Philosophical differences underlining thoughts and traditions:

There are certain things in which almost all humans are fundamentally different philosophically, even if it is unknown to them. Our discussion here is on these things, and what it means. This is not intended to really move into a discussion of which one is good or bad, better or best, etc., but merely to show that if these differences are encountered, they will always reach to the same ultimate conclusions, simply because of a difference of opinion in certain primary places. Once this is recognized, debate can move forward by realizing these differences are irrevocable. (Note: This is primarily taken from Thomas Sowell's book, "A Conflict of Vision". I was highly impressed after reading this book, much moreso than I thought I would initially. I'm planning on getting more of his books to further find out his ideas on political ideologies. Since this is merely a summary of an erudite work, I'd strongly recommend anyone who is interested in this discussion pick up his book. His website is also available at http://www.tsowell.com/ This isn't straight from his book, I've added my own thoughts and comments in places.)

A Vision of Man:

In my morality essay, I touch a little bit about the nature of man. Specifically, I look at feral children who are raised by animals, the closest thing we have to humans raised by instinct rather than by human knowledge or motivation. I'll look at a few other examples as well.

"I consider the subject of the following discourse as one of the most interesting questions philosophy can propose, and unhappily for us, one of the most thorny that philosophers can have to solve. For how shall we know the source of inequality between men, if we do not begin by knowing mankind? And how shall man hope to see himself as nature made him, across all the changes which the succession of place and time must have produced in his original constitution?" (¹)

Turner told a Samoan, (a "savage") about the poor in London, who were dying in the streets from starvation, and the Samoan couldn't believe it. He innocently asked, "How is it? No food? No friends? No house to live in? Where did he grow? Are there no houses belonging to his friends?" The idea of letting someone starve to death in the streets seemed entirely unresonable to this Samoan. Likewise, Native Americans had a saying that while someone had corn, no one would starve. The Inuits had no idea of personal possession, and instead, all tools were for anyone's use, and anyone who caught food would give it to the entire community.

Why is this? Almost all of these people are semi-nomads, or nomads. The Bedouins of Arabia have no concept of time, likewise, most nomadic people don't; it simply doesn't matter. Since time doesn't matter, what is accumulated during temporal existence is also greatly negated, after all, why worry about the future? Perhaps as one Inuit said when an explorer asked him what he was thinking: "My belly is full, what should I be thinking about?"

Because of the above, most people seem to think the people of our early ancestory were benevolent,. However, like modern times, they were always hostile to any foreign groups, no matter how small the units are between them. As such, inter-tribe trading was usually done in certain places which had some sort of a sacred connection, (i.e. special time of the year, special place, special road, etc.), where violence was not permitted. In groups without any form of authority, they lived in groups of ten or less people to a tribe. Man, by his very nature, seems to have what Immanuel Kant called "asocial sociability."

This changes once a society stops being nomadic. When this happens, everything revolves around time. Almost all of the earliest civilizations popped up right around rivers, such as Egypt, Sumeria, India, and China. Some scholars believe that this was because the earlier years of our civilizations didn't have as much rain as we do now, so that life on the river was much more intristic to survival, and also explaining why people didn't move to more fertile lands, and chose instead to stay close to the river.

The areas near the river had the greatest density of edible plants, and also the greatest amount of foreign wildlife. As societies became less nomadic, problems started arising. In small units, or little tribes, everyone knows everybody. Thus, whenever a fight or dispute breaks out, mediators who know both sides of the family start to console each of the two, so that tempers flare down and peace is made. This doesn't happen in bigger units. When a unit gets too big, a fight will break out where people will either know neither, or just one, of the participants of the fight. Naturally, a friend of one guy will go into the fight to help him out, and friends of the other guy will join in, then friends of the friend who joined the fight, etc. By the time it ends, there is massive bloodshed happening. Talking to a few Jewish scholars, they told me that the Old Testament "Eye for an eye" commandment was revolutionary because prior to that, elaborate systems of revenge would lead to family feuds lasting for years. An "eye for an eye" was a less severe, yet still equally just solution.

Anyway, small units usually have the "big man" or the "big woman", that is to say, someone whom everyone values the opinion of. You won't know this person by what he/she wears, or anything external, but at any tribal meeting, this person has the most weight in what he/she says. Most likely, larger tribes noting the need for cohesion elected the "big man", (or else this person nominated themselves, as they tend to be more proactive than other villagers), to the top. This person became the professional mediator of all disputes.

Now we have a person who is obviously in charge of a unit, but there still won't be any differences externally, perhaps outside of the fact that this person tends to village life more than actual production itself. The next part of this is the domestication of animals. Whenever animals become domesticated, it becomes easy to have effective labor, meaning that more people can be supported per acre. Along with this probably comes irrigation, a way to also increase the population of an area.

Now we have more people to an area, which means that more power has to be given to the "big man" who is now a ruler. As such, laws now have to be made and passed, because this man cannot deal with each individual account on an individual basis. These laws have to be enforced somehow, so that people realize who the "big man" is. Early kings apparently found it useful to declare themselves Gods, and their former life would be forgotten as just being a regular "Joe". Without writing, and amongst people without much perception of temporality, that wasn't a very long time span. (Other hypothesis abound, such as Alexander Hislop's proposal, following a fourth century BCE Greek, that all hero's and Gods were once defied kings, or kings that were greatly loved. The people liked the "big man" so much they made him a God. This line of reasoning has serious flaws in it though. More than likely, as is often the case, the kings identified themselves with the native God, rather than vice versa.)

One historian wrote that: "In the primitive group we find as a rule no distinction between slave and free, no serfdom, no caste, and little if any distinction between chief and followers." Lester Ward has written that: "The state as distinct from the tribal organization begins with the conquest of one race by another." Inside of a state, a diverse amount of groups are reconciled under one autonomy. More important than law, however, is custom. Custom is from within the people themselves, not something established by a ruler. Custom is the natural selection process by which the things which have insured the survival of a group are cherished.

We may also note that despite repeated feminist myths, women were never really honored as much as they say. For example, they point out that women ruled tribes in North America and Central America, and that they were educated with men. While that's true, they neglect to mention that women did all the work, because they were "twice as strong as men", according to one Indian chief who was amazed that white men did all the work. In Central America, women were so universally associated with work that the Central Americans believed that the oxen were white mens' wives, because they carried the heaviest load. The insistence upon physical beauty is a relatively new trend, ancient civilizations didn't care about how their women looked so much, only upon how much work they could produce. They were very pragmatic.

Here we have a fairly good starting point for discussion. Early mankind has the following characteristics:

Lack of interest in anything other than survival:
Very practical outlook on the use of women:
Not particularly inclined to thinking:
Very egaliterian, shared everything
Not prone to violence amongst the group, but very prone to violence against outside groups. Also held inflated opinions of themselves. When the Inuits first met white men, they thought white men were there to learn their excellent manners. *

There we see all of our discussion materials for what we are getting into.

(For my sources on the preceding information, see these:

• Will Durant "Our Oriental Heritage", Vol I of "Story of Civilization"
• Jared Diamond "Guns, Germs, and Steel"
• Goldwin Smith "The Heritage of Man"
• William McNeill "A World History"
• Ostrowski & Kemper "Echoes of Time, a World History"
• Morton Hunt, "The Story of Psychology"

* The problem, or at least part of it, can be explained by these articles:

"Ninety-four percent of university professors think they are better at their jobs than their colleagues. Twenty-five percent of college students believe they are in the top 1% in terms of their ability to get along with others. Seventy percent of college students think they are above average in leadership ability. Only two percent think they are below average."

Thomas Gilovich "How We Know What Isn't So"

"Eighty-five percent of medical students think it is improper for politicians to accept gifts from lobbyists. Only 46 percent think it's improper for physicians to accept gifts from drug companies."

Dr. Ashley Wazana JAMA Vol. 283 No. 3, January 19, 2000

"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains....This overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments," by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology December 1999 Vol. 77, No. 6, 1121-1134.

One never looks as objectively at oneself or ones group as they will at other people's groups. The only thing infinite is the human capacity for self-deception. Thanks to Robert Carroll and his website for these illuminating finds.

For information on the views presented in the following article, I have found that almost every book listed thus far in this essay can be found online at here. onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/)

View of Mankind, the Constrained versus Unconstrained view:

The term is a misnomer, as no one believes 100% in an unconstrained view, nor does anyone believe in a 100% constrained view. Rather, it's more or less to degrees in which one holds a constrained versus an unconstrained view. Let's discuss these differences.

In the constrained view of humanity, humans are basically "limited" by certain factors, but from philosophers who espouse this ideology, it is mainly from humans limited morality, knowledge, and consideration for other human beings. Philosophers in this tradition are Alexander Hamilton, Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Hobbes, along with Oliver Wendell Holmes and Friedrich A. Hayek. Ayn Rand would be a more modern figure which promoted this viewpoint. They tend to see humankind as inherently evil, and social organizations such as the government, clergy, moral traditions, the marketplace, and families are necessary institutions to keep humans from relapsing into their evil ways. Hayek expressed this sentiment when he said "indispensable rules of the free society require from us much that is unpleasant."

In contrast, the other view is the unconstrained view, best stated by Rousseau when he said that man is "born free" but "is everywhere in chains." (Alexander Herzen gave the constrained visions retort when he said: 'That makes as much sense as to say: "Fish were born to fly, but everywhere they swim."') What he meant was that humans are not evil by nature, rather, the institutions which govern mankind are. A constrained philosopher will then comment that what are institutions but the cumulative reflection of mankind? The way the writers of "The Federalist Papers" put it:

"It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of the government. But what is the government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?"

Rousseau saw this problem as an institutional one to create dividing interests, because "men are not naturally enemies." Another unconstrained philosopher, Condorcet, saw society as one where men's natural inclinations, if followed, would coincide with the social good. Other notables were Voltaire, Thomas Paine, and D'Holbach. The overall theory of the unconstrained view is that foolish and immoral choices are the root of the World's ills, and that wiser, more humane, and more moral social policies are the solution.

To begin a more in-depth look at the constrained theory, we can do no better than to start off with Adam Smith and his book "Theory of Moral Sentiments". The example that Smith gives is that if we were to suddenly witness China destroyed by natural circumstances, we would feel sorry for them, reflect on the frailty of life, and maybe ponder our purpose here. The more practical man might start thinking about commerce, trade, and business, and how they would be effected by this loss. (The beginning of his economic theories.) Adam Smith tells us all this would be gone in a flash, in just one moment, men around the World would then go about their regular business or pleasure, as if nothing happened. However, were something to happen to himself, such as losing a pinky, he would be more deeply unsettled than the death of 1.8 billion people.

