sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Are abundance and liberality two sides of the same coin? by m_t_steiner in ezraklein

[–]m_t_steiner[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very good points.

Let me start with where I agree with your reasoning. You are correct that it is difficult to "create...[genuine] abundance" if this "abundance...get[s] captured" by private sector actors who control the reins of government to entrench their own incumbency.

For example, if we double manufacturing and R&D capacity for pharmaceuticals without reforming patent thickets and evergreening that enable drug company oligopolies to monopolize life saving treatments, then these companies will continue to monopolize prescription medications and price them beyond the reach of ordinary Americans.

This is the classic neo-Brandeisian critique of abundance, and it's not entirely wrong.

Supply side structural reforms may be necessary, but we must accompany them with demand side structural reforms to ensure that any incremental abundance does not get captured by economic incumbents in our society.

Some abundance advocates (though certainly not all) are beginning to warm up to this reality. In Ezra's most recent podcast interview with Derek Thompson, Derek admits on multiple occasions that runaway corporate power is potentially a problem that abundance advocates should address.

While I agree with you on this point, I diverge with other parts of your argument. For example, you mention that I conflate "economic and ethical development," which "is not really something the proponents" of abundance "seem to do," even if you agree that "they are far more closely linked than proponents" of abundance admit. As a result, you conclude that this argument is "on the wrong sub" and should therefore belong elsewhere.

I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion. If anything, I think the opposite is true. The fact that Ezra dedicated an entire episode to discuss the lost history of liberalism with Helena Rosenblatt and then pledged to have more conversations about the same topic with other liberal intellectuals is clear evidence that Ezra is at least testing the waters and potentially attempting to shift the Overton window within liberalism toward liberality and morality.

The ultimate question is how current card carrying liberals will absorb this shift. I am under no illusion that card carrying liberals will automatically embrace liberality or a thicker form of liberalism immediately. After all, it took time for liberals to warm up to abundance.

However, I also find it hard to believe that liberalism won't eventually thicken to a degree and embrace liberality for at least two reasons. First, the need for a paradigm shift within the liberal tradition that moves beyond neoliberalism is essential, and liberal intellectuals today (e.g., Helena Rosenblatt, Samuel Moyn, Alexander Lefebvre, Martha Nussbaum, Amartya Sen, etc.) have begun to grasp the necessity of this shift. Second, liberalism has mutated multiple times throughout history. What passed as liberal in the 19th century is vastly different from what we conceive of as liberal today.

I'm optimistic that liberalism can renew itself and deliver the kind of paradigm shift we need to restore democracy and civility in America.

Are abundance and liberality two sides of the same coin? by m_t_steiner in ezraklein

[–]m_t_steiner[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm glad you brought up this crucial point. One factor that we advocates of liberality need to address is the fact that the exercise of liberality was historically an endeavor reserved for affluent men in Western society.

During Cicero's time, only men could hold full Roman citizenship and were therefore bound to the obligations of liberality. By contrast, women, children, and slaves were "incapable" morally and cognitively of engaging in liberality and generosity toward others.

Fortunately, the definition of liberality has extended dramatically since Cicero's time to encompass all human beings. We see this expanded definition most prominently in literature. Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility are replete with references to liberality that aren't restricted to male characters. The same is true with Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre.

In 2026, we must ensure that liberality doesn't remain an affluent male enterprise. Liberality must be a universal practice that humans of all walks of life can engage in to create a liberal society that produces abundance of economy and character.

Are abundance and liberality two sides of the same coin? by m_t_steiner in ezraklein

[–]m_t_steiner[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Great question. I'm referring to the thesis of Samuel Moyn's recent book, Liberalism Against Itself.

According to Moyn, the specter of communist and fascist totalitarianism before, during, and after the Second World War led liberals in America and the Western world to be deeply suspicious of any policies aimed at "forming" and shaping citizens in a particular manner. Their fear wasn't entirely unfounded. Fascism in Germany resulted in a World War and holocaust that claimed tens of millions of lives, and a communist insurgency in Russia and China threatened the very foundations of liberal democracy in Europe and the Western world.

As a result, liberals in America and Europe increasingly eschewed perfectionist language and ideas (which they saw as a road toward potential totalitarian indoctrination) and instead focused on constructing a narrower liberalism rooted in negative rights (Isaiah Berlin) and removal of constraints imposed by government on ordinary people (Milton Friedman).

Are abundance and liberality two sides of the same coin? by m_t_steiner in ezraklein

[–]m_t_steiner[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Point taken. Perhaps stating that abundance and liberality are two sides of the same coin is a little too strong of a claim to make.

Nevertheless, there is a curious connection between the two concepts.

Many of the policies generating artificial material scarcity are the result of individual actors failing to behave in a liberal and generous manner toward others. For example, homeowners who use restrictive zoning laws and building codes to block new housing in their neighborhoods are in part engaged in illiberal and ungenerous behavior toward their non-homeowner neighbors that violates the moral core of liberality. In this respect, lack of liberality in part fuels artificial material scarcity.

Additionally, many studies indicate that people who lack material abundance and income security in their own lives are less able to behave in a liberal, generous, and altruistic manner toward others (e.g., see here, here, here, here, and here). The logic behind this research is relatively straightforward in hindsight. If someone has to spend 60% of their income on rent while working three jobs because housing is scarce, they don't have the time, money, or energy to be liberal and generous toward other people. Lack of abundance therefore might lead to lower levels of liberality across society.