Monday, September 26, 2011

Hacks and Faux Libertarian Oppressors

I've always had a gripe with the anti-urbanists: Randall O'Toole, Joel Kotkin, and the like. The problem isn't that I disagree with them. It is that they're logic is quite illogical. They claim to be libertarians, or something like it, but it is really simple pandering that they partake in. In reality, they try to impose their particular worldview upon others. And this is why I'm so profoundly offended by their drivel. Luckily, I don't have to prove this because O'Toole comes right out and says it:
I would never step into another city again if I didn’t have to as a part of my work. But I don’t think everyone would be better off living my lifestyle; I just think people ought to have a choice. Avent’s book simply stimulates the smart-growth advocates who want to impose all sorts of policies on urbanites and suburbanites to force them to live in denser communities.
Poor, oppressed soul. They conveniently ignore the fact that nearly all spending, policies, and zoning favors disconnected, isolated development patterns that poor Mr. O'Toole just wishes he could live in and spend his entire life within. If only there was some of that out there.

On the other hand, trying to live within vibrant, mixed-use places is damn near impossible if not illegal in many places. Sorry, I accept that people are social beings, we need to be around each other, for better or worse. Cities are the greatest invention in human history for the facilitation, efficiency of social, economic, memetic, and genetic exchange.

This likely means O'Toole hates people (or perhaps himself) and wishes to be a hermit. He has that right.

I completely agree with him on one point. People should have a choice. Except if he were to get his way, which he has, then nobody would have a choice.