If I remember correctly, in a number of interviews Jane Jacobs has implied, and even explicitly said in one instance, that she is not a “libertarian” — but the impression I got was that she was saying that she was not “card carrying” “classic” type libertarian, as she believed in, for instance, some laws that (e.g., perhaps anti-drug laws?) that “card carrying” libertarians generally oppose.

Although it was a book on ethics and not on political systems, per se, it seems to me that in “Systems of Survival” (major book #5) Jacobs articulates both a good rationale for adopting “moderate” libertarianism and, also, a good rationale for eschewing “classic” card carrying libertarianism.

And in her last book, “Dark Age Ahead,” (major book #7) she also explicitly criticizes and distances herself from neo-conservatives (e.g., calling them “cheese parers” and, I believe, “bean counters”).

NEVERTHELESS, it seems to me that when one examines the great body of her work, especially “Death and Life of Great American Cities (major book #1), “The Economy of Cities” (major book #2), “On the Question of Separatism” (major book #3), “Cities and the Wealth of Nations” (major book #4) AND “The Nature of Economies” (major book #6), and including the other two previously mentioned books too, one sees that the great body of her thought seems to be an excellent articulation of, and rationale for, a “moderate” libertarian stance.

While it’s hard for me to say, in the absence of pertinent direct quotes, why others (like the editors of “Reason”) regard Jacobs as essentially a libertarian, personally speaking it seems to me that her opposition to the Lower Manhattan Expressway had, as far as I can remember, very little to do with own evaluation of her as being essentially a moderate libertarian. Rather it was just reading her books (roughly speaking mostly in the order in which they were written) and noticing how Jacobs seemed to be articulating a mostly moderate-libertarian type philosophy in them.

I haven’t re-read “the Nature of Economies” in a while, but if I remember correctly, it seems to me to have a pro-moderate-libertarian slant to it, as much so or even more so, than her other books. Don’t recall anything that she wrote in that book that would make me think of her as being anti-moderate-libertarian.

Benjamin Hemric
Sat., August 28, 2010, 6:08 p.m.

Very interesting. Could you suggest further reading on the history of intracity mass transit? Almost anything – short-form Internet sources, or books (though, hopefully not tomes) – would be helpful.

Thanks.

The 100 people is an analogy for wetlands legislation. Essentially a lot of wetlands legislation has to do with flooding (though there are other environmental goals woven in). If people fill wetlands, which naturally soak up rains, then the rain diverts somewhere else; sometimes in a very obvious way, flooding the neighbor; sometimes it’s the incremental decisions of many people that result in flooding the town or neighborhood next door over course of a decade. I do happen to think wetlands legislation can be heavy handed and prevent good urbanism but it does have a legitimate purpose that I have trouble seeing being dismissed entirely.

As far as libertarians in general being “radical” that’s probably a discussion for another forum. What I expected was sort of a traditional “fiscal conservatism,” federalism / lower taxes and spending scheme married to social freedom, what I found was “let’s abolish department of transportation and let the army run on donations”. Even if that is the ultimate goal of libertarianism there are probably more moderate intermediate goals that would be a easier for the general public to digest.