While the unconstrained philosopher will lament the egocentricity of man, Adam Smith only saw them as facts of life, nothing which could be changed anymore than our genetic make-up. His fundamental position was to accept these limitations, as you can do nothing about them, and find a way to work within the constraints of the system. Smith tells us that if you were to somehow pump us with the ability to fully feel the devastation of the Chinese, it would do nothing but make man miserable, without even slightly helping the Chinese. In his words "Nature, it seems, when she loaded us with our own sorrows, thought that they were enough, and therefore did not command us to take any further share in those of others, than what was necessary to prompt us to relieve them." (²)

The major difference is that while the unconstrained view emphasizes changing mankind's nature, the constrained viewpoint looks at it within the system. Hamilton puts it that "It is the lot of all human institutions, even those of the most perfect kind, to have defects as well as excellencies -- ill as well as good propensities. This results from the imperfection of the Institutor, Man." (³)

Adam Smith was favorable to an egoistic opinion of humanity, though he did believe that though we would sacrifice ourselves for greater good, it was not due to loving our neighbors as ourselves, but rather to factors such as moral principles, honor, and nobility. Smith ultimately saw life as cumulating to incentives for good actions, rather than dispositions towards getting them done. (⁴)

Meanwhile, in the unconstrained view as presented by William Godwin, we find the intention to benefit others as being "of the essense of virtue", (⁵) and while Smith's economic system was ultimately based upon unintentional social benefits, Godwin didn't consider unintentional social benefits as worthy of consideration. Godwin had a belief that man was capable of directly feeling other people's needs moreso than his own or his families, and thus acting consistently and impartially within this. It was not meant as a statement for how humankind was, merely as an example as what it could be. A constrained philosopher would believe no such "can" exists. Godwin promoted social altruism by saying it was possible to achieve directly what Smith was aiming for indirectly: "If a thousand men are to be benefited, I ought to recollect that I am only an atom in the comparison, and to reason accordingly." (⁶) An act should be done because it is right, not because a self-interest attachment such as psychological, social, economic, or other forms of satisfaction are derived from it.

Here, I'll make a psychological comment. If you reward someone extraneously for something which is intristically rewarding, they will lose interest in the activity without reinforcement. This was tested by letting kids draw, which is a beneficial reward in and of itself. Kids love to draw without having to give them anything for it. When researchers started giving gifts to the kids for drawing, they subconsciously believed the satisfaction of drawing derived not from drawing itself, but from the gifts. Consequently, kids who had been rewarded were less likely to engage in drawing than their non-awarded counterparts. This is an interesting discussion for things like homework, doing chores, etc. The question which would arise here is whether or not acting in an altruistic fashion is intristically rewarding or not.

Ultimately, the unconstrained view is best expressed by Condorcet when he talks about the beautiful natural man, "corrupted by prejudices, artificial passions and social customs." (⁷)

What is the ultimate conclusion from the two sides? Burke wrote that "Nothing is good but in proportion and with reference". In short, everything is a trade-off. While the unconstrained has a view that human nature can go above and beyond the trivial, the constrained one has no such notion for humanity, and holds instead that we engage in a series of trade-offs for one vice to a virtue. Humans' competitive drive for sole domination fuels the capitalist market. The taxing of our vices pays for school projects. So on and so forth.

The unconstrained viewpoint is one in which the potential is very different from the actual, and that there exists some mean for improving human nature towards its potential, or that such a method can be discovered or created, so that men will do the right thing for the right reason, instead of using a system of incentives and punishments to induce the proper behavior of mankind.

1. Rousseau, preface of "On the Origin of Inequality"
2. Adam Smith, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments", p. 108
3. "Selected Writings and Speeches of Alexander Hamilton" ed. Morton J. Frisch, p. 390
4. Smith, op. cit. pp. 234 - 235
5. William Godwin, "Enquiry Concerning Political Justice", Vol. 1, p. 156
6. Op. cit. Vol. II, p. 103
7. Antoine-Nicolas de Condorcet, "Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind", pp. 52-53

Knowledge, Reason, and Human Capacity

The constrained vision has man by himself primarily being something which is limited and finite in understanding. In this view, a lone man by himself does not possess the facilities to influence society and even to make decisions for himself, and thus, the only way that things can work is by input from contemporaries and from past generations. Knowledge is gained primarily from experience, and transmitted indirectly via prices, competition, preferences, traditions, etc. These experiences form a primacy of survival, in which those that have stood the test of time are the most priceless. Friedrich Hayek states that:

"The growth of knowledge and the growth of civilization are the same only if we interpret knowledge to include all the human adaptations to environment in which past experience has been incorporated." (⁸)

In this setting, it is not so much individual knowledge that is important as it is social institutions and competition of societies which shows which are the most effective and which ones are the least effective. In addition, values which were good at tribal level will not work when larger groups of people come into play, and vice versa. That's why Hamilton writes that "What may be good at Philidelphia may be bad at Paris and ridiculous at Petersburgh." (⁹) Overall, man has been better served by intuition and custom than by independant reasoning skills. Since failures, inadequacies, and other such things are the norm, Burke shrugs it off by saying "I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes." (¹⁰)

Meanwhile, the unconstrained viewpoint has an entirely different way of looking at things. To them, experience is overrated and "unreasonably magnified", nothing in comparison to the facilities of the seasoned mind. The wisdom of the ages was merely the delusion of the masses, and Godwin puts it that "we must bring everything to the standard of reason." All things must be questioned, and not merely accepted because they are ancient, accustomed to it, or because it is peculiar and unnatural to question it. Condorcet likewise expressed disdain of tradition by stating that whatever bears the marks of time should inspire distrust rather than respect. Not only should it inspire distrust, but the idea of collective wisdom is merely a delusion. This was inspired because "persons of narrow views and observations" are always ready to accept whatever happens in society as the norm.

The other point of this is that the unconstrained view realizes the inequalities of intelligence amongst those with great reasoning facilities and those without them. The only way for intellectual improvement to occur is that the mind of an individual should, as quickly as possible, raise itself to the height of knowledge within the enlightened members of the community, and start from there in pursuit of even greater gains.

