Posted on

I Am Sowellian

The Resurgence of Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell

I came to learn of Thomas Sowell through Jordan Peterson. He kept mentioning this name and I became curious. As I began to look into Sowell, I found myself drawn to his philosophy. The interesting part is I have never been one for economics. But that’s just it, Sowell is much more than an economist. The more I looked into Sowell, the more I found a sense of resurgence in his ideas and celebrity. It caused me to ask the question: why the sudden resurgence of Thomas Sowell?

To answer this, I began asking around. Some answers I received:

  • They’re sick of the absurd
  • Because he’s a truth teller with no condescension
  • There’s a systemic ache for logical thought
  • Lost sheep looking for a shepherd
  • Common sense is making a comeback
  • Probably Charlie Kirk, he mentioned Sowell often

Who is Thomas Sowell?

As a child, he was raised in the Jim Crow south, namely North Carolina. When he was eight years old, his family moved to Harlem, New York City. It was there he found his love of books. He began to search for avenues of expression in a time that prohibited interracial collaboration. He made a series of mistakes, including dropping out of high school and getting in various forms of trouble.

He then heard of a very interesting philosophical idea that finally posed an alternative to what he could clearly see was not working. This idea was Marxism. Such philosophy felt like a fresh drink of water to Sowell. Sowell received his bachelor’s degree at Harvard University and his master’s degree from Columbia University. It is no wonder that Marxism was appealing to him.

Sowell then went to the University of Chicago to get his PhD in economics under Milton Friedman. Even after taking courses by Friedman, Sowell remained a Marxist. It was only when he got the opportunity to see the federal government up close that he shifted his stance away from Marxism to free market capitalism.

Sowell’s Turn From Marxism

The enlightenment came when he was tasked to investigate the natural disasters causing unemployment in Puerto Rico. He noticed that the employment reduction took place at precisely the same time they implemented a minimum wage law. When he presented this to his employers at the US Department of Labor, they immediately rejected this notion because much of their budget came from enforcing this minimum wage law. He quickly saw that the government prioritized their own self-interests over that of the poor people affected by such laws.

This led him directly out of Marxism and into the pursuit of Milton Friedman, among others. He began writing and became senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. It was here he presented hid positions on economics and philosophy. He wrote countless articles for newspaper publications.

A Career of Criticism

In the midst of this, he was scorned, mocked, ridiculed, and ostracized by the black leaders of his time for his position that when asked about the plight of the black family, black people were saying one thing, and the so-called self-appointed leaders were saying something entirely different. He pointed this discrepancy out and such leaders attempted to suppress his voice as often as possible, quiet vigorously. Though he will never say this, it burned him. It extinguished his desire to affect the nation as a whole. He was quite satisfied to sit in the background, write books and cultivate his love of photography. Thus the reason he never became a household name quite like that of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

He, along with Walter Williams, began writing from their perspective, representing a small but growing faction of people who felt represented by these two men. It was once said that Sowell and Williams could not get onto the same airplane for fear that it would go down carrying the entire black conservative movement with it.

Reasons for Resurgence

Some have speculated that Sowell had a knack for delivering answers to questions in succinct ways that most anyone could understand. This made for YouTube gold. There is also a notion that the current national rebellion taking place plays into Sowell’s philosophy to distrust the elite, the Anointed, in favor of free thinking average workers who both benefit and suffer cost from decisions made on their behalf. Sowell routinely discredited those who believed they had all the answers, suggesting that this is impossible. Such rhetoric stemmed from his reading of Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek.

My sense is that his message of following the facts and letting that determine the perspective is currently foreign to many up-and-coming thinkers. To many young people who have been told they can identify with a microwave today if they want to and realizing this makes no real sense, someone like Sowell sounds like a huge breath of fresh air in common sense, something largely lacking in universities today.

Much like I said in a previous article, this new generation has been told lies based on a feeling of the moment, rather than a truth to be lived among the masses for eternity. They have been told only their feelings matter, and if they feel it, it must be right. They have heard the noise and it didn’t make sense.

Along comes Sowell and says:

This makes sense. To them and to me.

Personally, I’m grateful for the uprising of Thomas Sowell fans. Due to another Substacker, I now refer to myself as Sowellian. I strongly encourage a deep dive into the man’s work.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Capitalism Didn’t Create Human Nature

When Ideology Searches For Evidence

I stumbled on an article that I won’t link because I don’t want him digitally doxed. But the summation of his piece was that couples’ issues and the rise of Mankeeping as a burden is because of capitalism’s insistence on very different definitions of normal workloads for male and female.

Here we are again, telling the same, tired story. If you’re exhausted reading about it, imagine being the one who feels the need to write about it. Oh well, here I am writing anyway. There still exists individuals who insist on blame-shifting and placing total causation on one entity for the that plague men, as if that one aspect of male plight will solve all social ills. News flash, there is no single solution, because there is no single problem. The problem varies, as do the solutions.

Excerpts

“I think the biggest factor behind Mankeeping is capitalism’s gendered division of labor. That’s where our so-called traditional ideas about what’s natural about men and women come from.”

So-called? So, thousands of years of evolutionary psychology means nothing? Studies on gender preferences being biological mean nothing?

Let’s take a look at such meaninglessness:

  • It has been established that the greater the economic development, the greater the gender differences in preferences (Falk & Hermle, 2018).
  • Among those differences, it has been shown that as a generalization, more males tend to choose things-oriented careers while most females tend to choose people-oriented careers (Su et al., 2009).
  • Yet another study, years later, turned up similar results. When looking at male and female apprentices, females had natural inclinations to occupations oriented towards people, where males had natural inclinations to occupations towards things (Kuhn & Wolter, 2022).
  • When looking at something more specific, like application rates and hiring rates in STEM fields, one group found that the more gender-equal the country, the greater the difference in gender representation in STEM fields, irrespective of similar achievement rates and ability among males and females (Stoet & Geary, 2018).
  • Yet another group noticed that when looking at all of this, it should now be expected that vast majority of psychological sex differences should either remain unchanged or grow more pronounced with improvements in living conditions, like gender quality, education, and economic flourishing (Herlitz et al., 2025).

