Neoliberalism and Loneliness
Looking at these two articles in conversation: Neoliberalism can reduce well-being by promoting a sense of social disconnection, competition, and loneliness and The Politics of Lonliness.
Liberal spaces often discuss the atomisation of society (see the whole "bowling alone" issue). There's even occasional, but persistent, lamentations about the decline of religion providing a social centre for communities. Under neoliberalism, individualism is of (to quote Milton Friedman) "paramount importance", and this is obviously in tension with communitarianism/collectivism. The increases in mental health issues, especially things like anxiety, as well as decreases in social activities (especially with the young) seem fairly well documented.
There is a tendency in liberal spaces to shrug off what seems to be fairly easily observable problem, which means the narrative is just going to be ceded to both left and right wing grifters and charlatans. There's a reason why anxiety-ridden college graduates are gravitating towards communism (with frequent fantasies about literal communes) and your NEET young men are gravitating towards your Jordan Petersons and his ilk.
Ceding the narrative is a problem, especially when I believe there are liberal ways to reconcile individualism with communitarianism in mutually supportive ways. We should be able to acknowledge where the current system is failing us, and identify liberal (even "neo"liberal) solutions to this.
And yes, it does include taxing the unimproved value of land...
Responding to the Bulwark
I think this is an important thing to discuss. I also think I'm just as guilty as the author of this piece by trying to shoe-horn in my pre-existing policy prescriptions as solutions to this problem, but here we go.
I don't think economic nationalism is the way to go (I won't repeat all the liberal mantra here). I don't think legislation trying to stop kids using social media could possibly be effective (possibly a different post). I also think the lamenting of lack of full time living-wage jobs is probably a misdiagnosis:
- Insofar we are looking at an individual, rather than household, I don't think people holding two or more jobs is necessarily bad nor that out of the historical norm.
- Discussions around "living wage" I find normally fairly arbitrarily defined.
- If we link "living wage" to something like percent of income spent on housing, then I think a focus on wages misses the actual problem: the housing shortage. Increasing wages would just increase rents; we need to decrease the cost of housing.
- Many households could live on one income, but we choose time and time again to boost household income so we can afford the latest luxuries, have overseas holidays, drive nicer cars etc. As real wages increase, the opportunity cost of staying-at-home also increases which makes it less and not more desirable to live that way
So these three policies seem like wanting reactionary policies trying to recreate a vision of the past that isn't going to come back, nor should it.
More funding for local communities I think is interesting, and I especially think this is a good way to experiment with quadratic funding of community initiatives.
It talks about antitrust policies, which could be one policy mechanism to explore, but I also think we underestimate how much decades of urban planning decisions have gone into subsidising non-local businesses. Huge amounts of infrastructure is built to facilitate long distance transportation. Business parks and massive malls are built with the eager cooperation of local councils, even to the point of offering special tax cuts and the like. It's a bit of a one-note cliche at this point, but I think even something like mixed-use zoning would go a long way to restore small, local businesses. I think it would also create more lively streets and create better neighbourhoods (and thus neighbours).
Shoehorning in my Favoured Reforms
There will be no silver bullet, but there are many reforms perfectly in line with a "neoliberal" framework that would provide benefit:
Political Reform: things such as approval voting over first past the post shift politics to a more consensus driven framework, making it better reflect the community at large rather than pitting polarised sides against one another. This would change the incentive of politicians, and therefore also change the incentive of partisan media.
Better Urban Planning: this hits twice. Firstly, there is large amount of subsidy for a model of living that is particularly atomiser in the suburbs. Secondly, this subsidy is typically economically less viable and over decades can result in degradation and decay of communities, which adds to the feelings of precarity, isolation and hopelessness.
Zoning Reform: a subset of the above, but allow vastly more organic growth in towns and cities to make housing more affordable, and more available where people want to live.
Streamlining Welfare: welfare cliffs are a massive problem, inefficient and a complete nightmare to actually try to navigate. Again, this drives feelings of isolation, shame, precarity and the sense that welfare is designed to punish recipients rather than help them. I think large amounts of government spending and schemes should be directed to simple cash payments.
Intellectual Property Reform: this is by far the most niche and minute, but I believe as we move more and more to a "knowledge economy", we will increasingly need an intellectual property framework to support collaboration, co-option, and experimentation of ideas/software/parents etc. I think the right reforms would drive a more horizontally open community, rather than vertically integrated corporation-driven structures which I think would be good everyone.