> The Yimby (“Yes In My Back Yard”) movement in the US has sprung up to fight for less restrictive zoning and more housing, often coming up against Nimby (“Not In My Back Yard”) opponents. Broadly, this is a contest of ideals against self-interest,
No, its not. Fundamentally, this contrast is nonsense because “ideals” and “self-interest” amount to the same thing, personal preferences, depending on whether you focus upon the experienced utility fron fulfilling them (“self-interest”) or the fact yhat the elements of personal utility functions can be decomposed into rules (“ideals”).
But even in the superficial view where this contrast in general seems to make sense, YIMBYs are quite often people who have a perceived narrow financial self-interest in reduced housing prices, while NIMBYs (in a policy sense, the name imputes a particular motive and relation to the policy area that can be inaccurate) are often people who idealize the protection of existing character even in places they don’t currently live.
> YIMBYs are quite often people who have a perceived narrow financial self-interest in reduced housing prices,
Are you suggesting NIMBYs aren't quite often people with a narrow financial self-interest in maintaining above-inflation rises in (mostly local) housing prices?
Because in my experience, NIMBYs are much more motivated by financial self-interest than YIMBYs.
I consider myself a YIMBY and I believe that a lot (if not most) NIMBYs do not operate out of financial self-interest. Defending the character of a neighborhood is often done against NIMBYs own potential financial benefit! Having more people move into your neighborhood is likely to increase the value of your property as businesses pop up to take advantage of the increase in density. But many NIMBYs do not plan to sell! They want to live there, that is all, and simply do not want things to change. They don't want it to be harder to find parking. They don't want people richer than them moving in and businesses catering to those with larger bank accounts.
> idealize the protection of existing character even in places they don’t currently live.
That's when they go beyond being NIMBYs and become BANANAs ("Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything"). A.k.a. CAVE dwellers ("Citizens Against Virtually Everything").
I don't know why you are getting down voted, the author of this blog is clearly making an ideological statement when he claims Yimbys are values driven vs Nimbys who are driven by self interest.
In my experience the Yimbys are the ones who are aware of the economics and the Nimbys are the ones driven by the value of nostalgia. (PS: Nimby are almost always older in California) The other unspoken value of nimbys is racism-- that's a value, not a calculation of self interest.
Property prices always go up as density increases. Density does change the nature of these neighborhood but in every case the nature has been changing for decades and the neighborhoods are nothing like they were fifty years ago-- objectively change is inevitable.
> The other unspoken value of nimbys is racism-- that's a value, not a calculation of self interest.
This is a shocking claim, and I consider myself a strong YIMBY type. I worry that you are ascribing the worst possible reason to an observation of others that hold opinions or behave different from yourself.
“It’s hard to tell when you’re being discriminated against.” —IASIP
It's only hard now because we've spent 100 years fighting discrimination. Back in the 1920s land deeds would have restrictive covenants on them that explicitly spelled out that only white Christians could buy that land.
It's a strong claim, I don't see how it could be shocking unless you're unaware of the recent history of housing policy and urban-suburban dynamics in the US. Or think that, uniquely among all things in history, that ended at a specific recent time with no consequences carried forward into the present.
The civil rights era is in living memory, people who were children for white flight are retirees and homeowners now. They're not all or even largely racist or strictly motivated by racism, but some of them are, somewhat. No one identifies as a racist and if asked could probably find marginally acceptable euphemisms for who they do and don't want in their neighborhoods and why. But come on.
I think you are confusing “being aware of economics” with being driven by self-interest.
As I understand it, most B&Bs are not campaigning for more housebuilding because it benefits them personally, but because they believe it is right. That is compatible with them having a good understanding of the economics. Note that understanding trade-offs and relative costs is not the same as being affected by trade-offs and relative costs.
Norms are defined by how well they stand the test of time. For example, marriage is a pretty good norm that has demonstrated value to spouses, children and surrounding society over centuries. Critical theory is a questionable norm because it has not demonstrated long term value to a single society or organization where it was adopted. This does not mean that all established ideas are good and all new ideas are bad. At the other extreme, completely unchangeable norms such as Sharia Law or US constitution (unchangeable in practice giving current political climate) get in the way of reasonable innovation and adaptation to changing circumstances. Still, it should be easy to challenge or ignore newly minted norms, while ones that stood the test of time should be difficult to change, change should be gradual if it happens and reversals of changes that do not seem to work out should be commonplace. One way a change can happen is intentional communities that do not impose their experiments on others. If the ideas are viable, communities will grow and eventually achieve social dominance. If not, only people who volunteered for the experiment are harmed.
Framing the Gender Recognition Act as making it easier for "teenagers to choose their gender" is a particularly misleading spin. Most of this article is just a very erudite spin on very classical and frankly kind of boring right-wing talking points. It's one thing for someone to post their political views, and another for them to refuse to be honest about what they're doing and bury them in so many layers of philosophy as to make it unclear what actual points they're trying to make. Luckily this slip-up, driven by the modern conservative's Achilles Heel (trans people having agency), makes it particularly easy to unravel the rest of this given it gives you a good understanding of its motivations.
