Anyway, how about this formula for creating vibrant urban areas:

1. Create local densities of at least 50K per square mile.
2. Restrict shopping areas to in-line stores, and in designated zones.
3. Forbid all interference with commerce from criminals and government (sorry if that appears redundant…)

That generally does the trick, no?

And that's sort of close to what Jane Jacobs said, isn't it?

Unrelated, is there any way to see a comment preview? We wouldn't want to see HTML tags-with-typos polluting the comment section…

I don't think the disqus comment system allow that, but I'll find out – that would be a nice feature.

Anyway, I really enjoy reading what Murray Rothbard had to say. If nothing else, he was exceptionally consistent, and uncompromisingly anti-government. My main criticism is that he tended to work backwards from the conclusion (i.e., the government is the problem) to the issue he was addressing. Not that he was wrong often, but there was sometimes a bit too much doctrine for my tastes.

Rothbard is truly elegant in his radical consistency. Before listening, I thought it was going to be a bunch of ranting and complaining – but I wrongly associated him the Lew Rockwell angry-types. If your haven't already, I recommend reading or listening to the whole book. I haven't read any other of his work yet, but know that I find his objection to fractional reserve banking inconsistent.

I never quite understood the appeal of Jane Jacobs amorphous ideas that she (as far as I know) never empirically tested. It would have been enlightening to see what would have happened if she actually had control (and even better, ownership) of a large tract of land. But with regard to “diversity”, “vibrancy”, and other relatively abstract notions, places are as diverse as the populations they serve.

From my understanding Jacobs was referring to diversity of use, so that people are using and area in different ways and at different times for different reasons.

I think it's somewhat subjective, but I agree that I'd like to see more rigorous research of Jacob's ideas. What type of empirical evidence would you want to see? I'd be interested in seeing research into real estate values.

I say this because most housing markets are already free, and we see that people voluntarily self-segregate. For example, look at how ethnic groups segregate themselves without any government incentives. West Indian blacks tend to live apart from American-born blacks, Puerto Ricans vs. Columbians, Russian Jews vs. Iranian Jews, etc. People naturally categorize themselves and live/interact amongst their “kind” — whether based on ethnicity, religion, or culture/sub-culture.

I'm embarrassed, I didn't go into that subject. Rothbard does point out that it makes sense to discriminate in some instances, such as with families. Check out this link for some research at MIT by Prof. Schelling that showed that even a small preference to have neighbors of the same color would result in segregation.

People already pay tons to live in school districts with the right students. People pay extra to live in coops that discriminate. And, of course, “progressives” pay and pay and pay to isolate themselves in neighborhoods that are free from the “other”.

As we saw in part one, the public school system would no longer be a tool of segregation in Rothbard's world…

I agree, people will still segregate, but it shouldn't be encouraged by policies such as public schools, rent control, etc… And ideas of forced integration are social engineering models with dangerous potential.

All in all, although it feels wrong, I agree that people should be free to discriminate to their own detriment. I think it's ineveitable that a libertarian society would tend towards tolerance and color-blindness anyway.