« Where is inequality greater? | Main | Assorted links »
Food Fight
In a story rich with irony the Senate, led by Democrat Dianne Feinstein, has voted to privatize its restaurants and food services. The House privatized twenty years ago. The result? Sort of like East and West Berlin.
In a masterful bit of understatement, Feinstein blamed [millions of dollars in losses] on "noticeably subpar" food and service. Foot traffic bears that out. Come lunchtime, many Senate staffers trudge across the Capitol and down into the basement cafeteria on the House side. On Wednesdays, the lines can be 30 or 40 people long.
House staffers almost never cross the Capitol to eat in the Senate cafeterias.
Naturally some of Feinstein's colleagues were not pleased.
In a closed-door meeting with Democrats in November, she was practically heckled by her peers for suggesting it, senators and aides said.
"I know what happens with privatization. Workers lose jobs, and the next generation of workers make less in wages. These are some of the lowest-paid workers in our country, and I want to help them," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a staunch labor union ally, said recently.
The reporter adds without comment, "The wages of the approximately 100 Senate food service workers average $37,000 annually." Who says we can't get a better press corps?
Feinstein had an ace in her sleeve, however, and when push came to shove she unleashed her threat. Feinstein warned "that if they did not agree to turn over the operation to a private contractor, prices would be increased 25 percent across the board." Well that was it - the Senate voted to privatize.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on June 10, 2008 at 07:30 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
What does the "The reporter adds without comment, "The wages of the approximately 100 Senate food service workers average $37,000 annually." Who says we can't get a better press corp?" comment mean for those of us in Europe who have no idea how $37K/year fares in comparison to comparable jobs.
What do the house food service workers make, on average?
Posted by: Joe at Jun 10, 2008 8:08:25 AM
"how $37K/year fares in comparison to comparable jobs"
Compared to what comparable jobs? Other cafeteria workers with a 1:1 ratio of worker to those served who work for the Senate? Fair.
$37k/yr is way too little for having to serve those people.
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 10, 2008 8:19:31 AM
Fantastic story. ;-)
Posted by: Speedmaster at Jun 10, 2008 8:22:20 AM
If by "some of the lowest-paid workers in our country" the honorable senator meant in the bottom half, she may be right.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 10, 2008 8:23:12 AM
I think the reporter wants to imply that they aren't paid that much now, and per Sen Brown, they are going to be paid even less. I am guessing that the workers at the House facilities have taken the jobs of their own free will, so they must be paid enough to make the bargain. Incentives matter, and I guess the proof is in the pudding, or something.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Jun 10, 2008 8:23:12 AM
Word to all those MR readers who voted "Yea." I wouldn't order the chicken salad until after the new workers take over.
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 10, 2008 8:30:30 AM
This episode is pure poetry. Thanks.
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Jun 10, 2008 9:18:01 AM
How did Obama vote? How did McCain vote? What about those Senators on the "short lists" for VP (Lieberman, Edwards, Graham, Clinton)?
Posted by: Peter K. at Jun 10, 2008 9:21:23 AM
How did Obama vote? How did McCain vote? What about those Senators on the "short lists" for VP (Lieberman, Edwards, Graham, Clinton)?
Posted by: Peter K. at Jun 10, 2008 9:21:57 AM
$37, 000 sounds like quite a lot to be honest. That's what...£18, 000?? It depends on what you mean by 'food service' but for serving staff that doesn't sound bad :s
Posted by: Rory Turf at Jun 10, 2008 9:25:12 AM
$37,000 is a very high average for this type of work. The reporter is noting that these workers are paid very well.
"Median annual wage-and-salary earnings of food preparation workers were $17,410 in May 2006. The middle 50 percent earned between $14,920 and $21,230. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $13,190, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $25,940. "
http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos161.htm
I would note that pretty much the same thing occurs in corporate cafeterias. The food quality improvement when Aramark took over our corporate cafeteria a few years ago was dramatic. The problem isn't so much government [although that doesn't help certainly] as trying to run a business that's far removed from what the company really does.