In the constrained theory, wisdom cannot be extracted, so that everything is merely a cumulative reflection of wise actions without any knowledge of why they are wise, or what makes them that way, merely "wisdom without reflection". In the unconstrained view, human beings have the capacity, the desire, and the obligation to use reason in all decisions. Though there are things which are wisdom without reason, such as emotions, they can be conquered through the proper use of reasoning facilities. Those who have the knowledge should run the society, as Rousseau states that it is "the best and most natural arrangement for the wisest to govern the multitude." (¹¹) As D'Alembert states, even if the most intellectual are not running society, (a meritocracy) the most natural way of running a society, and the most enjoyable, is when the ruling class is in agreement with those who instruct it.

The constrained vision is opposite. The danger of intellectualism as seen by the constrained vision is those holding the unconstrained vision are limited by their disdain of tradition. They are simply confining knowledge to their own limited scope, and that though there are those who exceed in their region, the overall spectrum of human intelligence was too large to be grasped by a single person or group, thus the knowledge of people is fragmented and dispersed too far apart to be of any use as a standard, and the systematic actions of the many are thus the best way to formulate a society. Society should not be formed from planning, nor from the council of the wise few, but instead, by natural circumstances.

The power, and ability, of articulated systems versus unplanned systems are the key thing which pops-up here. In an unconstrained ideology, it falls back onto the role of reasoning capacities, in which to act without "explicit reason" is to act upon "prepossession and prejudice." (¹²) For Godwin, "Discussion is the path that leads to discovery and demonstration." We should have a mastery of language, for it is the vehicle with which knowledge is dispensed. For them, reason is synonymous with virtue, and the day when men must avow their actions, and assign reason unto them, is the great day for humanity. Meanwhile, Oliver Wendell Holmes shows the constrained view of this, in which laws are not made by human reason, but instead, "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." (¹³)

Articulation and mastery of language was not necessary, for many laws were made on an expression of intuition which could not be distilled by words, and which may even be disasterous to try and do so. The law does not follow mathematical laws, it is not developed from general axioms of conduct. John Stuart Mill thought this to be false, the laws of Moses, and of Muhammad, and of Lycurgus, and of Solon were all as durable as any law of evolution. To look only at the laws as a form of legal precedents carried around in a linear fashion is an "absurd sacrifice of present ends to antiquated means." (¹⁴) At first, Mill seems to be on the side of an unconstrained view, but after taking the full weight of his provisions to that comment, that those who make the laws have taken into account what the people will bear, and thus, by expression of ancient customs and habits, have formed a whole system of durable and strenuous laws, without which the whole system would collapse inoperable, and this depends primarily upon institutions representing compromises between adverse interests and expectations, without which no system could last even a week. That isn't much different from what Hayek says, "all the famous early law-givers did not intend to create new law but merely to state what law was and had always been." (¹⁵) It was thus just the formal expression of ancient practices.

Ultimately, what this starts going down to his how much rights do our ancestors have in present discussions? For example, Chief Justice Earl Warren speaks about circumstances today being "far beyond the wisdom of even the wisest of the Founding Fathers." A prime example would be the discussion of gun control. At the time of the writing of the constitution, guns were used to defend against authoritarian rule from the English. Hunting really wasn't the reason that there was a right to keep firearms. Because our founding fathers have been given an almost God-like level of elevation, the appeal to authority for them is often used, demonstrating the constrained system. What was the intention of these past generations when they formed these rules? In an unconstrained view, you can go for or against guns, but based upon contemporary evidence. (E.g. bicycles kill more kids annually than guns do.)

What is the pay-off of these methods in social theory? The unconstrained view will almost always lead to a view that there must be more equalized means in society and economics. Even if this means that the natural chosen state is where inequality exists. In order for theories from more intellectual and moral people to be implimented, there must be a group with more power as well. Essentially, it serves to promote equalitarian ends through unequaliterian means.

Meanwhile, the constrained vision does not promote much in terms of economic and social equality. It couldn't care less. Instead, the vision of the constrained is upon the dangers of inequality of powers. In the unconstrained view, the wise and conscientious individuals of a society should work together to shape it to the best it can be. In the constrained vision, man must simply accept his limitations, and accept the special duties of his institutional role, and let the progress of society determine what he should do best at. In essense, Burke writes that "I revere men in the functions which belong to them" (¹⁶), but not anything which is beyond their function. In other words, while the unconstrained view sees man as the macrocosm, the constrained view only sees him as a cog in a greater network of tradition, social systematic complexity, and his place within it.

In the unconstrained view, business men should practice social responsibility, they should hire, invest, donate, do charity, and other such things with an eye on the benefits of society. The constrained view would find that approach nonsensical, if you want a businessman to do charity, you should make a trade-off by giving him tax cut-offs, with the simultaneous advantage of appearing a good person by social standards. In other words, another trade-off instead of a solution, a compromise instead of a resolution. Adam Smith, speaking of the role of businessmen, puts it that "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." (¹⁷) To Adams, the businessman does more good when he doesn't mean to than when he does mean to, simply because he lacks the ability to ever understand how to truly do things right.

As old as philosophy has been the debate over the highest virtue as well, and here we see no differences. In the unconstrained view expressed by Godwin, sincerity was the highest virtue. His whole point of writing was to strengthen the individual's "sincerity, fortitude, and justice." While people do act insincerely from time to time, the consequences of society acting in a sincere manner would bring about powerful and profound changes.

