Visions and Conflict part 2

Further thoughts on Sowell's book.
 How we view issues as basic as human "survival and progress" is different depending on which vision we adopt.  "According to the unconstrained vision, the patterned behavior of society is successful, just, and progressive insofar as it reflects the articulated rationality of man in general and of the most intellectually and morally advanced people in particular."
The constrained vision sees a fundamental inability for man, seen either as an individual or a collective society, to achieve success in deliberate, comprehensive central planning.  This vision sees a "moral and intellectual"  insufficiency that frustrates those attempts.  The failure of the USSR's planned  economy is seen as an example.
How should we make judgements about societal processes? What is justice?  Should judgements be made on results? Or on adherence to agreed-upon rules existent prior to the event or process being judged.  How we make those judgements reflects our vision.  If we judge a process by trying to decide if that process is right or good, we probably have an unconstrained vision.  If we judge a process as fair when all the a priori agreed on process characteristics were faithfully adhered to, and ignore the outcomes, we probably have a constrained vision. The results are subordinate to the process and the agreed upon rules of engagement.  
Just as the word "freedom"  means something different to holders of each vision, justice means something different as well.
The unconstrained vision is results oriented. The constrained vision is process oriented.

As I drive to Chicago to visit my daughter and her family I observe the tear down of the high rise "project housing" lying east of the Dan Ryan. Nearly everyone's judgement about the projects is that it represents an abysmal failure of policy.  When they were built, it was with great fanfare and hope that making good housing available cheaply would help those in poverty rise above.  Instead the projects degenerated into a special version of hell on earth.  The reasons have been debated in multiple forums.  My point in bringing it up is that the different visions are on display.  The constrained vision saw the attempt to give cheap or free housing as bound to fail, since it eliminates the personal pride of ownership, etc, etc.  The unconstrained vision saw the removal of an impediment (lack of housing) as something to be fixed with the providing of free apartments.
History has shown which vision was vindicated. 
The application of the analysis of visions as it applies to power, equality, justice, law, economics will take us further into the book.  I am now reading chapter 5.