What? Matthew Yglesias is not “libertarianish” by any stretch of the imagination, and does not claim anything of the sort. He states outright that the goal is to reduce the extremely expensive (in land, money, etc.) parking subsidy that we currently provide to cars, which obviously makes cars more difficult to own.

I wonder what their response will be when low income people are the hardest hit by the lack of well-developed public transport? "Sucks to be you?" is what it's sounding like, but I hope that's wrong.

Yglesias argues for guaranteed basic income, http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/17/guaranteed_ba...

But he also argues for increased spending on public transit, universal healthcare, more worker-friendly labor laws, and so on.

When you can't counter an argument, attack the motives!