Sincerity is not, however, looked upon as a virtue to the constrained vision. The central virtue of the constrained view is fidelity. In specific, the Marxist/Kantian form of fidelity, fidelity to ones duty and role in life. For example, in the constrained vision, a businessman only knows a small amount, and is limited in scope. Thus, his fidelity is only to the immediate scope of knowledge, a businessman only owes his fidelity to the stockholders. Similarily, a judge is only to uphold the laws, not to change them for what he thinks would make them better. (¹⁸) Sincerity has little use to the constrained view, because, in the words of J. A. Schumpeter, "The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie." (¹⁹)

In the unconstrained view, a problem is blamed upon the opponents' lack of understanding, so they are unknowledgeable, have hidden agendas, ulterior motives, or other such obfuscation problems. To the constrained viewpoint, none of that really exists. The problem is just that no individual can collectively grasp something, so that men "may do the worst of things without being the worst of men". (²⁰)

The constrained vision lends itself to idealize the formalization of titles, roles, and status quo. Someone fulfills their role in life by faithfully serving the processes which gave him/her this role. On the unconstrained side, effort is made to break down the use of stereotypical language, to de-formalize groups, and to make it so that there is less difference between the role of teacher and student, parent and child, etc. Constrained views also tend to have an objectification to how women/men should act and behave, how teachers should behave, how employees should behave, etc., while an unconstrained view is less stereotypical.

However, in this unconstrained/constrained viewpoint, we must not over-stereotype ourselves. Even philosophers which lean towards one side or the other, (as no one is 100% on either side), have disagreements with other philosophers in that same area. For instance, both Godwin and Lenin were unconstrained philosophers, but while Godwin believed in sincerity in all things, and to all people, as the highest ideal, Lenin believed that the ruling elite have enormous responsibilities, and in order to fulfill those responsibilities, they must use every means at their disposal, including lying and deception.

As we go further, we find that the experience versus knowledge goes into the outlook on youth. The unconstrained philosophy views children as a sort of untapped potential, which can be molded, fitted, and made to productive members. Such a thing in the constrained view is unnatural, virtue is from experience, and thus, the youth have little to offer. In the constrained philosophy, it was common to hear "I am... speaking to the grey-headed men of this nation..." while the unconstrained philosophers viewed it that old men were set in their ways, so that "prejudice and avarice" are "common to old age."

To summarize, the definition of what constitutes knowledge is the primary thing which we find at the heart of the difference between the unconstrained and the constrained philosophy. While the unconstrained views knowledge as a form of language, to be expressed, learned, deciphered, and transmitted; the constrained views it as something transmitted more subconsciously than consciously, through habits, aversions, traditions, words, numbers, and something which is only spread amongst a broad population instead of centered upon a few gifted people. This is because the constrained philosophy has put such limitations on what any individual man can know, and hence, has limited what the conscious person can ever truly do.

8. Hayek, "The Constitution of Liberty", p. 26
9. Hamilton, op. cit., p. 455
10. Edmund Burke, "Reflections on the Revolution in France" p. 140
11. Rousseau "The Social Contract" p. 115
12. William Godwin, "Enquiry Concerning Political Justice", Vol I, p. 385
13. Holmes, "The Common Law" p. 1
14. Mill, "Collected Words", Vol. XVIII, p. 43n
15. Hayek, "Law, Legislation, and Liberty" Vol. 1, p. 81
16. Burke, "Reflections on the Revolution in France" p. 42

17. For those of you who aren't familiar with John Nash and his theory, he disproved Adam's with a simple test. Adam's believed that mutual competition and self-interest would create the achievement of goals, but Nash had another theory. To test it, he was at a bar with three of his friends. One gorgeous girl walked in with four decent-looking females. Nash said that if all four of them tried going after the gorgeous girl, which would be mutual self-interest, they would fail because the four of them working on the same girl would cause them to get in each other's way. After they failed with her, they would go for her friends, which would cause the friends to reject them because nobody wants to be second-string. Instead, if all four of them went after the girl's friends first, they would all achieve their objective, which was getting laid. By taking into account their own self-interest, and the interests of others, they would achieve a mutual goal. This is called the "Nash Equilibrium". In fancier terms, "If there is a set of strategies with the property that no player can benefit by changing their strategy while the other players keep their strategies unchanged, then that set of strategies and the corresponding payoffs constitute the Nash Equilibrium." The equilibrium is found when two competitors realize that going after the best will result in mutual failure, and thus, they seek alternative routes to end the conflict. Various solutions can be found within the paradigm. The ultimate conclusion is the one I reached on morality; the best outcome is received when self-interest and the interests of others are put together. What Ayn Rand calls "Rational egoism", doing what is best for oneself by looking at how it affects others.

18. My objection to this is that if we only were upholding the law, instead of changing it for betterment, there would be no law in the first place. Tradition didn't promulgate laws, someone/somewhere decided them, even if it was a council of them. This has exceptions, such as Lex Talonis, or the laws of the Bedouin, which was governed by tradition and

19. Schumpeter, "History of Economic Analysis", p. 43
20. Burke, "Correspondence of Edmund Burke", Vol. VIII, p. 138.

Visions of Social Progress:

Noting the failure of an individual perceived by the constrained vision, the vision of social progress also changes as well. The constrained vision sees social progress as a series of steps, not marked by reason, logic, or other such formal processes, but instead, by success. Here we can see the differences of polarity or degrees between members of constrained vision and unconstrained vision. On the constrained side, Edmund Burke gave an example of how an idea evolves from its creator, with the people who change the theory or modify it, over the years, not being nearly as smart as the original person, even if they are more right than the creator. That was his way of showing how social progression works, without regard to reason, or pure intellectual capabilities. Hayek extended his criticism beyond that.

Burke, taken to his logical extreme, would seem to be implying that social progression is something which individuals can consciously alter. Hayek goes further and says that:

"Tradition is not something constant but the product of a process of selection guide not by reason but by success."

On the unconstrained viewpoint, humans possess the knowledge to critically examine what is exactly at stake and interest, so that they may evaluate it fully. When the analysis is complete, the public interest can be specified, and a group of specialists in the field can make a more "command" than "tradition" economy and utilize that to the best interest. Social issues are thus relied upon by social experts instead of the arduous trial-and-error survival of the fittest social tradition.

