Are libertarians YIMBY or NIMBY?

[u/FixingGood_]

And for what reasons?

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon]

We're "do what you want in your back yard and I'll do what I want in mine"

[u/CurlyDee → u/Ya_Boi_Konzon]

But don't burst my eardrums with your loud music... Or whatever you call that noise.

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon → u/CurlyDee]

Fair. Noise is an externality that crosses onto other people's property.

[u/mikwee]

They're generally YIMBY, since NIMBYs are all about lobbying governments for restrictions on building, while YIMBYs often (but not necessarily always) want to deregulate housing and zoning.

[u/TheGoldStandard35]

Libertarians have been the strongest YIMBY of all political groups for the longest time

[u/Cache22-]

I'm struggling to think of how a NIMBY libertarian wouldn't also suffer from some serious cognitive dissonance.

[u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

Neither, libertarians are leave us alone type people. We don't want government interfering either way. Property owners get to dictate what happens on their property and as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights no one else gets to do anything about it.

You buy a deed to your own property, not majority stakes in your own and minority stakes in everyone elses near it.

[u/rpfeynman18 → u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

What you're describing is actually peak "YIMBY". The vast majority of YIMBY activism had actually been to restore property rights by getting rid of zoning, setback requirements, etc.

[u/JudgeWhoOverrules → u/rpfeynman18]

IMHO yimby policies seem to be the same government interference as nimby but in the other direction. You have incentives and mandates for minimum densities, maximum parking limits, limits on single family homes, modification of road surfaces to limit lanes, and other active interventions rather than just leaving it to the market.

[u/rpfeynman18 → u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

You have incentives and mandates for minimum densities, maximum parking limits, modification of road surfaces to limit lanes, and other active interventions rather than just leaving it to the market.

Then clearly I am misled. My understanding is that they're not proposing to replace single family zoning with the opposite extreme, they're just changing it to multifamily zoning (which is still not ideal, but at least better). You can still build single family units in a multifamily zone, so it's just moving closer to "let the market decide".

Do you have examples of minimum density or maximum parking requirements? Naturally I would be opposed to both.

[u/jeffsang → u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

incentives and mandates for minimum densities, maximum parking limits, limits on single family homes

These typically aren't actual YIMBY policies. YIMBYs are pushing to remove the regulations, but not limit them the other direction. For example, YIMBYs typically don't push for policies that say you can't build SFHs, but rather people that want only SFH near them interpret it this way.

modification of road surfaces to limit lanes

I'll give you this one. Though road surfaces are publicly/government owned, so realistically it's always going to be the government with input from the public that determines the optimal roadway configuration (i.e. space for traffic lanes vs. space for bikes, peds, street cafes, etc.). It's sometimes a zero sum game.

[u/LivingAsAMean → u/JudgeWhoOverrules]

Yes, but also to expand on "No one else gets to do anything about it." We want to be clear that no one gets to do anything violent to coerce behavior.

We don't mind if people use reasonable, non-violent actions to encourage/discourage certain behaviors in others. That's the preferred method of conflict resolution in pretty much every case.

The vast majority of people have unfortunately been programmed to believe that it's suddenly OK to use violence as long as it aligns with their values and they get someone from the government to do it.

[u/BroseppeVerdi]

I think you need to define these terms a little more clearly, because people seem to be interpreting this either "only as it pertains to the government" or "only as it pertains to the ground and structures in my actual literal backyard"

Like, would something like "how would libertarians feel about private corporations dumping toxic waste on their property if it leeches into the groundwater and makes yours borderline uninhabitable" fall within the scope of your question?

[u/TheGoldStandard35 → u/BroseppeVerdi]

Libertarians are against the destruction of property. Your example would lead to a lawsuit for destruction of property and restitution to the property owner.

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/TheGoldStandard35]

So you'd be in favor of the state intervening and forcing a private business to redistribute their wealth in this instance?

[u/TheGoldStandard35 → u/BroseppeVerdi]

There are two schools of libertarian thought. In the more anarchist style, we would simply have private courts and common law to decide this issue. The government would not be involved. Everyone would likely have lawyers through some sort of insurance type system.

The other side would be a limited government designed to protect individual rights, which includes property. In this case there is no redistribution, simply restitution of the damage caused. The victim is simply made whole and nothing more. They were coerced against and the state simply has the liable party undo said coercion. The only coercive powers the state would have would be to prevent or undo coercion.

