A Conflict Of Visions

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

So, on the advice of RazorBladeKandy by way of TurdFlingingMonkey (look ’em up on YouTube if you’re unfamiliar) I am reading Thomas Sowell’s book _A Conflict of Visions_

The basic premise here is that all social, political and economic arguments are based on one of two opposing world views… those being:

The Constrained View – human beings are immutably bound by our nature and any proposed solution that doesn’t take into account, embrace and use that nature to its advantage will fail.

vs.

The Unconstrained View – human beings are capable of rising above our base nature and growing toward a more perfect state and any solution which does not appeal to, inspire or enforce doing what is right for the sake of right and the greater good is lazy and selfish and, ultimately, pointless.

A useful example would be motorcycle helmet laws. The Unconstrained view says we must pass laws and impose fines to force riders to wear helmets in order to protect them and society (through increased medical costs) from their own egos and laziness. The Constrained view is that some riders will be lazy and egotistical and we should allow them to ride without helmets if they so desire and let natural consequences remove them from the gene pool.

As a biological determinist and MGTOW, I am a firm believer of the Constrained view. I believe in personal freedom, individual choice and responsibility as well as the teaching power of natural consequence. As a motorcycle rider, I wear long pants, sturdy boots, a jacket, gloves and helmet because I know the road is dangerous and I am not willing to risk any more bodily harm than necessary when I ride just so I can have the wind in my hair and bugs in my teeth. But when I see other riders in shorts and flip flops wearing cheap ineffective helmets (i.e. Doing the minimum required under Nevada law) I don’t feel any sympathy for them. Let them do their own thing and suffer the consequences.

I would imagine that, as I am among MGTOW, the majority of you feel the same way but I am curious to know if any of you can make a case for forcing an adult to do something that is good for them and for society (in cases where the only serious consequences are to themselves) rather than letting them do whatever they want and having reality sort them out.

Go go go!

[RoyDalParticipant]

I agree with you 100%, and it so happens I’m an admirer of Prof. Sowell; although I have not read all of his books, I liked and agreed with all I have read.

Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?

[ClintParticipant 331]

I have a couple of his books on my amazon wishlist, myself. I haven’t gotten around to it yet, but I find these larger topics fascinating. My thoughts about government are of a libertarian persuasion. Do what you want and keep government out of the way except certain things that wouldn’t work without some regulations.

However, I don’t believe that dumb or poor people remove themselves from the gene pool, they reproduce at a higher rate than intelligent and wealthy people. You should read “The Lessons of History” by Will Durant. It’s from ~60s and talks about the overarching trends of history and how it relates to america. Interesting stuff.

"To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you into something else is the greatest accomplishment." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

[Soldier-MedicParticipant 2566]

An issue that I have explored by myself is the legalization or the criminalization of drugs.

The constrained view would be to let people do and put what they want with their own bodies.  An examination of the US constitution has no clause that grants the federal government the power to regulate this.  The result, and this is an extreme case, in which a man kills and eats the face of another person.

The unconstrained view is that drugs destroy lives.  Not just the lives of the users but the lives of those that are around them.  Spouses, children, etc.  An examination of Chinese history in the 19th century will show that the Empire of China had a huge problem with opium.  So much so it affected the economy and security of their nation.  The result.  A war on drugs.  A war in which young people have been sentenced to extremely harsh prison sentences and have the lives altered permanently because of a possession charge.  They can’t vote, own a gun, or secure a job, even after attaining a higher degree from college.

Which has caused more destruction in lives both temporally and in quality?  The war?  Addiction and/or use?

"I asked you a question. I didn't ask you to repeat what the voices in you head are telling you" ~ Me. ........Yes I'm still angry.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Soldier-Medic wrote:

An issue that I have explored by myself is the legalization or the criminalization of drugs. Which has caused more destruction in lives both temporally and in quality? The war? Addiction and/or use?

An excellent example. So which is it, do you think? Can we change our natural desire to get whacked out of our minds by creating social and criminal penalties for drug use? The interesting thing is that the constrained view is not limited only to “let people do what they want and reality will sort them out”… it is possible to suggest solutions to the problem of drug use that take human nature into account rather than fighting against it.

For example, we could craft designer drugs that produce incredible short term highs with limited side effects and then make it perfectly socially acceptable to do these drugs in situations where their use will not produce unwanted consequences. Imagine a “bar” where people use DMT rather than alcohol, achieving a high that lasts from 30 minutes to 3 hours… or MDMA or whatever the drug. To my mind, such a scenario would work within the constrained view and not require that the underlying natural desire be weeded out of the gene pool by a long and gruesome series of personal tragedies.

[Author]

Posts