Posted by: ZBicyclist at Jun 10, 2008 9:28:32 AM
On the other hand, ZBicyclist, one of the major liabilities of outsourcing food is that the employees are viewed as a profit center -- compare cafeterias at IBM versus, let's say, Google. At IBM in the 1990s, the food got so expensive that most of us started going out for lunch, costing the company some free overtime in many cases.
(You can certainly outsource food without making the mistake of then trying to turn the employees into a profit center, but I have yet to see it happen).
Posted by: M1EK at Jun 10, 2008 9:35:36 AM
M1EK makes some good points, although I might note that companies can view employees as a profit center without outsourcing food.
I particularly like M1EK's point about "costing free overtime". One of the big benefits of staying in at the office cafeteria is the opportunity to do cross-departmental networking, and the ability to get back to your desk faster.
My own company seems to be trying to make us a profit center by getting us "special rates" on fitness centers, car insurance, etc. These may be sent to our homes, or sent via company e-mail.
Not only are the rates not so special, they seem oblivious to the fact that reading -- or even just deleting -- these e-mails on company time is a productivity drain.
Posted by: ZBicyclists at Jun 10, 2008 9:50:32 AM
"outsourcing food is that the employees are viewed as a profit center...costing the company some free overtime in many cases."
Funneling money back into the economy by reducing the amount of time Senators spend crafting legislation sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Posted by: Andrew at Jun 10, 2008 9:52:14 AM
The 37k salary might not be totally out of line; remember, we're not comparing the dining room to Applebees, but to high-end restaurants. I remember a NYT article a while ago about the servers at Peter Luger's, who tend to stick around for about 10 years, learn the business, and go on to open their own restaurants.
The more pertinent question is why they have 100 employees for such a limited market; that's about four times the kitchen staff of a 5-star hotel.
Posted by: Independent George at Jun 10, 2008 9:56:25 AM
Listen, if you think a publicly owned restaurant on Capitol Hill is bad, I've heard that there are vast institutions of higher education in this country--known grimly as "state schools"--that rely on tax dollars to pay libertarian economists (much as private universities rely on wealthy capitalists to pay leftists in the humanities). Can anyone confirm this? Let's hope at least they outsource the food service!
Posted by: Dan at Jun 10, 2008 10:20:39 AM
[O]ne of the major liabilities of outsourcing food is that the employees are viewed as a profit center -- compare cafeterias at IBM versus, let's say, Google.
My brother-in-law is a chef on the Google campus, but he works for Bon Appetit Management Company. Google pays them to provide food in the campus cafes and for special events. I don't think employees pay to eat at all.
By the way, my brother-in-law noted that they are just recently starting to care about food costs. They still are committeed to buying only food grown within 100 miles, but they have cracked down on the extravagent use of costly ingredients. I wonder if forcing employees to pay for their food would lead to an abandonment of the localvore standard, or if, like good Northern Californians, they would be willing to shell out the bucks for it.
Posted by: Christina at Jun 10, 2008 10:35:15 AM
Way to beat back the tidal wave of support for nationalizing the restaraunt industry :-)
Posted by: David J. Balan at Jun 10, 2008 10:39:21 AM
"The more pertinent question is why they have 100 employees for such a limited market; that's about four times the kitchen staff of a 5-star hotel."
Independent George, 100 workers for 100 Senators. Royalty needs attendants.
(Yes, I know the staff eats there, too, when there not at the House restaurant, but it's too juicy to let by.)
Posted by: Highgamma at Jun 10, 2008 10:55:42 AM
... and those Senate food-workers are 'Federal Employees' with very nice Civil Service retirement and health-insurance plans -- much more generous than the perks available to comparable private food-workers.
Pay & Benefits together make those jobs a gravy train.
See GAO audit:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07462.pdf
Posted by: Marsom at Jun 10, 2008 11:06:23 AM
I went back to read the whole article and wouldn't you know it but the Dems plan to give taxpayers a parting gift: "Eventually, Democrats agreed to pass legislation that includes guarantees for those who go to work for Restaurant Associates. They would retain their current salaries and federal health and pension benefits. Employees who choose to leave instead would receive buyout packages of as much as $25,000 -- paid by the Senate. Half the current employees are likely to take that deal.
