Should some minimum amount of public service be required of U. S. citizens...

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Skeeedunt
Laziness and apathy already weed out less responsible voters. What's the problem?

Since when? The promise of greater welfare and unemployment benefits get them to the polls in droves.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: spidey07

A person going to college full-time is indeed not a job, their productivity will be realized later and there are plenty of incentives to do so today.

This is an important distinction and it does make my comparison not exactly accurate. I drew the parallel between the two to demonstrate that they are of similar importance when viewed separately, but in fact it would have to be possible to do both. Not easy, but possible for those who want it badly enough.

I agree with "would not be short, easy or well paying" and that's where the problem is. You want people to earn the right to vote by service to another ruler. You underestimate the will of people and "intelligent" people to figure this out.

Perhaps it would be more like putting in time for something they are actually a part of rather than the oppression of a tyrannical government. Those who are allowed to vote and hold office would have the power to end the system at any time they can gather enough votes to do so. It would be their system to keep or eliminate and anyone who wants to could put in their time and help change it after they gain the right. The people would still be their own rulers with no one to blame but themselves if they do not participate. The only difference is that participating would take more desire, work, hardship and hopefully a tad less self absorption than you get with the "every warm body" approach.

I suggest you read the history of Rome and Greece, and possibly Germany in the 1930s. I don't feel like getting into a history lesson off the top of my head. I respect you opinion but really disagree with it.

Fair enough. I don't expect to be right anyway, but every applecart deserves tipping from time to time.

 

[looker001]

Simple answer is no. I refuse to do any community service, public service or anything else you want to call it. I have constitutional right to vote and i will exercise that right period.

 

[looker001]

Originally posted by: Imp
My province requires 40 hours of community service before graduating school-high. The people who don't want to do it just flub it, so it's not that bad. Those too stupid or lazy to get out of it actualy learn something, appreciate it afterwards.

When i was graduating from high school, we had no requirement for such thing. I am happy about that, as i would have just taken GED if community service was a requirement.

 

[nanette1985]

No. Because it would be a system, and there are always people who know how to work the system, and a lot of other people who get screwed by the system. It won't end up being fair at all - these things never are. And it'll get to be so complicated that almost nobody can understand it, so that we'll have to hire people ("experts") to make sure that we're doing it right. And there will be so many layers of bureaucracy that no actual volunteering will happen and it'll cost a fortune.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
Inspired by the other thread.

I consider this worthy of a separate thread in that what I'm asking doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the military, although the military should be one acceptable application of the required service time. Also, the service time should be entirely voluntary, and only necessary if one ever wished to vote or hold public office.

I think that this could help weed out less responsible voters. For this to be effective I believe the service time would have to be substantial, perhaps as long as 2 years.

I know limiting the right to vote can definitely be a no-no in some situations, but I don't think this would be one of those so long as the opportunity is offered to everyone equally and can be taken advantage of at any age, with provisions of some sort made to accommodate those who must maintain other employment while performing their service.

What does ATOT think?

Absolutely not. That requires actively supporting a government (or it's actions) that you might not agree with. It implies that the government has a right to your labor, and as a corollary, that you are a slave of the government. Requiring service for full citizenship is a wholly unamerican idea, and betrays almost everything that the US constitution stands for.

What might be morally defensible however, is a test of competence. Making sure that the voter is literate and has some basic understanding of their government's functions and the issues at hand seems reasonable. However, such requirements have been grossly abused before and therefore, will not be reasonable for the foreseeable future.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: So
Absolutely not. That requires actively supporting a government (or it's actions) that you might not agree with. It implies that the government has a right to your labor, and as a corollary, that you are a slave of the government. Requiring service for full citizenship is a wholly unamerican idea, and betrays almost everything that the US constitution stands for.

We're already slaves to the government. We already have no choice when it comes to paying taxes that support a government that we might not agree with. One could easily view that percentage of their paycheck as a percentage of the time they spent earning it. Why would you suddenly be worried about the whether the government has a right to your labor when it has established long ago that it does?

So you're already giving your time to the government and must continue to do so in order to remain free. The only legal way you can avoid supporting the government is to earn no income at all, which I have no trouble equating to the situation of someone who forgoes the service time and therefore is not allowed to vote. Paying no income taxes means earning no income and likely being poor, Doing no service means getting no vote and no say in government. Not a perfect parallel, but close enough to say that we are already experiencing something of the kind.

What might be morally defensible however, is a test of competence. Making sure that the voter is literate and has some basic understanding of their government's functions and the issues at hand seems reasonable. However, such requirements have been grossly abused before and therefore, will not be reasonable for the foreseeable future.

The point is to get people that are most likely to make good decisions into the voting booths and keep the self-serving "let's vote ourselves bread and circuses" individuals out. The challenge is making sure that the culling process somehow does not cause the division between voters and non-voters to be along racial, religious, political, or socioeconomic boundaries. That's why I settled on a term of service instead of an intelligence test or a voting fee or a math problem at the booth before the person is allowed to pull the lever or anything else along those lines. We're not really selecting for intelligence here, but a certain degree of selflessness, ability to delay gratification, and sufficient interest in the political process to go through such a trial in the first place.

I have no idea how a body of voters made up only of those who had completed 2 years of difficult, low paying civil service would vote. Hopefully they would still represent the entire spectrum of human opinion, only smaller and with each individual acutely aware of the value of his/her vote and strongly motivated to make it count. By and large these people would be able to make hard decisions that account for more than just themselves, and would have good reason to be knowledgeable on the subjects at hand while not coming from any single identifiable group.