|
The other side feels that there are no select few people that know best how to run things and that life is a series of trade-offs. Why do liberals most often attack conservatives as stupid or mean. Just yesterday a government panel was telling us that mammograms before 50 and every year are a waste of money. This book explains from several different angles the two main strains of thought that make up the modern political struggle.
How stupid. Are the solutions to all our problems just to revise our system of government and put the smartest people in power. This is essentially the "liberal"( under the current definition) view. I have always wondered the psychological reasons why different political views see the same situation so differently yet each so consistently. Doesn't a new car have to be created to replace that car. I now know why the liberals think that 600 or so lawyers in Washington should be trusted more that every other American making their own decisions.
You see if you crunch the numbers, it's cheaper to treat a few more patients that weren't caught early than to spend on all these extra tests that find nothing. The everyday common person is going to want to over-test to be sure.
Doesn't it use energy to create that new car. Why do conservatives fight less ardently for their political goals.
The 600 lawyers came up with the idea of borrowing $4,500 from the Chinese to give to car buyers, if they would buy a new car and completely destroy their old car. The solution is to work a trade-off that best solves the situation.
After reading this book the debate makes so much sense. Destroy it so that the parts could not even be used.
I'm convinced that Thomas Sowell is one of the few smart people that could run this country, but he's smart enough to know it is not the answer.
It is possible to believe that humans can progress, even radically progress without believing in idealistic ungrounded fairy tales. What is needed is a moving moment by moment realism as to the current limits while working to overcome as many of those limits as possible. We stand today on the verge of technology capable of changing the very nature of what it means to be human. So an analysis limited to the the immutable limitations of human beings on the one hand or denying any such limitations on the other is a bit limited. It is not an either-or. And what of man as heroic rather than man as flawed anyway.
Although Dr. This is a 5 star book solely on the basis of its brilliant thesis. Sowell argues that the political divide can be attributed to humanity's understanding of how the world works and human nature. Basically, the unconstrained vision puts you on the left, the constrained vision mostly puts you on the right. For those interested in the whys of politics and the philosophy behind it, I highly recommend this book. This understanding can be categorized by two visions, the unconstrained vision and the constrained vision.
Dr. Dr. Sowell has his own political views, he treats both sides evenhandedly in this book. Those with the constrained vision see humanity and society as imperfect but with rules, traditions, and policies able to provide as much freedom and equality as possible within those constraints. Those with the unconstrained vision see humanity and society as something that can be continually perfected to achieve a specific result. Sowell brings in quotes from Condorcet and Godwin of the unconstrained vision and Burke and Hayek of the constrained vision to help illustrate his points.
However, since this is very academic, others may prefer the author's other book, "The Vision of the Anointed" which is more readable.
In the an attempt to pay tribute to the brilliance of this (rather dense, historical & philosophical ) book, I'll try to correct this.This book presents two visions of the world. conservative visions. The two visions are metaphysical, pre-scientific points of view regarding how the world works. This is the issue. Conservatives. It is about the difference between two visions of the world, and each of the visions is found in most parties in the political spectrum. On reading the entire block of 60-odd reviews, I find that more than half of them, even while admiring Sowell's evenhandedness, misstate the carefulness of the book's positions. "Liberal" positions on top of Sowell's 2 visions, let us look instead at every issue, and determine whether our own individual intuitions are that (a) it is a problem, and that (b) human beings can solve or meliorate, via coordinated political action, this paricular problem without creating other (potentially worse) problems.
Don't start one.For (Constrained): There will be horrible tradeoffs, but war is better than the (worse) other options of not warring.For (Unconstrained): Saddam is a blight upon Iraq, they will be better without him.I have attempted to point out that not all conservative positions are constrained, and not all liberal positions are unconstrained. And he doesn't do so for the basic reason that it really isn't that simple.Instead of attempting to place "Conservative" vs. Rather, different people have different understandings of the world, and these often lead to different conclusions. In the other view (Constrained), people will always be (somewhat) bad, only results and processes matter, and improvements always involve tradeoffs.Sowell first acknowledges that no vision is purely Constrained or Unconstrained. However, contrary to most of the reviewers, the difference is not about Liberals vs. And the arguments for or against most actions can come from both positions.
In one view (Unconstrained), people can drive change, intentions matter, and this could improve the world. And then he explicitly does not connect the dots to (modern, US) liberal vs. Examples from the War in Iraq.Against (Constrained): The military cannot solve a complex social problem.Against (Unconstrained): War is evil. Using Sowell's brilliant dichotomy, people may improve their understanding of the issues facing the world, though hopefully not replace entirely any other charitable understandings.
Dr. Thomas Sowell is an excellent writer. I enjoy reading his books. He is beyond pale.
|