New employees, however, will not receive federal benefits, though they will be allowed to unionize."
The real message is that the Senate restaurants had no incentive to provide good service and they didn't.
Posted by: Rich Berger at Jun 10, 2008 11:59:01 AM
Another example of this is what used to be officer's clubs in the military. The non-appropriated funds managers tried to turn them into profit centers while maintainng the 8A contracting requirements. They are all closed now.
Posted by: superdestroyer at Jun 10, 2008 12:18:40 PM
In a story especially rich with irony, a university professor at a public institution supported by government funding clamors for a "free" (government free, that is) market.
Posted by: meter at Jun 10, 2008 12:39:30 PM
And if tenured, I might add "with his own built-in safety net" somewhere in that statement.
Posted by: meter at Jun 10, 2008 12:41:12 PM
I used to work for a managed services company that ran a lot of college and corporate dining operations. A full-time food service employee was generally paid around $20k/year (much of the staff was part time) and a dining room manager would be lucky to clear $50k. A larger operation would include a general manager and maybe an executive chef.
Obviously the senate dining room is a bit fancier than the average corporate cafeteria, but the mind boggles at how they could get an average wage of $37k. Even at a high-end restaurant the average employee isn't paid a whole lot. The people at the top are paid better and waitresses receive bigger tips, but base wages for cooks and whatnot are still well under anything needed to hit that payroll figure.
Posted by: Sean at Jun 10, 2008 1:37:39 PM
Meter,
So, if someone supports a free market in one situation that commits them to supporting it in all situations?
Posted by: Scott Scheule at Jun 10, 2008 1:39:01 PM
The MEAN pay may be 37k, but what is the MEDIAN pay? It would not surprise me to learn that two or three people at the top were bringing the average way up.
Posted by: MH at Jun 10, 2008 1:50:50 PM
In addition to $37K in wages, Senate food workers get about $18K in benefits.
See http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07462.pdf.
A worker at a private restaurant with puny benefits probably should make $60K to be at the same level as a Federal food service employee.
Posted by: mik at Jun 10, 2008 2:19:41 PM
Scott, seems fair to expect that, yes.
It's more than a bit hypocritical to rail against a) unions and b) job/wage protectionism when one is a) basically in one, for all intents and purposes, and b) privileged enough to have a cushy lil' safety net and a job not in jeopardy of being outsourced or undercut by cheap immigrant labor.
Posted by: meter at Jun 10, 2008 2:24:42 PM
In a story especially rich with irony, a university professor at a public institution supported by government funding clamors for a "free" (government free, that is) market.
Free Market for thee, Fat Government Pension for me.
Not to mentioned Total Job Security.
Posted by: mik at Jun 10, 2008 2:26:37 PM
meter has a valid point. In fact, I've noticed that a lot of so-called Libertarians tend to be pretty inconsistent in what they believe and espouse for every one else, and what they actually practice themselves in their daily lives. For example, I really wonder how many Libertarian/free marketers actually work for the federal government or are fairly dependent on them for a source of income. I'm sure there are many more examples, that's just the first that comes to mind. It seems contradictory to me, and undercuts their arguments.
Posted by: 12345 at Jun 10, 2008 2:59:36 PM
Meter,
This intrigues me. I often see libertarians criticized for thinking the solution to everything is a market. Now you criticize Alex for not thinking the solution to everything is a market.
Posted by: Scott Scheule at Jun 10, 2008 4:15:31 PM
Meter,
Public-domain research benefits everyone in society. The Senate cafeteria does not.
Posted by: Braden at Jun 10, 2008 4:19:29 PM
Working for the gov't only undercuts a libertarian's arguments if not working for the government would somehow advance policy in a more libertarian direction.
Whether I teach Physics 102 or a lefty teaches Physics 102 has no bearing on anyone's liberty to first order. It's probably beneficial to second order, as
(1) The students and others aren't left with the impression that most thinking people or quantitatively literate people are lefties
(2) I make it a little more difficult for leftists at the margin to find employment from the state, breaking the perverse cycle.
What perverse cycle? People who, having been employed by or received aid (yes, I know trade an aid are different!) from Big Government going on to feel a loyalty to Big Government and expressing that at the polls.
Posted by: Ben Kalafut at Jun 10, 2008 4:22:04 PM
"Meter,
This intrigues me. I often see libertarians criticized for thinking the solution to everything is a market. Now you criticize Alex for not thinking the solution to everything is a market."
Wrong. I criticize him, above all else, for inconsistent thought and for hypocrisy in his proscriptions for society; for failing to practice what he pr/teaches.
Posted by: meter at Jun 10, 2008 4:32:23 PM
"Meter,
Public-domain research benefits everyone in society. The Senate cafeteria does not."
Says you - and in some overarching statement with no qualification whatsoever: as if researching the viscosity of mustard is of equal value to society as proving/disproving string theory.
I can assure you that his particular research benefits me not one whit.
But since you like to make sweeping statments, are you pro- or anti-government? This should be interesting.
Posted by: meter at Jun 10, 2008 4:37:07 PM
Meter,
Ok. I was confused. I asked: "if someone supports a free market in one situation that commits them to supporting it in all situations?"
You responded: "...seems fair to expect that, yes."
Which I believe I accurately restated as "Now you criticize Alex for not thinking the solution to everything is a market."
But apparently what you intended was more along the lines of: people who believe in a free market in one field should also believe in a free market in the field in which they personally work. I suppose you could say that the particular field Alex works in has no market failures that require any of the list of market interventions you listed, and as such, should be treated the same as cafeteria work. But seems an appeal to some positive externality from education would be available to the professor in a way it's not to the cafeteria worker.
Posted by: Scott Scheule at Jun 10, 2008 4:41:51 PM
Well, I'm a libertarian and I work for central government...
I freely admit I'm under-motivated and lazier than I would be if operating as a private consultant in my industry. but so what?
Libertarians say "Governments shouldn't employ so many people" NOT "people shouldn't accept offers of cushy employ from governments that are stupid or venal enough to make them". And in any event, charges of hypocrisy are always ad hominem in argument form. The behaviour of individual libertarians, like all other groups, is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of their policy prescriptions.
So I have no qualms about responding rationally to my incentives, and I suggest that only a fool (or a non-economist) wastes breath berating a man for doing what is plainly his own best interest. Liberrtarianism doesn't require one to act the selfless fool in a world of selfish knaves; it argues for a reform so men can be selfish without being knaves.
Of course, I remain in favour of reform. Hell, I'll even vote for my job to be abolished, if all the other (or a great part) of the worthless civil service posts could be taken out with it. I have a reserve of goodwill and altrusim here, even if the cost-benefit equation doesn't quite work out...
Posted by: Alistair Morley at Jun 10, 2008 5:01:10 PM
It is not inconsistent to say that government doesn't need to do X while working in a field that government subsidizes.
I don't know for certain, but I don't believe that Alex would argue that government is required to subsidize or even run Universities. The fact that he benefits from this is really besides the point.
Posted by: Chris at Jun 10, 2008 5:01:34 PM
"I freely admit I'm under-motivated and lazier than I would be if operating as a private consultant in my industry. but so what?"
At least you're honest about your hypocrisy. Congratulations.
Then again, you're not an economics professor with ties to an institute (Cato) pushing public policy.
Posted by: meter at Jun 10, 2008 5:15:01 PM
Meter's point about the irony of libertarians with tenure sucking at the government tit (and at the conservative welfare tit at the same time) is quite appropriate. I have a section of Critiques Of Libertarianism for them:
Criticisms of George Mason U. Economics (and Mercatus)
Posted by: Mike Huben at Jun 10, 2008 5:26:56 PM
Ah, Meter, I fear you misunderstand me....
1) It's NOT hypocritical for Liberatrians to take government jobs. Libertarians say government should not create jobs. It is silent on the morality of individuals seeking/accepting them
2) Even if such libertarians were hypocrites (and thus could be condemned as individuals), that hypocrisy would have no logical bearing on the moral truth or falsity of libertarian policy prescriptions. It's a very simple, very old, ad hominem fallacy.
You may, however, have the point for noticig the irony of the situation .