While constrained viewpoints tend to see things like military conflicts, wars, and such things as inevitable testimony to man's limited nature, the unconstrained viewpoint sees no such limitation. George Bernard Shaw had the best way of putting it, that conflicts "could have settled with the greatest ease, without the shedding of one drop of blood, if they had been on decent human terms with one another instead of on competitive capitalistic terms." (²¹) For the unconstrained viewpoint, it's not man's nature, but instead, a system which creates antagonism between members that is responsible for the problems of war, self-interest, capitalism, and preservation.

Another fundamental difference is how the ability to change law and regulations work, especially in light of new information. When William Godwin argued against Locke's social contract, he asked:

"Am I precluded from better information for the whole course of my life? And, if not for my whole life, why for a year, a week, or even an hour?" (²²)

Godwin believed that we needlessly restricted the effect of knowledge in our actions. Going back to how different outlooks affect the virtues of that outlook, the unconstrained vision sees gratitude, loyalty, oaths of fidelity, social traditions, constitutions, and patriotism as essentially commitments to behave a certain way, and they are inhibiting in that they might prevent you from acting the way you would on an impartial analysis. (²³) On the subject of a judicial system barred by past precedents, Godwin tells us:

"An enlightened and reasonable judicature would have recourse, in order to decide the cause before them, to no code but the code of reason. They would feel the absurdity of other men's teaching them what they should think, and pretending to understand the case before them before it happened, better than they who had all the circumstances under their inspection." (²⁴)

The case which Burke brought against this was that humans, being incapable of progression as more than a social construct or illusion, had not actually learned anything new, but was merely rehashing old arguments:

"We know that we have made no discoveries, and we think that no discoveries are to be made, in morality; nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty..." (²⁵)

Therefore, being bound by tradition was perfectly acceptable, the people making the decisions in the past had access to as much information as is available. Even if a judicial system which requires the lawmakers and judges to be bound by past tradition is inferior to one where the judges could decide everything without prior obligations, it would lead to unknown rules, which would cause greater civil disrest. The process costs from revising the code constantly would outweigh the benefits of individual rulings.

In short here, the constrained vision centers upon stability in society. Adam Smith shows this well when he states that: "The peace and order of society is of more importance than even the relief of the miserable." "The rich and great are too often preferred to the wise and virtuous", the former involving lower process costs so that "the peace and order of society" is better placed upon the shoulders of the "plain and palpable difference of birth and fortune than upon the invisible and often uncertain difference of wisdom and virtue".

The unconstrained vision is looking at how to find a solution to the problems we are in, the constrained vision is looking for a trade-off. For the price of individual bad decisions, Hayek goes so far as to say that judges should rule in accordance with the laws, even if they know the laws are wrong, and the consequences which are "wholly undesireable", are paid so that social destabilization doesn't occur. Social progress is slowed down by social stability.

21. Bernard Shaw, "The Intelligent Woman's Guide to Socialism and Capitalism", p. 154
22. Godwin, "Enquiry Concerning Political Justice", Vol. 1, p. 245

23. For example, many people after the attack on the World Trade Center in America on 9/11/01 would not comment about America's barbaric and often brutal tactics overseas due to a feeling of patriotism and loyalty.

24. Godwin, op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 351-352
25. Burke, "Reflections on the Revolution in France", p. 83

Variations in the Visions

Most people do not consciously "know" what social vision they hold. Therefore, outside of a few people like Godwin or Adam Smith, the vast majority of people have pre-cognitive analysis, or a priori assumptions, meaning that before they can empirically prove their assumption, they have developed one and are now merely seeking empirical proof to confirm their vision. Because most people don't even know what vision they have, let alone why they even have it, you can find plenty of people who are on one side or the other of the fence. (²⁶)

The constrained vision sees life ultimately as having all forms of happiness unobtainable. I cannot marry the woman I *really* want to marry, and even if I could, I still couldn't have sex with *all* the women I want to, nor can I eat all the food that I want to, nor can I work all the jobs I want to, etc. Humans suffer because we can't have what we want, one of the basic constraining points. (²⁷)

The constrained vision maintains that not only is mankind incapable of having the resources, internal and external, to satisfy its desires, but also that individuals will not accept limits on their own desires with what is socially available, except when social constraints are put upon them and forcibly maintained. In this sense, the Church is seen in the constrained vision as having a more viable role, even if one is an atheist, because it is used as a traditional means of maintaining social morality. (²⁸) Particularly because the Church has power to enforce morality that no other institute has.

In contrast, the unconstrained vision sees it that humans can behave in such a way that practical social solutions can be accepted, and do not have to be imposed. In the unconstrained vision, it is not necessary for humans to all be intelligent, which is seemingly what the constrained vision implies, the unconstrained vision states it ipso facto that others will advance far beyond their peers, and that these people should be the ones whom society follows.

This is necessary to understand because the discussion is on mixed, or in some cases, conflicting visions of constrained/unconstrained philosophy. In Fascism, the form of decision-making is surrogate, which would seem to make it an unconstrained theory. However, the mode of decision-making and appointing leaders is not based upon articulated rationality. They use emotional language disdained by unconstrained philosophers, (nationalism, racism, institutional loyalty), and they use violence as a political force.