Biology determines much of what we like, do, and pursue. But don’t let facts get in the way of a good heart-string story.

Another Excerpt:

“Women were told that they’re naturally caring, relational, soft, and feminine. Men were told that we’re naturally stoic, tough, action-oriented, competitive, and masculine. These ideas were aimed at putting women in their place: in the home.”

I’m struggling to see the connection between stating biological fact and an attempt at control. But let’s review the data:

  • In one meta-analysis, Women scored higher in every category related to caring, tenderness, trust, nurturing, and empathy-related traits (Feingold, 1994), as well as compassion and openness in the Big Five personality traits (Weisberg et al., 2011).
  • In the previously mentioned study, they found women more relational (Su et al., 2009).
  • One study found women significantly less aggressive, supporting the idea that they are softer than males, on average (Archer, 2004).
  • Lastly, women showed more feminine traits across time and culture (Costa et al., 2001).
  • In each of these studies, they found the idea of men being naturally stoic, tough, action-oriented, competitive, and masculine true.

Maybe, just maybe, this is why women were told this. Because it is verifiably, biologically and psychologically true.

He Turns to Marx

Where it seemed to take a comical turn was when the writer was criticized for tying capitalism to relational strain. He then said that he uses Marx’s original definition of capitalism and then adds a modern Marxist Feminist’s assessment to complete his formulation.

I… I don’t even know what to say. Like… speechless. Ok, maybe not totally.

The argument isn’t rational, coherent, linear in any way. His ideas don’t even connect to one another. The closest his argument came to some form of actual reality was the unfounded fear porn of “returning to gender norms.” But even then, evolutionary psychology debunks that along with half of his article. I’ve still yet to encounter a man who wishes to return to the norms of yesteryear that place men psychologically and physically abusing women.

When I see a great writer drink ideological Kool-Aid without attempting to do his own research, it doesn’t anger me. It saddens me. This writer has talent.

But he has been told that if he feels it, it’s true. I could give 25 examples in 15 seconds that would completely debunk that notion.

Anti-capitalists fail to recognize that they’re enjoying the right to be misinformed with great confidence because some capitalist created that possibility. No socialist did it. A socialist would have already been tyrannized by his own promises. The very system he would have been supporting would have ensured he, along with everyone else under the systemic corruptive power machine were equal— equally poor and miserable.

But here, a very talented writer is almost babbling. The argument is so incoherent. I wanted to get excited about a new or different viewpoint. Instead, I was left with the fairy tale style utopian delusion that permeates the feeling > fact crowd.

I’m sorry to burst bubbles, but no economic system, nor a vile, malevolent way of viewing successful people are to blame for couple’s issues. The couple is.

We’ll get a lot further talking about a lack of third spaces than shifting blame to an inanimate economic structure. More on that in a later post. For now…

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

References

Archer, J. (2004). Sex Differences in Aggression in Real-World Settings: A Meta-Analytic Review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291-322.

Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: robust and surprising findings. Journal of personality and social psychology, 81(2), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322

Falk, A., & Hermle, J. (2018). Relationship of gender differences in preferences to economic development and gender equality. Science, 362(6412), eaas9899. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9899

Feingold A. (1994). Gender differences in personality: a meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin, 116(3), 429–456. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.116.3.429

Herlitz, A., Hönig, I., Hedebrant, K., & Asperholm, M. (2025). A systematic review and new analyses of the gender-equality paradox. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(3), 503–539. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231202685

Kuhn, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2022). Things versus people: Gender differences in vocational interests and in occupational preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 203(203), 210–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.09.003

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2018). The gender-equality paradox in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education. Psychological Science, 29(4), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719

Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and Things, Women and People. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 859–884. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017364

Weisberg, Y. J., Deyoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender Differences in Personality across the Ten Aspects of the Big Five. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178

Posted on

What Identity is Not

Knowing What It Is Not Helps Discover What It Is

I recently wrote about what forgiveness is not. We talk a lot about identity. It is helpful to know what identity is not so we can discover what identity is. We often confuse many aspects of our lives with identity, when in reality, they’re not identity at all.

Identity Is Not Your Vocation

Vocation is an assignment, not an identity. A job can change overnight. Careers rise and fall. A title may impress people for a season, but titles are temporary. If your sense of self is rooted in what you do, then failure, retirement, unemployment, or success itself can destabilize you. Many people lose themselves because they built their identity around productivity rather than personhood. Work matters, but work is a tool, not the foundation of the self. Your vocation is meant to express something deeper already established within you. It serves your identity, not create it. You are not a teacher, writer, pastor, mechanic, or executive first. Those are functions.

Vocation is what you do, not who you are.

Identity is Not Your Belief System

Beliefs are important, but beliefs are still capable of change. Rigidity of beliefs hinder. Human beings grow through correction, learning, suffering, and experience. It’s the stretching that produces positive change. Such malleability fluctuates. A person may hold one worldview at 20 years old and another at age 40. If identity is fused completely to a belief system, then every challenge to those beliefs feels like a threat to agency itself. That elicits a defensive and fearful reaction coupled with intellectual rigidity. Proper growth requires the ability to change without losing yourself. Truth should refine us, not destroy us. A mature person allows better information to reshape flawed understanding while remaining grounded in something deeper than opinion. Identity is deeper than opinion, beliefs are not. Beliefs should serve identity, not become identity. Your beliefs can evolve while your core self remains steady, rooted, stable, and anchored beyond shifting ideas and perspectives.

Beliefs are what you hold, not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Who You Marry

Marriage is sacred and meaningful, but it is still a relationship between two changing human beings. People grow, drift, mature, fail, and sometimes leave. Death itself inevitably culminates in separation of marriage. If your identity depends entirely upon another person remaining beside you, then your foundation is fragile. Many people lose themselves inside relationships because they confuse companionship with identity. A spouse is meant to walk with you, not define your existence. Marriage can enrich life, strengthen character, and deepen love, but it cannot bear the full scope of your identity. Your value existed before marriage and remains after loss.

