visions, which are thought to capture opposite ends of a continuum of political thought on which one can place many contemporary Westerners, in addition to their intellectual
ancestors of the past few centuries.
The book could be compared with George Lakoff's *Moral Politics*, which aims to answer a very similar question.
The book has been published both
with and without the subtitle "Ideological Origins of Political Struggles".
Steven Pinker's book *The Blank Slate* calls Sowell's explanation the best theory given to date. In this
book, Pinker refers to the "constrained vision" as the "tragic vision" and the "unconstrained vision" as the "utopian vision".
## The competing visions
Sowell lays out these
concepts in his *A Conflict of Visions*, and *The Vision of the Anointed*. These two visions encompass a range of ideas and theories.
### The unconstrained vision
Sowell argues that
the unconstrained vision relies heavily on the belief that human nature is essentially good. Those with an unconstrained vision distrust decentralized processes and are impatient with
large institutions and systemic processes that constrain human action. They believe there is an ideal solution to every problem, and that compromise is never acceptable. Collateral
damage is merely the price of moving forward on the road to perfection. Sowell often refers to them as "the self anointed." Ultimately they believe that man is morally perfectible.
Because of this, they believe that there exist some people who are further along the path of moral development, have overcome self-interest and are immune to the influence of power
and therefore can act as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society.
### The constrained vision
Sowell argues that the constrained vision relies heavily on belief that human
nature is essentially unchanging and that man is naturally inherently self-interested, regardless of the best intentions. Those with a constrained vision prefer the systematic
processes of the rule of law and experience of tradition. Compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. Those with a constrained vision favor solid
empirical evidence and time-tested structures and processes over intervention and personal experience. Ultimately, the constrained vision demands checks and balances and refuses to
accept that all people could put aside their innate self-interest.