Likewise, Marxism is essentially a constrained philosophy towards the past, and an unconstrained one towards the future. Each generation gets closer to communism, and through the growth of knowledge, science, and technology, we start to unyoke our constraints. For example, one historian put it that in no ancient society, was there ever as large a population as today that went about well-fed. (²⁹)

In Marx's theory, the past was revolved around the principle that nothing else better was available, so what was best was what was available. Marx varied from traditional constrained theories in that he didn't see the problem as a problem of human nature, but rather, of material production, which was being pushed back by science. Engles, his right-hand man, echoed this with "the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom." (³⁰)

Marx shares the constrained outlook on life as being systematic progression rather than intentional progress. "what each individual wills is obstructed by everyone else, and what emerges is something that no one willed." (^31/11) The unconstrained vision takes place in the unforseen future, when the individual possessed "the positive power to assert his individualism" and not just "the negative power to avoid this or that."

Another hybrid theory was found in Utilitarianism. Developed primarily by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, it also shares dual blends of both theories, though Mill actively sought to make it a hybrid theory. Bentham conceived man as being limited by his selfish, relentless nature, but even with this severe moral problem, he also possessed something else, a vast intellectual database. In particular, man had the ability to conceive of a method to rationally structure society to make the "greatest good for the greatest number." He conceived of a method of incentives, to be enforced by the government, of promoting the happiness of society through a system of rewards and punishment. Though very rigid in government's control of morality, he was not so in economics, where he chided Adam Smith for not taking his laissez-faire approach far enough.

In Bentham's form, utilitarianism is unconstrained in law and politics, though only moderately so. In economics, it is constrained, though with a difference, making it more moderated. While Smith saw the reason that legislatures should not redistribute wealth is because such decisions are beyond the rational capabilities of man, Bentham argued against it on rational grounds, that the insecurity of property would reduce subsequent production.

Meanwhile, Mill had different ideas. Mill is famous for being one of the few philosophers who actively sought out all systems they could utilize for a new philosophy. While we've noted that in most cases, empirical proof comes after the hypothesis, Mill was constantly revising his, even deliberately using Samuel Taylor Coleridge as an opposite, and complementary, corrective force for his social vision. You can either label Mill's work as a finely balanced consideration of the issues, or an internally inconsistent eclecticism, but whatever the case, it makes it impossible to call Mill's vision one thing or another.

For example, he believes that while institutional morality, (appeals to nationalism, appeals to benevolence), have been useful, many people have acted in good solely from conscience and moral obligations. If they can do it, why can't others do so as well? He believes that though laws are made and not evolved, they are hopelessly ineffective if not in accord with traditions and customs.

Another example of a growing mixed theory is libertarianism, sharing in constrained theories expounded by Hayek and Smith, while relying upon Godwin's vision of society and the unconstrained theory of rational decision making. Also, while one might have a constrained vision of non-government interference, one might also believe in emergencies like war or a house burning down that individuals should forget about private interest and serve a greater good.

It's an interesting note that the constrained philosophy and unconstrained philosophy don't differ that much. Smith, a quintessential spokesman for the constrained philosophy, held similar opinions on many things with Godwin. Both believed in the innate equality of man, the inequalities of wealth and status, the arrogance of the privileged, and that intelligence was a matter of upbringing. However, because of other fundamental differences, they reached entirely different conclusions about what should be done because of this.

What is surprising is that while the unconstrained philosophy preaches egaliterianism, it also shows a disdain for the common people. Godwin, Rousseau, Condorcet, George Bernard Shaw, and Gunnar Myrdal have depictions of the common people as being nothing more than ignorant masses, serving nothing and no one.

26. Religions are notorious for having an unconstrained vision, but only in terms of their religion. As an example, the constrained vision within Holy Books is apparent, those without God, (or their God), have no morals, are unwise, vain, evil, and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, those with God are exalted, free from sin, wise, full of good morals, and so on and so forth. As an example, in the Zoroastrian holy book, it says: "The wise shall rule over the foolish, but to raise them up." The wise in this context are those possessing knowledge of the Avesta.

27. In Karen Horney's psychological theory, this is a neurotic claim, a claim someone makes when they believe they are rightfully entitled to everything they want. In Adler's psychology theory, this is a neurotic fiction, a guiding fiction which is so completely divorced from reality that it leaves whomever would even want to achieve it completely unfulfilled and dissatisfied.

28. Seneca and a few other ancient secular philosophers talk about how religion is used to maintain rule over those who would be disorderly without it. The sentiment has many modern-day echoings by some secularists and many non-secularists.

29. The gentleman who made this comment has escaped me, but he was speaking of agrarian ancient nations. Surprising to many people, in fertile areas, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle was far superior to the agrarian lifestyle. Most hunter-gatherers went about fed for longer periods of time, and fed better, being as they were not at the mercy of an agrarian cycle.

30. Marx and Engles, "Basic Writings on Politics and Philosophy", p. 109
31. ibid., p. 399

Use of Power

As we can tell, the ideas surrounding equality and how it should be enforced put great chasms between the constrained and unconstrained viewpoint, and in particular, how much and how often power should be used. While the unconstrained vision tends to see power as something which should be used arbitrarily, the constrained vision sees it as something which has many unforseen consequences, and thus, the use of power cannot be effective for its intended means.

In a sense of peace versus war, the constrained vision looks at war as a natural problem because of man's limitations, and thus, seeks to find out why there is peace or law and order. It sees war as a containable problem. The unconstrained viewpoint looks upon war as the result of something, and thus, seeks to reduce the probabilities of war. Typical of an unconstrained vision, the following is recommendations on how to decrease war:

1. More influence from the intellectually and morally advanced people
2. Better communication between potential enemies
3. A muting of military rhetoric
4. A restraint on the production of military alliances
5. A de-emphasis of nationalism and patriotism
6. Negotiating the differences with the highest probability to cause war between potential adversaries.

