&#62;I know its fun to rag on public officials on Internet forums. But most of the ones I know have been fairly decent people who are just doing their jobs.<p>This could be said about a lot of people who did incredibly horrific things.  Virtually no one, no matter how evil they appear to everyone else, really thinks of themselves that way.  They always justify their actions in some way (e.g. "The world will be better off without this race", "no one else is smart enough to see what I see, so fudging a little bit is completely justified.  They are too simple minded to understand anything else", etc.).<p>In regards to rule following, people fall into one of two categories: "Rule followers", people who follow what the rule says, and people like myself who follow the <i>sense</i> behind the rule, not the words specifically and even then only if it makes sense [1].<p>People from e.g. your TSA example are clearly "rule followers".  Here is an article that outlines some of the issues with following rules to this degree: <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433397/The-Authoritarians" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/6433397/The-Authoritarians</a><p>Basically, if you can get people who will blindly follow rules you can accomplish just about anything with them.  It's also a very handy justification for highly antisocial behavior.  Of course people in my category can also use shaky justifications to engage in poor behavior but I can't claim "I was just doing as I was told".<p>I have plenty of "rule follower" friends (whom I constantly annoy with my heretical suggestions that rules are just guidelines).  But at the end of the day we can only judge people's actions based on what they did (rule follower or not).  Not how friendly they are doing it.  Jeffrey Dahmer's neighbors thought he was nice enough.<p>&#62;and they risk losing their job when they deviate from it, even if they personally believe the rules are stupid.<p>If everyone would avoid rules that are, from a common sense point of view, stupid then their job wouldn't be "at risk".  They couldn't be replaced with anyone who wouldn't do the same thing.<p>&#62;Same with the private sector. Companies that have the best reputations tend to be those that empower their employees to solve the customer's problem, like Virgin or Nordstroms. Companies with the worst reputations tend to be those where the employees can't do anything but follow the playbook, like most telecoms.<p>Interesting point.<p>[1] e.g. I don't stop at a stop sign if I can clearly see that I can go without impacting anyone else.  For me stop sign means "the other people have the right of way, don't impact them".  I find following the letter of the law "all four wheels to a full and complete stop" irritating, insulting and of little or no value.