A spouse helps you navigate, they’re not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Being a Parent

Parenthood is one of the most meaningful responsibilities a person can experience, but yet again, a role rather than identity. Children grow older, move away, develop independence, and eventually build lives of their own. Genesis 2:24 discusses leaving one’s mother and father to join to a spouse. They will leave eventually. Some parents lose themselves (and their marriage) because their entire sense of worth becomes attached to their children’s success, affection, or need for them. When that season changes, they feel empty and disoriented. Parenting should flow from identity, not replace it. A healthy parent guides, nurtures, disciplines, and loves from a stable center rather than using children to create personal meaning. Your existence does not begin with your children, nor does it end when they leave home.

Parenting is what you do, not who you are.

Your Identity is Not Your Political Affiliation

Political systems change constantly. Parties evolve, ideologies shift, leaders disappoint, and cultural movements rise and fall. When identity becomes fused with politics, disagreement begins to feel personal and opposing views feel like attacks on internal agency. This produces hostility, tribalism, pride, and even fear. A political affiliation may reflect values or priorities, but it cannot define the eternal nature of a person. Human beings are deeper than voting patterns or ideological categories. If your identity rests in politics, then every election becomes an emotional crisis and every shift in culture threatens stability. Politics should remain a tool for engaging society rather than the foundation of self.

Politics is a malleable mechanism for interacting with broader society, not who you are.

Your Identity Comprises Your Past, Present, and Future Self

True identity must remain consistent across time. If something can disappear, change, or be taken away, then it cannot be the deepest definition of who you are. Identity is the thread connecting your past, present, and future self into one continuous reality. Careers change, beliefs mature, relationships shift, and societal expectations and affiliations evolve, but identity remains stable beneath each movement. This understanding creates humility and flexibility because the ego no longer depends on always being correct. New information does not threaten existence, it simply refines understanding. A secure identity allows growth without collapse. We can admit error, abandon false ideas, and become wiser versions of ourselves because our core self is not built upon temporary external realities that constantly shift and change.

My Identity

This is not aimed to proselytize, only to share my sense of identity. My identity is that I am a child of God the Father. While you may ascertain this as a belief, a belief about ultimate reality is different from ideological attachment because it concerns ontology rather than opinion. I’m not arguing against convictions. I’m arguing against grounding the self in temporary or contingent things that possess the capacity to remove the ground from under us. Therefore, my identity rests in an immovable and unchangeable target.

This is the foundation beneath every other part of my life. I cannot be the ultimate reality in my life. I must gaze, with focus, on the ineffable telos. It’s in that upward aim that I can relinquish the need for being perfect, yet aim for such perfection, given that it only makes my life better. Because of such aim, as life flows, my identity remains untouched. It existed in my past, stands firm in my present, and extends into my future.

Consequently, I do not need temporary things to define me. Anything I do serves the purpose of being a child of the living God. My marriage serves that purpose. My children, convictions, relationships, and responsibilities all flow from that singular reality. This identity cannot be threatened by change because it is rooted beyond circumstance. Everything else in life is secondary and exists to support that eternal truth.

This is how we avoid identity crises. By rooting them in an eternal, unmoved, mover.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

A Man Without Guardrails

What the Miller’s Story Teaches Us About Accountability

John-Paul Miller and Mica Miller

Spoiler alert, details found in the documentary will be given here. If you’d rather watch the documentary, then read this, save this article for later.

Another pastor is under fire, but this time it’s worse than most. John-Paul Miller, pastor of Solid Rock Church in Myrtle Beach at the time, has been accused of some horrific things, that, by all accounts, likely happened.

Backstory

A 13-year-old girl, Mica, begins attending Solid Rock with her family. She continues in this church and becomes embedded into the culture there. Eventually, meets a young man, gets married at 18, and Pastor John-Paul marries them.

Mica gets on staff and some time after getting on staff begin having an affair with pastor PJ. PJ’s wife finds incriminating texts, pastor John-Paul confesses, and they divorce. Mica leaves her husband. Eventually, Mica and John-Paul begin an official relationship and ultimately get married.

Once married, pastor John-Paul began urging Mica to get a breast augmentation to be “as pretty as the other girls.” Once out of surgery, Mica had an adverse reaction to the anesthesia. She was hallucinating and speaking in ways no one could understand. She was eventually placed on medication and diagnosed with bipolar disorder.

Where the Story Changes

Once in this condition, John-Paul began capitalizing on her weak mental state. His sexual desires had grown bizarre and he needed Mica to fulfill such fantasies. This involved homeless men and women to be included in their sexual escapades.

When Mica came to the realization this wasn’t healthy and she was being abused, she made an attempt to leave. This is where the stalking began. Slashed tires. More than 50 texts and calls in a day. She changes her number, he manages to find that number, and the stalking continued.

In the midst of this, an elder finds out that he is having multiple affairs with women from all over the country, including a woman in his congregation. She brings it to the rest of the elders and they do nothing. This is where the story turns for the worst.

He pushes her so aggressively, through his stalking, that she gets to a point where she believes the only way away from him is to end her own life. There is speculation that she didn’t pull the trigger. All evidence points to one person being there. I, personally, believe that she ended her own life as an escape from his relentless torment. John-Paul goes on to marry the woman he was already having an affair with.

John-Paul denies all of these allegations. But the sources are many different people that do not all know each other. It’s like someone once said to me, “If you say you don’t have bad breath, but 10 people all say you have bad breath, you probably have bad breath!”

Reactions

The copy and paste reaction to this was something along the lines of, “Of course, another pastor cheating and hurting!” And while this is true, it’s not because he’s a pastor, it’s because he’s a spoiled, sick, brat that never had consequences in his life carrying into his career as a pastor with no accountability to his elders.

It raises questions for me.

  1. Why have elders if you’re not going to be accountable to them?
  2. Why is the infraction almost always sexual in nature?
  3. Exactly what does this say about the pastoring profession?

