to hold the unconstrained vision and to act in accord with the Preamble of the Constitution. The Progressive philosophy is in direct contradiction to the Constitution, with its limits on governmental power.

I view it at a higher level that defines these two visions.

Critical Thinking vs Non-Critical Thinking (lazy thinking).

What say anyone?

bfl

The unconstrained vision says healthcare is a human right, and the only obstacle is political will.

And the corruption of those who take charge of the polity, extracting the goods and services that are necessary itself, and once secured keep what they can for themselves and distribute what is necessary to keep the whole racket going. And there is nothing new in this. This is Plato's "Ship of Fools" expressed in the Republic 2500 years ago and just as true today as it was during the collapse of Pericles's so-called Golden Age.

I saw the title, and I am a huge fan of Thomas Sowell, that book of his “A Conflict of Visions) being one of the most influential political books that I have read, right up there with “Witness” by Whittaker Chambers and “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek.

Thank you for posting this thread.

I apologize for the length of my response, but as you may guess from my post, this is a key ideological touchstone for me. Sadly, I think this thread is not to get a wide viewing, because I firmly believe that if you posed this question of “constrained” versus “unconstrained” to many Conservatives, you might get a blank stare.

But I also believe that if the conflict is described without the use of the terms “constrained” or “unconstrained”, most Conservatives would grasp it immediately and understand.

I view this question as they key difference between Leftists and Conservatives, and I believe that the Christian faith describes the framework in which the “unconstrained” versions of man fundamentally conflict with the “constrained” versions of us.

The question: Can elements from the “constrained” version coexist with elements from the “unconstrained” version?

I maintain that these versions cannot permanently coexist in one person, since sooner or later, there will be an unhealthy cognitive dissonance will exist and manifest itself in unhealthy, even destructive ways. It is inevitable that at some point, one or more key beliefs from the constrained and unconstrained versions will come into direct conflict, hence the title to Sowell’s excellent book “A Conflict of Visions”.

That conflict may not occur or be recognized immediately, but over time, it is guaranteed to occur.

As Conservatives, we too have cognitive dissonance that occurs in us as well, but that cognitive dissonance is the size of a tiny ball bearing rolling around in our minds as we attempt to come to grips with it and find a way to logically eliminate that mental discord. As Conservatives, we consciously and/or unconsciously strive to eliminate that cognitive dissonance by educating ourselves in an attempt to reason it out of existence.

However, this cognitive dissonance is INHERENT in Leftism, where it is not present in Conservatism.

Leftists must, by nature believe in multiple things that cannot simultaneously be true. Leftists MUST, by necessity, engage in Orwell’s “Doublethink” from his seminal work “1984” in which the person holds two contradictory beliefs in their mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. It is a form of self-delusion. And it is necessary for Leftism which values the collective, not the individual. For Leftists to deviate from the collective is seen as unorthodoxy, to be searched out and eliminated. And they don’t stop at eliminating the unorthodoxy. When it suits their collective goals, they also view the elimination of the human being as a viable tool, which is why the Left’s hands are stained with blood from the beginning of the 20th Century. So Leftists must, by necessity, be chronically hobbled by this cognitive dissonance inherent in the ideologies of the Left.

As a result, they don’t have a small ball-bearing sized cognitive dissonance rolling around in their unconscious minds. They have a bowling ball-sized cognitive dissonance rolling inside their brains that rampages around in their craniums, destroying swaths of intellect and behavioral boundaries.

If you don’t believe I am correct in this, take a look at what you see in society today: The most severe and pathological displays of unbalanced and mentally ill behaviors emanate primarily from the Left. When you see a bunch of Leftists engaging in Primal Scream Therapy deep in the woods because a lumber company cut down some old growth trees, it is quite difficult to discount this behavior as a one-off of the Leftist world.

I just had this discussion the other night with my brother, in which part of the discussion centered around the unconstrained version of humanity, and how it does not work in groups of people ranging from the Pilgrims who landed in this country in 1620, up until the 330 million people we have today in the United States. (And, I might add… it has been shown not to work in every other group of humans ranging in size from 2 to 2 billion.)

It doesn’t work (the unconstrained version) because human nature is inherently the constrained version, not the unconstrained version. That is who we are as humans. We are the constrained versions of God’s creations. There is evil inherent in all of us. Without constraints (as in the unconstrained version of man) we are beasts, not men, because we embrace and become enslaved by that unconstrained evil that is, by design, not isolated and quarantined by our moral outlook as Conservatives strive to do.

When I used to work for a living, I would occasionally go to various corporate training sessions, and one of the key takeaways for me (which I do believe in because I believe it is valid) was that to accomplish a job in the most efficacious manner with the fewest resources and at the least cost, was to have everybody from the bottom to the top pulling in the same direction.

