PART 1/4

PART 1/4

Why are some people conservatives and some people liberals? Why can people never agree on anything? Well, let me explain it to you:

Every ideological conflict in the free world can be traced back to a fundamental ideological division. It's what economist Thomas Sowell refers to as the "conflict of visions"

Essentially, there are two conflicting visions on the nature of humanity. This idea exists on a spectrum, but for the sake of simplicity, think of it as black & while whilst reading this comment:

There is a "constrained" vision of humanity, and an "unconstrained" one.

The unconstrained vision is basically the idea that humans have infinite potential. That humanity is "perfectible". That through cultivating our minds, we can elevate ourselves above nature and improve to the point of perfection.

The constraned vision argues the opposite. That humanity has a limited capacity for self-improvement. That we are limited in our mental and physical capacity, and no matter how much we read & study, there is, put quite simply, a ceiling to our potential.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=W8N3FF_3KvU
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/04/27/quick-data-dump-on-some-studies-on-the-heritability-of-political-views/
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/02/24/first-worldism-part-3-the-heritability-of-political-views/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

PART 2/4

Through these two conflicting, underlying perceptions, numerous disagreements arise. Take, for example, some man who has been imprisoned for a morally justifiable act (Nicolas Cage in Con Air). This man has done something morally justifiable, but in the eyes of the law, he is a criminal, and should serve in prison.

Someone with the unconstrained vision would see this as atrocious. It is entirely unacceptable that Nicolas Cage must go to prison, and the law is insufficient in achieving justice. Therefore, to take the extremist perspective of this vision (remember, this is not in actuality black & white), each legal case should be considered individually. The law is insufficient & outdated, and is hindering the perfectibility of human nature and society.

The constrained vision, on the other hand, would agree that it is an injustice, but argue that following the law is crucially important. Because when you perceive humanity to be intellectually constrained, the law becomes something greater than any one individual. It is the culmination of decades of intellectual work, still in development, and although imperfect (reflecting its creators), the law has been made up by many people, and is greater than any one person is capable of comprehending. The constrained vision therefore sees it as important that we adhere to the law and maintain its validity, despite it occationally leading to unfortunate situations, such as Nicolas Cage being imprisoned for committing a morally justifiable act in Con Air

The underlying idea here is that the constrained vision highly values things (physical and metaphysical) that have developed over time. It's not just the law, but also cultural norms and traditions. The constrained vision perceives these as having an underlying logic to them that is greater than any one individual is capable of understanding, and through this idea develops the incentive to protect these things.

PART 3/4

The unconstrained vision, on the other hand, wherein which only the obtainable perfection is perceived as sufficient, views these cultures and traditions (of which the law is an example) with a more critical lens. These things, developed by previous, less intellectually developed generations of humans, are the shackling ideas of old, holding us back from realizing our true potential, and causing massive injustices such as Nicolas Cage going to prison for a morally justifiable act.

So through this, one sees how people who hold social value X, also hold social value Y, and Z. People who are for legalizing weed are generally also for legalized prostitution, abortion, etc. People who are against one are generally against the rest. Some people see these social norms as shackling, whereas some perceive them as paramount to the function of society. But what economic ideas develop from these two visions?

Well, Adam Smith (a definitive adherent of the constrained vision) argued that there is less difference between the world's smartest & dumbest human than there is between the world's smartest & the dumbest dog. What he meant is, no matter how much people read & study, it doesn't make a critical amount of difference. Who would have known more about fishing, for example? Einstein or a fisherman?

The unconstrained vision, meanwhile, argues that people who cultivate their minds & become wiser than monst, are more capable of making enlightened decisions. Through our limitless potential, those who strive to become highly knowledgeable will be so much wiser than the uneducated masses that their decisions have more validity to them. And since humans are perfectible, so is society. Therefore, nothing short of a perfect world is sufficient, but only those wise "philosopher kings", are capable of creating such a world. Therefore, some people must be made unequal in order to ensure equality for the rest.

PART 4/4

In the constrained vision, mankind's limitations is critical. Instead of striving towards a perfect world, there should be a society established that takes advantage of human limitations. Essentially, a society where human selfishness is used in such a way that it comes to serve the masses. One in which everyone has the same potential to accomplish success, and where everyone works for themselves, but is equal. This is the ultimate political goal of the constrained vision.

