Joel Kotkin’s Criticism of Libertarians and the Cato Institute – Econlib

Yet in recent years, libertarians increasingly seem less concerned with how their policies might actually impact people. Convinced that markets are virtually always the best way to approach any issue, they have allied with many of the same forces monopoly capital, anti-suburban zealots and the tech oligarchy which are systematically undermining the popular rationale for market capitalism.

This is one of the opening paragraphs of Joel Kotkin, The limits of libertarianism, spiked-online, March 4, 2022.

The articles title caught my attention because Kotkins work would often lead someone to believe that he is sympathetic to libertarianism, and I think he is.

Whats his criticism? He gets to it quickly, writing:

Nowhere is the disconnect between libertarianism and its traditional base of small-property owners more obvious than in housing. In their zeal, sometimes justified, to end the worst zoning abuses, the libertarians have allied themselves with two forces, monopoly capital and social engineers (also known as city planners), whose goal is not to expand the blessings of ownership, but to squelch it for all but a few. Their end game is to leave most peoplestuck in small apartments.

Libertarians have served as fellow travellers and allies to the hyperactive, oligarch-fundedYIMBY(Yes in My Backyard) movement. In essence, as former Cato fellowRandal OToolenotes, the libertarian right has betrayed the very middle class that most supports conservative causes. OToole, who had been Catos land-use expert since 2007, was forced out in favour ofan alliance, as he puts it, working hand-in-hand with left-wing groups seeking to force Californians to live in ways in which they didnt want to live.

Some libertarians see this as a free-market housing fix, although in their worship of markets most have said little about policies that prevent construction on the periphery a principal contributor to excessively high housing costs. Expanded ownership is a noble cause. But it is hardly the intention of the strongest advocates for these policies.Victoria Fierceof the YIMBY pro-density lobby in California, for example, favours increasing urban density in part because it promotes collectivism. In some senses, the approach of some YIMBYs reflects the planning orthodoxy seen in the late Soviet Union. In the 1950s,Alexei GutnovpublishedThe Ideal Communist City, which, while acknowledging the appeal of suburbia, rejected it as unsuitable for a society that prioritises equality and social control.

Consider the first of these 3 paragraphs. Normally, when one criticizes zoning for restricting the supply of housing, one would be seen as being against monopoly capital. But Kotkin sees the Cato Institutes opposition to zoning as being part of an alliance with monopoly capitalists. Hes pretty vague about how that works.

If you read the link at the end of that first paragraph, you learn that developers are taking advantage of the new California law that allows more building on land zoned for single-family housing and that they are making lots of money doing so. What he seems not to confront is what this means for housing prices: they will fall or at least not rise as much as they would have. Increases in supply, all else equal, bring prices down. I would have thought that that would be a great way to help normal people.

Kotkin is right that more building on a given amount of land leads to denser housing. What he doesnt successfully do is explain why this is bad.

Instead, he makes two arguments, one that is legitimate and one that is essentially guilt by association.

His legitimate argument, if hes right about the facts, is that in their worship of markets most have said little about policies that prevent construction on the periphery a principal contributor to excessively high housing costs. I dont know if Kotkin is right about Catos relative silence on this issue. Lets take as given that he is right. Then the answer should be that they should say more about such policies, not that they should defend single-family zoning. We have 2 contributors to higher housing prices: restrictions on building in areas zoned for single families and restrictions on building on the periphery. Cato and others should go after both. But thats not an argument against going after one of those. Theres no either/or here.

His guilt by association argument is this:

Expanded ownership is a noble cause. But it is hardly the intention of the strongest advocates for these policies. Victoria Fierce of the YIMBY pro-density lobby in California, for example, favours increasing urban density in part because it promotes collectivism.

Lets say hes right about Victoria Fierces and others intentions. Kotkin doesnt make clear whether Cato is allying with her and those others. But lets say they do. How is Cato responsible for what their intentions are? Moreover what happened to the idea of going beyond intentions and actually looking at the likely expected effects? One main effect will be to bring down the price of housing.

Kotkin continues:

Here is the original post:

Joel Kotkin's Criticism of Libertarians and the Cato Institute - Econlib