Principles Versus Pragmatism
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 suspect. 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.
If you claim I’m hiding behind my principles, I wonder if you have a completely different notion of what principles even mean. It makes me wonder how in the world you derive your own so-called principles if you see being principled and being pragmatic as opposing paths. In fact, I think this is at the core of the failure of liberty movements. More importantly, it’s at the core of my views of why politics and statism are such dismal failures and have created the destructive beasts of governments that spread misery to this day. If you frequently sacrifice principles for expediency, then you’re constantly taking one step forward and three steps back, and I say it that way only because that’s the familiar expression. It’s probably conservative compared to the reality, a much more discouraging ratio.
I’ve also been referred to as a purist which I’ve denied. I do make some concessions to tyrants like paying taxes and registering my car. Am I being unprincipled then? Aren’t these things a crucial part of what keep tyrants in power? Of course they are! If everyone stopped doing these at once, the tyrannical State would wither almost immediately. But the reality is I, like all liberty activists, have two different goals. I have a longer-term goal of advancing liberty by reducing the violence in my community. The other goal is my own personal liberty. They’re both good goals. I pick my battles because I have to balance the two. Both goals are actually selfish. I want to live in a peaceful and prosperous community and so I work for that and decide what risks and sacrifices I’m willing to make. But when I do make those concessions to tyrants out of a totally selfish and yet reasonable desire to remain out of jail, I would never make the ridiculous claim that they advance the long-term goal of reducing the violence of governments! And of course, I would never try to decide for someone else what personal risks they should take or sacrifices they should make for the long-term goal of shrinking violent governments. We all have to maintain our own balance. How could I call myself a lover of liberty if I said otherwise?
Examples of large political goals achieved through incremental progress are often referenced as examples of the counter-intuitive notion that expediency at the cost of principle is ultimately pragmatic, but that’s a case of severe tunnel vision. I’ve seen plenty of special interest groups getting government attention for their pet projects by making deals with politicians, at the cost of the liberty of many others. Always, government expands. Occasionally one bubble is pushed down and several others bulge. Yes, you can tediously grind away devoting tremendous time, money, and effort, lobbying for a specific special interest, but at what price? What other liberties are being sacrificed to their power lust while you wheel and deal with politicians, criminals who see nothing wrong with controlling others with threats of violence, who stay in office by selling violence to their constituents in exchange for campaign help and contributions. Their job is violence and they don’t stay in office by offering to do less. Imagine going to a job interview and telling your potential employer that you promise not to do very much. When multiple special interest groups are all pulling in different directions, government expands in all directions, according to its nature, and no one seems to understand how they each played a part in that expansion, or they simply don’t care. To be clear, I don’t doubt that progress toward liberty will be gradual, but I don’t see incremental progress in pet projects as evidence that it will happen by making deals with the devil.
If I’ve failed to persuade you to my point of view, I can accept that. What I find hard to believe is the idea that you could be paying any attention and still doubt my sincerity. If you continue to say I’m hiding behind my principles, that’s intellectually dishonest. If you still believe you can use politics to achieve liberty, I will not doubt that your intentions are good. You obviously have faith in it. I encourage you to follow your own heart and do what you feel is right. All I ask is that you extend to me the same courtesy. I have no faith in that game. Don’t drag me into it.
Very well said. I have had similar accusations thrown at me, ironically enough they mostly come from libertarians and minarchists, not the big statists that make up most of the population. It is, and always has been true, minarchists have more in common with communists than they do anarchists.
Keep up the fight.
‘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.’ Shouldn’t ‘circumspect’ be ’suspect’, instead?
Yes, corrected.
Why not take this attitude? “If you think my ideas are stupid, then what kind of pathetic loser are you for wasting time reading my writing?” If you try to coddle every idiot, then you’re just wasting time.
I have linked this to my FB and twitter accts. Thank you for writing this.
You make some great points, Dale, but I think I have a fundamental disagreement with you. I think the reality is that there are really two kinds of principles. The first kind of principle is a moral absolute — e.g.: don’t steal. The second is based on a vision for the way things should work, and a strong desire to live in a way that meshes with that vision — e.g.: don’t register your car, or pay taxes.
