Obama: Pro-Slavery. ::cough:: I Mean "Compulsory Volunteerism" ?? WTF ??

angelica

FiveB247x wrote:

Firstly, if you honestly believe that "forced" volunteerism is comparable to slavery, you seriously need your head examined. Get a grip and come back to reality.

Secondly, however you want to designate such a program - whether forced or a new way to help society by acclimating kids to help those around them in some manner. Do you not recognize all the good things that an come from this? Is our society that "on track" where instituting such a program, where teenagers put down video game controllers, turn off their ipods, tvs, computers, and similar to help less fortunate people and issues in our nation? Consider it an internship into the reality of our society in which they'll gain experience and have their eyes opened to the larger world around them through a particular issue, cause, belief while become more socially responsible citizens. Isn't that the kind of nation we want to become? So why wouldn't we embrace something that promotes such core values and morals?

This is all good and fine. It just misses the point.

jeffbr

FiveB247x wrote:

Secondly, however you want to designate such a program - whether forced or a new way to help society by acclimating kids to help those around them in some manner. Do you not recognize all the good things that an come from this? Is our society that "on track" where instituting such a program, where teenagers put down video game controllers, turn off their ipods, tvs, computers, and similar to help less fortunate people and issues in our nation? Consider it an internship into the reality of our society in which they'll gain experience and have their eyes opened to the larger world around them through a particular issue, cause, belief while become more socially responsible citizens. Isn't that the kind of nation we want to become? So why wouldn't we embrace something that promotes such core values and morals?

So as long as the end is paradise, the means can be compulsion and that is ok?

To answer your last 2 questions:

No; and whose values and morals?

Kel Varnsen

Sludge Factory wrote:

But they are different. The very definition of volunteer displays that. You can't force someone to do something that is defined as "performing a service voluntarily" and then label it volunteer work; that is more like forced servitude.

You start forcing people to volunteer as a requirement to pass to the next grade and then it becomes something else; it is no longer volunteer work.

That's fine, so are you saying if they called it something other than volunteering you would be ok with it. They had that at my high school when I was a kid and I believe they called it community service. The service I did was way better than a lot of the other crap I had to do for homework, it taught me a lot about paying my dues and gave me the experience so that it turned into an actual job by the summer.

FiveB247x

I understand many of you feel it's "forced" and object. But what is the point - is it not to help build a better, more responsible society? Many of you argue that because this is forced, it misses the point, yet couldn't you make the same exact case of the educational system we have? We force children to go to school in which case many of them are taught or learning things they have zero interest in and more importantly have zero chance of every applying in life or adding to society. Is that a bad system too? Fact is we have our education system setup (in theory) because it is supposed to help society in the end - the very same thing this new program offers.

angelica wrote:

This is all good and fine. It just misses the point.

blackredyellow

jeffbr wrote:

So as long as the end is paradise, the means can be compulsion and that is ok?

To answer your last 2 questions:

No; and whose values and morals?

So having a nation of socially responsible people isn't something that we should strive for?

And as far as whos morals, my idea of this sort of service program would leave that up to the kids/parents. If working in a homeless shelter is something that fits in with your morals, then great... if that doesn't do it for you and you'd rather help clean up a nature area, then great too... if it means helping with a church program to spend time with elderly members of the congregation, then that qualifies too...

FiveB247x

If every child or parent got to select the organization, cause or area for which the child would volunteer - how is that a problem?

jeffbr wrote:

So as long as the end is paradise, the means can be compulsion and that is ok?

To answer your last 2 questions:

No; and whose values and morals?

AmentsChick

Hi! I just had to chime in here with my two cents.

My parents made me "volunteer" at a hospital as a candy striper when I was in high school. I hated them for it, but looking back it was a great experience and even at the time felt like I was contributing to society. Not only that but it gave me some knowledge about pain, suffering and poverty..which, growing up in a white upper-middle class lifestyle, I had never known.

And then later I was able to put it on a resume.

angelica

Kel Varnsen wrote:

That's fine, so are you saying if they called it something other than volunteering you would be ok with it. They had that at my high school when I was a kid and I believe they called it community service.

In my view, it's much more than dressing it up with different rhetoric. For example, here, where it's mandatory to complete 40 'volunteer' hours before a high school diploma is given, they must access placements that ARE volunteer. It need to be assessed as volunteer work or it doesn't count. Therefore to just change the name at the school end will come off as disingenuous, when it's really the same thing as if it were called 'volunteer'.

Kids are very smart.

