Because I can't write a comment there, I will write it here:

Comment #19 by IceBogan:
Interesting comparison. But you can be Libertarian “in the neighborhood of x_0″ without accepting all the reductio ad absurdum arguments — you can vote for a little less government, a little lower taxes, a little more personal responsibility. You can’t be a little bit Many Worlds.

You can be "a little bit Many Worlds", and actually this is probably the most popular position -- that the microscopic particles have many possible histories, with complex amplitudes that sometimes cancel each other out, but as soon as you have too many particles (such as: enough to build a cat), it's no longer true.

A "Many little Worlds" would probably be a better name. Many little Worlds are acceptable for many bullet-dodgers, assuming that they later transform (collapse) into One big World.

Yes, Being willing to swallow the bullet does not mean you are not, in fact, being very stupid indeed. Extrapolating beyond one's knowledge in this manner is using one's own ignorance as data. (Not that any agent can avoid judgement under uncertainty, but it's why this sort of extreme extrapolation can lead to crazy results.) Consistency is useful, but not a terminal value.