The purpose of the second kind of principle is to achieve an objective, and so, in certain circumstances, it might be appropriate to bend this kind of principle slightly, if doing so might better accomplish one’s goals. For example, one may find that paying taxes, although distasteful, might be better than the alternative, which could involve a lengthy sentence, or loss of home.
The purpose of the first kind of principle, however, is to be a decent person. It is not immoral behavior to give into the state, and pay taxes. One has become the victim in that circumstance. It is, however, immoral behavior to go steal from one’s neighbor. The right reason to refrain from stealing is not fear of getting caught, or loss of reputation — it is a principled refusal to violate one’s neighbor’s property rights. I’d also put lying (except perhaps while under duress) in the first catagory — principles that should inherently not be broken.
What do you think of this view, Dale? Do you agree?
[...] Read the new article by Dale Everett over at Anarchy In Your Head, a great web comic based on the non-aggression principle. I agree, principles are pragmatic and we cannot be pragmatic without principles. Principles by definition are universal and at Lost Liberty Café, we accept the non-aggression principle as universal, since it can be consistently applied to all areas of life. Dale makes a great point, if we compromise on principle for the short term gain of the moment, why call them principles at all? Check out Dale’s article and look forward to more Lost Liberty Café articles coming soon! :Announcements, philosophy, state, violence [...]
Pretty much my approach. Hold fast to Principle in your personal life and choose yer battles in your public one, which unfortunately are 2 different lives in the current system. Statism separates you from yourself.. it makes you schizoid!
I find ironic that there is sometimes an ad on this website for a book authored by Sarah Palin.
$
While you’re making corrections, the word is “purist.”
Dear Brothers and Sisters, Sons and Daughters of Liberty,
There are only two types of human beings.
One type just wants everyone to leave everyone else alone and these humans are students and advocates of the Philosophically Mature Non-Aggression Principle.
The other type refuses to leave others alone and these humans are the Mobocracy Looter Minions with their hords of bureaucrats, jackboots, and mercenaries that perpetuate the perpetration of the loot and booty gravy-train. Rob-peter-to-buy-paul’s-vote bread and circuses of the doomed Amerikan Empire.
You are either the one…or the other.
The John Galt Solution of Starving The Monkeys is the only solution. Stop funding and forging your own chains and shackles. What are you leaving for your children and grandchildren and prodigy!?!
The Mobocracy Looter Minions must be allowed to consume everything around them, then each other, and finally themselves. There is no other way. Ayn Rand wrote about it over fifty years ago and it rings as soundly today as it did then.
Get your copy of Starving The Monkeys by Tom Baugh today, before the book is banned and the author is hunted down and Vince Fostered!
Sincerely,
John and Dagny Galt
Atlas Shrugged, Owner’s Manual For The Universe!(tm)
http://www.starvingthemonkeys.com/
http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.php
.
Congratulations on making Strike The Root today Dale!
Sincerely,
John and Dagny Galt
Atlas Shrugged, Owner’s Manual For The Universe!(tm)
http://www.starvingthemonkeys.com/
http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.php
.
Very interesting post Dale. Anyone can just make up some ridiculous moral or logical principle, such as ‘always pay your taxes’. The real question is whether or not the principle is valid under rational scrutiny, i.e; is it *universally* preferable; logically consistent, reasoned through and backed-up by empirical evidence?
One suggestion though. You can be even more solid in your ‘argument from principle’. Here’s the tip; we all use principles all the time. Think about that for a second. For example, I can’t correct you to an opinion, such as saying ‘change your mind… because I want you to’. *We have to use some universal standard for truth if we correct anybody.* So, an argument against principle is, in fact, going by some kind of principle. Thus it is self-contradictory! Always always always look out for these core contradictions when engaging in debate with others (especially statists!). It saves a lot of time and effort. Look at the *form* not the *content* of the propositon. Hope that helps!
Perhaps ask them next time, “So… do you mean that there is a valid universal principle [applies to you, me, everyone equally] that claims we ought not use principles? Are you taking pragmatism *on principle*?!”
Then sit back and watch ‘em wriggle!
Again, great article Dale. Bravo.