Last Thursday, I engaged in a debate with Randal O’Toole, the self-proclaimed Antiplanner from the Cato Institute, in Lafayette, Louisiana. This experience has prompted me to reflect on our discussion, particularly regarding the practicality of his libertarian viewpoints in modern urban planning and transportation, especially when considering future technologies like self-driving cars. I invite you to share your perspectives and reactions on this topic.
Over the weekend, I found myself repeatedly considering a central thought: my own somewhat tenuous alignment with libertarianism. While labels like “conservative,” “engineer,” “planner,” and “Catholic” have been applied to me, dogma, in any form, simply doesn’t resonate with my approach to problem-solving.
Listening to O’Toole, especially during the Q&A session, I was struck by the sheer impracticality of his proposals. This is notable because I generally harbor skepticism towards government intervention, value market mechanisms, and prioritize individual liberty. Ironically, much like Marxism, O’Toole’s philosophy, advocating for minimal government involvement in areas like urban development and infrastructure, could only be implemented through considerable top-down coercion. It’s hard to imagine the residents of Lafayette willingly voting for a system that embodies his particular worldview. This disconnect from practical public acceptance renders his ideas, in my view, largely irrelevant to real-world solutions.
O’Toole’s vision often includes privatizing local streets, utilities, and other essential public services, suggesting that property owners should manage these aspects independently. While the idea of localized control might have some appeal, particularly for areas like dead-end cul-de-sacs that function almost as private driveways maintained at public expense, proposing such a platform in a local council election would be a significant challenge.
Consider this hypothetical exchange with an “O’Toole Candidate”:
O’Toole Candidate: Vote for me. I propose returning responsibility for local street maintenance to residents. You and your neighbors should have the freedom to manage this without government interference.
Voter: I have a difficult relationship with my neighbor. He’s simply not reasonable.
O’Toole Candidate: In that case, you retain the liberty to relocate to an environment where your voluntary associations are more harmonious.
This brief scenario highlights a core issue: while advocating for freedom and individual responsibility, O’Toole’s proposals often overlook the complexities of human interaction and the necessity of collective solutions in urban environments. Furthermore, in the context of emerging technologies like self-driving cars, which promise to revolutionize transportation, a purely privatized and deregulated approach to urban infrastructure might prove not only impractical but also detrimental to maximizing the societal benefits these technologies could offer. The integration of self-driving cars into our cities will likely require coordinated planning and potentially even public management to ensure equitable access, safety, and efficiency – aspects that are difficult to achieve through a fragmented, purely market-driven approach championed in some o’toole articles self driving cars discussions. Therefore, while individual liberty and market principles are valuable, a balanced approach that acknowledges the need for strategic public involvement seems essential for navigating the future of urban transportation and development effectively.