Which is why my son tells me many of his friends have falsified their hours in order to graduate. It is not the act of honour those in authority would like to impose on them and that it looks like in theory...forcing kids to volunteer. It's something very different.

angelica

FiveB247x wrote:

I understand many of you feel it's "forced" and object. But what is the point - is it not to help build a better, more responsible society? Many of you argue that because this is forced, it misses the point, yet couldn't you make the same exact case of the educational system we have? We force children to go to school in which case many of them are taught or learning things they have zero interest in and more importantly have zero chance of every applying in life or adding to society. Is that a bad system too? Fact is we have our education system setup (in theory) because it is supposed to help society in the end - the very same thing this new program offers.

from your point of view, as you define it, that may be the point.

creating responsible human beings is very, very different than what I see here, and with this proposed dynamic...a dynamic that already exists where I live.

While arguing against the point, the point continues to be missed.

farfromglorified

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

well, i'd like to just say "no further questions" and leave it at that.

however, this whole notion of "cherry picking" and accusing me of being focused on issues that are sub-issues of sub-issues is infuriating!

with this attitude, it seems like you are saying that we the people should just lay down and take every transgression that is threatened against our constitution.

LOL...

Dude, you can cherry pick all you'd like. If this plan infuriates you, that's fine with me. Your reaction, however, amuses me, and your attempts to link this to "slavery" are silly -- and that's from someone who believes a lot of government plans amount to slavery.

I mean, fuck it, right?
Yes. Of COURSE the DOE is unconstitutional and all of public education is fundamentaly a farce.

The DOE absolutely could be believed to be unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court (the body the Constitution designates as its interpreter) does not. So you need to be a bit more careful with these kinds of statements.

But this assumption that because the system is broken already, we should therefore allow policy makers to come along and absolutely SHATTER it, is simply absurd.

LOL...this plan "shatters" nothing. It's just yet another tax credit for behavior the federal government wishes to subsidize.

Why is it silly to attempt to stand up against, and more importantly explain to and warn others against, such bad and unconstitutinal policies?

Shit, most people here have NO idea waht the fuck i am saying.
They have ZERO understanding of the constitutionality of this issue, or how it simply serves to further degrade their supreme law, and set bad precedent.

And here you stand, accusing me of "cherry picking" and being asinine for it.

All i want is for people to think criticaly about their options; to understand what the supreme law of the land IS; and to hopefuly be motivated to defend it -- regardless of how fluffly and lovely some new legislation sounds.

No offense, but you have no monopoly on "understanding what the supreme law of the land IS", nor are you defending much except for your ego and your distaste for Obama.

Your point of view is a broad philosophical, legal, and political statement. Applying it to such a small issue makes you look worse than the issue itself. If you have a broad beef with federal excercises in education financing (which is a very good beef), then you'd be wiser to actually debate this through the context of the DoE's existence, the vast amount of money and influence they wield, and the poor results they've achieved relative to tax payer returns and student potential. Doing it like this simply makes you look like you have a hard-on for Obama.

Vince

The 13th Admendment describes the difference between “free labor and unfree labor.” The Obama plan is not free labor. It includes expanding existing programs like AmeriCorps by three-fold, and the Peace Corps, among others. Secondly, it offers college students a $4,000 tax credit for 100 hours of community service. Obama would set a goal of 50 hours for high school and middle school students. The plan does not make that a requirement. He is essentially offering a tax credit to students if they volunteer their time. Sounds like a good idea.

Involuntary Servitude http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/1581fin.htm
Refers to a person held by actual force, threats of force, or threats of legal Coercion in a condition of slavery – compulsory service or labor against his or her will. This also includes the condition in which people are compelled to work against their will by a "climate of fear" evoked by the use of force, the threat of force, or the threat of legal coercion (i.e., suffer legal consequences unless compliant with demands made upon them) which is sufficient to compel service against a person's will. The first U.S. Supreme Court case to uphold the ban against involuntary servitude was Bailey v. Alabama (1911).

Forced Labor http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/1581fin.htm
Labor or service obtained by threats of serious harm or physical restraint; by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe they would suffer serious harm or physical restraint if they did not perform such labor or services:by means of the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process.

angelica

FiveB247x wrote:

...yet couldn't you make the same exact case of the educational system we have? We force children to go to school in which case many of them are taught or learning things they have zero interest in and more importantly have zero chance of every applying in life or adding to society. Is that a bad system too? Fact is we have our education system setup (in theory) because it is supposed to help society in the end - the very same thing this new program offers.

Oh, and for the record, all of our contrived human systems that are designed from ego, and our ideas of 'bettering' humanity and life, are seriously and deeply flawed. Like the school systems. Unfortunately, most people are so entrenched in the views of such systems that they are entirely unable to grasp this, much less understand how flawed they are and to what great cost of human potential.