So basically, the two visions perceive each other as the greatest enemy.
The constrained sees the "unequal" actor desired in the unconstrained vision as a threat to the equality desired.
The unconstrained perceives the constrained vision's resistance against striving towards perfection as a sign of selfishness and corruption.

The two visions are inherently, fundamentally incompatible, but in terms of what they actually want, it's the same thing: They both want the best possible for as many people as possible.
They both want equality, but equality means something different:
To the unconstrained, it's equality of OUTCOME
To the constrained, it's equality of PROCESS

When people disagree agree on the nature of humanity, they will disagree on everything.

>When people disagree agree
goddamnit

TL;DR disagreements occur because people have different views.

why do people have different views?

Because their eyes are on different heads on different locations not everyone looks through the sane etes duh

Same eyes*

Sup Forums is dead......

hey, you posted this last night. im the user that said i never post .i took what you wrote and shared it with some normies at work and they were blown away. have a bump

KewL.

hey thanks

I think you mightve been the only fucking guy who read it. So I figured I'd give it one last shot, because there used to be a time when Sup Forumsacks appreciated people putting effort into things. But I think that time might be past. But if I got my point across to at least one person, thats plenty I suppose

I read it, I'm sure lots of people did too but don't post because what you're saying is sound and there's nothing to argue about.

fair point

Yeah basically this. Always good to hear something true rehashed in a slightly different framework.

You dumb, idiot. People have different views because of multiple factors, your camps aren't even accurate descriptions of reality.

MUH DIC

Good read, but I would argue that who is the 'constrained' and who is 'unconstrained' fluctuates.

For example, liberals seem hell bent on destroying tradition however overall I believe they operate on a constrained 'we must all be taken care of mentality'. The right tends to have a more idealistic perspective on the nature of humanity with regards to potential of the human race.

provide counter-arguments then

you immediately recognize "conservative" and "liberal" as meaning a sequence of things, because there is a strong trend in society to group various ideas together. people who hold one belief also hold several other beliefs. there are of course exceptions to this, and im by no accounts arguing that the two visions are inherently universal. nor is it black & white, as i stated. but you immediately know that "liberal" means pro-weed, pro-prostitution, pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-economic regulation, anti free market, etc etc, because what im saying is true

this place used to be fun

well, i feel that the unconstrained vision represents liberals pretty well. the idea of being pro freedom in terms of social values, but highly authoritarian in terms of economics. that is the "we must all be taken care of-mentaity". that some unequal actor (the state) should ensure that everyone plays nice. its basically communism/fascism/socialism, whereas the constrained vision veers more towards something akin to the open market

its ALMOST synonymous with "liberal" and "conservative", i feel

pretty good thread OP. You do a good job of conveying information without sounding like a jackass.

Just bought sowell's book.

the fuck? no. no. it's r and K selection. look up Moly's vids on it

good post. it's likely people will always be like this, so what's the / a solution? imo we need physical separation. but do you think liberal utopiafags are going to leave of their own accord, after growing accustomed to everything the free market has created for their ungrateful asses in the West?

I would disagree, it depends on which system you think best facilitate the advancement of the species. I am of the belief that a more brutal "open market" style system would actually be better for humanity in the long run.

You pose an interesting question however, because I am on the right side of the spectrum and also would fit well into the "unconstrained" camp.

i heard thats bullshit, but i dont even know what it is. elaborate on it dude

hey thanks

yeah this is basically just a super short version of that book. but its really fucking good, and i really want to read some of his other shit now. i just dont know what to pick

dude im 100% open market.

i tried to be as non-partisan as possible in my OP, but honestly, i think the unconstrained vision is WRONG, and that liberals are full of shit

but yeah me personally, im pro liberal social values, but also pro liberal economic values (i.e. free market), but as i grow older, i start to gain an understanding for why people hold conservative social values. i do not share them, but i feel that as my perspective on society gets more nuanced, i see the values that social norms (anti weed, anti sexual liberty etc) hold for many people. that they are perceived to be linked to the stability & consequently the (unarguably better) way of life we have in the west. so neither me nor most people fit snuggly into the two extremes. i doubt anyone really does. the two extremes would be total anarcho-capitalism and Stalin, or something even more extreme. but i think most people exist somewhere on a spectrum between those two extremes. even marx argued that capitalism is legit as a stepping stone towards communism.

