Assumptions behind Modern Political Ideologies

Walter Morawa

Assumptions behind Modern Political Ideologies[1]

What are the assumptions behind the modern political ideologies?  What are the social visions of man that lead to particular conclusions as to the manner that a society or government should be run?  Why do the same people end up on opposite sides of arguments when discussing such disparate topics as gun control, global warming policy, education, affirmative action, and many others matters?  We hardly ever try to answer these important questions.  It is fascinating how often the same people line up, time-and-again, arguing on differing sides of such varying issues.  A close look at what is occurring shows that these people are arguing from different basic premises.  In essence, these people have different visions of how the world works.  Joseph Schumpeter defines a vision as a “pre-analytic cognitive act”[2].  Basically, this means it is a set of assumptions about the world that the person holding these views may not even have thought about, but they nevertheless exist.  Visions are the foundation on which a hypothesis about the world can be built.  They must leave certain elements out due to the fact that the world is much too complicated to comprehend in its entirety, and there are probably more visions than there are people.  However, since these visions ultimately lead to conclusions as to how a government or society should be run, they are immensely impactful. Visions and ideas run the world, in a sense.  Most people believe in their visions dogmatically, but they are not willing to take the time to actually think about them.  The primary objective of this essay is to examine the underlying assumptions and visions of human causation and how this has led to such differing objectives as to the proper functions of government and organization of society[3].

            There are two main visions that encompass the majority of the modern political conflicts.  These visions could be labeled as unconstrained and constrained; others have called them utopian and tragic, respectively, and the modern categorization could be liberal and conservative in the American sense.  It is important to note that this dichotomization is imperfect, that there are differences among people with the same vision, and that these visions do not line up exactly with what today is called the left- right political spectrum.  There are also varying degrees of each vision; however, for pragmatic purposes, this separation will be used.  These descriptions coincide sufficiently to be used interchangeably.  In addition, it must be noted that the visions described are the more radical visions and are polar opposites; there would be little reason to observe the differences between the lesser degrees of the visions because there would not be as clear distinctions of the ideologies.  These strong distinctions are what make the studying of this topic possible.  With these warnings, it is now possible to outline the two most prominent visions of the world (Jensen).

            The visions first clash in their conception of human nature, and this is crucial to understanding the differences that lead to such radically divergent conclusions on a range of matters.  Adam Smith espoused the constrained view in his Theory of Moral Sentiments.  He described the moral limitations of man and his self-centeredness; however, Smith never regarded these things as capable of being changed.  Essentially, human nature is fixed.  The social challenge was to make the best of the world within these constraints rather than pointlessly endeavor on changing the nature of man; therefore, Smith attempted to determine how the social benefits could come about in the most efficient way[4].  Alexander Hamilton likewise described the constrained vision in The Federalist Papers when he spoke of “imperfections of man”[5].  Although man is selfish, he can be brought to do good for society through such devotion to moral principles or to concepts of honor. Through such artificial devices, man could sacrifice his own self for others; these concepts are seen by the constrained vision as the most efficient way to benefit society.  It is a system of incentives or a set of trade-offs rather than a real solution by changing the very nature of man.  It views that the functioning of society required each individual to do things for others, but the motivation for this is self-centered; therefore, there must be a system of incentives created to do this under. An example of such constraints would be prices in the market or customs and mores in social relations[6]. 

            The unconstrained vision has a diametrically opposed view of the nature of humans.  Human nature itself is what can be changed, according to the unconstrained view. Human nature has the potential to improve; this is not only on the individual level, but entire societies can change too.  Where the constrained vision says that socially beneficial behavior can only be brought about by a system of incentives, the unconstrained vision believes that man’s understanding and disposition can intentionally create social benefits.  This is why intentions are central to the unconstrained vision.  This can be seen in modern times when many liberals speak of public policy in terms of the intentions of the programs that are being pushed by politicians.  In essence, man is capable of feeling other’s needs as more important than his own and acting impartially to directly benefit society.  This is not an explanation of how most humans currently act; it is a statement of the potential of human nature.  Unlike the constrained view that regards selfishness as a given, the liberal vision regards it as being promoted by the system of incentives.  The real solution is to have people do the right thing because it is right.  This view was exemplified by Marquis de Condorcet. On the other hand, Mark Levin discusses this unconstrained vision in his book Ameritopia, where he argues that the vision of man that leads many to believe in a “utopia” ends up destroying society.  He was explicitly rejecting the unconstrained vision, and therefore, assuring commitment to the constrained vision of man[7]. This conflict between the visions has existed through centuries, as can be seen today through the divisive nature of politics. This shows just how impactful ideas can be.  It is not important to describe which vision is more accurate; it is simply noteworthy that they still persist today[8]. 

Due to the differences in the views of man’s nature, it is obvious that certain problems arise; the first is in trade-offs versus solutions.  The constrained vision holds prudence or the careful weighing of trade-offs as paramount.  This is because man’s intellect and morality are limited, and so people must be cautious in making decisions.  Trade-offs are inevitable in a world of limits and scarcity.  The unconstrained vision, however, believes the potential for human nature to be much higher than what it is currently, and so if people change their disposition or attitudes, then there is essentially a solution that supersedes a trade-off.  Human nature is not intrinsically fixed, and scarcity is a secondary feature of reality.  This unconstrained vision would ask the question, “What will remove the negative features in this existing situation in order to create a solution?”  The constrained or tragic vision would ask, “What trade-off will be made, and what are the costs of implementing such a policy?”[9]        

            The biggest problems in the world, things such as war, poverty, and crime, are seen in radically different terms based on the opposing views of man.  If human options are inherently limited, as the constrained or conservative vision sees the world, then the presence of such evils is obvious.  Man is selfish and will take advantage of others whenever he gets the opportunity to do so.  This means that it is not war, poverty, and crime that need explaining, but peace, prosperity, and a law-abiding society that need explaining.  This vision sees the evils of the world coming from the unhappy and limited choices of human beings, and for these problems to be reduced, one must rely on systematic characteristics of social processes such as moral traditions, the marketplaces, families, or marriage.  This makes it clear why conservatives tend to support these traditions in policy.  Society is basically invaded by barbarians every time an infant is born as Jonah Goldberg once said.  Children must be civilized before it is too late.  On the other hand, if man is not limited, as the unconstrained or liberal vision believes, then what needs explaining is why there is poverty or war.  In man’s natural state there would be no reason to fight.  As Rousseau said, “man is born free, but is everywhere in chains,” or the contemporary version The Better Angels of Our Nature[10]. The problem is not nature or man but the institutions around man that cause problems, according to the liberal vision[11]. 

            Given the wider capabilities of man in the unconstrained vision, it is the intentions of man that are crucial.  Strong adherence to the “social cause” is imperative because this is the best way to produce socially beneficial results.  However, in the constrained vision, where one’s ability to directly change things due to one’s intentions is very limited, intentions mean much less.  This is why in one vision, systematic processes are extremely important as a means of coping with life’s problems, while in the other vision it is the sincerity and an attempt to directly produce social benefits through the use of surrogate decision-makers, which is crucial.  Therefore, based on one’s initial view of human nature, an entire set of conclusions relating to knowledge, morality, power, rationality, war, freedom, and law can be affected[12].

The next important disagreement for the conservative and liberal visions is knowledge in society and how it is distributed; these visions differ not only in their definition of knowledge, but they also differ in their conception of how it is concentration.  In the constrained vision, an individual’s knowledge is inadequate for social decision-making.  The ties among society are what make anything possible; prices in the marketplace or social values among the public being the obvious examples. Community and life are only possible because of numerous social arrangements that coordinate knowledge; this is why the proponents of this vision support free-markets, for example.  Knowledge is predominantly experience- from prices indicating scarcity in the marketplace, to traditions which evolve from the day-to-day experiences of millions of people.  Friedrich A. Hayek wrote extensively describing this view.  It is not explicitly spoken rationality that plays an important role, but instead, it is the evolution of society through competition of effective cultural traits.  Knowledge is the social experience of the people, as shown in their behavior and habits, rather than the articulated rationality of the best and brightest of society.  The unconstrained vision has an opposed view on the role of human knowledge and its application.  William Godwin describes this view by rejecting the experience of people for what he considered “the general power of a cultivated mind.”  Given the ability of this mind to apply reason, it would be futile to use the unarticulated processes of the constrained vision, if not outright harmful.  He believed that there were people who were sufficiently superior to others in the intellectual and moral realms that they should push society towards higher levels.  This can be seen today when many people urge for the decisions of others to be regulated in order to protect the individual through consumer advocacy, for example.  Implicit in this vision is that there is a vast difference between the minds of the average people and the intellect of those “cultivated minds.” President Obama clearly spoke in the unconstrained vision of knowledge when he was criticizing Republicans and said, “They should go and talk to some energy experts and actually make a difference.” This was implying that there are people in society with sufficient knowledge superior to others to be able to make decisions for others[13]. 

