All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 2, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
15:00
1448 Working for the State

The moral implications of state employment.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, Steph here. September the 4th, 2009.
Everybody's working for the state now.
Just on a little strolly stroll.
And a question was posted on the board, which I thought, like most of the questions posted on the board, was exquisitely brilliant.
And I thought I would share some thoughts that I have about it.
This is certainly not a syllogism cast or any kind of ironclad proof.
These are just some thoughts about how I would go about making a decision about working for the state, either directly or indirectly.
And, of course, we all work indirectly for the state in terms of paying taxes and participating with statist companies or state agencies.
It's inescapable. And so, this is not a...
Like most things in philosophy, when the theory is applied to the practice, purity goes out the window.
Which is not to say that purity of theory is unimportant.
But in practice, purity of theory very often gives way to the imperfections of action.
And what I mean by that is, if you sort of think about building...
If you want to build a suspension bridge...
Then, naturally, you do want to work with mathematics, right?
You want to have the right amount of load balancing and tensile strength and the ability to handle particular weights and resist particular storms and winds and so on.
And the mathematics will be pure, and there's no way, no possible way, that...
The bridge is going to perfectly match the theory of numbers.
There are always little imperfections here and there, and no piece of steel is ever consistently strong all the way along.
And if you say, well, it has to handle, I don't know, 500 pounds per square inch, I can make something up, then you build that thing to...
But one will be 499, one will be 501, and you sort of overbuild it because of the natural imperfections, you could say, of...
Working with material objects.
In other words, taking the theory and putting it into practice.
Now, just because you can't ever perfectly enact a theory doesn't mean that theories are useless.
Just because your bridge will never perfectly match the mathematics means that you should consult chicken entrails, witch doctors and dreams about how to build the bridge.
The theories in philosophy in general should not be judged by the perfect ability Of their enactments.
Which is not to say that the theory is not important and that we should not strive to follow them.
It just means that imperfection in the execution is inevitable in many ways.
I mean, what does it mean, say, to be something like perfectly honest?
Honesty is a virtue for sure.
What does it mean to be perfectly honest?
Well, I don't really know.
I couldn't really say.
I think that we want to strive to be as honest as we can with the knowledge that we have, where the situation requires it or demands it or supports it, and where the other person has earned honesty in a reciprocal manner.
I mean, it's complicated.
But that does not mean that honesty is not a virtue and so on.
But we don't want to turn philosophy into binary commandments, you know.
I mean, what does it mean when I say that I'm perfectly honest?
Well... Was I dishonest when I believed and spoke about things that I no longer believe or speak about as true?
No, I was not.
It's like calling a five-year-old ignorant because he doesn't know what he's going to know when he's 50.
It's simply a matter of progress.
So, that having been said, there is, of course, the ideal of the non-aggression principle and non-participation in those who violate the non-aggression principle.
But the reality is not...
It's not achievable. I mean, I don't know that it would ever even be achievable in a stateless society.
I mean, just to take examples off the top of my head, so that we don't imagine that there's some future perfect world that we are simply woefully denied.
There is no future perfect world.
There is a world of vast improvement, but there is no future perfect world.
So, for instance, if you Those who counterfeit money, and there will be those who counterfeit money in a stateless society, those who counterfeit money will be stealing and buying, and that counterfeit money may pass through you, or even if it doesn't, then the goods that it stimulated the demand for might be there in a way that they wouldn't be otherwise, and so on. And so, even in a stateless society, you simply can't avoid...
Any kind of tincture or even unconscious or accidental participation in corruption.
But again, it's not to say that there's no difference between totalitarianism and statelessness.
It simply means that if you're looking for imperfection in this world relative to ideals, you will always find it.
In the same way that an engineer...
We'll always find that his structures do not match his calculations or his blueprints or his ideals.
This is an architect and, you know, everybody else who builds in the real world.
And so, that having been said, there's another factor, I think, which is important when understanding or taking this question of working for the state.
And that is that state jobs are displacing private sector jobs.
And I think that's really important.
One study I read recently was that 30,000...
If I remember rightly, 30,000 public sector jobs had been created while 110,000 had been destroyed.
It was the other way around, but it was some significant number of state jobs being created and some significant number of private sector jobs had been destroyed, which means that the odds of getting a private sector job are considerably lower and getting lower as this recession continues all the time.
And so... The odds are not in your favor if you want a private sector job.
You will get, to some degree, a salary hit.
In terms of private sector jobs, you will certainly get a benefits hit.
The public sector salaries and benefits, not counting, I think, the economic value of job security, are about double what they are in the private sector in many sectors of the economy in many countries.
So, you'll get paid more for working for the state.
You will have, at least for some time, a greater degree of job security.
And the jobs are more plentiful.
So, all that having been said, There are some downsides, of course, to working for the government.
I mean, there is a sort of moral compromise, which, again, I don't place a huge amount of emphasis on.
I mean, we did not create the society, we did not produce the disasters inherent in society that we live in economically and in terms of avocation or career.
We did not create these things.
And we have to find some way, I think, to survive in this environment.
And, you know, let's remember that this environment that we are attempting to live our ideals in is about the best in history.
You know, for those who are listening in the sunny West, it's about the best in history that has been achieved.
So while we may not find a society particularly to our ideal, Let's remember that we have this ability to communicate.
