www.betonit.ai Open in urlscan Pro
172.64.147.169  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

POST /api/v1/free?nojs=true

<form action="/api/v1/free?nojs=true" method="post" class="form _form_1mxvn_6" novalidate=""><input type="hidden" name="first_url" value="https://www.betonit.ai/"><input type="hidden" name="first_referrer"><input type="hidden" name="current_url"
    value="https://www.betonit.ai/"><input type="hidden" name="current_referrer"><input type="hidden" name="referral_code"><input type="hidden" name="source" value="cover_page"><input type="hidden" name="referring_pub_id"><input type="hidden"
    name="additional_referring_pub_ids">
  <div class="_sideBySideWrap_1mxvn_10">
    <div class="_emailInputWrapper_1mxvn_57"><input type="email" name="email" placeholder="Type your email..." class="pencraft _emailInput_1mxvn_23 _emailInputOnWelcomePage_1mxvn_44"></div><button type="submit"
      class="button rightButton primary subscribe-btn _button_1mxvn_76" tabindex="0"><span class="button-text ">Subscribe</span></button>
  </div>
  <div id="error-container"></div>
</form>

Text Content

By Bryan Caplan

· Over 11,000 subscribers

Subscribe


No thanks
By registering you agree to Substack's Terms of Service, our Privacy Policy, and
our Information Collection Notice


BET ON IT


SubscribeSign in
Home
My Books
Archive
About



Share this publication

BET ON IT

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
Share this post

YOU'RE INVITED TO CAPLA-CON 2024!

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other


YOU'RE INVITED TO CAPLA-CON 2024!


AUGUST 17-18 AT CAROW HALL, NOON-MIDNIGHT BOTH DAYS

Bryan Caplan
Jun 07, 2024
17
Share this post

YOU'RE INVITED TO CAPLA-CON 2024!

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
4
Share

You, your family, and your friends are all invited to Capla-Con 2024, my annual
festival of nerdity. Like last year, the venue is Carow Hall at the GMU Fairfax
campus. Address: 4460 Rockfish Creek Lane, Fairfax, VA, 22030. Unlike last year,
however, the air conditioning will be turned on, so attendees may geek out in
comfort.

Activities include:

 * Tabletop games! I’ll make a menu of my home-brewed role-playing games
   available, along with a vast array of more traditional games. Want to teach
   others a new game? Bring it? Want to learn new games? Opportunities abound.

 * Party games! Over 80 people showed up last year, so if you want to run
   charades, Werewolf, or any other activity requiring a room full of
   participants, this is your big chance.

 * Karaoke! Carow has a big screen, and I’ve got a mighty speaker with four
   wireless mics.

 * Conversation! This is a great chance to make new friends and re-connect with
   old ones. Most guests are local, but quite a few make long journeys across
   the country and the world to attend.

 * Fandom! Many of your favorite bloggers, professors, think tankers, and more
   are likely to attend. I’ve never known any to refuse an autograph or a photo
   op.

Capla-Con is open house format, running noon to midnight both days. Drop in for
as little or as long as you like. And as always at my events, kids of all ages
are ultra-welcome. I’ve even written special role-playing games for young
players, including the world’s only karaoke RPG, Space Opera: The Musical, a
story about teenage musical rebels fighting alien domination in a dystopian
future.

Abundant snacks are available over the whole duration, with catered dinner
around 6 PM both days. No alcohol, though.

Want to organize an event? Your best route is to post it on the official
Facebook page, but you can also just share your idea in the comments.

Hope you can make it! Please RSVP (acceptances only!) in the comments. Also feel
free to coordinate ride-sharing in the comments.

P.S. If you don’t see me at the event, I’m probably running a game down the hall
in my office at 11 Carow Hall. Don’t be shy about introducing yourself. ;-)





17 Likes
·
1 Restack
17
Share this post

YOU'RE INVITED TO CAPLA-CON 2024!