            This difference in knowledge leads to a difference in the importance of articulated rationality versus systemic rationality.  Where knowledge is defined, in the conservative vision, to include vast amounts of information both articulated and unarticulated, summarized in diverse habits, attractions, and experience, as well as in words and numbers, then knowledge is spread much more throughout a society. It is dispersed throughout the society meaning that even the most intelligent and knowledgeable person contains hardly any knowledge compared to the whole.  However, if knowledge is mostly conceived to be articulated rationality, spoken by people with superior knowledge than others, as in the unconstrained or liberal vision, then there is a major difference between the average person and those with said superior knowledge.  This is why intellectuals play a crucial role in such a society, according to the unconstrained vision, while playing a useless role at best, and a dangerous role at worse, according to the constrained vision.  The current healthcare debate is a great example of this conflict of visions.  Operating from the assumptions of the tragic vision, Paul Ryan proposed that the government gives money back to the individuals. Obama, operating from the assumptions of the utopian vision, believes healthcare is too complex for the average person to comprehend; therefore, the government should make decisions for the people.  Based on a different conception of man, these visions battle not only in their conclusions of many topics but also in their very definitions[14].

            Due to all of these conflicts, a division is created when discussing social processes. What is a social process? Each vision views these processes slightly differently, but both visions acknowledge that social processes have an order, whether or not that order is designed. The constrained vision puts very little faith in deliberately designed social processes due to the fact that it has little faith that any manageable set of people could make decisions that could handle the complexities of a society.  Two Soviet economists, when criticizing the failure of the communist regime, spoke of the impossibility of a group of decision makers keeping track of 24 million prices[15]. This vision relies on evolved social processes and evaluates them in terms of their characteristics rather than goals or intentions; this is why the conservative vision places so much importance on traditional values and strong adherence to morality in the moral realm.  On the other hand, without this assumption of man’s limits, there is strong case for rational planning of society.  For example, if rational planning of the economy is effective, then this result is much more desirable than the chaos of the marketplace.  An ordered economy, directed by third-party decision-makers, is clearly a better answer; the radical form of this vision or idea is socialism or communism.  There is often a desire to directly attempt to produce beneficial results from surrogate decision-makers in the unconstrained vision of man, making third-party decisions play a key role. By contrast, the constrained vision does not see there being sufficient knowledge amongst elites to be able to direct society in an efficient way; this was basically the thesis of much of Milton Friedman’s work in economics.  In summary, due to the constrained vision viewing man as inherently limited, social benefits can only be produced through the evolution of social processes whose characteristics are judged based on the incentives created. The unconstrained vision views man’s capabilities as much higher; therefore, direct social benefits can be achieved, and this is done most effectively by surrogate decision-makers. This conflict extends into visions of power, equality, and justice, exacerbating the clash of ideologies (Jensen). 

            Now that the differences between the importance of processes, in the constrained vision, and results, in the unconstrained vision, can be seen, an understanding of the more important conflicts can be reached.  Albeit both visions are fundamentally concerned with results, the constrained vision simply believes it to be beyond man’s capabilities to directly influence results, and thus concentrates on effective social processes.  Therefore, when discussing certain concepts each vision argues from different premises, due to a lack of agreement on definitions. This results in vastly divergent conclusions. 

            Equality is perceived in the unconstrained and constrained visions in such unlike terms to mean almost opposite things.  Equality is a process characteristic in the conservative vision and a result characteristic in the liberal vision.  According to Edmund Burke, who was illustrating the constrained vision, “all men have equal rights; but not to equal things.”  Milton Friedman likewise promoted the constrained vision in his critique of the unconstrained vision when he said, “a society that puts equality before freedom will get neither.  A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”  Here, equality has been seen as a process characteristic. Ranging from equal application of the law to everyone, to equality of opportunity in the marketplace, what is crucial is that man is not sufficiently knowledgeable to directly influence socially beneficial results. This vision, therefore, relies on processes to produce desired results; the proponents of this vision do not argue that it is impossible to reduce certain outcomes, but that the processes created to produce these outcomes create their own inequalities, an example of a trade-off as opposed to a solution. On the other end of the spectrum, however, those with the unconstrained vision of the nature of man assume that direct control of results is possible; this means that to stop at merely formal process-equality would be improper and harmful. Man can achieve socially desired results if people yield their decision-making powers to those with a superior range of knowledge.  The whole concept behind closing the gap between the rich and the poor comes from the idea of inequalities of result[16].  Another example would be the governmental policy of affirmative action.  This policy is a set of initiatives set about in an attempt to help eliminate and ameliorate past discriminations based on a wide range of qualifications. This is founded on the results-oriented definition of equality. This particular equality of outcomes is different than a certain pre-conceived notion that people should have the same end results, and this means that there are certain injustices occurring that must be corrected[17].  The constrained vision contradicts this by stating as long as the same rules apply equally to everyone and that everyone has the same equality of opportunity, then it does not matter what the end results are.  This is based on the assumption that man is inherently limited, and so the results of processes are beyond the competence of man to do anything significant about the results.  In the unconstrained vision, cause and effect are involved.  According to this reasoning, certain people have little because others have more. According to the constrained vision, however, these inequalities were not assumed to be products of a social system, but instead, mitigated by these systems[18]. 

            The important distinction in understanding these two visions is not simply in the perceptions of how man currently acts, but in the potential of man.  The average person is not seen in positive terms according to the unconstrained vision.  They are often described as ignorant or backwards, and this makes sense based on the initial premise that human nature is changeable. Certain people are further ahead than others intellectually and morally, and these people should lead others in the proper direction. The difference between the most intelligent and the most average person is vast in the unconstrained vision. This is one of the crucial justifications of economic equalization; it will allow the masses to improve themselves and enjoy life more fully.  To the constrained vision, the gap between the actual nature of man and its potential is virtually non-existent.  This means there is little difference between an elite and an ordinary person.  It is not in the degree of equalization that the visions differ; it is in what actually needs to be equalized.  In the unconstrained vision, results should be made more equal, while in the constrained vision, processes should be equal[19]. 

            The role of power is paramount in understanding the difference in modern political ideologies.  Power is seen in the unconstrained vision as a result, while in the constrained vision as a process.  This means that, according to the unconstrained vision, if a person is able to change the result of another person, then that person has power over that person.  For example, if a business offers a customer a great deal on a product, and this makes the person choose that product over other alternatives then that company or business has in effect exerted power over the individual customer.  This makes it easy to see why liberals lament the exploitation of business and “market power;” they are looking in terms of results.  The constrained vision, on the other hand, views power as a process.  The only way an entity exerts power over another entity or individual is by limiting that person’s pre-existing set of options.  If a company adds to the options of an individual, then this company has no power over the individual. However, if the company were to force people at gunpoint to actually buy their product, then this would clearly be an example of the use of power. Power in social decision-making has tended for these reasons to be the explanation of many social problems, according to the liberal vision.  That is, much of what happens in society is described as an intentional exertion of power; this power can be military, political, or economic. Consequently, negative social circumstances can more readily be condemned morally. A conservative might see social problems in terms of processes; therefore, power is given a much less explanatory role. The two visions basically argue past each other.  This in turn leads to differences on issues related to force such as war and peace or crime and punishment[20]. 

            War is a terrible thing, and this fact is conceded by both visions.  However, based on certain assumptions of the nature of man, definite conclusions must be drawn.  The liberal vision tends to describe war in terms of intellectual misunderstandings or paranoid emotional irrationalities.  Therefore, the conclusions reached as to the best way of maintaining peace are the exact opposite of the constrained vision. The conservative vision understands war as coming naturally from the inherently selfish nature of man. The liberal vision sees no reason for there to be war based on human nature. Therefore, while the liberal vision stresses better communications, a restraint on alliances, a de-emphasis on nationalism or patriotism, and a restraint on armament production, the conservative vision emphasizes military preparedness, promotion of patriotism, and negotiating only when the adversary is well aware of the superiority of their country.  This is extended into the arena of crime and the effectiveness of punishment.  They are also seen in opposed terms; a conservative sees crime as originating in human nature, and institutions contain and reduce crime, while a liberal sees crime as unnatural occurrence resulting from human institutions. Therefore, William Godwin described a common liberal theme when describing the most effective way of reducing crime: “The basic solution for most crime is economic… If the law is to be enforced… we must end poverty.”  For those with the conservative vision of man, people commit crimes simply because they are people. They commit crimes because they put their own selfishness above others.  The conservative or constrained vision subsequently emphasizes social mores and customs to prevent crime and punishment to deter it.  Due to differing conceptions of the nature of man, and consequently power, these visions clash as to the most effective way of reducing some of the worst evils of the world, namely war and crime[21].

