Conflicting values? Never. Do I need to prioritize values? Of course. All that means is that I value some things more than others, and can’t have everything I might want. Choosing a preferred value is not compromising values, nor does it ever involve inconsistencies. Nor do I ever value the impossible or irrational. I know what I value most, so my decisions regarding my highest values require no self-doubt.

In Don’s case, the value is the promotion of liberty. His decisions are made to that end, without regard to the incomprehensibly complex widespread state intrusions that exist in the world in which he must live. It is irrational for him to value the impossible navigation of those intrusions at the expense of his higher value–a higher value which is more likely to reduce those intrusions and make them navigable in the future.

“Don’t you have situations where two values you hold conflict sometimes? How do you make those decisions? By just pretending that they don’t conflict, or by accepting that you have to prioritize your values?”

The one thing in all that you have written that makes any sense; and a good enough reason for me to stop. I’m sure my disappointment is of no concern to him.

No, not only if your standard of “right” is irrational. You can make the right choice and be inconsistent if you place higher priority on certain values. Don places a higher priority on teaching a libertarian ethic than on avoiding all dependence on the state. In an imperfect world, these priorities help us make our decisions. Given those priorities it is right, it is rational, and it does incorporate some inconsistencies. Inconsistincies are part of life, vikingvista.

RE: “He certainly DOES NOT have the choice to avoid the enemy–as I said in the post which you seem not to have read.”

Of course he does. He could just choose not to teach. Or he could teach at the handful of colleges that don’t accept any federal aid. They’re out there. But he doesn’t because he places strong priority on being productive in his teaching – which I think is very laudable. GMU is a neat place. It’s the rare institution that doesn’t figure prominently in the community of economics departments, but because of the deliberate way the faculty has been crafted it makes a huge and disproportionate impact in certain sub-fields and certain media (blogging and popular economics education, for example). It’s a fine choice – but it’s not the only choice he had.

RE: “Unless by “choice” you mean suicide. ”

Wow… pretty melodramatic, don’t you think? In the very worst case scenario he could just not teach. But even if he wants to teach there are options. Or he could be a research fellow at a place like the Mises Institute, which would still afford him lots of opportunities to talk to students.

RE: “And so it is no surprise that you and others like you are the one’s urging him to accept this standard.”

Hahaha – how many times do I have to tell you I think he made the right choice? It’s not about being irrational. It’s about having priorities. Everybody has priorities. But keep on thinking this is a grand morality play between statists and libertarians.

RE: “How is the usual frustration of unsuccessfully trying to get you to see the bleeding obvious “defensive”?”

I meant defensive of Don. Which again is an admirable impulse. But he’s a big boy. I think he can take being told that he made the right choice, that it’s wrong for people to criticize him for making that choice, but that it involves some inconsistencies. I’m concerned that you think this is “bleeding obvious”. Don’t you have situations where two values you hold conflict sometimes? How do you make those decisions? By just pretending that they don’t conflict, or by accepting that you have to prioritize your values?

Only if your standard of “right” is irrational. And a standard which says you must exculpate yourself from an inescapable situation is irrational. A standard which leads you to sacrifice your values for an impossible standard is irrational.

“he has a choice to get in bed with the enemy in order to do what is right, and as you say here – HE MADE THAT CHOICE.”

He certainly DOES NOT have the choice to avoid the enemy–as I said in the post which you seem not to have read. So of course, he did not, and could not make that choice. Unless by “choice” you mean suicide. Perhaps you also think he has the choice to not “get in bed” with the Federal Reserve by choosing not to use Federal Reserve notes. Perhaps you think that to be right, he would need to do what he can to minimize his use of Federal Reserve notes and banks.

And of course your inconsistent standard is also self-destructive of the man and his values. If Don were to discard reason, and accept your standard, it would be to the advantage of his enemies. It is a standard designed to destroy the enemies of statism. As the state grows, the state’s opposition is forced to divert its energies trying to dodge all the tentacles of the state, and ultimately to concede that there is no place for them to fight back.

