4 ms·

If anti-government and inexperienced then: 'These libertarians are just backwards and don't understand government' If anti-government and experienced then: 'Hy

If anti-government and inexperienced then: 'These libertarians are just backwards and don't understand government' If anti-government and experienced then: 'Hypocrites!' else: more government It's a stronger position to oppose something you are experienced with and benefit from. Imagine a nuclear engineer who's advocating that the new plant she's working on is being built dangerously by the people in charge. Would you refuse to listen to her because she works there?

jdjb 13y ago
I wouldn't refuse to listen her but I'd question her morality if she continues to knowingly put the lives of people in danger just for her pay cheque.
- noblethrasher 13y ago
  Which is precisely why argumentum ad hominem is something to be wary of.
- johngalt 13y ago
  You've sidestepped the primary point. If anyone experienced in the field is classified as a hypocrite. Then where should the detractors legitimately come from?
  - wpietri 13y ago
    Former government workers who have realized the error of their ways and are now living in a way consistent with their beliefs?
cairnsh 13y ago
A libertarian government worker would be more like a nuclear engineer who thinks nuclear energy plants are intrinsically dangerous. So dangerous that they should be avoided if at all possible.
- icebraining 13y ago
  That's still not hypocrite, because the power plant would be built anyway. Her/His action is not causing the power plant to happen, unless somehow s/he's the only nuclear engineer available.
  - bane 13y ago
    No, performing actions that are different than your beliefs is literally the definition of hypocrisy. The fact that somebody else might take the actions anyways is irrelevant.
    - crazy1van 13y ago
      Working for the government does not grow the government. The government has decided to grow by hiring a new employee. Your action to take or reject the job doesn't change that. However, believing the government should be smaller and then voting for politicians who want to grow your sector of the government does seem hypocritical.
      - bane 13y ago
        > Working for the government does not grow the government. Working productively for the government, specifically when non-government alternatives exist, does. Let's say you work in transportation, should you work for the DoT or the company that owns all the toll roads in the region? Let's say you do a damn good job for the DoT and because of your work you drive the the cost per traveled mile per person (or whatever the applicable measure is) to a fraction of the same for the private toll roads. You've just justified that government is in fact better than the private sector. The local general assembly passes a law that the toll road should become public property and a forced takeover is instituted. Government is grown. But you could work for the toll road company, drive their costs down while expanding their owned network, demonstrate that private road ownership, a pay-for-what-you-use system is the best. It beats paying taxes on roads you won't even drive on! Private road companies start taking over all the roads and the DoT becomes nothing more than a small regulatory body. Government is shrunk. You have a choice, participate in government or not. If you believe the government cannot be effective, and you still take the government job, you become part of the problem and that's hypocrisy full stop. If you do a good job, you defeat your own argument. If you do a bad job, willfully (to try and prove government can't work) or not (just laziness and incompetence), then I question the need to retain you either way. The U.S. at least has such a large private sector, it dwarfs the public sector, that there's very little excuse in going government vs. finding a commercial job somewhere.
nether 13y ago
John Galt hid in plain sight too...

jdjb 13y ago

I wouldn't refuse to listen her but I'd question her morality if she continues to knowingly put the lives of people in danger just for her pay cheque.

noblethrasher 13y ago
Which is precisely why argumentum ad hominem is something to be wary of.
johngalt 13y ago
You've sidestepped the primary point. If anyone experienced in the field is classified as a hypocrite. Then where should the detractors legitimately come from?
- wpietri 13y ago
  Former government workers who have realized the error of their ways and are now living in a way consistent with their beliefs?

cairnsh 13y ago

A libertarian government worker would be more like a nuclear engineer who thinks nuclear energy plants are intrinsically dangerous. So dangerous that they should be avoided if at all possible.

icebraining 13y ago
That's still not hypocrite, because the power plant would be built anyway. Her/His action is not causing the power plant to happen, unless somehow s/he's the only nuclear engineer available.
- bane 13y ago
  No, performing actions that are different than your beliefs is literally the definition of hypocrisy. The fact that somebody else might take the actions anyways is irrelevant.
  - crazy1van 13y ago
    Working for the government does not grow the government. The government has decided to grow by hiring a new employee. Your action to take or reject the job doesn't change that. However, believing the government should be smaller and then voting for politicians who want to grow your sector of the government does seem hypocritical.
    - bane 13y ago
      > Working for the government does not grow the government. Working productively for the government, specifically when non-government alternatives exist, does. Let's say you work in transportation, should you work for the DoT or the company that owns all the toll roads in the region? Let's say you do a damn good job for the DoT and because of your work you drive the the cost per traveled mile per person (or whatever the applicable measure is) to a fraction of the same for the private toll roads. You've just justified that government is in fact better than the private sector. The local general assembly passes a law that the toll road should become public property and a forced takeover is instituted. Government is grown. But you could work for the toll road company, drive their costs down while expanding their owned network, demonstrate that private road ownership, a pay-for-what-you-use system is the best. It beats paying taxes on roads you won't even drive on! Private road companies start taking over all the roads and the DoT becomes nothing more than a small regulatory body. Government is shrunk. You have a choice, participate in government or not. If you believe the government cannot be effective, and you still take the government job, you become part of the problem and that's hypocrisy full stop. If you do a good job, you defeat your own argument. If you do a bad job, willfully (to try and prove government can't work) or not (just laziness and incompetence), then I question the need to retain you either way. The U.S. at least has such a large private sector, it dwarfs the public sector, that there's very little excuse in going government vs. finding a commercial job somewhere.

nether 13y ago

John Galt hid in plain sight too...