Kas liberalismi paradigma on muutumas?

Alati mitmekülgne ja huvitav Tyler Cowen on lahanud liberalismi olemust ning seda kohati provokatiivses essees, kus toob välja ka huvitava liberalismi paradoksi - liberaalsema poliitika tulemusel on kasvanud inimeste sissetulekud ja paranenud riigiaparaadi kvaliteet:

Those developments have brought us much greater wealth and much greater liberty, at least in the positive sense of greater life opportunities. They’ve also brought much bigger government. The more wealth we have, the more government we can afford. Furthermore, the better government operates, the more government people will demand. That is the fundamental paradox of libertarianism. Many initial victories bring later defeats.

The old formulas were “big government is bad” and “liberty is good,” but these are not exactly equal in their implications. The second motto — “liberty is good” — is the more important. And the older story of “big government crushes liberty” is being superseded by “advances in liberty bring bigger government.”

Cowen ei ole loomulikult esimene, keda loogika selles suunas juhatab. Joseph Schumpeter jõudis 1942. aastal ilmunud Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy sarnasele kuigi mõnevõrra pessimistlikumale järeldusele - vähemalt Frederic Sautet arvates:

Schumpeter, like Mises, didn’t believe hampered markets could work well and would be sustainable in the long run. This in itself was quite an achievement for an economist in the interwar period. During that time, most intellectuals argued against capitalism, and most economists joined the chorus against free markets. In this context, Schumpeter stood fast arguing that there was no other way to allocate resources and improve the lot of the masses.
. . .
Schumpeter was more than an economist: he was also a sociologist, an anthropologist, and above all a historian. Capitalism is doomed for sociological/cultural reasons he surmised. Schumpeter didn’t buy into Marxist economics (which also irremediably condemned capitalism in the long run), but he thought the cultural appeal of socialism would some day become irresistible.
. . .
His message is rather gloom but the questions he raised are the right ones. “What makes countries become prosperous?” and “What makes social systems robust?” are the two sides of the political economy coin as he saw it. Schumpeter offered an economic response to the first one (i.e. creative destruction) and a cultural and sociological response to the second one (i.e. the cultural appeal of socialism).

Cowen ei ole õnneks sama fatalistlik kui Schumpeter ja leiab, et pigem peaksid liberaalsema maailmavaatega inimesed loobuma "vabadus vs. võim" paradigmast ja leppima sellega, et mida rikkamaks inimesed saavad, seda rohkem ja paremat riigiaparaati saavad nad endale lubada ja riigiaparaati saab oma korda kasutada uute probleemide nagu globaalsed epideemiad, looduskatastroofid, kliimamuutused, intellektuaalse omandi küsimused ja tuumarelvad levik vastu võitlemiseks.

Loomulikult ei jaga kõik Coweni seisukohti ja näiteks Bryan Caplani vastab postitusega Worst Advice to Libertarians Ever?:

Contrary to Tyler's suggestion, libertarians have been thinking about scary predictions for a long time. Remember Julian Simon? Long story short: (a) Scary stories are usually greatly exaggerated; (b) Government "corrections" are quite likely to make problems worse; (c) Liberty will suffer in the bargain. The "War on Terror" inspired by the 9/11 attacks provides a nice confirmation of these deep lessons.

The bottom line is that libertarians need to pay attention to these issues because non-libertarians are eager to do something about them. But libertarians' skeptical presumption against both the likelihood of disaster and the likelihood that government will avert disaster is wise and justified.

Kiiresti muutuvas maailmas mängib olulist rolli pragmaatilisus ja tõenäoliselt on seda Cowenil rohkem kui Caplanil, kuigi viimase arvamus on mulle sümpaatsem.

PS. Tyler Coweni maailmavaate ja arusaamade kohta sügavamat huvi tundvatel inimestel soovitan kuulata intervjuud mehega. Tyler loeb väga (VÄGA!) laialt ning on ulatuslikult uurinud just kultuuri ja majanduslike suhete omavahelist rolli.