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
4
Share
Share this post

ALL OF MY GUEST POSTS FOR VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other


ALL OF MY GUEST POSTS FOR VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

Bryan Caplan
Jun 06, 2024
9
Share this post

ALL OF MY GUEST POSTS FOR VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
2
Share

Last month, I guest blogged on Build, Baby, Build for Reason magazine’s Volokh
Conspiracy. Here’s what I wrote, with highlights.

 * Trillions. Highlight:
   
   > Even better, deregulation will deliver these gains beyond a reasonable
   > doubt. Laissez-faire in housing is not a futurist Libertopia. A hundred
   > years ago, U.S. housing markets were close to laissez-faire, and the
   > least-regulated regions of the U.S. are still close to laissez-faire.
   > Furthermore, we don't have to blithely assume vigorous competition will
   > arise, because vigorous competition in the construction industry already
   > exists. The total number of builders is immense, and even in our regulated
   > world, many are champing at the bit to expand.

 * Build, Baby, Build: My Most Inexcusable Omission. Highlight:
   
   > Large-scale privatization of government land is a wonderful opportunity for
   > domestic charter cities. Want to start a new U.S. population center? Buy a
   > few hundred square miles of uninhabited federal land and try your ideas.
   > "Build it and they will come" overstates, but visionary billionaires like
   > Elon Musk could plausibly build new metropolises from scratch.

 * The YIMBY Napkin. Highlight:
   
   > Recently, however, I started wondering what a quick "back-of-the-envelope"
   > or "napkin" calculation would reveal. When I teach the economic effects of
   > immigration, for example, I normally start by multiplying rough estimates
   > of (a) gains per immigrant by (b) total number of immigrants. In principle,
   > one could do the same for domestic migration. Why not give it a try?

 * Build, Baby, Build: Responses to the Best Objections. Highlight:
   
   > Whenever you see birth dearths in cramped quarters, the fundamental
   > question to ask is: "Why do these people consume such a small quantity of
   > housing?" Our default answer should definitely be: "Because housing is
   > expensive." If 4000 square foot apartments in Manhattan skyscrapers cost
   > $1500 a month, would critics really still expect their occupants to have
   > low fertility?

Thanks again to Ilya Somin for making my guest stint for Volokh possible.





9 Likes
9
Share this post

ALL OF MY GUEST POSTS FOR VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
2
Share
Share this post

THE ADELSTEIN-CAPLAN DEBATE ON A PERFECT BEING

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other


THE ADELSTEIN-CAPLAN DEBATE ON A PERFECT BEING

Bryan Caplan
Jun 05, 2024
12
Share this post

THE ADELSTEIN-CAPLAN DEBATE ON A PERFECT BEING

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
2
Share

By the power of the gloriously agentic Jonah Franks, here’s the video for my
debate with Matthew Adelstein on the existence of God. The audio is complete,
but video cut out a few times, so Jonah used AI instead. If you’ve ever wanted
to see what I look like as a billionaire while doing philosophy of religion,
look no further.


12 Likes
·
2 Restacks
12
Share this post

THE ADELSTEIN-CAPLAN DEBATE ON A PERFECT BEING

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
2
Share
Share this post

HOW CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION CAN HELP END EXCLUSIONARY ZONING

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other


HOW CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION CAN HELP END EXCLUSIONARY ZONING


A GUEST POST BY ILYA SOMIN

Bryan Caplan
Jun 04, 2024
16
Share this post

HOW CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION CAN HELP END EXCLUSIONARY ZONING

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
11
Share

Here’s a guest essay by Ilya Somin of GMU’s Scalia Law School. While Ilya and I
continue to disagree on war and peace, we are (nearly) of one mind on both
immigration and housing. If you think the federal government has little power to
deregulate housing, think again!

P.S. In other news, don’t miss my review of Corey DeAngelis’ The Parent
Revolution for RealClearBooks. Highlight:

> And the sad truth is that such demagoguery has worked like a charm for
> decades. The substantive argument for school choice is simple: Free
> competition delivers higher quality, lower prices, more variety, and more
> innovation than government monopoly. This isn’t ideology; it’s common sense
> and Econ 101. Milton Friedman started sharing intellectually rigorous
> arguments for school vouchers almost seventy years ago. But faced with
> platitudes about the glory of public education and the evil of privatization,
> intellectually rigorous arguments lost decade after decade. One tweet about a
> teacher demanding a “safe remote environment” while vacationing in Puerto Rico
> changed more minds than any lecture on economic theory or any econometric
> study.

