Compendium of Bryan Caplan's Guest-blogging Posts on His New Book "Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation"

A listing of his four posts on different aspects of the book and the issues it raises.

(Bryan Caplan)

Bryan Caplan's guest-blogging stint has come to an end. We thank Bryan for his excellent contributions to the blog!

Here is a listing of his posts about his book Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing Regulation. I myself also wrote a post introducing Bryan and the book.

1."Trillions"

2. "*Build, Baby, Build*: My Most Inexcusable Omission"

3. "The YIMBY Napkin"

4. "*Build, Baby, Build*: Responses to the Best Objections"

I think my forthcoming Texas Law Review article, "The Constitutional Case Against Exclusionary Zoning" (coauthored with Josh Braver), in some ways serves as a complement to Bryan's book. In the book, Bryan suggests that judicial review is "probably the best shot [at] radical housing deregulation," but doesn't elaborate further. Braver and I explain how such judicial intervention can happen, and why it should be done.

Comments

[Roger S]

In brief, these guys want open borders. And to make room for millions of Third World migrants, they want to change zoning laws to build huge apartment buildings in your neighborhood. And why should you suffer this way? Some goofy Libertarian economic argument about increasing output.

This isn't even libertarian, as it goes directly against the interests of Americans. It is just destructive.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You want zoning to continue so as to preserve artificially high property values. You have as much moral right to that as tenants have to their rent-controlled apartments, and as slave owners had to their slaves.

[Roger S]

No, I want zoning to protect my neighborhood from over-development. I am arguing for property rights. It is these so-called Libertarians who oppose property rights, because they want to destroy my property values and quality of life.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Government grants privileges, not rights. You have no better claim on that privilege than rent-controlled tenants or slave owners.

ETA: you first say you want zoning protection, declaiming all interest in property values, then close saying you want to preserve your property values.

Make up your mind.

[Roger S]

I am against these Libertarians taking our freedoms away. That is all they do. They say they address the best objections, but they never mention the destructive effects of invading a neighborhood with Third World migrants.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

And I am against you statists taking my freedoms away. What gives you the right to tell me what to do with my property? Oh, you think your property value, as artificially boosted by the State, trumps my freedom to do what I want with my property?

Here's a simple question for you: if you think my ugly property lowers your property value, do you think the neighbor on your other side, with his award winning garden, raises your property value? That means you lower his. Now you owe him.

No. Your claim to an increased property value due to the State taking away my freedoms is no more valid than a rent-controlled tenant's claim to cheap rent, or a slave owner's claim to cheap labor.

If you want to control my property, pay me for an easement. Make it a contract, freely negotiated. Don't go swinging that big government edict in my face. Man up and be personally responsible for negotiating with me directly.

[Roger S]

No, I am not taking your freedoms away. You bought your property subject to zoning laws. I am just saying that you have to accept those limitations.

Caplan, curiously, accepts those limitations if they are adopted by a homeowners association.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Still struck me as sophomoric, a couple of bright but obnoxious boys in an affluent, all white school oblivious to history, opposing views, or the real world experiences of people who are from some other place. The clumsy all-white-male comic book format doesn’t help. They could learn a few things from Bechdel’s “Dykes to Watch Out For” as to self awareness of one’s own side’s foibles and some subtleties of accomplished graphic presentation.

[bernard11]

A friend of mine, a retired academic, used to talk about something he called "smartest kid in my high school class" syndrome.

Some people never get over it, and imagine that they are forever the smartest person around, and that the glib, foolish, ideas they adopted in high school are correct, no matter what.

Is it really necessary to point out that Caplan is an excellent example of this pathology, (and that his fellow iconoclastic geniuses at GMU often display it as well)?

Obnoxious? That's not the half of it.

[Roger S]

Exactly. Caplan makes are arguments that are superficially clever, but unconvincing. Somin's arguments are completely without merit. Together, they are good examples of what is wrong with Libertarianism.

[David Nieporent]

What you think is wrong with libertarianism is that it doesn't let you violate the rights of non-whites.

[Roger S]

Are you referring to non-white illegal aliens that the Biden administration has invited to flood the USA? Biden says that it is a good thing that Whites are being replaced.

Libertarians say that the migrants have a right to come to the USA. I say they do not.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Probably not a compendium, but maybe a summary of Caplan:

Land development and environmental destruction are both dollarable. That's good! Better yet, both focus political figures on destructive goals. Excellent! Much better than to focus on virtuous goals. Those would be popular, and command support for government. We hate government.