3 ms·
That's similar to the criticism that Ayn Rand collected at Social Security check. I think you can stand for a principle while still participating in the current
by ericras 9y ago
That's similar to the criticism that Ayn Rand collected at Social Security check. I think you can stand for a principle while still participating in the current system that you're paying for.
- antisthenes 9y agoMy gut idealist wants to disagree with you, but the rational economist in my head is telling me you're correct. We shouldn't hold individually rational (net benefit) decisions against someone's principles.
- mannykannot 9y agoMaybe so, but they can certainly be ignored - and I say that thinking Stossel is correct in his opinion on this matter.
- sjg007 9y agoI think the term you are looking for is "hypocrite".
- antisthenes 9y agoYeah, if you want to change the definition of the word to suit whatever meaning you intended the insult to have, sure.
- sjg007 9y agoNot meant as an insult to anyone... it's just the definition of hypocrisy. If you espouse some belief but act otherwise (e.g. want to eliminate social benefits but then claim them because it is rational or because of the system).. then you are a hypocrite.
- aaron695 9y agoNo it's not at all. If you believe drugs should be legalised but you won't sell them in public are you a hypocrite? You can want system change and also work within it as it exists.
- sjg007 9y agoYour example doesn't make sense. If you believe drugs should be illegal but you use them then you would be a hypocrite. If you believe drugs should be legal and you sell them (in private or public) or even use them then you are not being hypocritical. If you sell then privately but not publically you're not being hypocritical either.
- r00fus 9y agoIt does make you look unprincipled and inconsistent however.