1. Sowell’s two visions map into two views of rights. The difference is stark. The constrained vision is associated with individual rights to be free from government intervention, at least in some realms. The unconstrained vision is associated with rights in outcomes that are to be guaranteed by the government. These are the so-called positive rights to housing, employment, food, security, medical care, and income.
Are there rights for which this framework fails, or at least is ambiguous? For example, consider free speech or, more broadly, free expression. What about unrestricted though not necessarily subsidized abortion? In contrast, how do rules against using drugs fit the model? What about rights to choose when to die?
2. In public discussion, we increasingly hear calls for abandoning the constitution, not just the second amendment, but all of it, on the grounds that it is just too old. This call seems to come primarily from those whose policy positions ordinarily are those associated with the unconstrained vision. Is this development consistent with Sowell’s two visions? Has it always been this way? Is the call for change simply a matter of the particular constitution we have, or is this form of discontent inevitable?
3. Is it reasonable to judge these visions on how they perform, or is that not possible? Or if it is possible, is it not legitimate? Does each framework require its own metrics, which precludes such any such judgment. Or are we free to judge? Is it fair or useful to compare the French and
American revolutions? Others?
4. Sowell says that both visions are interested in equality, but just in different ways. The constrained vision desires it in processes, the unconstrained visions in outcomes? How does each vision understand equality? How do most Americans view equality?
5. There seem to be emerging—perhaps by now fully emerged—political views that are grounded in views about technical progress. While there are many variants, these views seem to hold that technology will so radically change life that institutional structures that we have used in the past will become irrelevant. How do you understand these various techno-political views? In particular, do they seem to connect to Sowell’s constrained and unconstrained visions?
6. As you confronted Sowell’s arguments, you likely attempted to connect these two visions to the political issues that currently receive heated attention. Are there any of these where the parties particularly line up in terms of his two visions? Are there issues that confound our usual assumptions about alignment? Anywhere the two visions run contrary to type?
7. Sowell’s final chapter invokes arguments from rhetoric and philosophies of science to suggest that the conflicting visions are, for various reasons, immune from confrontation with evidence.
Do you agree? Does the book help you understand competing political and economic views?
More tolerant of views that conflict with yours, or less?

1. Sowell’s two visions map into two views of rights. The difference is stark. The constrained vision is associated with individual rights to be free from government intervention, at least in some realms. The unconstrained vision is associated with rights in outcomes that are to be guaranteed by the government. These are the so-called positive rights to housing, employment, food, security, medical care, and income.
Are there rights for which this framework fails, or at least is ambiguous? For example, consider free speech or, more broadly, free expression. What about unrestricted though not necessarily subsidized abortion? In contrast, how do rules against using drugs fit the model? What about rights to choose when to die?

2. In public discussion, we increasingly hear calls for abandoning the constitution, not just the second amendment, but all of it, on the grounds that it is just too old. This call seems to come primarily from those whose policy positions ordinarily are those associated with the unconstrained vision. Is this development consistent with Sowell’s two visions? Has it always been this way? Is the call for change simply a matter of the particular constitution we have, or is this form of discontent inevitable?

3. Is it reasonable to judge these visions on how they perform, or is that not possible? Or if it is possible, is it not legitimate? Does each framework require its own metrics, which precludes such any such judgment. Or are we free to judge? Is it fair or useful to compare the French and American revolutions? Others?

4. Sowell says that both visions are interested in equality, but just in different ways. The constrained vision desires it in processes, the unconstrained visions in outcomes? How does each vision understand equality? How do most Americans view equality?

5. There seem to be emerging—perhaps by now fully emerged—political views that are grounded in views about technical progress. While there are many variants, these views seem to hold that technology will so radically change life that institutional structures that we have used in the past will become irrelevant. How do you understand these various techno-political views? In particular, do they seem to connect to Sowell’s constrained and unconstrained visions?

6. As you confronted Sowell’s arguments, you likely attempted to connect these two visions to the political issues that currently receive heated attention. Are there any of these where the parties particularly line up in terms of his two visions? Are there issues that confound our usual assumptions about alignment? Anywhere the two visions run contrary to type?

7. Sowell’s final chapter invokes arguments from rhetoric and philosophies of science to suggest that the conflicting visions are, for various reasons, immune from confrontation with evidence. Do you agree? Does the book help you understand competing political and economic views? More tolerant of views that conflict with yours, or less?