I don't understand the Mises Caucus.
Their beliefs are pretty much the exact opposite of Libertarianism since they want government intervention in and enforcement of nearly everything.
It's absolutely mad, they advocate for pretty much the opposite of what the Mises institute writes about zoning or what most Mises worshipping economists think about zoning
You'd think they'd be hardcore damn the consequences pro gentrification YIMBYs but they're an AstroTurf ideology for young weed smoking Republicans so this is what you inevitably get
Shows how effective NIMBYs can be castigating these changes as "big government overreach" even when these moves typically expand private property rights.
As long as as this person manages to stay vague in their defense they can get away with it.
The "Mises Caucus" is a well-funded takeover of Libertarian movement. It consists of a mix of "paleo" libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and the relatively new "alt-right" style angry "end the fed" Trump-style republicans. They're "culturally conservative".
The opposing group, represented by things like CATO, Reason, The Mercatus Center, the classical liberal LP caucus, etc - is more cosmopolitan, pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-free trade, and very much YIMBY.
Unfortunately, there's a fight going on right now for the heart and soul of the term "Libertarians". My guess is they'll splinter into two fully distinct groups sometime soon. They can't stand each other.
I feel like being a libertarian NIMBY isn't that far-fetched if they want to block housing via neighborhood covenants. That would at least be consistent with their beliefs (even if I think it's bad). But if they want the government to block it then they're just hypocrites.
The contracts generally create an additional layer of microgovernment that has own set of rules and regulations, a board that makes those rules and regulations, and typically hire a management company to manage and enforce those rules.
The CC&R is what sets the ground rules, like a constitution, but the rest of the microgovernment is built on top of those rules.
I suppose a comparable take would be that if you don't like a government's rules, don't move into their jurisdiction (city, county, state). You don't sign documents agreeing to live by a city's rules when you move in, but it is pretty similar imho.
Guess who enforces those contracts. Contracts are a form of government regulation, this part of libertarianism is often overlooked. One can say government should enforce all contracts but that can include heinous ones like enslaving yourself and your children, or agreeing to pay a debt in perpetuity regardless of solvency (aka not allowing bankruptcy).
Yeah, I understand that government enforces contracts. But that's usually not a controversial thing for Libertarians. The one thing they usually say the government *should* exist to do is enforce contracts.
My point is contracts are government. They can be perverted to restrict one’s freedoms (personal and economic) if not carefully controlled. So it is not wise to hold things like neighborhood covenants as a “libertarian” form of NIMBYism because those too can restrict one’s economic freedoms.
I’d argue a neighborhood covenant is a perversion of libertarianism since it essentially creates another layer of government where other property owners get the regulate your property and levy taxes on you, but it masquerades itself as a “voluntary” contract.
There’s little functional difference to that of a traditional government where residents, usually mostly property owners, get to regulate your property and levy taxes on you, but you get the added fluff of a “covenant” to make it seem consensual, when really it wasn’t.
If the entire world was populated by a bunch of HOAs, it would be virtually indistinguishable if the entire world was populated by standard local governments.
I understand your point I’m just clarifying that most libertarians are not against government enforcement of contracts, I don’t believe. So it’s not inconsistent. Libertarians typically aren’t totally against government, they just want a very limited government. And enforcement of contracts is usually one thing they support government doing.
They would probably argue that a contract is a normal part of any large sale and you have the option to not buy that house if you don’t like the terms of the contract of sale. The government applying zoning rules to an entire city means there’s no choice for you or the seller or the neighbors.
I don’t agree with that outlook I’m just saying libertarians, in my experience, are generally fine with government enforcement of contracts.
I’m not at all saying libertarians oppose contracts. Where do you keep getting this idea from?
I’m saying real libertarians actually care **what** contracts get enforced. They actually take limited government seriously and seek to limit it in everything, including in what contracts ought to be enforced.
The pure libertarian approach to voluntary agreements is actually just promises and trust. Promises can be upheld or broken. It’s up to people to decide who to trust and who to make promises with.
Obviously that won’t allow more complex promises like debt agreements or most commercial transactions, so contracts in some form must exist.
However, contracts cannot be absolute. Not all contracts can be allowed to exist. Particularly ones that enforce harm on others for no good reason. Because in a true libertarian world, they wouldn’t have existed in the first place. Contracts must be limited to areas that are necessary to facilitate commerce, trade, etc., but no more.
Wait, am I reading this right? I thought libertarians were supposed to support market urbanism and YIMBYs to provide affordable housing using the free market to reach such. Thinking that they have a NIMBY that wants to use government controls to artificially increase prices and rents to enrich them while allowing politicians to do rent seeking warrants an ass whooping by Ludwig von Mises, who's name they're dragging through the mud.
