nordbro rambles

So every ideological conflict in the free world can be traced back to a very fundamental, basic division. It's what economist Thomas Sowell refers to as the "conflict of visions"



Essentially, it's two conflicting visions on the nature of humanity. Unlike gender, this idea exists on a spectrum, but for simplicity's sake, think of it as black & while whilst reading this comment.



Basically, there is a "constrained" vision of humanity, and an "unconstrained" one.



The unconstrained vision of humanity is the idea of infinite potential. That humanity has a limitless potential for self-improvement. That we can cultivate our minds, and elevate ourselves above nature, and through this process, improve ourselves and each other to the point of perfection.



On the other hand, the constraned vision argues that humanity has a limited potential for self-improvement. We are limited in our mental and physical capacity, and no matter how much we read & study, there is, put quite simply, a ceiling to our potential.



Through these two conflict, underlying perceptions, numerous disagreements arise. Take, for example, some man who has been imprisoned for a morally justifiable act (Nicolas Cage in Con Air). This man has done something morally justifiable, but in the eyes of the law, he is a criminal, and should serve in prison.



Someone with an unconstrained vision of humanity would see this as atrocious. It is entirely unacceptable that Nicolas Cage must go to prison, and the law is insufficient in achieving justice. Therefore, to take the extremist perspective of this vision (remember, this is not in actuality black & white), each legal case should be considered individually. The law is insufficient & outdated, and is holding our society back.



The constrained vision, on the other hand, would agree that it is an injustice that Nicolas Cage should go to jail. But at the same time, the constrained vision will argue that following the law is more important.

When perceiving humanity as limited in its capacity, the law becomes something larger than any one individual. It is the culmination (still in constant adaptation and development) of hundreds of years of intellectual work, and although imperfect, the law has been made up by many people, and is greater than any one person is capable of comprehending. It is therefore important that we adhere to the law and maintain its validity, despite it occationally leading to unfortunate situations, such as Nicolas Cage being imprisoned for committing a morally justifiable act in Con Air



So with this example, the underlying idea is that the constrained vision revere cultural values. Or, that is, things that have developed over time. It's not just the law, but also cultural norms and traditions. These are perceived to have an underlying logic to them that is greater than one might be capable of understanding, but the sentiment to protect them lies behind that idea.



The unconstrained vision, on the other hand, wherein which nothing but the obtainable perfection is desirable, views these cultures and traditions (of which the law is an example) with a more negative lens. They are the shackling ideas of old, holding us back from realizing our true potential, and causing massive injustices such as Nicolas Cage going to prison for a morally justifiable act.



So through this, you also see how people who hold one liberal social value, also tend to hold "all of the other" liberal social values (legalize weed, prostitution, abortion, etc etc), whereas people who hold one conservative social position also hold all of these (again, this is not in reality black & white, it just helps to think of it this way)



So what are the implications of this in terms of politics?

Well, Adam Smith (a person with a constrained vision of humanity) said that there is less difference in intelligence between the smartest & dumbest human than there is between the smartest & the dumbest dog. What he basically meant is, no matter how much you read & study, it honestly doesn't make that much of a difference. Who would have known more about fishing, for example? Einstein or a fisherman?



The unconstrained vision, meanwhile, argues that people who have, for lack of a better term, "cultivated minds", are more capable of making wise decisions than the uneducated. Through our infinite potential for improvement, those who strive to obtain such improvement will be so far wiser than the uneducated masses that their decisions have more validity to them. Add on the fact that, in the unconstrained vision, nothing short of a perfect world (equality of outcome) is sufficient, but only those whose minds have been cultivated are capable of pushing society in this direction. Essentially, there is an underlying sentiment to seek a "philosopher king" to ensure equality for all.



In the constrained vision, mankind's limitations are of important note, and instead of striving towards perfection, there should be a society established that takes advantage of human limitations. Essentially, a society where everyone has the same potential to accomplish success. One in which everyone works for themselves, but is equal. This is the ultimate political goal of the constrained vision.



So, as you see, they are both inherently incompatible, but in terms of what they both WANT, its the same thing: The best possible for as many as possible.



But when you don't agree on the nature of humanity, all of your other ideas will be different too.



They both want equality, but equality means something different:

To the unconstrained, it's equality of OUTCOME

To the constrained, it's equality of PROCESS