Elders

Elders in the church are traditionally installed to hold the pastor accountable. In some congregations they are the deciding factor in the pastor’s tenure, and at times, his salary. Other congregations place elders as spiritual leadership to oversee, but not to have final decision-making authority. In every church, they are looked to as spiritual leaders.

Sexual Healing

The fact that most sins committed by pastors are sexual in nature, I believe, has multiple elements. Often, in today’s era, if the pastor is successful, he is probably attractive. He’s visually presentable and easy to focus on during lengthy messages. Therefore, he gets “offers” from “options” regularly.

Also, according to the book of James, leaders in the church are to be held to a higher standard than the general population. This standard is often set so high by the general population that no one can reasonably meet such standards. Therefore, they attempt to exercise impulsive desires in secret, which allows the cultivation and excessiveness of such desires to burn out of control without guardrails in place to preserve proper alignment with the position they hold as pastor. Fire without a border will destroy everything in its path. A man without accountability will hurt everyone they encounter.

Representation of Pastors

The Bible teaches that leaders (pastors, elders, deacons) are to be a “man of one wife.” The Bible teaches us to lay your life down for her. To serve her. To treat her with the same kindness taught to us by Jesus. It teaches us to be a man of respect. To get your house in order prior to offering wisdom to someone else’s house.

Therefore, this man does not represent what it means to be a pastor, in the truest sense.

  • He represents a man that did not fully understand consequences.
  • He represents men who haven’t learned the art of delayed gratification.
  • He represents men who haven’t learned how to control impulses.

The Apostle Paul said, “I do what don’t want to do, and yet I don’t do what I want to do.” He was illuminating the ongoing struggle with our senses.

If A=B and B=C, then A=C. The reality is that pastors are people. People are messy. Therefore, pastors are messy. There are no perfect pastors. The only perfect person to ever live isn’t pastoring any church. And given that pastors are people, boundaries must be in place to correct and instruct pastors who have stepped out of the biblical qualifications of a pastor. Any human is prone to power, greed, and tyranny, if given the opportunity. Therefore, we must all agree to guardrails and accountability.

It wasn’t supposed to be like this. And some will never attend church again because of this little cowardice manlet. There are roughly over 400,000 pastors in America. This man does not represent most pastors. This is a very rare case or else a Netflix documentary would not be needed.

My encouragement here is to not let this fool dissuade you from exploring church or continuing to attend. He doesn’t represent God or anything like God.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Aristotle on Government

A Swing and a Miss

I recently read a piece by a writer I enjoy and appreciate. Reading this piece caused curiosity towards ideas presented here, from my perspective. The following doesn’t necessarily indicate I’m right. Just that presently, these are my thoughts.

I recently read a piece by a writer I enjoy and appreciate. Reading this piece caused curiosity towards ideas presented here, from my perspective. The following doesn’t necessarily indicate I’m right. Just that presently, these are my thoughts.

The piece was broken into six parts regarding Aristotle’s take on such subjects and how this may benefit us today: Rulers, education, family, middle class, freedom, and liberal vs conservative.

First, allow me to say I love ancient Greek philosophy. Learning Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, among others, has been a joy to undertake in my later years, as I did not appreciate this work early in life. These men set the stage for individualistic thought adopted by the Western world, ultimately leading to the formation of the greatest nation in the world.

Rulers

This is a subject in which I’ll be leaning on Thomas Sowell. It’s a matter of human nature and its potential.

“Leadership is a position of service; so our societal structures must be designed to bring the virtuous people forward and filter out those not suited.”

Aristotle was right to believe that leadership did not rest with just any citizen. After all, it was his teacher who said, “He who does not desire power is fit to hold it.”

Views of human nature with immeasurable potential tended to view institutions as systemic barriers, with little to no regard for individual decision being possible causation for the plight of one. It juxtaposes ideas of elite few possessing qualities and skills developed enough as to contain solutions to the world’s problems against human nature’s tendency towards greed, power, and tyranny given the unpunished opportunity.

“Aristotle argued that power should rest with the wisest and most virtuous citizens. They are the ones best suited to rule.”

Aristotle fully believed there were people capable of this. Possibly because he was one of such minds and surrounded by other like minds. The issue returns to tendencies and the cost of failure. Minds with ideas bear no cost of failure. It’s an experiment played out at the expense of others’ lives.

I simply do not hold human nature in such high esteem and would rather trust the collective experience of the average many who bear the cost of failure.

The government cannot and will not produce anything, only pervert what was meant for good. In this, Aristotle, in wanting monarchy, did not know what we know today.

Education

“I think Aristotle would approve of schools being funded by local taxes. Aristotle talked about the importance of private property and prioritizing one’s own community.”

I agree that it seems to be feasible to tax families to ensure basic education, as long as families have control over where this education comes from. It’s the monopoly of education that prevents actual progress in this field.

Family

“Tax breaks for families, maternity leave funded by the government, and universal preschool could build the culture that we ought to have.”

The concept of maternal leave funded by the government sounds great until “he who holds the purse, pulls the strings.” The government pays no price for being wrong or mismanaging other people’s money. But if they’re paying the bill, they’re also controlling the mechanism and rules by which it is carried out. And “universal” anything is a terrible idea. Again, when the government pays the bill, they make the rules. And I’m still in search for an example in which the government did something right.

Middle Class

“Rather than radical programs that react against social issues, how can we proactively build society so that the desirable outcomes naturally occur?”

At the societal level, this can only happen through incentive structures and trade-offs. It is worth noting that the middle class is “shrinking” because more people are gaining wealth, rather than the inverse. In fact, poverty is declining.

Freedom

Liberty can only be found within the confines of boundaries. Aristotle was on to something. Much like fire, if contained, it’s beautiful, warm, and beneficial. Untamed, it destroys everything it touches.

Liberal and Conservative

The wealthy paying more incentivizes them to leave to reinvest their money in a manner that best suits their enterprise. This is why overtaxing the rich never accomplishes what it sets out to achieve. Create tax structures that incentivize the company to create new jobs. In this, everyone wins.

