de labore sub tyrannis

Today I went down to city hall to order trash service. I didn't expect to receive from the experience such condemnatory argumentation against government employment.

But first, a few definitions:

Government — an organization whose providential income stream is effectively ensured, no matter the quality (or disquality) of the services/goods provided, or even the desireability of services/goods provided. An organization whose monopoly is ensured by law. see also "racket"

By extension, government employee is any person working in any organization whose income is assured regardless of the worth or quality of the service provided.

Income — what you get from elsewhere or else-whom; that for which you are dependent upon something other than yourself for obtaining.

(Please note: this is an iron-clad, exceptionless definition, despite seemingly obvious special cases. Let's look at a few. "Income is what I earn." — Thank you. What you once did not have was brought into your possession. Whether you deserved it or earned it means nothing in this regard. "God causes the rain on both the just and the unjust. Is that income?" — Yes, income includes everything that you get possession of that you once had no possession of. The definition is not limited only to our narrow idea of "payments" received after satisfying the requirements of a person or entity who withholds until you perform. Income may be, and, in matter of fact, most often is, free and non-compulsory. Sun, precipitation, air, Granting this, we all may rightly count ourselves among the very rich. Passive, residual income for even the least deserving of us.)

Income may be earned or un-earned, deserved or undeserved, fair or unfair, but it is that which comes from somewhere else. If it already "belonged" to you — if you already had full and free access to it — it would be something different.

It is societally unsustainable and morally reprehensible for one or many sectors of a population to receive without condition and be justified or protected by the law to do so.

The issue here is accountability and feeling the bite of actual costs. If you are accountable to no one but an internal personal or corporate morality, there is no external check or balance to the universal im-, a-, or sub-morality of your actions.

Everett would love to ensure his own income. (Who wouldn't?)

But he can't.

Why? Because he wants what others have and they have no reason to give it to him.