> A reasonable model of politics is that left-wing parties are norm-driven and right-wing parties are driven by self-interest.
Or the opposite - when the Left seeks social justice it is to satisfy the self-interests of the relatively poor, and the Right often justify relative inequality by appeals to social norms around ethnicity, tradition and (supposed) class virtues.
The relatively poor could be generating substantial economic value for the the rich and providing useful services for the folks in the middle or they could be costing substantial resources to poorly manage on the street, wandering into emergency rooms as a train wreck and causing massive bills both in terms of law enforcement, social services, and medicine that they will never pay back based on whether we think affordable housing and safety nets matter.
A functioning society is in everyone's interest. Only the really rich can afford to trivially live somewhere else and profit enough from austerity to net out to positive even while wrecking else's backyard which is why its so strange to see those in the middle jumping on that train.
Yeah, you can categorize tons of political behavior as driven by norms or self-interest. Those are fundamentals, not particularly more left or more right.
"Or the opposite - when the Left seeks social justice it is to satisfy the self-interests of the relatively poor"
It also suits the interests of the rich if everybody is constantly arguing about issues that cost them nothing (gender norms etc) but at the same time ensures the spotlight is always on something other than them.
Economic inequality is written about constantly? Unless you mean something much more specific. The theory is opposed by one radical party, but it is talked about both by journalists and politicians.
Most importantly, I responded to claim that this is not affecting people and "costs them nothing". It is actually affecting real world people.
I couldnt disagree more. In terms of breadth of coverage all the woke stuff get ways more coverage and interest. I don't how any objective person could say otherwise.
Social conservatives in the US define themselves as being values driven. I think the actual reasonable model is that both sides are a mix of values and self interest.
(Replies to self) Yeah, sorry - that was a bit of a half-cocked post. Both sides are indeed a mix of values and interests - I was just trying to refute the author’s premise by counter-example, and I should have explicitly said that for clarity.
I don't think that is a very good explanation of conservative vs. liberal, at least in regard to economic policies. I'd say it's more a matter of conservatives focusing on the incentives created by policy, while the liberal focuses more on its intention. The conservative analyzes the incentives from the viewpoint of a self-interested individual, as we all are to varying degrees. One can be a proponent of liberal policy, another of conservative policy, but both be interested in helping the relative poor- they just disagree on the means to achieve similar goals.
Left and right have specific meanings that unfortunately have been muddled over time.
The concept of left and right began in the french revolution when people were arguing inside a government building and they grouped up on the left and right sides of the room.
The people on the right wanted to maintain the existing socioeconomic hierarchy whereas the people on the left wanted to get rid of the hierarchy in favor of more equality.
So left means against hierarchy and right means pro-hierarchy. This is confusing because historically people like Vladimir Lenin were actually considered right wing because, even though he was a communist, his policies were very much pro-hierarchy.
Maintaining the status quo is absolutely a right wing position, and current social norms absolutely do serve to maintain the status quo.
In our society we have an idea of an "ideal" human being, and the norms are designed to serve those people. Are you a tall, white, straight, neurotypical, handsome, wealthy, sports loving, business-minded person? Great! You'll fit right in.
Anyone else? Well you're kind of a failure and you should try as hard as you can to act like the ideal person.
There is injustice in our society no doubt and there are many ways of interpreting this and how it should be understood.
You simply appear to be following the very narrow railroads tracks (norms) of a particular ideology without seemingly any attempt at independent or critical thought.
That is still quite a vague answer. You seem to disagree with me about something so it'd be helpful if you were more specific.
I can assure you that I've spent a lot of time thinking about these things and I have, at various points, pissed off people on the left and the right during my process of learning.
I strongly disagree that social norms serve only or even mainly to support the status quo. Norms of equality drove anti-slavery campaigners. The French Revolution was deeply influenced by norms about natural rights. Communism was a profoundly idealistic movement. Today, many people call for deep social change by appealing to norms.
Using one of your examples, the norm would have been slavery and the moral value would have been equality.
This is actually a great example of what I’m talking about. Norms usually enforce the status quo, but values drive us to break norms and change the status quo.
Social norms are accepted standards of behavior in groups of people. "Equality" is not a norm, it's a value. A norm can lead to equality, but it is not itself a norm.
However, they both play a role in preserving the status quo. A certain set of norms and values will lead to a certain type of society. If you want a different society you have to change the norms and values.
No, its not. Fundamentally, this contrast is nonsense because “ideals” and “self-interest” amount to the same thing, personal preferences, depending on whether you focus upon the experienced utility fron fulfilling them (“self-interest”) or the fact yhat the elements of personal utility functions can be decomposed into rules (“ideals”).
But even in the superficial view where this contrast in general seems to make sense, YIMBYs are quite often people who have a perceived narrow financial self-interest in reduced housing prices, while NIMBYs (in a policy sense, the name imputes a particular motive and relation to the policy area that can be inaccurate) are often people who idealize the protection of existing character even in places they don’t currently live.