Regards,
- Al
Posted by: Alistair Morley at Jun 10, 2008 5:48:00 PM
The hypocrisy comes from railing against people who have negotiated what seems like excessive job security, pay, and benefits through collective bargaining or other methods of that sort while enjoying excessive job security called "tenure".
Posted by: M1EK at Jun 10, 2008 6:09:05 PM
Let's put 37,000 dollars per year plus undisclosed benefits in perspective (One assumes these workers get free meals at work too). That is 17.78 dollars per hour for 2080 hours worked per year or 18.50 dollars per hour for 2000 hours worked per year.
That has to be double the average wage at McDonalds or Starbucks. Frankly that is an outrageous wage. If I could get a job such as that and didn't have to worry about the quality of the food product, I would be sitting pretty.
I think the point is that we would be better off paying those people to sit at home or work somewhere else and give them have the wage they were promised by the Senate. Then we could have private firms come in and run it for profit. That would save the taxpayers half the waste, keep those workers happy, and deliver better food to the Senate.
Posted by: R. Pointer at Jun 10, 2008 6:30:30 PM
Alistair,
All due respect, I think you are not accurately articulating accepted libertarian groupthink (in as much as there is such a thing.)
Even were you, don't you in your heart of hearts see some rather morally and intellectually bankrupt hairsplitting in that rationale?
PS - I am not affiliated with Mike Huben
Posted by: meter at Jun 10, 2008 6:33:13 PM
For the record, I have long argued that universities are over-subsidized. Tenure raises interesting economic issues but whatever you think about tenure it has little to do with government - tenure is common at private universities and it has roots in university governance going back about 1000 years.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Jun 10, 2008 6:36:25 PM
How about the history of unions/organized labor? Maybe slightly older than tenure?
Posted by: meter at Jun 10, 2008 6:45:52 PM
The point is that there may be a rationale for government subsidies of higher education on the basis of positive externalities of research. It takes only a basic understanding of economics and public policy in the last 30 years to recognize that our lives are in many ways better as a result of the arguments of tenured economists. (Deregulation, anybody?) That's the positive externality justifying the subsidy.
Posted by: Josh at Jun 10, 2008 6:49:49 PM
meter, it's easy to play this game. Everyone does their best to profit from the current set of institutions; this shouldn't estop them from making legitimate criticisms of those institutions.
Posted by: q at Jun 10, 2008 6:50:50 PM
For example, does it at all make sense to dismiss a farmer's argument that crop subsidies are bad just because he profits from them? If anything, most people would credit his altruism.
Posted by: q at Jun 10, 2008 6:54:07 PM
Yes, I agree that this game is easy: punching holes in libertarianism is made all the easier when its staunchest proponents choose not to live by its tenets when in this instance it seems simple to do so: teach at a private institution that does not rely on government cheese to pay your salary and retirement benefits
Doesn't seem that difficult a proposition to me, honestly.
I wonder how a person can in good faith preach an 'ism' and patronize pretty much the biggest thing he rails against.
On top of that, to begrudge others for looking out for their own collective best economic interests (e.g. the criticisms of those opposed to unfettered free trade, outsourcing, open borders, and so on) while taking advantage of tenure...just seems - no, it is - contradictory.
Posted by: meter at Jun 10, 2008 7:04:41 PM
Besides, it's easy to make an argument that Alex working in a public university is a net positive in social utility compared to Alex not working there. I leave it up to the reader to form such arguments, but it is a very different one from the argument that current subsidies to public universities are a net negative, and it is not hypocritical or inconsistent to hold both opinions.
Posted by: q at Jun 10, 2008 7:06:26 PM
The restaurats of the senate of the USA were public? Cynics...
Posted by: yo at Jun 10, 2008 7:11:09 PM
Doesn't it make it more compelling for government employees to argue for less government? It is an argument against interest. If a government employee argues for more government, there is a potential conflict of interest. "I believe this so much that I am willing to lose my job for it" sounds good to me. Granted, I expect GMU to be fairly far from the chopping block.
As others have said, you use the system in place even if you want it changed. An American League pitcher who opposes the designated hitter rule in principle probably should not bat until that rule gets changed.
