Visions and Conflict part 3
In part two of his essay Sowell applies his ideas of the constrained vs. the unconstrained vision to various topics that frequently cause conflict in social discourse.
The first topic addressed is EQUALITY. It should be obvious that equality is viewed differently by those of different visions. For the constrained view the important issue is PROCESS oriented. For the unconstrained view the issue is RESULTS.
Burke, Hayek, and Alexander Hamilton are quoted in support of the constrained vision. Hamilton's words are apt. "All men are entitled to a parity of privileges "but he anticipated that economic inequality "would exist as long as liberty existed". That is the rub. Equal opportunity never guarantees equal outcomes. When government forces equal outcomes there is a corresponding loss of autonomy and freedom. Conservatives generally hold the constrained vision, that sees social processes that give equal treatment as fair and just, even when outcomes are NOT equal for any particular group. In this view the words of Jesus when he comments that "the poor you will have with you always" are taken to imply that we are not able to create a heaven on earth, but must learn to accept and live with maldistributions of economic resources. How to rationalize this comment with others such as "it is harder for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" has kept theologians busy for the last two thousand years.
Conservatives would generally agree with Hayek that "irremediable inequalities" exist and will frustrate any effort to remove them. It is the constrained vision that sees man's capability as limited. The unconstrained vision see's no such fundamental limits and sees results as the only fair and just way to measure equality. It assumes more intellectual and moral capacity than can be shown to exist.
There is a particularly significant quote from Milton Friedman that bears repeating. " A society that puts equality-in the sense of equality of outcome-ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests." It seems that SCOTUS ignored that wisdom in finding the mandate to purchase health care insurance constitutional. When you have the force of the IRS, which includes the right to place a citizen in prison, used to enforce obamacare the possibility of misuse by those in power seems all to real a possibility.
The Unconstrained vision held by most progressives sees no such fundamental limitations in man. When results are the measure of equality the existing order is seen as unjust. This drives the progressive to find ways of "redistributing" resources. The small fact that the only way to do this is to steal from someone else is seen as acceptable. Providing "compensatory advantage" such as reparations or affirmative action is thus a major goal of progressives, and influences all discussions of public social policy.
A major point made by Sowell is that causation is part of the unconstrained vision. Some groups have so little BECAUSE other groups have so much. The rich are seen as taking from the poor. For this reason alone redistribution is fair.
Neither vision denies the existence of the poor. It is how society should deal with the problem that brings conflict. The constrained view is that capitalism and free markets bring about a rising tide that lifts all boats including the poor. The unconstrained view is that the "ill gotten wealth" of the rich should be taken from them and given i.e. redistributed to the poor. This is the language of socialism. Margaret Thatcher famously said once that the biggest problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money. That is the dilemma facing Greece and for that matter Illinois and California. No better example of the results of the unconstrained vision exist than in the fiscal mess of these two blue progressive states.
