JTSummers: I don't think it's doublethink to complain about a situation you personally benefit from. (Actually, it gives you more credibility, because you have a personal stake in the problem: You yourself would be hurt by the change you propose.)

But it is doublethink if you hold other people in contempt for getting benefits from tax revenue, or if you think they are immoral for doing so.

For example, I think Ayn Rand's position was not just that "looting" is bad for the country, but that it is immoral and that doing it makes you a bad person. A Randite who made special efforts to get any kind of money from the government would either have to think of themselves as a looter, or make a special exception for themselves.

Ayn Rand withdrew Social Security checks (to get back what the government took.) There is nothing necessarily wrong with that.

When you claim Social Security money, you aren't "getting back" what you put in/was "taken" from you. Your contribution is already gone, disbursed to current recipients. When you ultimately collect, that money is similarly coming out of someone else's pocket.

That is true, but it is not how it is marketed. SS is marketed as "insurance" (official name is Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) - so you pay the premium and then get the benefits. The fact that it is not actually insurance but a combination of tax and welfare program is true, but it's hardly the fault of the person who has no choice in paying the tax. If you already are forced to pay the admission price, you may as well enjoy the benefit of what is being sold, even if you are forced to buy it and prefer not to. E.g. many places force people to buy car insurance. Would it be hypocritical for somebody to object to the fact that it is mandatory and still buy it and use it when accident happens? I think only person not understanding the difference between voluntary and coerced transactions would claim such thing.

It's the same with the bank deposits - would you expect do get exact same dollar bills with serial numbers you've deposited every time you use an ATM?

Are you then looting somebody every time you make a cash withdrawal?

No, in fact, it's not the same with bank deposits. Of course you don't get back the same dollar bills; frankly, that's an offensively specious false analogy. But when you deposit money into a bank account, you still own that money; if you were to close your bank account tomorrow, you'd get a cheque for the balance.

Social Security, on the other hand, is a "pay as you go" program. When you contribute money into the Social Security trust fund, it is used to satisfy payments to current recipients. If it's still solvent and operating when you retire or become disabled, then you can expect to receive benefits similarly (though, technically, retirement/"old age" and disability benefits come from different funds).

Moreover, if the fund were to go insolvent — or Congress were to shut the program down — tomorrow, you would have no recourse. (Whereas with bank deposits, you have recourse at least up to the FDIC insured maximum.) If you renounce your US citizenship, or decide to fund your retirement yourself, you don't somehow magically get back the money you contributed, and you're still subject to payroll taxes in the latter case.

> If it's still solvent and operating when you retire or become disabled, then you can expect to receive benefits similarly

That's now how it works. The reason you get those annual pamphlets from Social Security Administration is to know exactly what you're entitled to. It's highly dependent on your rate and consistency of contributions.

> or decide to fund your retirement yourself, you don't somehow magically get back the money you contributed

Not sure what you're saying. When you reach proper age, you're entitled to Social Security payouts as long as you've contributed into the system the way that was intended. A lot of people fund their own retirements through 401(k), annuities or personal savings, that does not disqualify them from Social Security.

I hope you enjoyed the irony of invoking the FDIC to justify why people "own" money that they've deposited in checking accounts as much as I enjoyed reading it. Banks used to shut down all the mfing time without making their depositors whole. The reason that's more or less stopped (in the US) is not because of some moral awakening that somehow missed the social security administration. It's because we regulate banks better.

PS: congress is just as capable of shutting down the FDIC as the SSA

You never get your money back out of a bank; you get somebody else's money, if there ever even was physical money involved. And you never step in the same river twice. I think that's all splitting metaphysical hairs.

In this case, it's actually not hair-splitting; see my reply to your comment's sibling. You both demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how Social Security works.

I may well misunderstand how Social Security works. However, the point of my comment is that it's hardly the only system to which one might contribute funds, incurring some future obligation of (re)payment on the part of that system, which is later discharged using funds that were most recently in "someone else's pocket".

Either it's a trivial point that applies pretty broadly outside of SS, or you meant something more significant and I'm interested in knowing what that is.

