22 ms·

Would this have a similar outcome as the "lottery" for jury duty? What happens if somebody who really doesn't want to do it is chosen?

breuleux 7y ago
That's a very good point. I currently lean towards requiring every citizen to register for the lottery once every ten or so years (for one year of service). If they are picked, they have to go, except for serious unforeseen circumstances, but at least they would be able to plan for it to some extent. This might also require a cultural shift for people to accept it, but maybe not a radical one.
- rolleiflex 7y ago
  For someone who doesn’t want to do it, a year is a very long time to come up with ‘serious unforeseen circumstances’. There is no point in trying to force people to do things - the best way is to change the job in such a way that people will want to take it. Pay them well, in other words, in money, in prestige, or otherwise.
  - breuleux 7y ago
    By serious unforeseen circumstances I mean things like getting cancer or being crippled in a freak car accident. Nobody's going to do either of these things just to get out of government duty. Also, what's important is for the sample to be representative, so it's fine if a very motivated minority gets out of it, as long as it doesn't create a significative bias in the lottery. But yes, they should be paid handsomely. And as I mentioned in another comment, their debts should be paid in full to make them less vulnerable to bribes.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > the best way is to change the job in such a way that people will want to take it This isn't a change, it's what we have now. The problem is that the kind of people that want to take it are not the kind of people you actually want doing it.
- zorked 7y ago
  Being government for a year is a better deal than military service, and people don't complain too much about that.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- stale2002 7y ago
  > If they are picked, they have to go, except for serious unforeseen circumstances If I was "forced" into a political position, then what I would do is purposefully sabotage the position I was in, out of spite. What are you going to do? Arrest me because I voted a certain way? That doesn't sound easily enforceable. Be careful what kind of slavery you force people into. Those slaves might just fight back (in this case, by voting for bad policies.).
  - breuleux 7y ago
    I mean, if you want to be a sociopath about it, that's part of the risk in the system. As long as we can confidently establish that a supermajority of people would take the job seriously and would be happy with the compensation, we can afford a few bad apples. Either way, I can imagine that if you were to pledge to purposefully vote against the population's interests in front of a judge, and the judge bought it, they may be allowed to disqualify you on these grounds (and probably slap you with a fine). I wouldn't want to make it impossible to get out of this duty, just difficult enough that most people wouldn't do it.
    - stale2002 7y ago
      > I mean, if you want to be a sociopath about it Ehh, the sociopaths are the ones who want to force people into slavery, for "civic duty" or whatever. The rest of us might fight back in ways that you don't like.
      - breuleux 7y ago
        Voting for policies that hurt people at large isn't "fighting back". What has the public done to you to deserve this? It's like working at a restaurant and spitting in customers' food because the restaurant owner is overworking you, and then saying no, the sociopath is the guy who's forcing me to come in on the weekend. Fuck that noise, you're both sociopaths. If you're unhappy about being forced into duty, you can abstain from voting at all, or you can focus your energy on changing the system so that it works on a purely voluntary basis. That's perfectly fine. But let's not pretend that voting for bad policies, which will inevitably hurt people who have nothing to do with your predicament, is a proper way to fight back.
scythe 7y ago
Use a tax incentive. It should be set high enough that most people will consider it worth their time, but low enough that anyone who really doesn't want to be in politics won't be financially harmed.
bduerst 7y ago
What happens if somebody doesn't really want to do jury duty?

breuleux 7y ago

That's a very good point. I currently lean towards requiring every citizen to register for the lottery once every ten or so years (for one year of service). If they are picked, they have to go, except for serious unforeseen circumstances, but at least they would be able to plan for it to some extent. This might also require a cultural shift for people to accept it, but maybe not a radical one.

rolleiflex 7y ago
For someone who doesn’t want to do it, a year is a very long time to come up with ‘serious unforeseen circumstances’. There is no point in trying to force people to do things - the best way is to change the job in such a way that people will want to take it. Pay them well, in other words, in money, in prestige, or otherwise.
- breuleux 7y ago
  By serious unforeseen circumstances I mean things like getting cancer or being crippled in a freak car accident. Nobody's going to do either of these things just to get out of government duty. Also, what's important is for the sample to be representative, so it's fine if a very motivated minority gets out of it, as long as it doesn't create a significative bias in the lottery. But yes, they should be paid handsomely. And as I mentioned in another comment, their debts should be paid in full to make them less vulnerable to bribes.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > the best way is to change the job in such a way that people will want to take it This isn't a change, it's what we have now. The problem is that the kind of people that want to take it are not the kind of people you actually want doing it.
zorked 7y ago
Being government for a year is a better deal than military service, and people don't complain too much about that.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
stale2002 7y ago
> If they are picked, they have to go, except for serious unforeseen circumstances If I was "forced" into a political position, then what I would do is purposefully sabotage the position I was in, out of spite. What are you going to do? Arrest me because I voted a certain way? That doesn't sound easily enforceable. Be careful what kind of slavery you force people into. Those slaves might just fight back (in this case, by voting for bad policies.).
- breuleux 7y ago
  I mean, if you want to be a sociopath about it, that's part of the risk in the system. As long as we can confidently establish that a supermajority of people would take the job seriously and would be happy with the compensation, we can afford a few bad apples. Either way, I can imagine that if you were to pledge to purposefully vote against the population's interests in front of a judge, and the judge bought it, they may be allowed to disqualify you on these grounds (and probably slap you with a fine). I wouldn't want to make it impossible to get out of this duty, just difficult enough that most people wouldn't do it.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    > I mean, if you want to be a sociopath about it Ehh, the sociopaths are the ones who want to force people into slavery, for "civic duty" or whatever. The rest of us might fight back in ways that you don't like.
    - breuleux 7y ago
      Voting for policies that hurt people at large isn't "fighting back". What has the public done to you to deserve this? It's like working at a restaurant and spitting in customers' food because the restaurant owner is overworking you, and then saying no, the sociopath is the guy who's forcing me to come in on the weekend. Fuck that noise, you're both sociopaths. If you're unhappy about being forced into duty, you can abstain from voting at all, or you can focus your energy on changing the system so that it works on a purely voluntary basis. That's perfectly fine. But let's not pretend that voting for bad policies, which will inevitably hurt people who have nothing to do with your predicament, is a proper way to fight back.

scythe 7y ago

Use a tax incentive. It should be set high enough that most people will consider it worth their time, but low enough that anyone who really doesn't want to be in politics won't be financially harmed.

bduerst 7y ago

What happens if somebody doesn't really want to do jury duty?