Traditionally, the idea of a public servant is someone who is working for the public, with the implication that he or she is sacrificing a better material life to do so. But can anyone really define today’s relationship this way? Especially when health care and pensions are included, government workers increasingly seem to live better than the people who pay their salaries. How many of you walk into some local, state or federal office these days and leave thinking, “The men and women here are working for me”?
I’m a subscriber to Imprimis, a monthly newsletter that pretty much dedicated to discussions about actual civil liberty (as opposed to the Opposite Day definition of “liberty” that liberals use). Their March issue, which I just got around to reading, had a great article about What Public Employee Unions Are Doing To Our Country. It’s definitely worth the read.
What really stuck out to me was the above-quoted passage. Liberals are always bleating about “public servants” and “public service” and the so-called nobility attached to it. But, as the article asks, can anyone really define today’s relationship that way? I’d love to hear the argument for it, about how public workers are “working for us.”
Does anyone seriously believe that’s true? Because I don’t. When I see a union scumbag buying a yacht with his “boat money”—paid for on my back—I really don’t see the argument where these “public sector” leeches are “working for me.” Do you? I’d love to hear the explanation for it.
Also, I’m interested in hearing from whatever raving psychotic would think this is a good idea:
And that is, there’s no connection between effort and reward. You’re guaranteed your job. You’re guaranteed your salary increase. There’s a kind of bureaucratic equality.
Who here is for this, and what’s wrong with you?