Posted by: Zubon at Jun 10, 2008 8:06:12 PM
Meter,
How on Earth does Alex's behavior punch holes in a body of policy prescriptions? If you had anything resembling facts on your side, you could address the claims Alex makes rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: James at Jun 10, 2008 8:06:30 PM
Meter, I really think you are missing the point - the libertarian philosophy (as much as one exists) does not criticize individuals for taking jobs with government, or unions, or any other individual behavior.
The criticism is always with government distorting the incentives that exist. It would be irrational for Alex or anyone for that matter, to not take a job or further their own personal life and goals because they don't agree with everything that the organization in question does.
The argument is not - and has never been - that Universities should not take government money, its that government should not offer it in the first place.
Posted by: Chris at Jun 10, 2008 8:09:59 PM
To use another example - I do not think that health insurance should be subsidized - yet it is - does this mean that I should refrain from purchasing insurance because the government is subsidizing it?
That argument is simply ludicrous - I am not going to beggar myself or put my family at risk because I benefit from public policy that I disagree with.
You can look across the political spectrum and see this is true on the right, left and center.
Posted by: Chris at Jun 10, 2008 8:12:09 PM
"Meter,
How on Earth does Alex's behavior punch holes in a body of policy prescriptions? If you had anything resembling facts on your side, you could address the claims Alex makes rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks."
Alex's post pointed out the irony of democrats privatizing food service.
If you cannot see the inherent irony of a publicly-funded professor who constantly proselytizes against the evils of taxation and government subsidies and of people who are suspicious of completely free markets which are counter to their own self-interests, I guess you're too drunk on the libertarian kool-aid to appeal to whatever common sense you might otherwise possess.
I honestly find the reactions to my pointing out inconsistencies in thought vs deed astonishing.
Posted by: meter at Jun 10, 2008 8:50:17 PM
Since government at all levels consumes or directs consumption (indirectly through mandates, tax-policy, etc.) of most GDP, it would be hard *NOT* to work for the government, or a company with government contracts, or a company that gets government subsidies, or an industry highly regulated by government, etc. The United States is a society where virtually no economic activity escapes the realm of government control. The government assures that no enterprise, public or private, can exist without the patronage of a politician to divvy out subsidies, contracts, loans, regulatory exemptions, licenses, etc.
Maybe drug dealers don't work for the government. But then again, even drug dealers enjoy government subsidies in the form of restrictions on supply.
So chiding libertarians for not living a pure libertarian lifestyle is stupid. It is as impossible to live a libertarian lifestyle in the modern day United States. In fact, we would probably be thrown in prison for trying.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Jun 10, 2008 11:24:47 PM
meter writes,
"If you cannot see the inherent irony of a publicly-funded professor who constantly proselytizes against the evils of taxation and government subsidies ..."
I work for a private institution ... does it follow from your statement that my socialist co-workers have the same inherent irony?
Posted by: Dano at Jun 11, 2008 1:22:05 AM
meter writes,
"If you cannot see the inherent irony of a publicly-funded professor who constantly proselytizes against the evils of taxation and government subsidies ..."
I work for a private institution ... does it follow from your statement that my socialist co-workers have the same inherent irony?
Posted by: Dano at Jun 11, 2008 1:22:16 AM
Dano, if your colleagues are true socialists them yes. If you're being cute in labeling democrats or otherwise left-leaning people as socialists, then you already know the answer.
Rex Rhino, I offered one remedy for Alex to be consistent: he should take up employment at a private institution. You know, in order not to be ironic like the Senate Majority Leader. Oh, and he should reject/forego tenure.
I find it amazing that so many libertarians say things like "government's only role should be to enforce property rights" all the while feeding at the trough.
Doesn't say much for your convictions.
Posted by: meter at Jun 11, 2008 7:09:41 AM
Heya Meter,
We're in danger of tying together several points here, so I'll try and refute your position on any of 3 steps.
1) Libertarian Principles
No, I don't think I'm misrepresenting mainstream libertarian opinion; say, Friedman or Nozick. Can you identify the libertarian thinker and specific argument that condemn me?