It's the wealthiest societies in history and there's still a relative degree of freedom in many ways.
Let's be thankful that we're not in Sierra Leone or Mexico or something like that.
I think it's important to be happy.
perfection that we can achieve or the ideals that we can achieve are far greater than in most other cultures.
I worked for I think the only time I ever worked for the state directly was when I was about 18 or 19 maybe.
I worked for the Department of Education as a temp.
And so again, my knowledge of this is extremely limited.
So take it with all the grains of salt that you want.
But by all reports...
Working for the state is unpleasant, right?
Nothing comes for free in this world.
If you get more salary, it's almost always because the job is either more specialized, as in a movie star, or more unpleasant, as in working for the state.
So, there are some significant negatives.
The politics, a lack of marketplace efficiency, which leads to infighting and political maneuvering and all that kind of stuff.
There are... Very restrictive regulations and harsh penalties in many ways for stepping out of line or questioning.
It's a hypersensitive, politically correct environment in many ways.
So, my baby's vocalizing quite nicely.
I don't know if you can hear her. I think this is called babbling.
Hello to the listeners, Ali.
Hello to the listeners, Ali. Hello to the listeners, Ali.
Hello to the listeners, Ali. Hello to the listeners, Ali. Hello to the listeners, Ali.
No, not when the microphone is there.
Of course not. And a moment it's taken away.
She's back at it. Wee-dubs!
I think she's enjoying her walk.
It's a beautiful time. So there will be challenges that you will face in...
And it's not like these challenges don't exist in the private sector, right?
Of course not, right? Again, it's a blend.
There is no private sector. With some exceptions, there is no public sector.
I mean, even in the army, you get supplied by the private sector, and even in the private sector, you drive to work on the roads, right?
And your company has doubtless received some profits, either directly or indirectly, from negotiations or contracts with the state.
So, it's a blend, right?
And since it is a blend, it's not like, I don't know, murder, right?
It's a bit of a binary, right?
But this sort of stuff is a bit of a blend, and therefore it's hard to say exactly where the line is.
And the line, as a blend, changes depending on circumstances.
Basically, it's better to eat than not to eat.
It's better to have food and shelter than not to have food and shelter.
So if the only way that you can eat is to get a job at the DMV, then I would say get a job at the DMV. You didn't make the system, didn't invent the system, and the system is careening in its crazy way to the fulfillment and significant future change when it comes to status presence in the economy.
So it's not your world.
You just have to live within it.
As best you can. So I think, you know, feed your family, feed your children, have food and shelter, and take the job.
And just be conscious of it.
I don't think that we want to set up these kinds of rules.
I've really never really liked the idea of philosophy as a set of rules, like a program that you have to follow.
That doesn't seem to me the same as internalizing values and living with the delicacy and challenge and ambivalence of having values in a society where some of those values are shared, but many of them are not shared, and many of them are quite strongly opposed.
So, I would say that.
I would also say that I would view time within the state, within a state employment, within state employment as...
It's not like pearl diving.
You go down to get the pearl and you come back up to the surface and sort of stay down there.
I would view it as a sort of bungee situation.
So if you're in state employment, I would view that as a chance to get a paycheck, do good work in whatever capacity there is, and use that time to continue looking for private sector or entrepreneurial employment.
I think that would be very useful.
But you have to be careful, of course.
I mean, there will, I think, be some skills atrophy and some, perhaps, emotional challenges of these sort of highly politicized environments.
And I think you also want to make sure that you don't get caught in the sticky web of adjusting your lifestyle to an income and benefits that is out of proportion to what you'll receive in the private sector.
Now, the private sector has become somewhat anemic because of the predations of taxation in the public sector.
But, um...
Sorry. Still just going away.
Every time I go down, she stops, of course.
But... And then I go back up, she starts.
So, I think it's...
I mean, I'm very conservative when it comes to finances, for better or for worse.
And so, I'm very loathe to increase income in any substantial way, no matter what happens to my income as a whole.
I just think savings and a buffer is very important.
It's a matter of having choices, you know, being out of debt and having some money in the bank.
I think it's very important when it comes to having choices.
So, I would be, you know, if you get a sort of high-paid job in the government...
I would be concerned about, I would suggest, not saying, woohoo, now I'm going to buy a house or, you know, now I'm going to finally landscape my garden or whatever, right?
And spend a lot of money because then it's going to be tougher to transition back to a private sector job if and when the opportunity arises.
So I would keep your spending low, if possible, so that, or, you know, use the money to get out of debt, all that kind of stuff, so that you have more freedom and flexibility When it comes to the next thing.
So those are sort of my suggestions.
I don't... I don't consider it a moral compromise in the absence of alternatives to take a state job any more than to take state money.
I mean, you're going to be paying taxes the rest of your life.
You've paid taxes. Parents paid taxes.
Grandparents paid taxes. Your wealth is diminished thereby.
And so I don't consider it, in my view, a moral compromise to take a state job.
I think, in general...
I'm not a huge fan of money in terms of money, money, money.
But I would say that if you have the option, even at lower pay, a private sector job will lead to greater happiness and keep your skill set up and you won't get locked into higher benefits, higher pay, more job security, and then have fewer options as you move forward.
So I hope that that helps. And thanks again for an excellent set of questions.
▲
Export Selection