The constrained vision looks upon this entirely differently. The fact of war is easy to explain, people wish to gain benefits for themselves, their group, or their nation, whether or not they are in fact right. As the constrained vision holds a limitation on how much humans can know, they seem to accept it that rulers will probably be wrong in their intended benefits of war. Instead of seeking to stop military aggression through reason, they seek to end war through logic of numbers. That is to say, to make it as logically impossible to believe that attacking a certain place or group will produce benefits. Thus, their method of reducing war is:

1. Raising the cost of war to potential aggressors by arming groups and by forming military alliances
2. Arousal of the public to dangers
3. Promotion of patriotism and a willingness to fight.
4. Relying on your adversaries knowledge of your fighting capabilities moreso than your negotiating capabilities.
5. Negotiating only within the context of deterrent strength and avoiding concessions to blackmail, as it would only encourage further blackmail.
6. Rely more upon the words of the mass possessing good sense and fortitude than intellectuals swayed by words.

War is a big preoccupation within the unconstrained vision, the constrained vision just looks at as something natural which exists, and can merely be deterred, not stopped. Thus while the unconstrained vision saw military men as being lesser, Adam Smith and the constrained vision saw him as a more noble man than the rest, though acknowledging the detrimental side effects which the unconstrained vision expounded upon. He knew that being called to battle diminished the sanctity of life, and that patriotism had many harmful side effects, but this was a trade-off for social peace and security Smith was more than content with.

Likewise, while the constrained vision sees crime as something which happens naturally, as nothing merely more than the forceful assertion of egos, interests, and feelings above those of other people, the unconstrained vision has a different outlook. Condorcet asked:

"Is there any vicious habit, any practice contrary to good faith, any crime, whose origin and first cause cannot be traced back to legislation, the institutions, the prejudices of the country wherein this habit, this practice, this crime can be observed?" (³²)

Ramsey Clark, "Crime in America" expresses an unconstrained viewpoint of crime:

"The basic solution for most crime is economic -- homes, health, education, employment, beauty. If the law is to be enforced -- and rights fulfilled for the poor -- we must end poverty. Until we do, there will be no equal protection of the laws. To permit conditions that breed antisocial conduct to continue is our greatest crime."

Adam Smith saw crime as resulting from something else. Smith saw boundless examples where if the law were not in place, there would be innumerable natural incentives to cause the people to commit crimes. Thus, punishment of criminals is the only way to ensure the stability of society and the prevention of crime itself, but the humane would resist it because:

"When the guilty is about to suffer that just retaliation, which the natural indignation of mankind tells them is due to his crimes; when the insolence of his injustice is broken and humbled by the terror of his approaching punishment; when he ceases to be an object of fear, with the generous and humane he begins to be an object of pity. The thought of what he is about to suffer extinguishes their resentment for the sufferings of others to which he has given occasion. They are disposed to pardon and forgive him, and to save him from the punishment, which in all their cool hours they had considered as retribution due such crimes. Here, therefore, they have occasion to call to their assistance the consideration of the general interest of society. They counterbalance the impulse of this weak and partial humanity, by the dictates of a humanity that is more generous and comprehensive. They reflect that mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent, and oppose to the emotions of compassion which they feel for a particular person, a more enlarged compassion which they feel for mankind."

We spoke earlier of how even amongst constrained and unconstrained visions there were fundamental differences. In the question of power, another one comes up. Godwin believed that the many would ultimately reflect the wisdom and virtue of the few, but many others of unconstrained vision tended to side more towards totalitarianism. Individualism is regarded differently by the unconstrained vision, where the moral-intellectual pioneers are exempt from regular services and from the social pressures of the masses. By contrast, the masses are not free from the influence of the moral-intellectuals.

32. Condorcet, "Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind", p. 193

Some Reflections:

Alexis de Tocqueville observed, "Political liberty bestows exalted pleasures, from time to time, upon a certain number of citizens. Equality confers a number of small enjoyments on every man." But he warmed, "The evils which extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed."

Somehow in Thomas More's Utopia people willingly cast aside their natural instincts and forego owning property in this mythical egalitarian society. His humanistic view of man's nature is similar to that of Rousseau who attributes the evil in men to the trappings of civilization. This may be contrasted with a more realistic view of man held by the framers of our constitution who did not believe in the perfection of human nature. Hamilton in the Federalist Papers calls attention to man as being "a ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious." Also not one to rely on man's perfection and more in tune with modem experience, Thomas Hobbes wrote in the Leviathan that a strong central government is necessary to achieve equality and ban private property. It is difficult to disagree with the words of eighteenth century French physiocrat, Mercier de la Riviere: "I admit, however, that the inequalities in the status of man in any given society may have been caused by great disorders which often tend to increase inequalities beyond their natural and necessary proportions. But does this mean that one ought to establish complete equality of conditions? Obviously not, for in order to do so, it would be necessary to destroy all property and consequently society."

Since de la Riviere, history has shown the lure of equality to be the bait for tyranny. Four years before his death in 1793, French mobs stormed the Bastille, beginning the revolution that had the idealistic (and oxymoronic) motto of liberty, equality and fraternity. The chaos and butchery of that revolution ended with Napoleon as emperor. Communist revolutions in this century have resulted in totalitarianism.

The danger in societies today is not destroying all property to get complete equality but destroying some property, e.g. redistribution of wealth, to try to get too much equality. Liberty is consequently reduced and its offsprings, initiative and entrepreneurship, are encumbered. However, we must not make the mistake of basing the argument for liberty solely on maternalistic grounds, although wealth is one benefit of liberty, and wealth and private property are necessary, though not sufficient, conditions for sustaining liberty.

In conclusion, we can see how the differences of vision shape the ideas which come from following them to their logical conclusions:

Nature of Human Beings

Nature of Social Institutions

Nature of Social Progress