And so it is no surprise that you and others like you are the one’s urging him to accept this standard.

“Don’t get too defensive”

How is the usual frustration of unsuccessfully trying to get you to see the bleeding obvious “defensive”?

Right… and he has a choice to get in bed with the enemy in order to do what is right, and as you say here – HE MADE THAT CHOICE.

Don’t get too defensive – I’m not saying Don made the wrong choice. I’m just saying we shouldn’t pretend there are no inconsistencies involved. You can make the right choice and still be inconsistent.

If that is the lure being followed. But in Don’s case, the lure has nothing to do with the nature of GMU’s funding. In Don’s case the lure is an environment that most helps him promote his liberal agenda. And you would have him sacrifice that agenda for WHAT gain exactly? Who wins more with that action, the state, or liberty?

That is utter bunk. HE HAS A CHOICE about what is the best way to advance his values with the world in which he finds himself. He has determined that working at George Mason does that, and he has good reasons for thinking so.

Now, if his self doubt is because he thinks he could advance his values better by leaving GMU, that is a different issue. I only hope that he doesn’t think that to be the case on the grounds that the mere choice of working in a public institution (as opposed to the alternatives) is hypocritical–because it couldn’t possibly be hypocritical on those grounds.

If he is advancing his values, he is not advancing the enemy of his values. The enemy will be just as much the enemy no matter what institution he decides to attend, because it gets his and everyone’s resources no matter what he decides.

And for Don to think this is improved by moving to a private institution, is unusually naive for Don. How does he live by this reasoning? If he goes to a private institution, is he to refuse to teach Pell grant students? How about students funded by employers with government subsidies? What about the financial relief to his private institution caused by government funded research to his colleagues, or private research from subsidized companies? And what about his GMU students? Their families have been forced for years to fund GMU and now when those students try to recover a fraction of that confiscated wealth, Don up and leaves. Now if they want to study under him, they too must sacrifice more to the state by not recouping those family losses. And how does all that compare with the loss of his GMU colleagues?

The state PERMEATES higher education. There is no escape, and participation for a professor is not a choice. And the state doesn’t care what Don decides to do.

That’s why the only choice left to him is to pursue his values as best he can. He has determined that the GMU faculty are the way for him to do that. Since THAT is the reason for him attending GMU, and not so that he can soak up tax dollars, he is being true to his values and the furthest thing from hypocritical.

Do you worry that the incentives of your workplace do not offer you the best possible environment for developing and maintaining your character? I work for a non-profit organization that is primarily funded by the U.S. government. I very much enjoy what I do and am always impressed by what we are able to achieve but I can also see that the funding structure provides what I consider to be perverse incentives and I fear it hinders my development in subtle, imperceptible ways with regards to both my skill and my work ethic. Sometimes I feel like looking for a less exciting job where I’m more accountable to individuals paying me out of their own pocket.

Daniel, it’s just not a great example. You get a B for trying.

“…it is the people that tax themselves and the people that appropriate that revenue for different purposes…”

And my point is that there is no such thing as “the people”. There is a political class that collects rent and a class of everyone else who pays rent, and all the rest is propaganda. It has never been otherwise, and it never will be.

Now, let’s say she is a thoughtful statist and objects to Don because his views undermine her vision of the state (far more likely). That’s when it would be more convenient for Don to work for “FU” rather “GMU” .

I’m not sure what Don would say, that’s what I’m curious about. There is CLEARLY an inconsistency. Don recognizes it, and he even considers the “why aren’t you a hypocrite” question “reasonable” (in his words). But he answers the very easy version of the question – why he can live with himself. I’m just curious how he would respond to the harder version – where he is not the “hypocrite” (I use quotes because like I said, I don’t like people calling him that). He’s not just the “hypocrite”, he is the agent of the state in it’s coercive act.

You’d like to think you would be stealing from a “they” but you’re not. The “they” just manages the day to day business… and sometimes they do so irresponsibly. But you’re stealing money from the “we” and it’s “we” who decide what to do with it (regardless of whether or not that decision is unanimous), not some “they” political class.