Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Arguing For Different Policies Doesn't Mean You Have to Change Behavior Before the Policies Are Adopted

Am I A Complete Hypocrite? Or an Opportunist?
Whether it is when I am complaining about liberals or Congressional ineptness it isn’t hard to find my libertarian political views on this website. So, when I was complaining to a buddy the other day about how ridiculous the Occupy Wall Street people are…he responded that I was a Hypocrite.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable action to me.  I think it would be hypocritical if you suggested others don't participate even though the program was ongoing.  But there is a huge difference between arguing for a different policy and living with the existing policy.

This seems obvious to me though many don't seem to understand that Warren Buffett can argue a better policy for the country would raise his taxes.  They tell him to pay more taxes if he wants.  His argument is not having whoever wants to give the government more money should do so, he argues the country would be better off with a tax system that had higher tax rates for multi-millionare earners than those working at McDonald's.

Arguing for the government should have different policies doesn't require you to act as though it did to be consistent.

This can get less clear cut if you argue about the moral failings of those who act in x or y way.  If you say those taking welfare are lazy scammers stealing from society or something, for example.  Then you are claiming it isn't the government policy that you object to (or it isn't only that) but the character of those taking advantage of the policy.  In a case where you accept charity when you disparage others for doing so then the argument for being a hypocrite would exist, I think.

No comments: