Public Service
A month or so back I picked up a copy of Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers the 1959 sci fi classic which spawned (and I use that word intentionally) a hilarious and terrible eponymous film in the late 90’s staring Doogie Howser among others. As entertainingly bad as the movie was, the original novel was an entirely different beast. The basic conceit of the book is a form of government in which full citizenship, which carries with it the privilege of voting, is not automatic but must be earned. In the case of Starship Troopers this is accomplished by doing a military tour of duty (hence the controversy surrounding the book when it was first published in ’59). However, it got me thinking and started a discussion between Cato, Prometheus and I (who were all hiking in Yosemite park at the time) about the merits and flaws of various optional and compulsory public service programs.
Israel requires a year or two of military service from all citizens (with a few exceptions made for Ultra Orthodox Jews), and many northern European Countries require a year of public service (which can be fulfilled with both military and civilian employment). I would like to see what everyone thinks about the idea in general and about specific implementations. As I see it there are several different levels of implementation that a country (and for argument, lets say we are speaking about the US) could try such as:
1) A completely optional program or group of programs (which could be state-run, privately run (with some sort of state accreditation system) or a mix of both) which would be linked to financial incentives such as tax breaks. We already have programs of this sort in the form of Americorps and Teach for America, but I am envisioning an expansion and diversification of programs as well as perhaps a harmonization of the incentives. Military service could also be included in this.
2) A compulsory system for all citizens in which they are required to serve for a certain number of months (or years) within a certain timeframe (between the ages of 18 and 28 say). This is the sort of system employed by Germany and Israel in various forms. Obviously in this case there is little point in incentivizing the programs since they are compulsory (not to say that the compensation should not be adequate to allow people to take the year or two off from their careers).
3) An optional program, the completion of which earns one certain extra rights not enjoyed by non participants (ie. the right to vote, or run for public office). This is obviously the most extreme, but I still think it is an interesting thought experiment.
I will leave further elaboration of my thoughts on the pros and cons of each for the comments, but I will say that the point of all of these programs is to inculcate a sense of civic responsibility for, and dare I say ownership of one’s society and government. I open the floor to any and all thoughts about one or all of the systems mentioned or about the idea of public service in general. Fire away!
posted by Chris @ 9:42 AM
3 Comments:
I've expressed my thoughts on this more completely elsewhere, but I'm 100% in favor of two years mandatory civil service upon high school graduation. No exemptions for anyone save for tailoring the method of service to certain disabilities. No draft, but as I've said before, I feel that military service would be a fairly popular track, for much the same reason that football is a fairly popular elective in high school. Any legal age immigrants would also go through the service, but with ESL training where applicable and requested. The service would be paid a wage, possibly on a sliding scale weighted towards the less desired positions (such as sanitation) but then everyone would enter college, the workforce, or maybe parenthood at 20 with a real-life skill set which was not only available to all, but required of all.
Not to mention that citizens are likely to be much more appreciative of their country when they've truly contributed to it. (Just read Thursday's Daily News editorial by Bill Gates' dad, who claims that the Estate Tax must be upheld - Yay! - and that those who get rich in this country have the economic infrastructure of the country to largely thank for it, and thus shouldn't act so righteous about not owing the government anything. Good reading.)
Briefly (I'll return with more later), I think that one of the major problems a country would need to overcome in implementing such a system, is finding a way to stop it from exsasorbating social inequlities. This is espcially a problem if the program is optional but yields a privelage. People who are burdened with familial obligations (sick parents, a dependent sibling, debt, a family etc) would be sacraficing much more to take a year or two out of their careers in order to do public service. Thus you would have a large group of people who may want to serve and earn the privlages of serving (or who may be legally bound to serve) but who are financially unable to do so. And you can bet that those people will be the one's already in less than enviable social positions. Meanwhile, well-to-do citizens who get married later, or have self sufficient families supporting them, will have an easier time of commiting to the service.
Perhaps the answer is to make allowances like child support. In a mandatory system, this whole issue is somewhat less of a problem because everyone must serve and so the disadvantaged will at least not be deprived of optional, earned rights which they would like to obtain (through service) but are unable to commit to. However, even in a mandetory system it would still be a disproportionately heavy burden on the economically disadvantaged, and might trap them between the rock of personal obligations and the hard spot of government sanction (for failing to complete the required service).
Since this is all a "thought experiment," I will talk about Option 3.
The most successful classical societies ran on this principle. In fact, only land-owners in Rome could fight or vote. The city's "tribe" system - used both for war-levies and for voting purposes - was in fact based on family ties and wealth. Need I note that this system worked successfully for roughly 400 years, whereas our own system is fumbling at 220?
Now, it can be argued that the classical system is very exclusive - fluidity between classes was pretty rare - but it was very stable and very consistent: each group had certain rights and responsibilities, and as long as everyone did their part, it hummed along nicely.
What it couldn't handle was manifest success, such as Greece enjoyed after the defeat of Persia and Rome after the Punic Wars. Why? Well, the upper classes were more positioned to take advantage of the new opportunities. So they did, and became corrupt and made a mockery of the whole system. Empire was the only recourse.
So I think the system described as "option three" can only work in fairly small-scale societies (city-states) in which inequalities of wealth and status are still measured in a human scale. At a larger scale, the privileged few become a state-within-a-state in short order and ruin the whole thing.
It's not just a classical problem: consider the example of the Mamluks in the Muslim world. They were slaves whose particular purpose was to serve as soldiers - right up to the general - of the regime, but how long did it take before these "slaves" ruled all Egypt?
I think a major problem with option three for present-day application is the slight disingenuousness of its staunchest partisans. Do they think it would be the best idea, or do they fancy themselves as leaders of a socio-military caste that would finally have the authority to 'do the right thing'? I mean, look at Ayn Rand and her works(please, just this once). Is she talking about a viable system, or is she talking about Ayn Rand and Her Superbuddies running the show? "You see, all we need are Nietzschean Supermen without sentimentality, who happen to be us..."
In review: in a small scale, option three is a fairly good idea. But on a large scale, it seems to invite despotism.
Post a Comment
<< Home