Vía Arnold Kling leo esta crítica de Bryan Caplan a A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles
Creo que la crítica de Caplan es persuasiva en varios puntos, pero tengo dudas de que describa fielmente la tesis de Sowell (por ejemplo, algunas objeciones de Caplan resultan convincentes porque elige como blanco las dos visiones antagonistas, la utópica y la trágica, pero pierden fuerza si las consideramos a la luz de las "visiones híbridas" que Sowell también contempla y Caplan básicamente ignora).
De la crítica de Caplan me quedo con este párrafo:
Sowell claims that the constrained view believes in a strong national defense based upon deterrence, whereas the unconstrained vision believes in disarmament, negotiation, and the like. Now how exactly is this consistent with Sowell's announced operational definition? Seemingly, the definition says that the constrained vision ought to distrust the use of concentrated power by self-anointed government experts for any purpose, including national defense. Similarly, it appears that the unconstrained vision ought to favor an activist foreign policy, since it believes in the efficacy of central planning by the best and brightest. What is going on here? I can only conclude that while a close deduction from definitions would have shown that constrained vision implies isolationism or a similar unambitious foreign policy, to admit this would mean that most of Sowell's "constrained" visionaries held inconsistent views (himself included).
Esta es la conclusión:
What really puzzles me is why Sowell did not try a much simpler typology. Why not simply distinguish between advocates of laissez-faire, free-market policies on one pole, and advocates of government control on the other pole? _This_ dichotomy is unable to accomodate left-wing anarchists, but almost every other ideology fits neatly into place. Of course, this typology fails to capture the "underlying assumptions" of the two polar views. And it fails to do so for a simple reason: each of the polar views has supporters with a wide range of underlying assumptions.
Now there may very well be room for argument about which underlying assumptions provide better support for the two polar views. My own view is that the rationalistic, optimistic view gives the best support for the free-market position, and that the anti-rationalistic, pessimistic view gives the best support for the statist position. But when I make that claim, I abandon my role as a neutral _describer_ of different views. I make claims about what is true, rather than what different people think is true. In the end, this is the more productive role. Sowell would have done much better if he wrote a book _arguing_ that certain assumptions support his political views, rather than merely stating it and ignoring the long of thinkers who share most of his conclusions but reject his proffered foundations.
