“The conservative strategy is to starve the beast as the only hope of preserving their freedom and their culture. In that context, their approach is entirely rational: in the battle between the public intellectual who would undermine their culture, and the entrepreneur who would preserve it, they are funding the entrepreneur. It is an entirely rational strategy. It is absolutely straightforward. Just as it is rational that Schumpeterian public intellectuals seek to fund the state.”
1) Bankrupt the state before it can bankrupt us, versus bankrupt the entrepreneurs so that we have all political power.
2) Society as a collection of competing groups with different interests where the government is a referee and property rights the rules, versus society as an extension of the family wherein interests are assumed to be homogenous.
3) The constrained vision of human ability where society is fragile, everything is scarce, and change should be organic because of inescapable human hubris, versus the unconstrained vision of human ability where society i stable, everything is plentiful, and change should be directed and consensual, and problems are always solvable.
4) The feminine social order where the purpose of society is to produce as many children as possible, consume as much as possible, and provide the safest most nurturing world for all, versus the masculine social order where the purpose of society is to constrain the worst, concentrate resources in the best, and produce individual excellences.
These are simply facts. Sowell was correct in stating the difference between the constrained vision and the unconstrained vision. He was insufficient in that the purpose of the social orders is secured by masculine and feminine biological preferences writ large. Nor was he, or anyone else, clear that the source of western innovation was the manorial system’s evolutionary ability to suppress the birth rates of the lower classes and in doing so create a more intelligent society capable of greater progress.