Your misunderstanding is, at least in part, in thinking that contributing to SS incurs an obligation to you on the part of the program. Technically, it doesn't even have an obligation to current recipients, let alone future ones.

It doesn't matter though. If social security were made of your actual money the end result would still be the same -- your money would go towards investments in the past, and you'd get paid back by people benefiting from those investments.

Right. That confusion is what causes some people to think that a tax cut is the same as government spending.

Yes, but this is not really related to what I said.

Ayn Rand, and any other person who has become independently wealthy in a way that has nothing to do with the government, can despise looters and be consistent. Government workers in particular cannot.

Given the enormous benefits of taxpayer funded defence/political stability/regulatory frameworks/crime prevention/an educated wokforce etc, 'independently wealthy' is perhaps an impossibility.

What if they're highly employable in private industry anyways, and choose a government job not out of fear of dying of hunger, but for better paycheck, closer commute, or work environment?

Or someone like John Kerry - both independently wealthy and a government worker?

Not the same. You can't opt out of paying into SS. You can choose not to take a government job.

It's doublethink or hypocrisy to complain about people getting fat off the government dole while getting fat off the government dole.

If someone is going to get paid it might as well be me. People that support positions only because they personally benefit or who can't change their minds because it would cost them, are far more worrying. As another comment pointed out, those people have a personal stake in the issue. Accepting they are wrong has an actual cost to them.

How does one gain a first-hand knowledge of a corrupt system unless one has experienced it himself?

It's quite possible to be the user of the system due to the lack of other alternatives and oppose it in principle. People with mortgages or shares do not necessarily support corrupt Wall Street practices and financial institutions getting "too big to fail", yet benefit from low mortgage rates or bullish runs in the stock market.

It turns out experiential knowledge is not the only way we can learn things.

Why have the silly laws protecting the whistle-blowers then?

If they argued for bigger government because it directly benefits them, they'd be criticized for that too.

The complaint is about the system that allows to do that. While the system is in place, somebody's going to be the beneficiary. If the system were to be destroyed, then nobody - including the people complaining - would get fat off it. It's like if you just took your money out of your wallet and threw it on the street, I'd tell you it's not a sound financial behavior. Would then it be hypocritical for me to take some of that money laying in the street? I personally would be reluctant to work for government unless having no other option, but I understand people who do while still thinking government should be less invasive.

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.

> 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?

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.

> 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.

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.

So am I a bad person for advocating exercise and a healthy diet despite generally failing to observe my own recommendation?

Not at all, that's only loosely comparable. To really make it a fair comparison: You'd be a bad person if you thought that obesity was a sign of moral failings, and looked down on those people. All while stuffing your face with your third cake of the day, washing it down with your second liter of coke. If, in that situation, you couldn't recognize yourself as obese and consequently suffering from the same "moral failings" as those you denounce, then you'd be a hypocrite or engaged in doublethink.

Ok, so exercise and diet generally isn't a moral issue these days (sloth and gluttony aside). So what about things that are widely considered virtuous, like keeping promises and appointments, being honest/genuine, not being selfish, not being a dick, etc.? I fail at those things a lot as well, but still consider violations to not be virtuous. Perhaps I don't actually look down on people (at least until they make those violations their norm), but I would still advocate these virtues despite failing at them myself.

Do you acknowledge that it's a personal failing of yours even when you also find it undesirable in others? Then you're being at least somewhat fair and reasonable.

Do you shun others when they fail at it? Do you respond poorly when someone calls you out for having the same problems? Then you're somewhere in that hypocrisy/doublethink territory. (from what you've written it sounds like you're in the first group, not the second.)

It's really a lot about the degree and self-awareness of the individual. A federal employee is not a hypocrite for wanting smaller government. A federal employee is a hypocrite/doublethinker for failing to acknowledge that they want a smaller government, their program is too large or wasteful (F-35!) and that they should be affected by cuts.

But then don't bitch about it.

Murder is terrible

brb gotta murder someone.