Morality of being a government employee

[DarkWaters]

Hi,

I have a question that is similar to the one discussed in the thread on the morality of using public services. What is the morality of being a government employee under a department or agency that goes beyond the nature of government, such as being a U.S. postal worker, a public school teacher or a doctor employeed by the National Health Service in Britain. Specifically, I want to limit this discussion to employees who do not actively advocate the expansion of the government in these areas.

I am struggling with how holding one of these jobs seems to sanction their existence in some respect. However, it seems short-sighted to just label all (without loss of generality) public school teachers as immoral.

Similarly, what would be the morality of serving as an outside consultant to one of these agencies, so long as one does not actively advocate expanding the government's role. For example, would it be moral to work on a project to improve the parcel delivery logistics of the U.S. postal service? On the one hand, one would be reducing government spending by improving their efficiency. On the other hand, one would be indirectly making it more difficult for private companies to compete with the U.S. postal service.

[DavidV]

I would not make a blanket statement and say that working for a socialized service is always immoral, but personally, I would always seek to work in the private sector if the choice was available to me. Besides lowering the likelihood that my wage consists of stolen loot, private enterprise is more likely to be a moral environment - where merit rather than politics determine success.

[Chops]

When an industry is monopolized by the government, then working for the government in that industry would be OK. The obvious ones are police, military and courts, which or legitimate government professions. However, considering there are no private fire fighting organizations beyond government ones (I don't know of the laws outlaw private fire fighting companies or not), and if you really wanted to be a fire fighter, I'd see no problem working for a government run fire house.

Though this gets me thinking about how reasonable (read: profitable) a privately run fire house would be. We have UPS and Fedex to "compete" with the USPS...I wonder if a fire house could do the same with government-run organizations.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Chops

[Clawg]

Would it be moral to work as an outside consultant to improve the efficiency of a government's death camps? Or to work for the department of education to improve the methods of indoctrinating children into statism? Definitely no.

Would it be moral to work as an outside consultant to improve the country's military and police? Probably yes.

So there has to be a limit at some point.

But it also depends on WHAT you are telling them. If you work as a public school teacher you will have much more political influence on the education system and especially on the education you are giving the children in your class.

So I conclude that if the job does not primarily affect the government's proper functions and gives you no influence on how your work is used it would be immoral.

[DavidOdden]

What is the morality of being a government employee under a department or agency that goes beyond the nature of government, such as being a U.S. postal worker, a public school teacher or a doctor employeed by the National Health Service in Britain.

If such an action is immoral, there has to be a moral principle that it contradicts. I haven't figured out what that principle would be. You could imagine the principle being "You should never benefit from tax money, because it is taken coercively". That is a fundamentally anti-life position, since it amounts to saying that since you can't live in a civilized society without benefiting in some way from such stolen money, concretely manifested as garbage collection, utilities, roads, receiving delivered mail etc, then you should either not live or you should move to the hills and eat grubs and berries.

The fundamental moral principle is working to keep your life. That means not just gaining enough cash to keep from starving to death, it means actively living and flourishing. Your career is an essential aspect of that flourishing, and people who flourish don't just have jobs where they punch the closk, they have careers which they actively pursue. It might involve delving into the physical basis of metallurgy and inventing a new metal, or designing physically solid and spiritually uplifting buildings, or even teaching other how to use their minds. The point is that it is right for you to pursue those interests which engage your mind as well as pay the bills.

To say that that you should not pursue those interests means that there is some higher consideration than your flourishing which you ought to consider, which ought to be a higher value. I am having a hard time seeing exactly what that value would be. If my refusing to teach in a public school would somehow actually put an end to taxation, I could see the argument that the choice to teach is a self-destructive act, but it just ain't so.

If you have an actual choice between comparable government and private jobs, then the question of receiving tax money would have some valid influence on the decision -- you would be basing the choice on what is the highest value, not just economically but spiritually.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Dark Waters:

Similarly, what would be the morality of serving as an outside consultant to one of these agencies, so long as one does not actively advocate expanding the government's role. For example, would it be moral to work on a project to improve the parcel delivery logistics of the U.S. postal service? On the one hand, one would be reducing government spending by improving their efficiency. On the other hand, one would be indirectly making it more difficult for private companies to compete with the U.S. postal service.