Conclusion

Overall, when the government is involved, it ends badly. Every time. We definitely do not need their “help.” We need social incentives, created and maintained through traditions and evidence of efficacy. Restrict the malevolent to allow optimal economic mobilization, with full freedom of the individual to make choices that benefit him and his community. And leave the government completely out of it.

I love Aristotle’s contribution to western civilization. He is the father of science, as far as I’m concerned. He continued the great tradition of thinking critically. He provided ways of viewing nature, politics, ethics, in such a way that he is still on the front of our textbooks, essays, and minds to this day.

However, on governmental structures, for the most part, he missed. While polity was often championed by Aristotle, he was strongly in favor of monarchical structure, rule by few. Though he cannot be blamed. Societies learned over time that was a terrible way to govern. I firmly believe, because of his openness to ideas, he would embrace the concept of a representative democracy, republic, in which the consent of the governed is required.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Conflict of Visions: A Book Review- Part III

The Unconstrained and Constrained Visions of Freedom and Justice

This a three-part series on “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It is split into the following categories of the way in which the unconstrained vision and the constrained view these subjects:

Part I: Human nature, Knowledge and Reason

Part II: Social Processes, Equality, Power

Part III: Freedom, Justice

In this conclusion to the series, freedom and justice are viewed quite differently, depending on who you’re asking. While these concepts seem axiomatic, as you are about to see, when viewed through the lens of the unconstrained and constrained visions, they appear to be very different Forms, as Plato might put it.

Freedom

In the unconstrained vision, individualism means to participate in the articulated decisions of collective entities while some with supreme wisdom possess exception from systemic or organized social restraints, like military service, or even laws.

Sowell articulated the constrained vision this way:

“Individualism means leaving the individual free to choose among the systematically generated opportunities, rewards, and penalties derived from other similarly free individuals without being subjected to articulated conclusions imposed by the power of organized entities such as government.”

According to the constrained vision, knowledge, wisdom, and virtue are derivations from the masses, and because so, the most an individual can expect is to be left free to choose among the various rewards and penalties emerging from systemic social processes without exemption from any of them.

Justice

Justice involves the attempt to change people’s motives, leaving incentives less important. This, according to the unconstrained vision, is an attempt towards a solution. Justice involves the mitigation of the breakdown of order. This, according to the constrained vision, is a trade-off because those in the constrained vision are aware of inherent human limitations.

To the unconstrained vision, justice is the conclusion of fairness and equality of results. Morality within justice is equal rights to the results. To the constrained vision, justice is the restriction on others to impede the process, making all processes equal. Morality within justice is equal rights to the process.

Conclusion

Both visions are concerned with social results. The limitations of man are at the heart of the theory of the constrained vision, while the potential of human nature is at the heart of the unconstrained vision.

The unconstrained vision seeks social results through collective decisions prescribing desired outcomes. The constrained vision believes it is beyond man’s capability to manage such vast knowledge and is dangerous to concentrate such power to make decisions, even if it were possible.

The unconstrained vision sees degrees of freedom as that which produce desired results. This is also true with justice through outcomes, power through control of one group over another, and equality being desired results having been achieved.

The constrained vision sees these entities quite differently. The characteristics of processes defined to restrict malevolent nature, whether it be freedom, justice, power, or equality, such processes have significance. A social process has freedom so far as it refrains from interfering with choices of individuals. A social process of justice ensures laws are just. A social process of equality means everyone abides by the same rules.

While results matter to the constrained vision, the general effectiveness of processes are the barometer for success and not measured by each individual result in isolation.

In the unconstrained vision, the moral and intellectual elite failing is preposterous and damning. To those with the constrained vision, failure is no surprise.

In the constrained vision, their adversaries are referred to as “well-meaning.” To the unconstrained vision, they are a “moral outrage.”

In the unconstrained vision, surrogate decision makers are best qualified to speak on our behalf. Such knowledge is consolidated. In the constrained vision, knowledge is inadequately possessed compared to knowledge systemically and collectively mobilized through free markets, values, and social processes. Thus the reason for restricting surrogate decisions makers’ power to rule over the discretion of others.

Thomas Sowell concluded his book by making this bold statement:

“While visions conflict, and arouse strong emotions in the process, merely ‘winning’ cannot be the ultimate goal of either the constrained or the unconstrained vision, however much that goal may preoccupy practical politicians. The moral impulse driving each vision cannot be jettisoned for the sake of winning, without making the victory meaningless.”

Sowell is calling for truth, compromise, and agreeing to disagree with the mass being represented in mind. Though there is a conflict of visions, there does not have to be a conflict of social prosperity.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Conflict of Visions: A Book Review- Part II

The Unconstrained and Constrained Visions of Social Processes, Equality, and Power

This a three-part series on “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It is split into the following categories of the way in which the unconstrained vision and the constrained view these subjects:

Part I: Human nature, Knowledge and Reason

Part II: Social Processes, Equality, Power

Part III: Freedom, Justice

As with anything else, most desire thriving among those close to them. To arrive there, agreement is often hard to find among those with differing views on how to arrive. Here, we see how the constrained and unconstrained visions differ in their view on social processes, equality, and power.

Social Processes

In the unconstrained vision, changes in human nature are the scenery itself, rather than just the costume. And only sweeping changes are deemed appropriate for the future. In the constrained vision, changes in human history are differences in costumes. It is the same fractured nature replaying itself in various new ways.

In the unconstrained vision, Loyalty, promises, patriotism, gratitude, precedent, oaths of fidelity, constitutions, marriage, social traditions, and international treaties are constrictions imposed earlier when knowledge was less, on options to be exercised later, when knowledge will be greater. In the constrained vision, true government requires more skill and experience than any one person can possess.

Comparisons between the morally and intellectually superior to the average person are commonplace in the unconstrained vision. The most outstanding individuals, intellectually or morally, are inherently limited in their capacity for knowledge in the constrained vision.