Cheers mate, I think the truth lies in the middle of those two extremes. Humanity is limited by certain things, but I would say its foolish to think that our potential is limited.

yea of course we have potential, im not trying to discredit that. but i do feel it kinda ties together with how younger people tend to be liberals, and grow more conservative with age. younger people also tend to hold more "optimistic" perceptions on humanity as a whole. all of these young high school notions of creating a perfect world, and elevating yourself above existence somehow. its kinda vaguely defined, cuz i was so fucking baked in high school, but what i now feel that all of those ideas were stupid, and that people who dont grow out of that phase (adult liberals, to put it simply) are naive (whereas adult liberals perceive me as morally inferior for not wanting equality of outcome)

but yeah, truth lies in the middle, but i lean towards the constrained vision (which, i guess, is nearly synonymous with being right-wing), at least in terms of economics

The idea of transcendence isn't new wave mumbo jumbo. I think that is what the founding fathers meant by stating "all men are created equal" meaning that everyone has the potential to rise above what they are (most will not, but the potential is in everyone to do so). This is why blatant racism is pretty foolish in my opinion. There is nothing wrong with being aware of racial differences but by hating an entire people you fall into an ignorant world view.

well a separation implies that belief in the constrained/unconstrained vision is genetically defined, i suppose? as to that issue, im not so certain. i feel that, at least to some extent, its linked to age. younger people tend to be liberals (and have an unconstrained view of humanity), and older people tend to grow more conservative, as their view on humanity grows more constrained. so im not sure a separation is possible, nor even desirable. i think that this struggle, between authoritarianism & liberalism, is almost innate. but i do wish liberals werent such ungrateful assholes who resent everything capitalism has given them

i looked at all her pictures and read nothing.

> Why are some people ideological X and other people ideological Y
1. Mostly genetics
2. Environment after that
There you go

alright, fair enough. but i would argue that definitively alexander hamilton & thomas paine fit within the constrained vision, although i dont have any quotes at hand. but the whole idea of the US constitution (and the norwegian one. not that anyone cares) is protection FROM government. protection from an "unequal" actor (that always gets to that position with the underlying incentive of ensuring equality of outcome), and that only trade-offs in a free capitalist society is capable of ensuring the greatest quality of life for the greatest amount of people. its within this culture that we have the potential to "transcend", but that basically just means "becoming super fucking rich". which, if everyone is equal under the law, and the law doesnt discriminate, one person becoming rich doesnt mean that another becomes poor.

but yeah early free & liberal constitutions werent perfect, of course. even the norwegian one banned jews, originally.

This theory sucks. I get it, but it sucks...

The real reason people fight is because the jews push people into idiological fights.

>inbe4 tldr theory that is meant to confuse and rapture the goyim.

Jew alert!

That's nice and all but you didn't ask why those different visions exist in the first place. You need to go into human biology.

I never knew who that girl was, thanks op

Your definition of "unconstrained" humanity is an oxymoron. If humans have infinite potential then perfection is unattainable, which is true. We can always produce a better quality of life, more and better technology, and expand our horizons into the infinite universe. But we can never perfect anything. If we no longer actively pursue improving methodologies or technologies it is because it is "good enough" to obtain our current goals

on the old Sup Forums, some dude wouldve dropped that bomb on me already. but yeah i do wish to read a book on it, because i dont understand why. i only have the simplified notions of young people being naive idiots

but i also see a trend with more creative professions tending to of the unconstrained vision. artists and the bunch, who must have a belief in some degree of ascension, whatever that means. but i wouldnt be able to phrase it in some coherent way... ill just have to look for that one book, i guess

you guys say that, but offer to arguments, so im not sure what to reply

yeah those two visions are the EXTREMES. i doubt anyone thinks humans cant improve in any way whatsoever, and i doubt anyone thinks humans can become "perfect". i mightve not gotten that point across sufficiently, but i feel that most people exists on a spectrum somewhere between those two extremes

i dont quite get how its an oxymoron, though

np

watch and learn youtube.com/watch?v=W8N3FF_3KvU

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/04/27/quick-data-dump-on-some-studies-on-the-heritability-of-political-views/
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/02/24/first-worldism-part-3-the-heritability-of-political-views/

