[breuleux]

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.

[stale2002]

> 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]

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]

> 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]

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.

[stale2002]

> What has the public done to you to deserve this?

Well, what they did was force me into temporary slavery.

> It's like working at a restaurant and spitting in customers' food

If the customers were forcing me to work in a restaurant, I think I might do that.

> If you're unhappy about being forced into duty, you can abstain from voting at all

Why would I do that, when a much more effective method of screwing over the people who forced me into this, is by voting for bad policy?

The people who would force me into this want good policy. So I do the opposite of what they want.

This is why you don't do stuff like this. Because the people who you are forcing into slavery aren't going to play "nice" with your plan. They will instead take actions that you don't like, regardless of your complaints about it, or regardless how "immoral" you believe it to be.

I do not have to live by your code of ethics. I will instead live by mine, and screw over your plan in the way that hurts everyone the most.

You don't get to complain about "fairness" or the "right" way for me to protest, when you are forcing me into slavery.

I would engage in this behavior specially because it would very effectively sabotage this plan to force people into the work.

[breuleux]

What? The "public" didn't force you to do anything. The public is just people. You're part of the public, for Christ's sake. A representative who would act as you propose wouldn't be screwing some mysterious nefarious entity that likes to enslave people, they'd be screwing you.

> You don't get to complain about "fairness" or the "right" way for me to protest, when you are forcing me into slavery.

What about the part of the public who doesn't like this system, doesn't want to force you to do anything, and would like to change the way it works? If you're "sabotaging" the system by voting for "bad policies," you're screwing them over along with everyone else. Can they complain? Because I can guarantee you that they will.

Anyway. Let me put it this way: if 95% of the public supports this system, it doesn't matter how hard you try to sabotage it. It won't do dick. If a significant percentage hates the system, let's say 20%, then 20% of the "enslaved" representatives really want to change the system to work on a voluntary basis. Surely they can bloody negotiate with the remaining 80% to enact a reform, instead of lashing out against the public at large, who can't really do anything about the system because they weren't picked by the lottery.

[rolleiflex]

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.

[pdonis]

> 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.

[breuleux]

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.

[zorked]

Being government for a year is a better deal than military service, and people don't complain too much about that.