I think the growth of this movement is extremely promising, even though it has some flaws and internal contradictions. And it's a source of potentially valuable allies for libertarians and other free market advocates, at a time when we badly need them. Despite my general enthusiasm for the abundance movement, I actually agree with many of the criticisms and reservations expressed by libertarians like and free market conservatives, like Bryan Caplan, Samuel Gregg, and Richard Reinsch.

In particular, the critics are right to highlight how many abundance liberals embrace market approaches on some issues (most notably trade and housing), but reject them on others (e.g. - health care and education), without recognizing that most of the reasons for curbing government intervention in the former areas also apply to the latter. In addition, Bryan is right to urge the abundance advocates to push their case further in those areas where they do embrace markets, particularly when it comes to immigration. That said, we should never let the best become of the enemy of the extremely good.

And abundance liberalism is indeed extremely good! The issues where they support major movement towards freer markets - most notably housing, trade, immigration, and nuclear power - are extremely important ones. They have enormous effects on the life, liberty, and happiness of tens of millions of people.

A coalition focused on these big issues could have great value, even in spite of differences on other matters. Back in 2024, I wrote a piece on setting issue priorities, where I urged prioritization of issues based on three criteria: 1. Magnitude of effects on human freedom and happiness.

Big effects deserve priority over small ones. 2. Easy to implement solutions. Problems with simple, quick fixes deserve priority over ones where the solution is difficult and/or requires a massive increase in competence and capacity. 3.

The possibility of incremental progress. Issues where incremental progress is possible deserve priority over "all or nothing" issues, except in unusual revolutionary situations. The issues on which abundance liberals are good all check every one of these boxes.

Indeed, I highlighted two of them (housing and immigration restrictions) in my original 2024 post. All these issue have huge effects on human freedom and welfare, and solutions are relatively easy to implement (in most cases just ending or cutting back on harmful government intervention; though nuclear power is somewhat more difficult). And incremental progress on all of them is feasible.

Even if we cannot abolish all exclusionary zoning, we can make progress by getting rid of some. Even if we cannot abolish all immigration restrictions, we can greatly improve the world by abolishing some. And so on.

In addition to these important areas of agreement on specific issues, abundance liberals and libertarians also have significant (though, far from total) agreement on some important general principles. Both groups tend to support liberal individualism over various types of collectivism, whether those of the left or the nationalist right. Many of the abundance liberals dislike conventional left-wing identity politics, even if not as much as most libertarians do.

Kelsey Piper even wrote a recent article critiquing affirmative action. Part of her objection is that racial preferences are extremely unpopular (which is true) and thus a drag on the electoral fortunes of the Democratic Party. But she also objects to these kinds of policies on principle: Our foundational commitment is that every person is an individual, created equal, and deserving of equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity.

That means you shouldn't get judged by the average qualities of your group. You shouldn't be judged as less impressive because other East Asians have, on average, higher test scores, and you shouldn't be judged as more impressive because other Hispanics have, on average, lower test scores. Preach it, sister!

Abundance liberals and libertarians also have in common an appreciation for basic Econ 101. For example, both groups recognize that when government restricts supply (as with exclusionary zoning in the case of housing), that increases prices and creates shortages. Similarly, tariffs are harmful because they prevent mutually beneficial trade, thereby making us poorer and the economy less efficient. Abundance liberals recognize more exce