Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

There is already a legal framework for compelled community service.

Dvergar /
Quisling

I'm aware of that. And that's why I raise the point. Because that framework amounts to nothing more than a bunch of self-appointed "experts" signing off on things they have no stake in and with absolutely no social or economic value.

It's an arbitrary system, and like all arbitrary systems it's inherently unjust. If Britney Spears gets arrested for drug charges, do you really think you'll see her in an orange jumpsuit spiking cans with a stick? Do you really see some black guy getting a generous (and also worthless to society) deal like retroactive credit for something he did in the past?

I've seen a lot of these community service efforts firsthand. Because there is no bottom line and no real responsibility, in practice individuals assigned to perform community service pretty much just sit it through. The result is wasted time and money and a culture of cynicism.

It's also worth noting that in the legal system, there's a whole network of judges and social workers that make these decisions. Those people get paid. And as everyone knows, that system is disgustingly expensive.

If the goal is to save money on welfare by ensuring the funds aren't abused, do we really want to pour more money into creating an administrative bureaucracy that rubber-stamps stuff on a biased and arbitrary basis?

I think a better solution in that regards is to actually create an organization responsible for creating projects of real value, like the WPA or Army Corps of Engineers. We still use the Hoover Dam and other projects created as a result of such efforts, but "community service" has yet to create anything of value.

Another idea might be to organize these people into companies of 500 or so and subcontract them out to private industry. Essentially the government agency would serve as a sort of temp contractor.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

This.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

Not to mention that those programs could also be used to train the participants so they could walk away with some real skills. I don't think a lot of people realize that there are a lot of jobs in construction that require an incredible amount of experience/knowledge/skill.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

I agree. Craftsmen are very smart and skilled people so that's why I'd be hesitant to give the average welfare recipient any significant role on a jobsite other than cleaning up, digging holes, moving materials and so on... and that's if they're physically capable of doing all that. Anything more (which involves knowledge) might be a detriment, especially if you had to cycle welfare recipients so everyone has a chance to 'earn' their checks; that's just too many unskilled people to worry about.

all it boils down to is that responsible people are going to have to make decisions for irresponsible people.

Yeah but irresponsible people far too often have decision making power.

Which is why this country was originally founded as an oligarchy (though that word has come to have negative connotations). You couldn't vote unless you owned property. It was considered that anyone who owned property was a)invested in the community to care about the outcomes of the elections, b)responsible enough to understand would those outcomes would be, c)mature/aged enough to have the wisdom that comes with a few years, and d)wouldn't be voting themselves largesse from the treasury as they were already self-sufficient. As we've added more and more people to the pool of voters, we've passed the decisions into less capable hands.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

For the record, oligarchy has always had negative connotations. Even in ancient times it was universally regarded as the worst form of government (although since then, feudalism was invented and arguably stole the title).

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.

I'm not an expert on the Greeks, who apparently came up with all this stuff, but I was under the impression that in the democracies they developed, you had to participate in the defense of the state in order to vote. Didn't the oligarchy develop as more men were able to arm themselves for combat and become eligible to participate, and wasn't it preceded by less representative forms? Can't remember, to be honest, but that is the swill milling about the addled noodle tonight.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

Other way around. Historically, democracy has been most successful when technology is such that it favors citizen-armies; oligarchy and feudalism tend to prosper when military power is in the hands of the few.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.