And yet, that's a whole other story, beyond the inherent flaws in forced volunteering.

farfromglorified

blackredyellow wrote:

Not really worth a response because it's like comparing apples and platypuses...

Requiring high school kids to do some sort of community service (this plan says 50 hours, so like an hour a week) as part of their education isn't even remotely comparable to buying and forcing people into grueling labor based on race.

Of course it's comparable. It's not the same, but it's comparable. Anytime you force a human being to labor for you, it's slavery. It doesn't matter what your intentions are or your justications are, nor do the conditions or labor need to be the same as in 19th century america.

jeffbr

blackredyellow wrote:

So having a nation of socially responsible people isn't something that we should strive for?

Having a nation of people who are conditioned by their governments to behave in an officially sanctioned socially responsible manner isn't something we should strive for.

Having a nation of people who willingly help one another is.

blackredyellow wrote:

And as far as whos morals, my idea of this sort of service program would leave that up to the kids/parents. If working in a homeless shelter is something that fits in with your morals, then great... if that doesn't do it for you and you'd rather help clean up a nature area, then great too... if it means helping with a church program to spend time with elderly members of the congregation, then that qualifies too...

I LOVE the idea of volunteering, and my kids and I do it. I LOVE the idea of helping build a better community, helping people out of tough situations, etc...

I HATE any notion of government forcing me to do those things. Some of you seem quite comfortable having the ends justify the means. I put just as much emphasis on the means.

farfromglorified

FiveB247x wrote:

I understand many of you feel it's "forced" and object. But what is the point - is it not to help build a better, more responsible society? Many of you argue that because this is forced, it misses the point, yet couldn't you make the same exact case of the educational system we have? We force children to go to school in which case many of them are taught or learning things they have zero interest in and more importantly have zero chance of every applying in life or adding to society. Is that a bad system too? Fact is we have our education system setup (in theory) because it is supposed to help society in the end - the very same thing this new program offers.

"A better, more responsible society" to whom??? Stop implying universal values where they don't exist. Human beings will seek out and work for value. If the things you talk about had such universal values, people would not need to be forced en masse into them.

Compulsory education is, in itself, a form of slavery even if, in your opinion, it makes "a better, more responsible society".

farfromglorified

blackredyellow wrote:

So having a nation of socially responsible people isn't something that we should strive for?

It's certainly something you should strive for, yes. There are many things you should strive for. Something's existence as a desirable, however, does not justify any means you use to reach it.

angelica

jeffbr wrote:

Having a nation of people who are conditioned by their governments to behave in an officially sanctioned socially responsible manner isn't something we should strive for.

Having a nation of people who willingly help one another is.

Very nice!

Its Evolution Baby

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Maybe FFG can jump in here and explain where such an arrangement is provided for in the grant of federal powers within the constitution. I mean, since he seems to be so convinced that this is an exchange of labor for benefit, and is all hunky-dorey.

Also, like i said, it is specifically in contradiction with the principle of GENERAL welfare. You have now moved to a society which provides for the SELECTED welfare of a "voluntary" few.

I maintain that this is above the mandates provided for federal government, and therefore not okay.

again, regardless of any benefit.

and accuse me of biased partisan bullshit all you want.

no one in this thread has addressed the fundamental concernt that such an act is not within the constitutional limits of government authority.

:(

Because its optional. How don't you get that? If you don't want to spend 100 hours of your life for community service then don't.

If you do you get a $4000 credit towards tuition.

Seems very simple to understand. It's still the freedom of choice we've always had in this country.

FiveB247x

I think the main point is that though. If it helps kids and parents in varying aspects what's the harm? And aren't curriculums and needs to graduate different in many, many places as well? I never had something like this in school and albeit kids may not love it, in the long term would hopefully recognize it's importance as would responsible adults.

I keep hearing from many, that they don't argue the impact, but instead don't like being "forced" to do so. But let me ask this, how much of the mandatory things in children's schools are absolutely necessary, yet you have no complaints about them being mandatory? Does a child really need certain levels of math above the norm which aren't applied unless your a doctor or scientist or similar? Should a child be forced to read specific books and told what the meaning is supposed to be? All these things are totally unnessary and arbitrary at best when it comes down to the facts, yet something like this which directly impacts society for the better is an issue?

angelica wrote:

from your point of view, as you define it, that may be the point.

creating responsible human beings is very, very different than what I see here, and with this proposed dynamic...a dynamic that already exists where I live.

While arguing against the point, the point continues to be missed.

Vince

I can't believe that we are debating an oped written by a neoconservative who tends to take the extreme point of view only to get attention. The assertion that Barack's program initiative violates the 13th amendment is ludicrous.