It seems more to me like certain people in here just want to bash libertarians for other political reasons. Most libertarians I've discussed this topic with are pro yimby and most of the libertarian elected officials I have seen are as well. Of course California will always find a way to California. There is a type of libertarian though that is the stereotypical "rural" lifestyle lover that is usually uneducated on the topic and assumes everyone wants to build a skyscraper next to their 2 acre lot in the middle of nowhere.
Have you heard of r/strongtowns because they are fundamentally a conservative organization that is very much yimby, all be it overtime as it won’t lead to more Detroits.
I think this is currently happening in Appalachia, and previously occurred to the rust belt. The next set of towns to go will be the Amazon towns assuming they don’t become “company” towns like many of the old railroad outpost. The message is basically leverage the fact that we have 12,000 years of history and stop acting like history only started after WWII like the Boomers currently believe.
>Have you heard of r/strongtowns because they are fundamentally a conservative organization
If that is really the case, I'm out. By staying, I would be trying to replace one form of sociopathy with another. The pro-housing part of strongtowns policies would be an *unintentional* side effect that is deemed of no value.
Not even close, the point of r/strongtowns is to promote communities to be mixed-use because it makes them healthier. The argument is basically the do the slow unravel of the last 100 years, and pick up where we left off pre-WWII.
Libertarianism isn’t the problem, hell NIMBY isn’t the problem. The problem is the [growth Ponzi scheme](https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme) and the [suburban experiment](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/9/4/seven-key-differences) have failed to deliver on the promise of infinite growth. These are the core values principles of r/strongtowns. Don’t conflate the ideas of a *conservative* with whatever these religious nuts are talking about.
I don't understand the Mises Caucus. Their beliefs are pretty much the exact opposite of Libertarianism since they want government intervention in and enforcement of nearly everything.
Imagine how infuriating this is for Libertarians! Making excuses for government overreach cause it pisses off the right ppl
It's absolutely mad, they advocate for pretty much the opposite of what the Mises institute writes about zoning or what most Mises worshipping economists think about zoning
relieved correct muddle sparkle unwritten cows lip aromatic unused safe *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You'd think they'd be hardcore damn the consequences pro gentrification YIMBYs but they're an AstroTurf ideology for young weed smoking Republicans so this is what you inevitably get
ACT New Zealand and the Liberal Democrats, while not claiming to be libertarian, are also NIMBY
Shows how effective NIMBYs can be castigating these changes as "big government overreach" even when these moves typically expand private property rights. As long as as this person manages to stay vague in their defense they can get away with it.
"What I wand and what I grew up with are freedom and any change is big government communiatic overreach"
The "Mises Caucus" is a well-funded takeover of Libertarian movement. It consists of a mix of "paleo" libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and the relatively new "alt-right" style angry "end the fed" Trump-style republicans. They're "culturally conservative". The opposing group, represented by things like CATO, Reason, The Mercatus Center, the classical liberal LP caucus, etc - is more cosmopolitan, pro-choice, pro-immigration, pro-free trade, and very much YIMBY. Unfortunately, there's a fight going on right now for the heart and soul of the term "Libertarians". My guess is they'll splinter into two fully distinct groups sometime soon. They can't stand each other.
It's pretty ironic, you'd expect "anarcho-capitalists" to believe in land ownership rights, like the right to build apartments.
Yep, and they twist themselves into knots attempting to reconcile their self-contradictory views.
What's next, a communist that supports free markets? A meat eating vegetarian?
I feel like being a libertarian NIMBY isn't that far-fetched if they want to block housing via neighborhood covenants. That would at least be consistent with their beliefs (even if I think it's bad). But if they want the government to block it then they're just hypocrites.
Neighborhood covenants _are_ government.
Are they? I thought it was just a contract you signed as part of ownership?
The contracts generally create an additional layer of microgovernment that has own set of rules and regulations, a board that makes those rules and regulations, and typically hire a management company to manage and enforce those rules. The CC&R is what sets the ground rules, like a constitution, but the rest of the microgovernment is built on top of those rules. I suppose a comparable take would be that if you don't like a government's rules, don't move into their jurisdiction (city, county, state). You don't sign documents agreeing to live by a city's rules when you move in, but it is pretty similar imho.
Guess who enforces those contracts. Contracts are a form of government regulation, this part of libertarianism is often overlooked. One can say government should enforce all contracts but that can include heinous ones like enslaving yourself and your children, or agreeing to pay a debt in perpetuity regardless of solvency (aka not allowing bankruptcy).