            Justice is often considered one of the prime virtues of society; however, depending on one’s vision, the concept of justice can vary greatly.  For example, Adam Smith and John Rawls both dubbed justice as the most important feature of society.  Smith, who epitomizes the constrained vision, viewed justice as a process, while Rawls, a liberal in the modern American sense, viewed justice as a result.  This follows closely to the aforementioned clash of ideologies.  B.F. Skinner described the utopian vision in much of his work, including Walden Two.  In this novel, people found true meaning in life by experimenting and defying the traditional view.  He argues for social justice and uses fictional literature to push for this objective.  In this unconstrained vision, rights that are based on justice are considered invariably more important than other social considerations.  This encapsulates the idea of solutions that is central to this vision; there should be no trade-offs due to the importance of these rights.  Justice is categorically paramount, and rights that are derived from justice are supreme.  Therefore, people have a “right” to healthcare, education, a living wage, food, a minimum standard of living, and many others because these rights are derivative from justice.  On the other end of ideology, conservatism argues that society cannot survive unless the laws of justice are observed; this means that justice derives its importance from the need to preserve society. Man will suffer more due to the breakdown of order than a few minor injustices. Consequently, this vision is a vision of trade-offs[22]. 

            Legal justice is obviously an area where the two visions disagree. Oliver Holmes personified the constrained view of justice when he said, “the law takes no account of the infinite varieties of temperament, intellect, and education of man.”  This would be something for the “courts of heaven” to deal with; however, in normal relations, it is simply much too difficult for any judge to comprehend all of the circumstances of particular cases and must judge equally.  This is based on viewing justice in terms of processes.  As long as everyone is treated the same under the law, then the process is just, whether or not different people end up with disproportionate results.  The different results are an injustice, but, since it is beyond the capabilities of man to fix, then it is a necessary trade-off as opposed to a solution, according to the constrained vision.  A simple example of this would be a foot race.  As long as everyone in the race starts off at the same place, it does not matter that one person is significantly faster than the other participants and wins the race every time.  If people all face the same rules, then justice has been served; this is clearly from the point of view of processes since the results are different.  The unconstrained vision views justice from results as would declare this system unfair because it is undoubtedly biased due to the fact that the same person wins the race every time it is run.  Therefore, certain “income distributions” are unfair and should be different.  Third-parties, acting as surrogate decision-makers, should direct society in order to produce desired results.  “The rich do not pay their fair share” is a common phrase spouted from the political left.  This is extended into the justice system in the form of judicial activism. Where particular results are deemed preferable to other results, judges should directly influence the system. For example, if a criminal commits a crime, the judge ruling should not merely interpret the criminal’s deviation from the law, but should look at the underlying factors that contributed to the person’s crime.  Society is often blamed, due to its lack of compassion for the poor. The 1950’s activist Supreme Court epitomizes this unconstrained vision. Criminals were given many more rights, and the courts judged criminals in a result-oriented manner. The conservative does not argue that these results would not be preferable, but he simply believes it to be impossible to achieve. Moreover, it would be dangerous to place power in the hands of judges to “legislate from the bench.” There is not enough knowledge that judges could possibly possess in order to actually know what factors went into the criminal committing a crime. Therefore, the judge must limit himself or herself to ruling on the basis of pre-existing law. Additionally, it is not that the judges are unable to make a more kind and compassionate ruling towards an individual; according to the conservative view, the danger lies in the general undermining of existing law. Criminals may see the way the judges are behaving towards other delinquents and change their behavior accordingly.  The system of incentives has been changed. Again, this vision views in terms of systematic incentives, while the unconstrained vision ignores this on the basis of results.  The visions once again dismiss the other’s premises[23]. 

