2 ms·
This is already much more sensible than paying above a threshold in taxes, or owning a certain surface area of land, or coming from the right families. We'd hav
by kergonath 5y ago
This is already much more sensible than paying above a threshold in taxes, or owning a certain surface area of land, or coming from the right families. We'd have to define "public service" in such a way that absolutely everyone could perform it, including for example disabled people. Otherwise, it's just a requirement to have been fit (and male, in most cases) at some point in your life.
- diggernet 5y agoI am unaware of any definition of the phrase "public service" which requires physical fitness or masculinity. We are not talking about military service here. The dictionary definition I pulled up quickly is: 1. Employment within a governmental system 2. A service performed for the benefit of the public I cannot imagine how #2 could be any more inclusive than it already is. If anything, the current definition is overbroad, to where almost anything could be spun as public service.