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”?