The thing about NIMBYs (which, for the unfamiliar, stands for "Not In My Backyard") is that it illustrates a really common problem with the "my right to swing my fist" brand of libertarianism.

No one wants to build a prison or clinic or housing *in their backyard*. https://twitter.com/cafedujord/status/1386550450183307268

Now, to be clear I used a prison as an example because it's a classic NIMBY target. I don't think prisons should be built anywhere. But where they *do* get built is political, in so many ways, including whose holy property values get affected.

But to return to my point: the NIMBY takes the very simple principle that your property is your property, your home is your castle, etc., things enshrined in our common law and heritage and capitalism, and extends it to controlling what others do with their property.

Want to paint your house bright colors or put up a basketball hoop? There's a lot of places where your neighbors get a say, and on what basis? Somehow the front of your house is part of their backyard. Whodathunkit?

To be clear, I understand the figure of speech at play here when we say that something that affects a neighborhood is happening "right in our backyards", but when the subject is property rights I feel like we should cut off that emotional appeal because it implies a new right.

My neighbors aren't allowed to just set fire to their house because that affects my house. It has implications for my family's property and my life. Their fire could literally spread into my backyard.

But if somebody bought the lot adjacent to mine and wanted to legally demolish it and legally build affordable housing, or subdivide a big house in the neighborhood to be a halfway house? That is not in my backyard. It's not in it at all.

...this thread which started off with a gripe reminded me that a sober home for women here in town is opening up a coffee and chocolate shop in my neighborhood, and dang if I'm not pleased to have that "in my backyard".