All citizens should be required to perform a specified amount of public service. Such service would benefit not only the country as a whole but also the individual participants.
The potential benefits of mandatory public service must be weighed against administrative problems and concerns about individual liberty. On balance, the costs to a nation and to the participants would probably exceed the benefits.
Admittedly, a colorable argument can be made for mandatory public service. It would help alleviate free-rider problems, where those who do not contribute benefit from the efforts of those who do. It would mitigate pressing social problemswith education, public health and safety, and the environment. It might instill in participants a sense of civic duty, community, and individual responsibility. Finally, it has worked on a smaller scale, particularly in urban areas, where renewal projects succeed in making communities safer, healthier, and more prosperous.
Far more compelling, however, are the arguments against mandatory public service. First, who would make assignments and decide what projects are worthwhile, and how would compliance be assured? Resolving enforcement issues would require government control, in turn requiring increased taxes and/or cuts in other social programs, thereby nullifying the benefits of mandatory public service. Second, a mandatory system would open the floodgates to incompetence and inexperience. Finally, the whole notion seems tantamount to Communism insofar as each citizen must contribute, according to his or her ability, to a strong state. Modern history informs us that such systems do not work. One could argue that mandatory public service is simply a tax in the form of labor rather than dollars. However, compulsory labor smacks of involuntary servitude, whereas financial taxes do not.