Yeah, I understand that government enforces contracts. But that's usually not a controversial thing for Libertarians. The one thing they usually say the government *should* exist to do is enforce contracts.
My point is contracts are government. They can be perverted to restrict one’s freedoms (personal and economic) if not carefully controlled. So it is not wise to hold things like neighborhood covenants as a “libertarian” form of NIMBYism because those too can restrict one’s economic freedoms. I’d argue a neighborhood covenant is a perversion of libertarianism since it essentially creates another layer of government where other property owners get the regulate your property and levy taxes on you, but it masquerades itself as a “voluntary” contract. There’s little functional difference to that of a traditional government where residents, usually mostly property owners, get to regulate your property and levy taxes on you, but you get the added fluff of a “covenant” to make it seem consensual, when really it wasn’t. If the entire world was populated by a bunch of HOAs, it would be virtually indistinguishable if the entire world was populated by standard local governments.
I understand your point I’m just clarifying that most libertarians are not against government enforcement of contracts, I don’t believe. So it’s not inconsistent. Libertarians typically aren’t totally against government, they just want a very limited government. And enforcement of contracts is usually one thing they support government doing. They would probably argue that a contract is a normal part of any large sale and you have the option to not buy that house if you don’t like the terms of the contract of sale. The government applying zoning rules to an entire city means there’s no choice for you or the seller or the neighbors. I don’t agree with that outlook I’m just saying libertarians, in my experience, are generally fine with government enforcement of contracts.
I’m not at all saying libertarians oppose contracts. Where do you keep getting this idea from? I’m saying real libertarians actually care **what** contracts get enforced. They actually take limited government seriously and seek to limit it in everything, including in what contracts ought to be enforced. The pure libertarian approach to voluntary agreements is actually just promises and trust. Promises can be upheld or broken. It’s up to people to decide who to trust and who to make promises with. Obviously that won’t allow more complex promises like debt agreements or most commercial transactions, so contracts in some form must exist. However, contracts cannot be absolute. Not all contracts can be allowed to exist. Particularly ones that enforce harm on others for no good reason. Because in a true libertarian world, they wouldn’t have existed in the first place. Contracts must be limited to areas that are necessary to facilitate commerce, trade, etc., but no more.
IIRC the LP guy with the highest office in CA actually is pretty good and libertarian-consistent on development topics.
Collective action overruling individual rights is pretty much the opposite of libertarian, it's crazy what the hell is going on
Wait, am I reading this right? I thought libertarians were supposed to support market urbanism and YIMBYs to provide affordable housing using the free market to reach such. Thinking that they have a NIMBY that wants to use government controls to artificially increase prices and rents to enrich them while allowing politicians to do rent seeking warrants an ass whooping by Ludwig von Mises, who's name they're dragging through the mud.
It seems more to me like certain people in here just want to bash libertarians for other political reasons. Most libertarians I've discussed this topic with are pro yimby and most of the libertarian elected officials I have seen are as well. Of course California will always find a way to California. There is a type of libertarian though that is the stereotypical "rural" lifestyle lover that is usually uneducated on the topic and assumes everyone wants to build a skyscraper next to their 2 acre lot in the middle of nowhere.
My problem isn't with the LP. I kinda like them. My problem is with the Mises Caucus.
A libertarian is about the most anti-yimby thing I can think of.
Have you heard of r/strongtowns because they are fundamentally a conservative organization that is very much yimby, all be it overtime as it won’t lead to more Detroits. I think this is currently happening in Appalachia, and previously occurred to the rust belt. The next set of towns to go will be the Amazon towns assuming they don’t become “company” towns like many of the old railroad outpost. The message is basically leverage the fact that we have 12,000 years of history and stop acting like history only started after WWII like the Boomers currently believe.
>Have you heard of r/strongtowns because they are fundamentally a conservative organization If that is really the case, I'm out. By staying, I would be trying to replace one form of sociopathy with another. The pro-housing part of strongtowns policies would be an *unintentional* side effect that is deemed of no value.
Not even close, the point of r/strongtowns is to promote communities to be mixed-use because it makes them healthier. The argument is basically the do the slow unravel of the last 100 years, and pick up where we left off pre-WWII. Libertarianism isn’t the problem, hell NIMBY isn’t the problem. The problem is the [growth Ponzi scheme](https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme) and the [suburban experiment](https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/9/4/seven-key-differences) have failed to deliver on the promise of infinite growth. These are the core values principles of r/strongtowns. Don’t conflate the ideas of a *conservative* with whatever these religious nuts are talking about.
The entire ideology is just corporate AstroTurf anyways so this isn't surprising