2) Seeking/Accepting Government jobs is NOT hypocrisy for Libertarians
Libertarians are opposed to the use of force in human transactions. There is no force involved in my seeking/accepting a government post. Ergo, morally valid. Simple. Libertarians condemn the government for creating the posts in the first place (or rather because of the taxes they ultimately require to fund ). As Chris has pointed out, Libertarianism does NOT say you can't act selfishly in a corrupt system, it says that the system should be reformed.
I'm sorry if this seems like hair-splitting to you. Referencing both logic and class theory, may I suggest that a categorisation made on the basis of meaningful defintions with high accuracy cannot be considered hairsplitting? Like the difference between murder and euthanasia.
3) Hypocritical Libertarians do NOT invalidate Libertarianism
I freely grant you that situation is ironic. But ironic is not an argument against the syllogistic truth of a proposition. For the third time, I'd stress that failings of individual libertarians does not constitute an argument against libertarian principles. Any more than say, the existance of millionaire socialists invalidate socialism. To put it even more simply, there are two prepositions here:
1) "Libertarians are often hypocrites"
2) "Libertarianism is false/evil"
You are arguing for '1'. '2' does not follow from '1'. Saying that '2' follows from '1' is false and ad hominem. At the risk of repeating myself, could I check you are familiar with the fallacy involved?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_circumstantial
As always, I will happily be proven wrong in argument, if you can lay one out. But in refusing to acknowledge the ad-hom point you're now in danger of Bad Faith. Which is far worse in the eyes of thinking men...
Posted by: Alistair Morley at Jun 11, 2008 8:31:22 AM
I thought fairness justifies incompetence....
Posted by: jorod at Jun 11, 2008 9:40:36 AM
"To put it even more simply, there are two prepositions here:
1) "Libertarians are often hypocrites"
2) "Libertarianism is false/evil"
You are arguing for '1'. '2' does not follow from '1'. Saying that '2' follows from '1' is false and ad hominem. At the risk of repeating myself, could I check you are familiar with the fallacy involved?"
Those are propositions, not prepositions. I trust you understand the difference? (I can be condescending too).
To your point, I am not arguing 2 in this thread. I am arguing 1 and 1 alone. Please reread my posts.
Posted by: meter at Jun 11, 2008 10:17:35 AM
"Candidly, I don't think the taxpayers should be subsidizing something that doesn't need to be. There are parts of government that can be run like a business and should be run like businesses." Feinstein.
How about public schools?
Posted by: jorod at Jun 11, 2008 10:23:51 AM
Alistair Buckley (sic):
You also define libertarianism thusly:
"Libertarians are opposed to the use of force in human transactions."
Reading comments in these threads for the past year+ from avowed libertarians, that's not the long and the short of it. You're being disingenuous.
What of the notion that government doesn't have the right to impose taxation on its citizenry? (hardcore)
What of the notion of a (very) limited government? (less hardcore)
etc.
Posted by: meter at Jun 11, 2008 10:30:56 AM
Let (s)he who is without subsidy cast the first stone.
Posted by: zbicyclist at Jun 11, 2008 12:40:11 PM
I'm not a libertarian.
Posted by: meter at Jun 11, 2008 12:48:29 PM
Why does Google limit their food to that grown within 100 miles?
If that is a good idea, maybe they should limit their web hits to people on computers within 100 miles. Certainly carrying packets from any farther away is a waste of energy! :)
Posted by: Mr. Econotarian at Jun 11, 2008 5:08:10 PM
$37/hr for the workers in a cafeteria does sound a bit excessive, but who cares? If the cafeteria had been providing good food and good service there would be no issue here.
Now who is responsible for the lousy food? Why the management of the cafeteria is, that's who, not the workers who do not make the decisions.
Let's get the focus where it belongs. It's another management failure, not a worker failure.
Posted by: lxm at Jun 12, 2008 8:42:07 PM
Well, that sounds more like a mismanaged cafeteria than anything.
Any idea why they couldn't improve things without having to fire everyone and bring in someone else to do it?
Posted by: Phill at Jun 14, 2008 9:48:16 PM