Me:

I solved this very problem back in 1968. After working for various agencies and firms that contracted to do services for the government (mostly defense) I took notice of the degree of corruption, cronyism and just plain incompetence that was part and parcel of the systems. So in 1968 I decided I would do no more work for government at -any- level, nor would I work for prime contractors. I restricted myself to purely private firms. I never regretted my decision. I made sufficient money. I did not take a vow of poverty. Somehow the System managed without my input ( surprise, surprise ). If you gag at working for the government, then don't.

In the case of the postal service, take heed of how much correspondence is done by fax and by e-mail. Also take heed of the number of parcels carried by private carriers. Problem solved! We don't need no steeeenking government post office. If the U.S. Postal service disappeared tomorrow, after a short period of inconvenience we could get back to business as usual, and do it cheaper. And tough titty on people who live in the so-called Rural Free Delivery zones. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!

David mentioned garbage collection and such like municipal services. If the people exercise the franchise and get the government out of providing such services life would go on. We need our garbage collected and disposed of. There is a sure fire free market for the service. Fear not! You garbage will be collected and in a reasonably competitive system, you won't have to pay too much for the service. The only service I can think of that needs to be centrally controlled are police services for municipalities and an Armed Force for the nation. Right now I cannot think of any way of maintaining a nuclear capable force that can bring Hot Death to our enemies anywhere in the world, other than by tax funding the service. O.K. We are going to have taxes for the foreseeable future. Let us restrict these services as much as we can and still have a safe, sound, healthy society.

Bob Kolker

Edited December 3, 2007 by Robert J. Kolker

[DarkWaters]

Thank you for the responses.

[P]ersonally, I would always seek to work in the private sector if the choice was available to me. Besides lowering the likelihood that my wage consists of stolen loot, private enterprise is more likely to be a moral environment - where merit rather than politics determine success.

I definitely agree to this. I cannot think of any reason why an individual who values Objectivism would want to be a bureaucrat sans any position related to defense.

To say that that you should not pursue those interests means that there is some higher consideration than your flourishing which you ought to consider, which ought to be a higher value. I am having a hard time seeing exactly what that value would be. If my refusing to teach in a public school would somehow actually put an end to taxation, I could see the argument that the choice to teach is a self-destructive act, but it just ain't so.

In other words, one should not force oneself to choose between adhering to one's philosophy and advancing one's life. Your response was very helpful. So one is not necessarily being immoral by working on a project to help the U.S. postal service deliver mail or assist the Bureau of Environmental Services in collecting refuse so long as it is to help establish yourself for an honest career as a consultant. Of course, there is a line to be drawn, as brokering deals to provide military aid to North Korea or helping Hugo Chavez nationalize Venezuelan industries would be despicable.

Edited December 4, 2007 by DarkWaters

[DarkWaters]

On the topic of this thread, I was recommended to reread Ayn Rand's essay The Question of Scholarships, which is in The Voice of Reason.

Evidently, Ayn Rand also thought that accepting a government job is not necessarily immoral, so long as one remains opposed to the idea of welfare statism. A quote:

The growth of government institutions has destroyed an incalculable number private jobs and opportunities for private employment. This is more apparent in some professions (for instance, teaching) than in others, but the octopus of the "public sector" is choking and draining the "private sector" in virtually every line of work. Since men have to work for a living, the opponents of the welfare state do not have to condemn themselves to the self-martyrdom of a self-restricted labor market -- particularly when so many private employers are in the vanguard of the advocates and profiteers of welfare statism.

She then goes on to argue that it would be wrong to accept a job that promotes welfare statism through propaganda or working for a regulatory agency that creates and enforces non-objective laws. If there is a position that is not wrong in itself, aside from that the government should not be doing it, then there is nothing morally wrong with accepting the position, assuming the aforementioned ethical stipulations are adhered to.

Edited December 5, 2007 by DarkWaters