Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ben Connelly's avatar

“ an unconstrained vision when it comes to the power and majesty of God's plan for his children.”

So, depending on what you mean by that, I still think it could fall under the constrained vision. Many religious people are constrained thinkers, in that they hold an unconstrained view of God (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.) but don’t think that human beings, human societies, human institutions, or human technologies can be like God in that way. I’m deeply skeptical of human attempts to achieve the things which only God can do, which are misguided at best and idolatrous at worst.

“ Man cannot perfect himself... Virtuous society and the perfectibility of man rely upon the ends of government being nothing more and nothing less than establishing the sovereignty and liberty of free people. Only then can the spirit of God act upon men uninhibited and unfettered. Only then can men be free to act according to the dictates of their conscience and freely choose the unique paths God has prepared for them.“

That strikes me as still very much a constrained view, not a hybrid of the two. You still believe in constrained means to the end of a virtuous society. I believe Sowell says that the two visions are primarily just visions of social organization, and don’t necessarily apply to theology or other realms.

Do you believe that we can identify individuals or institutions (governments, churches), which are far enough along in being perfected that they are capable of ruling over those who are not so far along? I’m not sure where you are in the book, but that would be an unconstrained view of inequality between individuals vs. a rough equality in the constrained view (ie we’re all limited and flawed and imperfect).

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts