Good to get past the posturing grown up around this subject. As an urban planner, I remember this got started by environmentalists trying to prevent more elite abuse that was crammed down urban throats in the 60s -- mostly inner city neighborhoods and rural pasturage. Of course, the more supercilious earned a canned disparagement from actual elites, and NIMBY effectiveness was seized by elites to control growth for themselves, so enlightened were they. It's time to return to the original purpose and to trust ordinary people with decisions over their own lives, deliberatively.
Well put. Thanks for the clear presentation of the absurdities so many argue by.
Yet there's an underlying assumption to the claim "reason is the slave of the passions," that reason and the passions are functionally separate, separable realms or capacities -- no intertwining as reasonable passion nor passionate reason.
Our attention to the world steers as largely by our passions and by our reasons. Even when our eyes are directed by passion, we reason about what we then perceive. And when with reasoning we construct alternatives, our passions attract or divert us among them; where we are directed by reason, we assess in part with passion. Hume would be right in that famous phrase IF reason and passion were ever separate, separable realities of our psychology. Extreme examples may suggest they sometimes are, but most often, individually and socially, they are an admixture; just as walking standardly involves two feet, despite that we may hop.
If we take Hume to be advising we never idealize a reason devoid of passions, that's good advice. But intertwining the two as passionate reason, and reasonable passion is hardly to make a "slave" -- despite how the hyperbole makes for a memorable phrase. Your passionate reasoning is a fine example of intertwining, so undercuts the stronger version of Hume's claim.
Sam Seder in a podcast with PBD called for very high tax rates, he's been making that case for twenty plus years, where were you pal? and you say he is wrong on most of the things?
what tax rates do Thompson, Klein have said that you find them to be correct?
It seems to me you are missing the whole point of Mike's argument. It's not about the substance of policy disputes. It's about the difference between recognizing and valuing the fundamental democratic right of the people (not the professional analysts of policy implications) to make the value decisions.
I get his argument but along the way he slander a whole lot of people he doesn't like, straight jackets them and launders his anti left creds. Its there in black and white in the same article. They were not policy position disagreement. And you think Sam Seder and others have framed and talked about fundamental democratic rights?! That is the core issue here. Sam Seder has made the same core arguments and framing for decades but Mike casually slanders them.
‘Sam Seder is wrong about most of what he says. The Sam Seders of the world are wrong about most of what they say.’
This is not policy disagreement alone. This is wholesale rejection of policy, framing, someones understanding of fundamental democratic rights. You can disgaree with with all of the above, but Im here to point out Sam Seder has been in the trenches for over 20 years for things Mike arrived at 5 minutes ago, after long round trip. For abolish ICE, higher taxes, democratic socialism, anti war, respecting the constitution etc etc. As if Mike has superior moral framing because he has love and thus he is a liberal and Sam Seders is not. Mike is anti-left but he cant stand that most good ideas he advocates for are from the left, they have been fighting the good fight long before him, they come from a different framework that Mike falsely calls ‘envy’, he can't accept love is a spectrum and that only his framing of love is correct!
People dont make value judgement on a vacuum. You want institutions and laws that ensures based on democratic principles that are fair and even. That is not the case in reality. Thats why Sam Seder opposed Citizens United. Gerrymandering. Blatant blocking of SC appointments. And whole lot of issues at state level. And whole lot of issues from monied interests. Sam has been highlighting all these. To say Sam doesn't care or know about enabling people to do value judgement over technocratic ones is bs.
I dunno i think you came here yesterday and have very strong opinions on the left. Sam Seder called genocide two years earlier than Ezra Klein. Sam Seder called abolish ICE 20 years ago, Bill Kristol is making that now. What did you call two years ago? what did you call 20 years ago?
I think you're willfully misleading here. the policy that Zohran is implementing is from DSA, coopted by Thompson, bless his soul. not the other way around, I know its convenient to frame it that way because as you wrote earlier left economics is from a place of envy (which is false).
Good to get past the posturing grown up around this subject. As an urban planner, I remember this got started by environmentalists trying to prevent more elite abuse that was crammed down urban throats in the 60s -- mostly inner city neighborhoods and rural pasturage. Of course, the more supercilious earned a canned disparagement from actual elites, and NIMBY effectiveness was seized by elites to control growth for themselves, so enlightened were they. It's time to return to the original purpose and to trust ordinary people with decisions over their own lives, deliberatively.
Well put. Thanks for the clear presentation of the absurdities so many argue by.
Yet there's an underlying assumption to the claim "reason is the slave of the passions," that reason and the passions are functionally separate, separable realms or capacities -- no intertwining as reasonable passion nor passionate reason.
Our attention to the world steers as largely by our passions and by our reasons. Even when our eyes are directed by passion, we reason about what we then perceive. And when with reasoning we construct alternatives, our passions attract or divert us among them; where we are directed by reason, we assess in part with passion. Hume would be right in that famous phrase IF reason and passion were ever separate, separable realities of our psychology. Extreme examples may suggest they sometimes are, but most often, individually and socially, they are an admixture; just as walking standardly involves two feet, despite that we may hop.
If we take Hume to be advising we never idealize a reason devoid of passions, that's good advice. But intertwining the two as passionate reason, and reasonable passion is hardly to make a "slave" -- despite how the hyperbole makes for a memorable phrase. Your passionate reasoning is a fine example of intertwining, so undercuts the stronger version of Hume's claim.
Sam Seder in a podcast with PBD called for very high tax rates, he's been making that case for twenty plus years, where were you pal? and you say he is wrong on most of the things?
what tax rates do Thompson, Klein have said that you find them to be correct?
It seems to me you are missing the whole point of Mike's argument. It's not about the substance of policy disputes. It's about the difference between recognizing and valuing the fundamental democratic right of the people (not the professional analysts of policy implications) to make the value decisions.
I get his argument but along the way he slander a whole lot of people he doesn't like, straight jackets them and launders his anti left creds. Its there in black and white in the same article. They were not policy position disagreement. And you think Sam Seder and others have framed and talked about fundamental democratic rights?! That is the core issue here. Sam Seder has made the same core arguments and framing for decades but Mike casually slanders them.
Frankly, I find your comment too confusing to respond.
‘Sam Seder is wrong about most of what he says. The Sam Seders of the world are wrong about most of what they say.’
This is not policy disagreement alone. This is wholesale rejection of policy, framing, someones understanding of fundamental democratic rights. You can disgaree with with all of the above, but Im here to point out Sam Seder has been in the trenches for over 20 years for things Mike arrived at 5 minutes ago, after long round trip. For abolish ICE, higher taxes, democratic socialism, anti war, respecting the constitution etc etc. As if Mike has superior moral framing because he has love and thus he is a liberal and Sam Seders is not. Mike is anti-left but he cant stand that most good ideas he advocates for are from the left, they have been fighting the good fight long before him, they come from a different framework that Mike falsely calls ‘envy’, he can't accept love is a spectrum and that only his framing of love is correct!
People dont make value judgement on a vacuum. You want institutions and laws that ensures based on democratic principles that are fair and even. That is not the case in reality. Thats why Sam Seder opposed Citizens United. Gerrymandering. Blatant blocking of SC appointments. And whole lot of issues at state level. And whole lot of issues from monied interests. Sam has been highlighting all these. To say Sam doesn't care or know about enabling people to do value judgement over technocratic ones is bs.
I dunno i think you came here yesterday and have very strong opinions on the left. Sam Seder called genocide two years earlier than Ezra Klein. Sam Seder called abolish ICE 20 years ago, Bill Kristol is making that now. What did you call two years ago? what did you call 20 years ago?
what's next?! Sam Seders M4A will fail because govt provides M4A and there is no place for private sector because profits? I will wait.
I think you're willfully misleading here. the policy that Zohran is implementing is from DSA, coopted by Thompson, bless his soul. not the other way around, I know its convenient to frame it that way because as you wrote earlier left economics is from a place of envy (which is false).