In the unconstrained vision, human nature is a variable, and variables can change. Obstacles to progress are to be overcome by the commitment, intelligence, and imagination of those who have grasped the possibilities open to society. Understanding human nature’s limitations is foundational to the constrained vision. Those in the constrained vision see outcomes as a function of incentives presented to individuals and conditions under which they interact in response to those incentives.

Best results should be sought directly in the unconstrained vision. When there are equality of results among those who have contributed, abstained, and hampered production, it strikes offense to the equality of process among those with the constrained vision. If a foot race is conducted under fair conditions, the result each time does not define justice in the constrained vision.

In the unconstrained vision, human capabilities permit social decisions to be made collectively through the articulated rationality of surrogate decision makers. In the constrained vision, decisions are to be made collectively through a composite of the average many, rather than the elite few.

What is justice and liberty, and how do we solve the issue of poverty? Here are the differences among the visions:

Unconstrained

  • Justice– something is just or unjust based on the end results that occur.
  • Liberty– results maximize scope of choice of individuals, often leading to advantages to those whose social backgrounds would handicap them in competition.
  • Poverty– subsidize them to produce a more desirable result in the form of higher living.

Constrained

  • Justice– adherence to agreed-upon rules.
  • Liberty– freedom from coercion and arbitrary power of other men.
  • Poverty– Provide incentives to succeed individually.

Equality

Attempts to equalize economic results leads to inequality in political power. Where achieving equal economic process limits centralized power because everyone must play by the same rules. Disagreement does not rely on degree of inequality, but what is to be equalized.

In the unconstrained vision, equality is achieved through results. Equality of opportunity means equalized probabilities of achieving given results. If the process given doesn’t produce equal results, then the process must be changed to maximize equal results for individuals. In the constrained vision, equality is achieved through process. As long as everyone is treated the same and operate under the same set of rules, the process is equal, resulting in equality having been achieved.

Those in the unconstrained vision believe some have little because others have much. There are finite resources. Those in the constrained vision believe consequences of decisions cause one to have little or much. Incentives drive this.

Equalizing material conditions of life are to be equalized under the influence of power of those with intellectual and moral superiority, according to the unconstrained vision. And according to the constrained vision, discretion is to be equally and individually exercised as often as possible under the boundaries of traditions and values derived from the widely shared experience of the many rather than special articulation of the few.

Power

To reduce the chances of war, in the eyes of the unconstrained vision, lean on the morally superior, communicate with enemies better, reduce arms seen as a threat to peace, and de-emphasize patriotism. To reduce the chances of war, in the eyes of the constrained vision, have military maximally prepared, promote patriotism, make adversaries aware of your military might, negotiate only when it can be done so without blackmail.

For crime, William Godwin said, “It is impossible that a man would perpetrate a crime in the moment when he sees it in all its enormity.” People are forced to commit crimes for specific reasons, poverty, discrimination, and unemployment. Therefore, reducing such reasons would reduce crime to those with the unconstrained vision. For crime, the constrained vision rests in the belief that it is axiomatic humans will be given to criminal nature.

Governmental Power?

  • Unconstrained: Governmental power in economics: it is a matter of intentions.
  • Constrained:Governmental power in economics: it is a matter of incentives.

In the unconstrained vision, power is to be seen as limited by intellectual elite through socially desirable results within man’s capabilities. In the constrained vision, power is to be seen as one reducing other’s options. It is not within man’s capabilities to monitor a myriad of individual results of behavior. Therefore, efforts must focus on restrictions of power, thereby restricting the ability of some to reduce other’s options.

Conclusion

Yet again, we see the pattern that both visions long for people among them to thrive in every possible avenue. The mechanisms of how and who decide distinguish the two visions.

For the next and last part, we will look a little closer at the ways in which the two visions disagree on freedom and justice.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Conflict of Visions: A Book Review- Part I

The Unconstrained and Constrained Visions of Human Nature, Knowledge and Reason

This a three-part series on “Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It is split into the following categories of the way in which the unconstrained vision and the constrained view these subjects:

Part I: Human nature, Knowledge and Reason

Part II: Social Processes, Equality, Power

Part III: Freedom, Justice

I just completed arguably the best book I’ve ever read, excluding the Bible. In his book, Conflict of Visions, Thomas Sowell managed to lay out broadly, yet perfectly, two ways in which the world can be viewed. His impetus for writing such a book was based on a thought that plagued him; why can one predict that if someone holds one value, they will hold certain other values that are not, in any way, related? For instance, if one is pro-life, they are also pro-2A and border enforcement. Conversely, if one is anti-ICE, they are also pro-government programs, income redistribution, and socialist policies, like free healthcare. None of those things are related, barring a religious interpretation.

Once faced with this complexity, Sowell began diving in. The result was this amazing book. Sowell primarily referenced Adam Smith as an archetypal guide for the constrained vision and William Godwin as an archetypal guide for the unconstrained vision. The beauty of it may lie in the fact that no one purely resides in one vision. What we find is most people view the world mostly one way and see certain aspects of life in the view of the other vision, if they were being transparently honest. I am no exception.

“It is the lot of all human institutions, even those of the most perfect kind, to have defects as well as excellencies, ill as well as good propensities. This results from the imperfection of the institutor, man.”

“It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”

“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”

– Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist papers

Human Nature

The unconstrained vision is focused on solutions. The constrained vision is focused on trade-offs. In the unconstrained vision, solutions are achieved when trade-offs are no longer needed.

In the unconstrained vision, man’s understanding is capable of intentionally creating social benefits. In the constrained vision, morally and socially beneficial behaviors arrive from incentives.

Given the immeasurable (or unconstrained) possibilities in human nature, poverty, or other social ills, are a result of evil intentions or blindness to solutions readily available by changing institutions. Those with constrained visions are not trying to create the ideal, but to establish the best that the people can bear.

Believers in the unconstrained vision seek the causes of war, poverty, and crime. Believers in the constrained vision seek the causes of peace, wealth, or a law-abiding society.

In the unconstrained vision, human nature can be changed and social customs and traditions are expendable holdovers from the past. Human nature is unchangeable over time in the constrained vision.

