[rlmorel]

This is one of the finest articles that frames Sowell's philosophic views on human behavior that he outlined in his superb book "A Conflict of Visions" published in 1987.

In gem cutting, a "cleavage point" is the point on a stone at which a single blow can split the stone cleanly into separate sections.

Thomas Sowell describes the two main schools of thought regarding human behavior and governance as the "Constrained" ("Tragic") view and the "Unconstrained" ("Utopian") view.

I will let the article explain it in detail since the author does a far better job of explaining this than I ever will. Suffice to say, I regard this point of description (Constrained versus Unconstrained) as the fundamental cleavage point at which Leftists may be cleanly separated from Conservatives.

Sowell's book "A Conflict of Visions" is, hands down, the best book at describing this dynamic I have ever read.

I am interested in how others view this distinction as described in the American Thinker article.

[rlmorel]

At the age of 96, Sowell is getting on in years, and simple biology dictates this great mind of Sowell will not be with us much longer. We all must to that way, as he will go.

[JZelle]

Great scholar, great American yet not celebrated in February.

[DoodleBob]

The practical corollary is Sowell’s most frequently cited observation: there are no solutions, only trade-offs. Every policy choice exacts a cost. In criminal justice, the utopian seeks to eradicate crime by curing its supposed root causes—poverty, trauma, social exclusion—while the tragic realist accepts that some measure of predation is endemic and therefore concentrates on deterrence, knowing that deterrence itself restricts freedom and consumes resources.

So true. God-given rights like free speech and the private ownership of firearms - or knives, or pea shooters etc. - come with risks. It’s how a nation addresses those risks that tells you about the end-game of the governors.

First, a primer on risks. In the world of investing, there is a concept of risk-minimization whereby you lower your risk of loss or volatility by spreading your eggs across several baskets. However, one risk you cannot diversity away is the "systematic risk" or the risk inherent in the system...call it market risk or whatever, the basic reality is some baseline level of risk will ALWAYS exist, and you can't avoid it.

This is Sowell, encapsulated.

Now, with that foundation, let’s consider how a nation manages the risks that come with rights.

Laws that support, life, liberty, and property are right and proper. Some laws act as a deterrent and will stop people on the margin from doing bad things...this is akin to diversifying away the non-systematic risk.

However, at some baseline level, in a relatively free society of 340MM people, you'll always have a few pathological maniacs who will kill. Thus, random acts of violence are the systematic risk of a free society.

Sure, maybe some laws can help, but in large measure unless you weld a GoPro to the heads of 340MM people with central monitoring in DC (and even that wouldn't be perfect...after all people in jail still get drugs and weapons), psychos gonna psycho.

It is therefore quite telling, when pathological politicians propose legislation in the midst of a crisis/crystalized systematic risk, that is in truth aimed at the systematic risk. By definition, a nation can't evade/will always have systematic risk.

What does that’s tell us? That the legislators and supporters of these systematic risk “elimination” proposals want to erode the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.

[Repeal The 17th]

Why do I think that “Theodore Poulakis”
had never seen an unclothed woman before?

[Flaming Conservative]

Ideally, he could live another several years, and I hope he does, but oh, it pains me to know the world will lose such a treasure!

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

Bookmark

[Albion Wilde]

bump for later

[null and void]

If you are not part of the solution, you are the precipitate.

[aquila48]

There are two major world views that have been in competition through history and continue to this day and will continue in the future.

There are those who look at this imperfect world and try to make the best of it using lessons learned throughout history of what works and what doesn’t and gradually trying out new ideas that might improve things.

These people are known as conservatives.

Then there are those who look at this same imperfect world and all they see is injustices (”inequalities”) everywhere and want to blow it up and replace it with some untried wet dream that in their delusion will finally usher in “just” world. And by justice they mean equality of result.

These people are known as radicals.

I believe these differences have a genetic basis, which explain why they both have existed throughout history and will continue, at least until, by some miracle of genetic engineering, people are made “equal” or happy in their inequality as was the case in “Brave New World”.