I think he’s pointing out what your question is a victim of - rhetorical devices that ensure a certain point of view is reinforced.

The opening line is about institutions, while the examples are about firms. The point being that this will focus people on government behavior, while the examples are anything but.

As we can see in the comments, it is somehow effective even when we are discussing the structure of the argument.

The conversation naturally generates poles, which end up reinforcing the govt wastefulness argument - without the underlying article itself supporting those comments.

This is pointed out by people who see the device, but this counts as an indicator that they are “pro-government”.

Discussion ensues in the comments, entrenching the rhetoric, without having to resort to valid examples.

I love such constructions, like stingers that dig deeper if you try to pull them out.

I'm implying that both the author of this article, and Kevin Kelly, have an anti government bias that they're supporting using examples from the private sector.

(Unions aren't the government, but I'm lumping them together in comparison to the private sector.)

Government institutions may well do that (and I personally expect they do), but the (private sector) examples presented don't actually support that conclusion.

No. The point is the examples don’t directly support the contention.

Observing that the examples don’t directly support the contention doesn’t by itself validate or invalidate contention.

don't know if he is but the point stands regardless. the space around this question private v public is more than active enough for the writer to know better than skip past it and assume they are identical. personally i think they are basically identical but it is a little dirty.