The unconstrained vision is concerned directly with results, irrespective of processes. The constrained vision is concerned with the process considered integral to desired results, but inevitably with unhappy side effects, which are accepted as trade-offs.

Summarized, a constrained vision holds that human desires exceed both personal and societal resources, and people will not voluntarily limit themselves to what society can provide. Therefore, external constraints, like prices, laws, traditions, and social pressures, are necessary to force individuals to live within real limits and reduce harm to others. These limitations apply universally, even to the wisest or most compassionate people. Only by recognizing that all humans are bound by such limits is the constrained vision complete.

Knowledge and Reason

The unconstrained vision believes knowledge is reserved for the special and elite few to serve as guides and instructors for those not blessed with above average intellect. The constrained vision believes knowledge is too vast and complex for explicit articulation. The process must travel through multiple channels, through the collection of the average many.

John Stuart Mill, through an unconstrained vision, viewed legal precedents as “an absurd sacrifice of present ends to antiquated means.” Unequal intellectual and moral standing would justify having equality imposed on others, regardless of their consent, and only “very unequal power would make it possible.” The constrained vision is less concerned with economic and social equality and more concerned with the dangers of inequality of power producing an articulate ruling elite.

A socially responsible businessman would hire the disadvantaged, invest in what is needed most by society, rather than profit, and turn proceeds over to charity in the unconstrained vision. In the constrained vision, The businessman’s competence in his particular field yields prosperity. Competition, rather than individual intentions, comprises the constrained vision and its reliance to produce social benefit.

In the unconstrained vision, the judge’s moral duty is to interpret or change the law as it fits society in the present, relinquishing the grip on the past and applying reason to the present. In the constrained vision, The judge’s moral duty is to faithfully carry out the law he was sworn to uphold, regardless of how he sees the outcome.

Conclusion

As you can see, both distinct visions share the same desired destination. Happiness and flourishing for all. The separation arrives at the mode of discretion (how the decisions are made) and the locus of discretion (who makes those decisions).

Next, we will look into the two visions and how they view Social Processes, Equality, Power.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Collectivism vs. Community

The Subtle, Yet Glaring Distinction

The distinction between collectivism and community is important. While they get conflated with each other, they’re not the same.

I recently had a couple in counseling who had hit the most common gridlock I see in couples. She says, “He doesn’t notice all I do” and he says, “No matter how much I do, it is never enough.” I asked them the last time they went on a date. They laughed and couldn’t remember. I laughed along with them in a mirroring technique helpful in counseling. But internally, I wasn’t laughing. My goal was to get fired, but for good reasons, they would no longer need me.

Thanks for reading Tidbits of Audacity! Subscribe for free to receive new posts every Tuesday.

I asked why they hadn’t gone a date recently. They quickly named off reasons that are better described as excuses. The most prevalent was not having a babysitter. I began asking about their support group. They had no such group in their lives. They were “doing fine” on their own. I retorted, “So fine that you’re in here.” They laughed again, but it was less enthusiastic.

This couple had bought into rigid individualism, losing sight of the communal necessities affording us to live our best lives.

Individualism vs Collectivism

People often discuss the juxtaposition of collectivism vs. individualism. In the West, we typically prefer individualism. After all, it is how we became the greatest nation on earth. We fought for individual freedom, demanding the government get out of our business. We originally declared the federal government good for three purposes:

  • National security
  • Federal banking system (states would not play nice with their separate forms of money)
  • Interstate regulation (making states play nice in all areas)

So it’s easy to see how we arrived at a place where we prefer individualism over collectivism. Our ancestors witnessed the group tyrannizing the common man, and when the commons man prevailed in the Revolutionary War, individualism built roots in our soil.

But I had recently been thinking on the ways in which collectivism gets some things right, and we as individualists, tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater (Ok, no one is throwing babies. It is just an old saying). While thinking on this issue, a fellow stacker, Pastor Ron brought up an interesting point. Maybe it’s community that the collectivists got right, and maybe community exists independently of collectivism.

The Distinction

When you really step back and look at collectivism, searching for the community aspects and how they are alike, yet how they differ, quite a few things stand out.

If you’re asking, “What is the best for the group?” and “How we can help each other flourish together?”— these are very different questions, particularly as it pertains to authority, agency, decision-making, autonomy, and individuation. For instance, view the distinction between the collective good vs the common good. The collective good will view and treat individuals as a means to achieve a larger social goal. The common good will recognize relationships bring out the best in individuals, while allowing agency to remain priority.

The aspects of coercion vs voluntary action, group-think vs autonomy, and even geographically remaining in close proximity vs individuation highlights distinctions between community and collectivism.

The History of Community vs Collectivism

  • Alexis de Tocqueville argued that a free democracy was possible through voluntary associations like churches, neighborhoods, and local groups. He warned of the “Tyranny of the majority.”
  • Robert Nisbet echoed sentiments of Tocqueville in that community consisted of aspects of voluntary participation in local groups. Nisbet believed that collectivism replaced such voluntary groups with centralized bureaucratic power.
  • Pushing back on Rawlsian thinking, Michael Sandel posits that individuation is realized through social reciprocity, community, tradition, rather than existing in the form of an isolated individual. Sandel’s work is classified as communitarianism while still denouncing collectivism as viable.
  • Maybe one of the more important voices on community is Robert Putnam, who writes that the erosion of community, like neighborhoods, church participation, and volunteer groups contribute to the moral decline we see today, while refusing to endorse collectivism, citing that that voluntary aspect of community is one of the core elements that make it efficacious. Putnam speaks of social capital, such as bowling leagues and churches, to find mutual aid and social reciprocity along all of its benefits, including belonging and various types of support when it is needed.

Lastly, Karl Marx was a collectivist. Enough said.

More Distinctions

Collectivism primarily focuses the interest of the group, while community focuses on mutual care, shared purpose, and the flourishing of individuals within the group. Often, social and psychological benefits commonly attributed to collectivist are actually products of good, healthy communal entities rather than prioritizing groups over all agency.

