I think the reason for libertarian preferences for automobiles, highways, etc., is that (costs aside) there is a visceral appeal for the independence of going when and where you please — and with a vastly greater area at your disposal. (Obviously, there are limitations to driving freedom during peak periods, but that’s because pricing mechanisms are absent.)

Rejecting an automobile means reducing your choices — and that’s not compatible with libertarian personalities. Restricted oneself to a handful of stores within walking distance feels more “conrolling” than having anything within a 25-mile radius at your disposal — and with a huge cargo carrier to transport everything in. And the consequent increased competition among retailers has instinctual appeal to libertarians’ sense of expanded operations of free markets.

Even with private transit, I would think that highways have more libertarian appeal — just as a libertarian personality is probably more comfortable with the “open road” than with the rules and restrictions of air travel.

Adam, you are perfectly correct. I am excited to hear your arguments and can’t wait to see more and more “constitutionalists”, libertarians, independents, republicans, and democrats see the value of less is more, and TRUE market solutions to our personal preferences.

”
This is in fact a property conflict as the situation in a city is one of two properties, the individual building and the city as a whole. Whose property rights are to trump the other’s? Antiplanners like Randall O’Toole and Wendell Cox want the property rights of the city to rule in order to maintain the suburban model, while they want the property rights of land speculators to rule in order to extend the suburban model indefinitely, and thus avoid the affordability issues of zoning in the city centers.

Smart growthers, on the other hand, want individual property owners to rule against the city’s property rights in order to maximize affordability and density, and want to curb the property rights of land speculators in order to stop the suburban model.

In effect, this conflict is the centuries-old battle between the class of land lords and the class of tenants. On the side of the land lords are the ruling cities and land speculators.

There is really only one rational solution to this conflict, and that is to desocialize cities and make cities available to be bought and sold on markets so that planning regulations will be established on a rational basis that gradually increases density. That way the land speculators won’t be able to profit from further suburban development, and no urban growth boundaries will be needed.

”

The land lords have used their control of the state to keep the tenants in poverty and protect their own wealth by outlawing competition for all of history. Nothing has changed.

I understand, and agree for the most part. I fully support New Urbanism as a design solution. Check out this article: http://marketurbanism.com/2009/01/21/the-story-of-ion/

What I don’t support is some of the land use restrictions New Urbanist planners attempt to force upon the marketplace. Such as this quote: “They could also put Kentlands-type zoning restrictions in place on land that is not yet in any developer’s sights. That way, when developers come, they will have a choice: build a walkable, eco-friendly environment, or build nothing.”

Such restrictions aren’t necessary and show an ignorance to market forces. Developers would be glad to build more densely if they were allowed. This type of rhetoric falsely conveys that developers don’t want to build densely. They will if zoning and NIMBYs got out of their way.

The problem isn’t the wrong kind of planning, it is restrictions put on development themselves.

All in all, I think New Urbanist planners pose less of a threat to true urbanism than traditional, Euclidean planners.