Yes, exactly. As a trivial example, it's perfectly rational to say, "I should be required to carry health insurance, because universal insuring would lower the

Yes, exactly. As a trivial example, it's perfectly rational to say, "I should be required to carry health insurance, because universal insuring would lower the premiums for everyone, but I will not do so until then because the premiums are too high." As a less trivial example that perhaps engages more with what I think your argument is, one can also argue, "Collisions between two SUVs have a higher rate of serious injuries than collisions between two sedans, but in a collision between an SUV and a sedan the sedan has an even higher serious injury rate. Ergo, because all of my fellow commuters drive SUVs, I am also driving an SUV, but I believe SUVs should be outlawed." (I've borrowed this example from an old James Surowiecki column: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/07/23/fuel-for-thought https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/07/23/fuel-for-thoug....) Irrespective of whether these are good policies for other reasons—perhaps we believe it's too much of an infringement upon individual liberty to ban driving SUVs!—it is not inherently hypocritical to not voluntarily take part in an activity which one believes has positive external value only if universally partaken. Quite frankly, this is a trivial point, yet it's often lost in somewhat silly accusations of hypocrisy, which I think is really disappointing.