3 ms·
> But who is going to give up their career to be a citizen watcher for just a few years? A Citizen. Rights and responsibilities, etc. > Likewise, random selec
by ethbr0 4y ago
> But who is going to give up their career to be a citizen watcher for just a few years?
A Citizen. Rights and responsibilities, etc.
> Likewise, random selection may not yield a cohort with the correct capacity to properly administer the system.
Of course. That's the downside of random cohorts. But compared to the alternatives (that we actively gripe about), occasional lack of ability is the lesser of two evils.
This would also be lessened if there weren't a way to get out of it. Don't want to serve when your number is called? Feel free to be a citizen of another country.
- giantg2 4y ago"A Citizen. Rights and responsibilities, etc." Haha OK. Why not do that for police and judge positions too? Then you'd eliminate the need for this. "That's the downside of random cohorts. But compared to the alternatives (that we actively gripe about), occasional lack of ability is the lesser of two evils." That's one opinion. "This would also be lessened if there weren't a way to get out of it." In one way I agree. In practice I don't. Forced incompetence is generally going to lead to really poor outcomes. By theway, how are Putin's conscripts doing?
- ethbr0 4y ago> Why not do that for police and judge positions too? Because police and judge positions require specialized skill sets and training, and both have access to the force of government, which would seem to merit a higher minimum bar of professionalism. Oversight's "feature" is that there are fewer negative consequences when it's inappropriately applied. > By theway, how are Putin's conscripts doing? You're arguing Putin's conscripts are an example of when a country's best and brightest aren't allowed to excuse themselves from random selection?