Bookmarking, good shit OP

none of the information presented in those links is incompatible with what ive written here, as far as i can tell

maybe you can explain it to me better

goddamnit japan
alright, i will watch it

cheers

> none of the information presented in those links is incompatible with what ive written here, as far as i can tell
Okay well then what I would say is that you're largely just overthinking things.
These 'conflicting worldviews' are genetically hardwired and won't be changed in people.
Since people aren't swayed by rational arguments or anything on the whole and are merely representations of reactions to a subconscious reptile brain politics comes down to a type of war.
Whichever side can produce an environment which produces more of its specialized 'types' (i.e. people who support a particular worldview, subconsciously predisposed ideology, etc.) wins.
Politics is basically a war about breeding or producing more of your party's/ideology's etc. people, just like religion.

>Nicolas Cage in Con Air
lost me there

>They both want the best possible for as many people as possible.
nahh most people on the left want destruction of the west and for white people to suffer

ok i havent seen that flick in ages, but it just came to mind. doesnt he kill some dude in self-defence, but since hes an ex-soldier or something, the court argues he shouldve held back? or something? i dont fucking remember

i dont necessarily disagree, but i struggle to see how your perspective explains ideological diversity within a group. even in something as small as your family, for example, im certain there is a notable diversity of thought?

also btw fuck con air, its a shit movie

yeah or that

> but i struggle to see how your perspective explains ideological diversity within a group
This is basic stuff, there is genetic variation/diversity even within closely related peoples/populations, mutations occur, etc.
I never said anything about how people of an ideology X will 100% have kids of ideology X, but they will probably be more likely to than people of some unrelated or different ideology Y.

ok so what comes to mind is, that within every group, the conflict im presenting in my OP appears to be present. pretty much in any capitalist society (of which there are notable asian ones & hispanic ones), this same conflict appears present, between "liberals" and "conservatives". or you can use other terms such as "authoritarians" and "constitutionalists", or whatever. just this idea of an inherent strugglet between people wanting a stronger state that will ensure equality, and people wanting less state, also to ensure equality.

this is not incompatible with your viewpoint, and i dont think it devalues what i wrote at all. nor do i feel that im overthinking it, but thats a matter of opinion, i suppose

Interesting thread, OP. Have a bump.

So are you a prescriptivist or a descriptivist?
Do you aim to simply describe the problem or do you (also) propose a solution to it?
I'd argue that ideological separation and states are the solution.

i dont feel that im necessarily describing a problem

obviously, im hold liberal economic values, and im highly spectical of strong states and the bunch, and so i guess i lean towards the constrained vision, and i think socialists are largely naive. but i am just trying to present a non-partisan explanation that might help people of one viewpoint understand the underlying thoughts behind the viewpoints of the other one, and explain how things are. i dont have a proposition to "solve" this, nor do i even think one is feasible. every country just splits in half; one for liberals and one for conservatives? thats... so far removed from anything plausible that its not even worth considering. nor is that even a good idea in the first place, as politics are not black & white, and most people do not fit into either category 100% (as i state several times in my OP; unlike gender, this shit exists on a spectrum)

so no, i dont agree that ideological separation is a solution, because i dont see it as feasible, and i dont see ideological diversity as a problem in the first place (although i passionately disagree with liberals). nor do i think that, even if, through some inexplicable magic, a random capitalist country was divided in half, into liberals and conservatives, that it would stay that way. if that somehow happened (i doubt it ever will), ideological diversity would still "grow" within both nations. there is a cultural element to political ideology

also, why would you even want a separation? it just furthers resentment and disagreements and leads to war & violence. instead, you should focus on shit like my OP, to understand the other side, and learn to get along with people you disagree with