We’ve seen this point of view championed right here on the Zone. Remember how some of our contributors were constantly denouncing NASA as being bureaucratic and inefficient, how it was “holding back” America’s space program? Supposedly, once “private enterprise” took charge, we could look forward to an explosion of growth in space exploration as investors and entrpreneurs rushed to exploit the new frontier, while the market ruthlessly weeded out the inefficient and incompetent.

In this intellectual environment, it is inevitable for the idea to take root that anyone not owing his paycheck to a capitalist boss will be lazy, unambitious, perhaps even larcenous or downright criminal. It is only the enterprise owner or his designated manager who is qualified to supervise and discipline workers. As they will all tell you, anyone who works for a living (as opposed to the private business owner/manager) is just no damned good. The fact that they will willingly accept that kind of work is all the evidence you need of their lack of seriousness, responsibility, and commitment. Only the businessman can be trusted with power. Government (and by extension, all non-commercial or public institutions) is inherently inefficient, trivial, perhaps disreputable or even criminal.

Those who are convinced that being a “gentleman of property” is a sign, perhaps even the ONLY sign, of civic virtue must inevitably distrust or disparage anyone who is not. Unfortunately, this point of view seems to be endemic today, particularly among folks who see themselves as entrepreneurs, or dynamic managers and executives, but who have never actually owned or run a business, taken a real financial risk or met a payroll. A perfect example, the jackass who penned the Op-Ed above. How can someone who feels government is so inherently corrupt and inefficient actually earn his living by running a government agency? He should get out of the public sector and open his own business.