I believe that is possible with the constrained version of man in a constitutional republic such as ours, because the individual values that characterize us are aligned with the principles set forth in our constitution. (And, not surprisingly, the opposing side of that coin is exactly why the unconstrained version will not, and will never work-the unconstrained version of humanity is completely NOT aligned with the factual and observable human nature that God has created in us)

To me, that is the genius of the US Constitution… That it takes into account human nature, and tries to compensate for the weakest parts of it and protect us from those, while at the same time fully aligning with those parts of our human nature that leftists abhor.

It’s no secret that leftists view conservatism (and the values that are inherent in individualism, i.e. self interest, the desire for advancement in society, the inclination to be self-sufficient and succeed in commerce, etc.) with great contempt and disdain. We hear it constantly, that conservatives are “selfish”.

Leftists make these kinds of statements because they refuse to understand that all human beings are primarily self interested.

That concept in the “unconstrained” version of man, that we are perfectible, is a fundamental and inherent flaw in leftism.

Leftists maintain that humans are perfectible, and any imperfections in humans were introduced by our surroundings. They believe that the evils in our existence are due to factors such as poverty, ignorance, and disease. (There actually exists an acronym in their lexicon as a shorthand for this… “PID”)

Obviously, conservatives see this differently. In the “constrained” version of humanity, we understand as conservatives there are many distasteful and evil aspects of human nature that exist in all of us by default. We also believe that as individuals, we are not slaves to these things, and it is possible (especially with the help of a higher power such as a Christian God) overcome these shortcomings in our nature.

What , as conservatives, refuse to do is to turn a blind eye to these shortcomings in our nature. We believe that we must engage in direct combat with them and overcome them as individuals. Leftists believe that these flaws in human nature can be legislated out of existence all powerful government, and done in unison efforts by that all powerful government to address the evils of poverty, ignorance, and disease. (As an aside, conservatives view this outlook as prima Fasce flawed, due to the large number of human beings who are not poverty stricken, are not ignorant, and are not diseased in any way who engage in evil or criminal activity.

Additionally, leftists believe in altruism as a force for good. Many of us might agree with that, except for one key difference: “mandatory” altruism is evil, and a form of slavery as viewed and practiced by leftists.

When altruism becomes mandatory, it is no longer altruism. It is forced subservience to someone else’s goals.

And that is for the beauty of the way our founders created and implemented the Constitution of the United States.
They tried their hardest to protect us from the exact kind of people who populate the left in America today in general, and the Democrat party in particular.

When you understand this, you also fully understand why the First Amendment is there…

And why the Second Amendment is there.

"...This is Plato's "Ship of Fools" expressed in the Republic 2500 years ago and just as true today as it was during the collapse of Pericles's so-called Golden Age..."

I am wholly in agreement. I have, over the last year or two, embarked on a journey to find Christ in me, to be a Christian.

I have a conceit that I consider myself well read, but...I had never read The Bible cover to cover. How could I consider myself well read if I have never read the Bible????

I am almost done reading it, and there is a very significant observation that I have made, and many people I discuss it with agree-regardless of what time frame the Bible covers...times change, technology changes, but in my view, Human Nature has not changed significantly since Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden.

All the vices seen from the beginning in the Bible are present, often in the exact same forms...today.

I’d say you will never want for examples of the latter.

Critical Thinking vs Non-Critical Thinking (lazy thinking).

Try Critical Thinking v. Critical Theory (if you wish a snappy turn of phrase).

The article is a nice observation that grossly over-simplifies the confluence of these theses.

It’s really quite simple - some people look at the world as it is and see injustices everywhere and want to blow up the status quo and replace with their untried untested wet dreams. Others look at the same world and try to make the best of it by learning and appreciating rules for living that have worked through millenia and gradually improve things as they can.

I believe that there is a genetic component to this difference. Specifically something in the genes that make some people highly uncomfortable with the sight of inequality. To them any lack of equality is injustice and the sight of that eats away at them.

Or fools vs wise men.

“Fools rush in where wise men never go”

Or radicalism vs conservatism. (same thing by different names) Radicals (fools} believe nature and man are infinitely malleable and they can be shaped into whatever “perfect” form they want, therefore they’re forever revolutionizing and uprooting whatever status quo exists, even those just created by them.

Conservatives (wise men) on the other hand look at the status quo and want to conserve what has proven to work over the centuries and try to gradually improve what hasn’t taking into account that there are unchangeable realities.

“It doesn’t work (the unconstrained version) because human nature is inherently the constrained version, not the unconstrained version. “

It doesn’t work because of its consequences (bad), not because human nature is “constrained”.

What do we mean by something “working”? Something works if using it gives the intended results. It has nothing to do with constrained vs unconstrained nature.

And no one is wholly constrained or unconstrained. We all have some of both with some at the extremes. It’s what politics is all about - coming up with the right balance between societal desire for change (unconstrained) vs the comfort of the status quo (constraint). It’s a constant battle between the two - radicalism vs conservatism. Always has been and always will be because of differences in human nature.