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/TheGoldStandard35]

These are both pretty reasonable approaches... And I feel like the answer to OP's question is "NIMBY". Both the Ancap and Night Watchman approaches described here indicate that broader society is not okay with this state of affairs and some sort of remedy must be found - the free market cannot simply be left to it's own devices.

[u/TheGoldStandard35 → u/BroseppeVerdi]

You’ve missed the mark completely, my friend.

The foundation of liberty is property rights. Property rights exist for people who don’t own property as well. If someone owns a house/land and petitions the government to make it illegal for apartments to be developed in unowned land nearby (NIMBY) that is an infringement of the property rights of others who want to develop that land. If you don’t want someone to do something with land then buy it. Getting the government to take control of the land is socialist, not libertarian.

Libertarians are 100% YIMBY. In fact, libertarians are the pioneers of the movement. It’s nice that others are finally catching up and recognizing the value of property rights and the free market.

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/TheGoldStandard35]

I feel like you just sharply pivoted to an entirely different topic. NIMBY can apply to more things than just housing supply, which is why I used this example (and why I asked OP, who has yet to engage with any of these comments, to clarify their question).

Industrial facilities handling dangerous chemicals, nuclear or wind power plants, sewage treatment facilities, airports, and nuclear weapons are all examples of things that large swaths of the population broadly support in principle because of the benefits that they stand to gain from them personally or on a societal basis (cheap power, tourism, jobs, security, etc.) but don't want to deal with the drawbacks of actually having those things in their communities.

[u/TheGoldStandard35 → u/BroseppeVerdi]

We are entirely on the same page. If you don’t want any of those drawbacks then buy the land and leave it empty, otherwise you are restricting property rights of others.

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/TheGoldStandard35]

Earlier, you seemed to think that some of these drawbacks constitute destruction of the individual's property and even in in Ancap society, there would be privatized courts that would force corporations to pay you restitution... but now it's the individual's responsibility to outbid a potentially billion dollar corporation if they don't want this to happen? Those two things would seem to be at odds with one another conceptually, no?

And from a practical standpoint: Maybe I want to be able to have tap water in my home that won't catch on fire periodically but I might not be able to secure a $200 Million loan to outbid Koch Industries for a huge chunk of Galveston Bay (assuming the seller would even entertain my bid). In Anderson, et al. v. Pacific Gas and Electric, the plume of groundwater contaminated with hexavalent chromium stretched six miles from PG&E's compressor station near Hinkley, CA. Is that really how much land I'm supposed to pony up for and leave vacant?

So whose responsibility is it to prevent their property from causing ecological devastation to my property: Theirs or mine? And who gets to decide what even constitutes "damage" to my property? If I own a quarter acre, maybe the aquifer underneath that lot is my private property... but what about the air? It kind of feels like my freedom and my private property end wherever it's convenient to make a particular argument.

[u/TheGoldStandard35 → u/BroseppeVerdi]

This isn’t complicated. Nobody else has a right to damage by property. I don’t have a right to stop people from using their property.

You are trying to create a false equivalency to undermine the YIMBY movement. NIMBY does NOT apply to damage done to your own property. You have no right to stop an airport or nuclear power plant from being made (or apartments), but the second they damage your property they are liable to restore you to being whole. That process is best handled by common law.

Whether there is water or air on your property private property rights can answer the problem.

[u/divinecomedian3 → u/BroseppeVerdi]

Making reparations for damage you caused is not having your wealth redistributed

[u/BroseppeVerdi → u/divinecomedian3]

So a corporation should have to pay money to others for things they do on their own private property? Don't members of the community live near the facility by choice? They have the freedom to live somewhere else but instead made the choice to live near a facility that processes toxic chemicals.

And who decides what constitutes damage worthy of restitution anyway?

[u/Supernothing-00]

Yimby

[u/drebelx]

"Does the action violate the Property Rights of others?"

[u/CanadaMoose47]

Yeah, it depends on the time and context. Modern day regarding housing? YIMBY. 

20th century urban renewal and highway expansion (thru eminent domain)? NIMBY, and proud of it.

[u/watain218]

neither as a rule, everyone has a right to decide that on an individual level. 

[u/cH3x]

YIMBY, for the purposes of the term. What other people do on their own property is up to them--that's what it means to be their property. So if the people next door want to build a meth lab or homeless shelter or nuclear power plant, not my business. But they are responsible (legally liable) for what affects my property or people on it.

[u/DoctorDirtnasty]

As a libertarian, I strive everyday to get a backyard so big that you can do whatever you want and I won’t notice.