Throughout human history, we have suffered under domineering men who are certain that they know the right way to live — not just for themselves, but everyone else. They used to think that because they were of “noble” blood; today they usually think they should dominate because of their exalted education and lofty intentions. In his latest Bastiat’s Window post, Bob Graboyes reflects on the way this has played out in the housing market. The people in power were men like Robert Moses in New York, who was certain that residents would be better off if he could tear down the messy neighborhoods and replace them with sleek, modern high-rises. A few lowly folks like Jane Jacobs tried to keep them from ruining good neighborhoods — good from the standpoint of the people who lived there.
Graboyes is a Jacobs sympathizer:
Jacobs summarized her revolutionary view of cities in one of the greatest books every written on urban design: The Death and Life of Great American Cities, a broadside against urban planners’ obsession with orderly, sanitized, rectilinear cities. For Jacobs, messy serendipity was what made cities lively, safe and productive. Messiness meant new buildings next to old, commercial next to residential, and activity at all hours of the day and night — anathema to planners.
Alas, the urban planners usually got their way. Many neighborhoods they declared to be “blighted” were demolished, hurting the poor people who were forced out and some of whom later got to move into the “projects” where they were wards of the government and soon found themselves living in terror of crime. But the visionaries could pat themselves on the back.
I’m reminded of the chapter by Howard Husock entitled “How Public Housing Harmed Black America — And Still Does” in a new book, The State of Black Progress, edited by Star Parker. Particularly memorable was his description of the destruction of a thriving, mostly black community in Detroit, where commerce was abundant and real-estate investment was one of the best ways for people to accumulate capital. But then Uncle Sam came along with “urban renewal” and tore it down.
Graboyes uses the Moses-versus-Jacobs battle to make a point about his primary policy interest, namely health care:
Few in the healthcare debate call for the messy, decentralized, individualistic decision-making that Jane Jacobs wanted for cities. And this absence, I believe, is the major reason that healthcare innovation has grown sluggish and healthcare debates are so vitriolic and unproductive.
So true. Once the government started meddling in health care, it was inevitable that “experts” would start to call the shots and the kind of organic, trial-and-error development that had worked so well to improve lives would be squashed beneath innumerable governmental plans. The last thing you can ever say in Washington is, “Why not just leave people free to do what works best for them?”
Here’s a great quotation from Thomas Sowell (from Knowledge and Decisions) that is relevant here:
Freedom is not simply the right of intellectuals to circulate their merchandise. It is, above all, the right of ordinary people to find elbow room for themselves and a refuge from the rampaging presumptions of their ‘betters.’