Now, here’s Ilya…

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In his excellent new book, Build, Baby, Build: The Science and Ethics of Housing
Regulation , Bryan Caplan  advocates far-reaching deregulation of housing
markets.  I  agree. As Bryan and other scholars have documented, eliminating
exclusionary zoning and other similar restrictions on housing construction would
reduce housing costs, enable more people to vote with their feet and “move to
opportunity,” make the economy much more productive, and greatly enhance
protection for property rights.  Bryan also writes that a Supreme Court decision
ruling that exclusionary zoning is unconstitutional is “probably the best shot
for radical housing deregulation.” He’s likely right on that point, too.

In “The Constitutional Case Against Exclusionary Zoning,” a forthcoming Texas
Law Review article, University of Wisconsin law Professor Josh Braver and I
explain how to get there. The Supreme Court can rule that all or most
exclusionary zoning regulations that restrict housing construction violate the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. That clause requires the government to
pay “just compensation” whenever the government takes private property. As
explained in our article, the original understanding of the Takings Clause
includes the right to use as part of the “private property” protected. And in
the Founding era, like today, housing was clearly a standard use of property.
 The same goes for the period around 1868, when the Fifth Amendment and the rest
of the Bill of Rights were first “incorporated” against state and local
governments by the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment (previously, the Bill
of Rights only constrained the federal government). We also explain how much the
same conclusion follows on the basis of leading versions of “living
constitution” theory.

Braver is a progressive living constitutionalist. I am a libertarian generally
sympathetic to originalism. We differ on many issues, but agree here. If we can
agree on that, I hope others can too.

Not all restrictions on the right to use property violate the Takings Clause. As
discussed in our article (Section II.C), the so-called “police power” exception
exempts regulations that protect against significant threats to public health or
safety. But, as we also explain, few restrictions on housing construction even
plausibly fall within that exception. The living-constitution theories we
discuss would also allow many restrictions on commercial (as opposed to
residential) uses. But that, too, would not be much of an obstacle to housing
construction.

In his book, Bryan suggests that a Supreme Court decision striking down
exclusionary zoning would have to overturn Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty,
the Court’s 1926 ruling upholding it. I would be happy to see Euclid go. But, as
described in our article, the Supreme Court could easily rule against
exclusionary zoning under the Takings Clause even without overruling Euclid.
That’s because, technically, Euclid didn’t consider the Takings Clause at all.
It merely ruled that exclusionary zoning does not violate the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment (which mandates that states cannot deprive people of
“life, liberty, or property without due process of law”). A future court ruling
could make clear that Euclid only applies to the Due Process Clause (something
the Supreme Court already suggested in a 2005 decision). As explained in Part IV
of our article, the Court would not need to reverse any other decisions, either,
though it would have to modify or reinterpret some language in various Takings
Clause precedents. In recent years, the conservative majority on the Supreme
Court has shown a willingness to strengthen protection for property rights under
the Takings Clause. It’s possible they might do so here, as well. One or more
liberal justices might also support the idea, given the strong
living-constitution considerations supporting it, and the condemnation of
exclusionary zoning by many progressives, arising in part from its history as a
tool for racial exclusion.

If the Supreme Court rules that exclusionary zoning regulations are takings,
governments would have to pay “just compensation” to affected property owners
(usually defined as the “fair market value” of the property right in question).
Few if any local governments could afford to compensate all of the many
thousands of property owners currently barred from building high-rise or
multifamily housing on their land by single-family zoning requirements and other
exclusionary rules. To avoid crushing liability, they would have to either
abolish exclusionary zoning or at least severely cut back on it.

Federal constitutional litigation is far from the only way to deregulate
housing, and should not be pursued to the exclusion of other strategies. In
recent years, several state and local governments have enacted deregulatory
legislation. Montana is a notable example. State constitutional litigation might
be another useful tool. With the help of the Cato Institute, Braver and I are
conducting a survey of possible state constitutional options.

YIMBY (“yes in my backyard”) reform activists should also consider the
possibility of enacting deregulatory state constitutional amendments. Many state
constitutions are far easier to amend than the federal Constitution (some can be
amended by a simple majority-vote referendum), and property rights advocates
have made good use of such amendment tools in the past.

There is also a chance that federal legislation curbing zoning might be enacted,
though it would be extremely difficult to push anything major through Congress.

These other options should be pursued. But federal-court judicial review has
important unique advantages. State-by-state reform efforts cannot curb
exclusionary zoning nationwide, at one fell swoop. A Supreme Court Takings
Clause decision can take a major step in that direction. In addition,
state-based reforms are often blocked or watered down by strong “NIMBY” (“not in
my backyard”) opposition, and by widespread public ignorance about the true
effects of zoning restrictions. Bryan Caplan, himself a leading academic expert
on voter ignorance, also recognizes this problem.

Federal judicial review can also help overcome various local government attempts
to circumvent zoning reform, and forestall efforts to use state-constitutional
“home rule” provisions to block it. The recent dubious California court decision
striking down SB 9—a significant law limiting single-family zoning—is an example
of the latter. Takings Clause litigation can put a stop to that, because the
federal Constitution supersedes all state laws and constitutional provisions
that contradict it.

Historically, successful constitutional reform movements have relied on a
combination of litigation and political action, rather than focusing on one
approach to the exclusion of others. That was true of the civil rights movement,
the women’s rights movement, same-sex marriage advocates,  gun rights, and such
successes as property rights advocates have had in recent years. YIMBY housing
advocates would do well to learn from this history, and put the knowledge to
good use.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ilya Somin is Professor of Law at George Mason University, B. Kenneth Simon
Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, and author of Free to
Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom and The Grasping Hand: Kelo
v. City of New London and the Limits of Eminent Domain. He is coauthor (with
Josh Braver) of “The Constitutional Case Against Exclusionary Zoning,” Texas Law
Review (forthcoming), on which this article draws. 

16 Likes
·
2 Restacks
16
Share this post

HOW CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION CAN HELP END EXCLUSIONARY ZONING

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
11
Share
Share this post

THE CANARIES IN THE COALMINE

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other


THE CANARIES IN THE COALMINE


A CASE STUDY OF LAUGHABLE MEDIA BIAS

Bryan Caplan
Jun 03, 2024
66
Share this post

THE CANARIES IN THE COALMINE

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
7
Share

By the power of Gabriel Calzada Álvarez, I’m going to be a visiting professor
this summer at the Universidad de las Hespérides in the Canary Islands. I expect
it to be a glorious experience for my entire family. But according to the UK’s
Daily Mirror, I’m in for a rude disappointment. Check out this ludicrous
headline:



Granted, this is hysterical even by the ordinary standards of the media. But the
article captures so many of the failures of modern journalism that I’ve decided
to critique it line-by-line.

> A Spanish holiday hotspot beloved by Brits is facing imminent collapse,
> experts have warned.

When experts warn of “imminent collapse,” you should probably get a few details.
Starting with: “How soon is ‘imminent’?” and “How bad is ‘collapse’?”

While the terms are not mathematically precise, “imminent” almost always means
“less than two years from now” and “collapse” almost always means “a lot more
people — at least an extra 5% of the population annually — will die.” Are the
experts really saying that? If so, how much are they willing to bet?

> Over-tourism has put the Canary Islands and its infrastructure under enormous
> strain which is no longer sustainable, urban planners have said. If the
> massive influx of tourists who visit the Canaries is not reduced then it faces
> "systemic collapse".

Notice: These sentences imply that one way or another, tourism to the Canary
Islands will sharply fall in the next few years. If the government of the
Canaries fails to push tourism down, the horrors of the “systemic collapse” will
scare them away, right?

