Principles Versus Pragmatism

October 9, 2009 by Dale Everett
Filed under: Anarchy in Your Head, Essay, Hypocrisy, Noncooperation, Personal Freedom, Rant

I was recently accused of hiding behind my principles. The implication was that I was making a poor decision pragmatically speaking in order to adhere to some lofty and impractical principle. But principles are pragmatic. At least they ought to be. Otherwise what good are they? If your goals are noble, what better way to determine principles than based on whether they help you achieve your goals?

We often confuse expediency with pragmatism. You can make a choice that provides immediate return and seems the pragmatic choice only to pay a higher price later. A person who commits a crime is getting some immediate reward but has an ever-increasing risk of being caught each time. He’s gambling. He’s also shitting where he eats by destroying the sense of trust in his community. Lying is similar. When you get caught in a lie, which is likely just a matter of time depending on how often you attempt it, you seriously undermine your reputation. Worse yet, if you lie now expecting some immediate gain from it, even if you correct yourself in the future, anything you say thereafter will be circumspect. Even when you get away with it, every lie you tell for some immediate benefit undermines your veracity because you know you’re a liar. Conversely, knowing in your heart that you are consistently honest and sincere shows through in the power of your convictions. It’s a rare talent to be able to lie convincingly.

(Read On…)

Comments

2 Comments on Principles Versus Pragmatism

D on Sat, 10th Oct 2009 10:41 pm

Jesse,

Thank you for posting on free keene. I think it would be helpful if in the introduction you explain why you think some one accused you of hiding behind ur principles, not every reader is familiar with the specifics that triggered the intellectual dispute. That said, i am assuming you are referring to the whole Jesse doesn’t bother to show up to vote for liberty activists when they run.

I understand where you are coming from with your belief that if one thinks that government by arbitrary force is itself unprincipled, then one ought to avoid interfacing w/that illegitimate organization to the best of ones ability, particularly actions that may endorse the legitimacy (voting).

However, results count right? So do you think that government is less legitimate b/c you and other liberty activists sat out the election? Particularly considering that Ian was not running to endorse government but to use his status as a balloted candidate as an opportunity to reach and convert others who believe voting is legitimate. I think it was also a way to test just how many people who don’t normally vote might actually show up to express the ‘none of the above’ option. Information is important. It would have been a fascinating and possibly informative experiment.

What I am asking is, are you ignoring the idea of value creation e.g. return on investment? A small effort to show up and vote, could bring in more activists and open more minds. THAT will further the principals you care about. I think in this circumstance this differs meaningfully from the politicos, who by my observation want the ‘magic septor’ soas THEY can use government to create THEIR version of liberty.

I know i don’t have to point this out, but the FSP ‘agreement’ was to accept that the MAXIMUM role of government is Life Liberty and Property. So within the group there are some who believe in SOME level of arbitrary government.

Just some thoughts…