The Freedom agenda is more alive in some states than others

In 1987 Thomas Sowell wrote The Conflict of Visions in which he lays out two conflicting visions which are often characterized as Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative, Authoritarian vs. Freedom, Group vs. Individual visions.  

A Conflict of Visions is a book by Thomas Sowell. It was originally published in 1987; a revised edition appeared in 2007. Sowell's opening chapter attempts to answer the question of why the same people tend to be political adversaries in issue after issue, when the issues vary enormously in subject matter and sometimes hardly seem connected to one another. The root of these conflicts, Sowell claims, are the "visions", or the intuitive feelings that people have about human nature; different visions imply radically different consequences for how they think about everything from war to justice.

The rest of the book describes two basic visions, the "unconstrained" and "constrained" 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.

[snip]

The unconstrained (utopian) 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 (tragic) vision

Sowell argues that the constrained vision relies heavily on the 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 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.

Obviously the utopian idealists who are prey to authoritarian practices exemplify the Unconstrained Vision whereas Classical Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives fall under the Constrained Vision.

I am reminded of all this by New U.S. Census Data: Major Migration From Blue States To Red States

By Paul Caron.  It could not be a clearer manifestation of Sowell's Conflict of Visions in real life.  The Blue States exemplify the Unconstrained Vision, idealistic and authoritarian while the Red States exemplify, imperfectly, the Constrained Vision, pragmatic, empirical, and freedom based.  

9 of the 10 states with the least net domestic migration voted for Joe Biden in 2020, and 9 of the 10 states with the most net domestic migration voted for Donald Trump.

Similarly, in my November post on the Tax Foundation's 2023 State Business Tax Climate Index, I noted that 9 of the 10 states with the worst business tax climates voted for Joe Biden in 2020, and 8 of the 10 states with the best business tax climates voted for Donald Trump.

And if you want to visualize the actual attractiveness of the different visions to the average citizen, you can't do much better than this map of domestic migration.  We can have all the abstract and philosophical debates between the merits and risks associated with the Woke versus the Classical Liberal world views but it is obvious where citizens come down.  Freedom is good.  

Click to enlarge.