> He does take a conservative approach to a lot of topics... Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles [1] is, ironically, a very good starting point in understanding what makes Sowell "conservative" (the Constrained Vision) vs "progressive" (the Unconstrained Vision). I think this is the work that impressed Steven Pinker. The categories get really messy, for example when he describes Marxism as a hybrid ideology, but the core idea is that people tend to believe either: 1. we are made of crooked timber and are made better by social structure, or 2. our…
When it comes to redlining, sowell directly addresses it in in Vision of the Anointed. He points out that the kinds of houses blacks tend to purchase tends to be ignored in studies that find widespread discrimination. For example blacks are much more likely to want to buy multi family homes. The income and other requirements for these are much stricter which is why they are denied loans more often. Moreover, he points out that if blacks were being subject to stricter requirements then one would expect that they were less likely to default since the requirements are notionally to calculate…
According to Sowell's "Conflict of visions" theory, the primary difference between people with right wing vs left wing views is their intuitive assumption about the span of human nature. If you believe that human nature is malleable, perfectible and essentially good, then you tend to assume that the span of human potential is very large, i.e. the gap between the best of us and the worst of us is large. Sowell shows how this leads through basic logical deduction to left wing views. On the other hand if you believe that human nature is essentially fixed, unchanging over time and flawed, then…
> The above description makes left wing views sound superior to right wing views, which was not my intention. It certainly wouldn't be Sowell's intention (you don't get to be a Hoover Institute fellow with that kind of attitude.) > In fact Sowell's book lays down an extremely fair and balanced description of both right and left wing beliefs and assumptions, with IMHO no discernable bias between them. As I understand it, A Conflict of Visions is the first part of a trilogy whose overall thrust, as I understand, is an attack on the "unconstrained" vision (the one you ascribe to the left…
A classic text on the philosophical underpinnings of (US) liberalism with regard to economic redistribution policies is A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, a renowned professor of philosophy at Harvard. After reading Rawls, I'd suggest maybe reading Robert Nozick's libertarian leaning Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Nozick was another distinguished philosopher from Harvard writing about the same time as Rawls. Nozick comes to a completely different conclusion than Rawls. Both books are good and completely accessible to an ordinary reader (i.e. philosophy degree not required). However, they are…
Most decisions put to referendum in Switzerland don't require deep knowledge. In fact most decisions governments make don't - they can't because neither politicians nor civil servants are chosen on the basis of their specialised knowledge. Typical issues that go to referendum in Switzerland range from the trivial (shall we raise taxes to build a new football stadium/road tunnel/etc), to the constitutional (should international treaties be able to override referendums... that one is running at the moment). In none of these cases is a decision so complex that it can't be understood by everyone…
This set of observations has been made repeatedly throughout history, albeit usually in works that sink immediately into obscurity. That's a pity because the key insights are very important. The same theme - why do so many intellectuals find themselves supporting dictatorships long after the rest of the world has understood their true nature - has been extensively explored by Sowell in books like Intellectuals & Society, and a Conflict of Visions. He finds similar explanations: * Difficulty in accepting that individuals are inherently limited and corruptible, and that ideas are often…
> now they send me emails telling me that as a liberal, I am radical, insane, an anti Semite, and hate America Political rhetoric has always been inflamed. I see it from my liberal west coast politicians. I see it from friends and family. You yourself have said that all conservatives are alt-right. > If there are conservatives that don't engage with the world like this, I want to get a drink with them, on me, because I've lost hope. The truth, I suspect, is that they are probably all around you. Most people are not particularly introspective or philosophical when it comes to politics,…
I'm glad we had this productive exchange (and since this is the internet, I will explicitly state that I say this without sarcasm). I think you and I both agree with your point: > I think the question should be how to improve the social mobility chances for those below the median but we differ on the "how", as well as having a more (me) or less (you) optimistic view on the current state of things in the country. Perhaps it's fair to say that you see income and wealth inequality as the proximate cause of what ails us, and an expanded role of government, funded through more…
I have read more books by Thomas Sowell than by any other author, by a very wide margin. The one which has influenced me the most is the one which best captures the fundamental principles underlying his view of the world: A Conflict of Visions. I'd suggest it as required reading for anyone who wants to fully appreciate Sowell's work, as it provides insight into how he makes normative judgments about the merits of economic policy choices. In general Sowell does an excellent job of demonstrating through data that the outcomes of economic policies are often directly at odds with their stated…