Sure. I don't think anybody is arguing that there is any country that couldn't give their regulations a once-over and improve things by removing a few counter-productive ones here and there.

That's not what American style libertarians are actually arguing when they say they want deregulation though, is it?

Exactly. It's stupid to be like libertarians and take a hardline stance on "regulations always bad!!" or "regulations always good!!". A regulation that bans building dense, walkable communities is bad and needs to be eliminated. Likewise, regulations that ban teachers from talking about the existence of gay people are also bad and need to be eliminated.

Just like we try to use regulations for good, many others use regulations for ill. It will always be context-specific specific whether we need more regulation or deregulation.

When actual libertarians get a chance to run a town, they don't start by eliminating zoning laws. This is the kind of thing that happens instead.

You talk as if benefiting the ruling class was an unwanted consequence of these laws. It’s not. The markets need to be free for the rich to benefit but restricted for the rich to benefit. And maybe some crumbs will fall of the table and the poors will think that the rich are so generous.

That's the irony.

But Density means communism to them so they're suddenly fine with regulations and taxes that prop up an unsustainable suburban ponzi scheme because that's the lie sold about the American Dream.

When they see how unaffordable housing has become they say, "good, my house is more expensive."