2 ms·

Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to b

by bmelton 13y ago

Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. If you worked for the TSA, you would also have sworn an oath to the Constitution. > It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in. So, some people who have sworn an oath to the Constitution should optimize their personal income even when that means benefitting from things they see as a contrary to the Constitution, while others shouldn't?
- bmelton 13y ago
  Bad example on my part, perhaps. I did not believe that TSA contractors swore such an oath. I agree that in the example I gave, that would be hypocritical. I believe my point still stands for all those federal contractors who have not sworn such an oath, but are similarly suckling off of the federal teat.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > I did not believe that TSA contractors swore such an oath. Contractors don't. > I believe my point still stands for all those federal contractors who have not sworn such an oath, but are similarly suckling off of the federal teat. Its not necessarily incoherent (but, still, IMO, somewhat odd) to argue that it is immoral to choose to benefit from violations of the Constitution only if you have sworn a special oath. That argument isn't about the Constitution, just the binding nature of oaths.
    - bmelton 13y ago
      It's just on the topic of hypocrisy. Feeling one way and doing another is kind of a default in the human condition, and is often required for success. The oath of office is perhaps a thinner line than I'm making it out to be, but there's a larger point to be made there about the role of the federal government, the incentives of office, etc. That said, I'm high (low?) on Valium at the moment, so I'm in no shape to argue it at the moment.

by bmelton 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Not necessarily. If I worked for the TSA or something, because that was the best paying job that was available, I wouldn't see it as remotely hypocritical to be concerned with politicians, who swore an oath to the Constitution, specifically passing bills to line their pockets. If you worked for the TSA, you would also have sworn an oath to the Constitution. > It's easy to say that a truly just person would not work in an industry that benefitted from tax dollars they would rather not have paid, but considering that the government tends to overpay, it is often the best position for one to be in. So, some people who have sworn an oath to the Constitution should optimize their personal income even when that means benefitting from things they see as a contrary to the Constitution, while others shouldn't?

bmelton 13y ago
Bad example on my part, perhaps. I did not believe that TSA contractors swore such an oath. I agree that in the example I gave, that would be hypocritical. I believe my point still stands for all those federal contractors who have not sworn such an oath, but are similarly suckling off of the federal teat.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > I did not believe that TSA contractors swore such an oath. Contractors don't. > I believe my point still stands for all those federal contractors who have not sworn such an oath, but are similarly suckling off of the federal teat. Its not necessarily incoherent (but, still, IMO, somewhat odd) to argue that it is immoral to choose to benefit from violations of the Constitution only if you have sworn a special oath. That argument isn't about the Constitution, just the binding nature of oaths.
  - bmelton 13y ago
    It's just on the topic of hypocrisy. Feeling one way and doing another is kind of a default in the human condition, and is often required for success. The oath of office is perhaps a thinner line than I'm making it out to be, but there's a larger point to be made there about the role of the federal government, the incentives of office, etc. That said, I'm high (low?) on Valium at the moment, so I'm in no shape to argue it at the moment.