            One last note should be made on the application of these issues, especially in regards to libertarians. Not much has been discussed about libertarians and that is for a number of reasons.  They do not easily characterize under this system of dichotomy; the typical distinction is “socially liberal and fiscally conservative.” Furthermore, libertarians can be broken into left-leaning and right-leaning.  The unconstrained libertarians have much more faith in rationality and are often pacifistic.  Additionally, due to the extreme degree of unconstrained view, they desire a very small government and emphasis civil liberties. In this sense they follow William Godwin.  He was likely the father of libertarianism.  The “constrained” libertarians would likely be people like F.A. Hayek, Thomas Sowell, and Milton Friedman, to name a few.  They emphasis spontaneous generation, social processes and the general public’s superiority to elites[24].   

            Behind the outbreaks of specific political and social issues, there is a pattern of ideas throughout many people in the world.  These implied assumptions repeatedly divide controversialists at all levels of thinking, on a wide range of topics, spanning from economics to law to social mores to government.  As has now been seen, the importance of visions is indisputable.  Not every topic has been discussed, but the inherent logic of each vision has been examined. Although these conflicts tend to be emotional, each vision tends to generate conclusions that follow logically based on initial assumptions.  The point is not to determine the validity of a vision, but merely to analyze the assumptions behind it.  It is easy to obfuscate the visions due to differing definitions of words like equality, freedom, justice, and power.  These confusions are built around differing axioms of the nature of man.  Despite how vigorously people defend their ideologies, it is possible for these visions of the world to be changed.  This analysis can elucidate many of the issues without reducing devotion to one’s vision; however, with a clearer understanding of the underlying assumptions behind the modern political ideologies genuine intellectual dialogue is possible[25].               

Works Cited

Altus, Deborah E. "B. F. Skinner's Utopian Vision: Behind and Beyond Walden Two." NCBI. N.p., 2009. Web. 13 Mar. 2012.

Burke, Edmund. Thoughts of the Present Discontents . N.p., 1886. Print.

Daly, Herman E. "The Economist's Response to EcoIogical Issues ELEMENTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MACROECONOMICS." Jay Square. N.p., 1991. Web. 13 Mar. 2012.

Hamilton, Alexander. "Federalist Number 8." The Federalist Papers. New York
City, 1787. N. pag. Print.

Hayek, Fredrich A. The Road to Serfdom. N.p.: n.p., 1944. Print.

Jensen, Gavin. "Trade-offs vs. Solutions." Paradigms and Politics. N.p., 2011. Web. 13 Mar. 2012.

Levin, Mark R. Ameritopia. New York City: Simon and Schuster, 2012. N. pag. Print.

Raines, David. "Closing the Gap Between Rich and Poor." The New York Time 9 Mar. 2012: n. pag. Print.

Smith, Adam. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. London , 1759. Print.

Sowell, Thomas. A Conflict of Vision. N.p.: Basic Books, 2006. Print.

Sowell, Thomas. Basic Economics. New York City: Basic Books, 2011. N. pag. Print.

Sykes, Marquita. "The Origins of Affirmative Action." National Organization for Women . N.p., 1995. Web. 13 Mar. 2012.

              

---

[1] This work is not entirely original. It is my attempt to summarize Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions. I find it more important to disseminate the views to a larger crowd, than to produce a completely original work.

[2] Haly

[3] Sowell A Conflict of Visions

[4] Smith

[5] Hamilton

[6] Sowell A Conflict of Visions

[7] Levin

[8] Sowell A Conflict of Visions

[9] Sowell A Conflict of Visions

[10] Steven Pinker

[11] Jensen

[12] Sowell Ibid

[13] Sowell A Conflict of Visions

[14] Ibid

[15] Basic Economics

[16] Raines

[17] Sykes

[18] Sowell A Conflict of Visions

[19] Ibid

[20] Sowell A Conflict of Visions

[21] Jensen

[22] Sowell A Conflict of Visions

[23] Hayek

[24] This is necessarily a very short discussion and distinction, but it is intended to be a primer, not exhaustive.

[25] The majority of the ideas from this paper are taken from Thomas Sowell’s A Conflict of Visions. I hope to provide this as a general primer to political philosophy and a sort of guide to major issues.