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.