Anyone who believes this should therefore be willing to make an unconditional
bet that tourism in the Canaries will soon decline.

> According to SE12, organization's report reads: "The Canary Islands territory
> was more than overexploited. We had exceeded the carrying capacity of the
> territory by seven times, resulting in a scenario of systemic collapse due to
> the urban development structure."

Obvious question: If a country appears to exceed its alleged “carrying capacity”
by a factor of seven, is it possible that you have underestimated this carrying
capacity?! Indeed, when experts make such claims, the next question to ask is:
“How many other countries are drastically exceeding their ‘carrying capacity’?”
Followed by, “How many have done so for a century without breaking a sweat?”

Followed by, “Why exactly do you call them ‘experts’ again?”

> Locals have begun to push back against the influx of visitors, however,
> concerned as they are that numbers are growing too high for local
> infrastructure to cope. The vast majority of food is imported, while the
> islands have difficulty dealing with the waste such large numbers of visitors
> produce.

By design, all population centers import the vast majority of their food, and
export large quantities of waste. If you’d never seen this process before — tons
of food goes in, tons of waste comes out — you could reasonably fear disaster.
But centuries of experience have proven than this model is totally workable on a
massive scale. In New York City, London, Madrid, and yes, the Canary Islands. As
Confucius never said, “The man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt
those who are doing it.”



> The Ben Magec-Ecologists in Action report continues: "Uncontrolled, increase
> in the non-resident population of European origin, giving rise to completely
> overcrowded islands in which the generation of waste and the exploitation of
> resources cause an almost irreversible degradation of our natural ecosystems."

In Fossil Future, Alex Epstein shows that radical environmentalists routinely
equivocate between “X is bad for humans” and “X is bad for nature.” They
oscillate between predicting the deaths of millions of humans, and bemoaning the
extinction of rare species of insects. Yet these are radically different sorts
of predictions! Similarly, this article on the Canaries starts by reporting the
predicted “collapse” of a society of over two million Spaniards, then ends up
quoting experts on “ecosystem degradation.” Which still sounds bad, until you
realize that millions of human beings enjoying their lives on the Canaries
counts as “degradation” even if the enjoyment goes on forever.

> The diverse array of fauna and flora found on the islands increasing [sic] the
> importance of protecting them. Lanzarote has significant biodiversity which is
> in part due to the island's volcanic origin. In Timanfaya alone, 180 different
> plant species have been found, providing a home for Atlantic lizards and the
> Eastern Canarian gecko.

This is a strong “tell” that the experts don’t believe their own doom-saying.
When mass human death actually looms, who frets about lizards or geckos?

> Both social and environmental groups took part in the protest last month,
> according to reports from local publication Canarian Weekly. They waved
> placards saying “the Canaries are no longer a paradise” and “the Canaries are
> not for sale” at the gatherings. One protester said that the island community
> was close to “completely collapsing”.

Is the protestor “an expert” too? Inquiring minds want to know.

> They have warned that sewage spills, long traffic jams and environmental
> damage caused both by over-tourism and new hotel complexes along the popular
> beaches of south Tenerife were starting to eat into the natural wonder of the
> island.

“Starting to eat into the natural wonder of the island” is a far cry from
“collapse,” no? Indeed, it’s the lowest possible bar. Didn’t the first human who
pitched a tent on the Canaries “start to eat into the natural wonder of the
island”

What if this article turns out to be correct? That would indeed be tragic. But
I’m so confident in my critique that I plan to literally bet my life — and the
lives of my entire family — on it. Indeed, I predict that after a month on the
islands, I’ll conclude that what they really need is massive housing
deregulation, privatization of government land, and congestion pricing.
¡Construye, Cariño, Construye!

66 Likes
·
4 Restacks
66
Share this post

THE CANARIES IN THE COALMINE

www.betonit.ai
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other
7
Share

Loading more posts…

© 2024 Bryan Caplan
Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice
Start WritingGet the app
Substack is the home for great culture
Share
Copy link

Facebook

Email

Note

Other



This site requires JavaScript to run correctly. Please turn on JavaScript or
unblock scripts