I’m firmly convinced that the protective effects often attributed to collectivist cultures can also be found in communal bonds through strong local communities, families, and churches without the requirement of coercion, loss of autonomy, or removal of individual purpose and meaning.

Conclusion

What it comes down to is, I simply don’t believe in being rigidly individual to the point of social isolation. This has been the residual effect of people unable to see benefit of communal entities like churches and support groups. They move to another town, know no one, and begin to struggle immensely with everyday household negotiation. This is because we weren’t meant to do this alone.

The phrase, “It takes a village” is needed, necessary, vital to survival and flourishing when maintaining a home, raising children, and helping our fellow neighbor in times of need. This does not require collectivist assimilation, only recognizing communal needs. My suggestion to the couple was to find community, and fast. They did. Life is better. Then they did what I always long for, they fired me.

Stay Classy GP!

Grainger

Posted on

Testify to What?

Why Love Isn’t Love

L-R: Michael Passons, Melissa Greene, Ty Herndon

I absolutely love this song. Their performance is incredible. I have no problem with anyone, including gay people singing Christian music. This article is in response to a specific statement made by one of the singers of this song.

Spending my first 15 adult years in the music business in Nashville, I encountered many things I thought I’d never see. Of those remains to be the number of Christian music artists that were closeted homosexual. Keep in mind, to those of us in the industry, it wasn’t that closeted. On 16th and 17th Avenue in Nashville, they wore their identity without apology. But the instant they stepped beyond that sanctuary, they slipped into a disguise, pretending to be someone they weren’t.

Realities of the Music Industry

The reasons are clear. If the rest of the world, especially the Christian music listeners, were to learn of their favorite singer’s homosexuality, they would stop listening. This affects the financial bottom line. As a result, there was an unwritten code that artists were to keep their homosexuality on the down-low and everyone made money. If their homosexuality were to become common knowledge, sales would go down, managers would get less, publishers would get less, the artists would get less, there would be no tour. It’s financial ruin.

There has typically been the same unwritten code in country music. So when Ty Herndon was discovered by law enforcement committing a homosexual act in public, his label did their best to cover it up, minimize, and even alter the narrative surrounding the events. This couldn’t get out. But for different, yet similar, reasons. Those buying records were conservative, God-fearing, country boys and girls who did not want their favorite singer to be gay. Again, the fairness of this can be debated.

You could make the argument as to whether this is fair or not. For Christian singers, they adhere to what the Bible says. For country music, the clientele buys the records. If they don’t buy, you don’t have a job. In both cases, it was mostly economic.

New Take On an Old Song

Insert the new single by Ty Herndon, Michael Passons, and Melissa Greene. The song, “Testify to Love”, is a cover from the Chrisitan group Avalon, of whom Michael was a member of at one time. Michael left the group in 2003, citing other opportunities. Then in 2020, Passons came out as gay, recanting that leaving the group was involuntary due to his sexual orientation.

When the song comes out (no pun intended), it quickly becomes a hit. The initial reason is clear, they are amazing vocalists. Quickly, this begins to stir the airwaves, claiming this is “the first hit by an openly gay Christian artist.” For this reason, they received criticism.

Melissa Greene and Michael Passons took another step. Their claim was that “Christian music was built on the backs of gay people.” This is the statement that got my attention.

Christian Beliefs

Before we can continue, we have to clarify certain things. For the sake of this conversation, it must be noted that the Christian tradition believes that people are to be loved, but sins are not. And that homosexuality is considered a sin (missing the mark, not God’s design). Christians believe that love isn’t love, God is love. You can debate that on another day. Today it’s about the statement made by Greene and Passons.

Exploitation vs. Good Business

By their statement, they are saying that there were/are many gay people in Christian music and that it was exploitative to demand they keep this knowledge a secret. There are a few problems with this thought.

First, if they are going to go by the Bible, they should not be engaged in a homosexual relationship. They have abandoned that reality. Now, they choose to sing in the Christian music industry. It’s worth nothing that many in Nashville believe some people enter the Christian music industry because they can’t get signed in Country or Pop. Essentially, that’s unfair. However, there have been many cases where that was the clear truth.

Therefore, they should know that if they don’t abide by the rules of the industry, they will not have a job. This is no different than the Dixie Chicks debacle. In 2003, The lead singer, Natalie Maines, said she was “ashamed that the President of the United States was from Texas.” Outrage ensued. People were literally burning their records, t-shirts, and pictures. Their tour sales suffered greatly. They virtually tanked, dissolved, and were ostracized by the entire industry. But why? Because their clientele were the ones buying the records and going to the shows. And their clientele didn’t want to hear disrespectful things about their president. It’s free market capitalism 101.

This is why the statement by Greene and Passons that “Christian music was built on the backs of gay people”, hasn’t landed well. If it were to get out that a Christian singer was gay, that group would no longer have a career.

The other problem is this remake has usurped the meaning, slapped a concept creep on it, and decided they know what’s best, rather than the God they so lovingly sing about knowing what’s best.

True Meaning Behind the Song

If the song is to champion the idea that God loves gay people and you should too, then I’m totally on board with this. The message Jesus taught wasn’t a heterosexual or homosexual message, it was a God message. “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:34-35). In that context, I will testify to love too. Because in testifying to love, I’m testifying to God.

If they are attempting to make the claim that God is perfectly accepting and happy that they are engaged in homosexual relationships, this would be directly against what God has said, and those in the industry knew that, thus the request for secrecy. In that context, I would ask, what is love? If God is love, then the literal translation of the song is, “I will testify to God.” And if we’re doing that, we are asking for grace, mercy, and forgiveness for missing the mark, and noting that homosexuality would be considered missing the mark.

There was no exploitation. There was a business model. And in order to have a career in Christian music, that model needed to be followed. One would either need to find a different path, or “deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me” (Luke 9:23). But expecting an entire industry to bow to your ill-informed opinion of what the text of the Bible says about homosexuality isn’t reasonable.

There will be a follow up about homosexuals in the church, and it will not be easy to read if you’re a Christian. I’m taking the gloves off for that one. For now…

Stay Classy GP (God’s People)!

Grainger