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

Rhinocerous Surprise

So this "volunteering" is either forced, or comes with a $4000 paycheck? I love this world sometimes.

FiveB247x

So are you saying we should undo the educational system in our society because it is forced?

We live in a world where money rules all. People are forced to go to school and then forced into the workplace to make ends meat. This is the society and civilization we have not only taken on, but embrace and push onto others. I certainly don't agree with it, but it is what we currently employee. If adjusting graduation requirements to include mandatory work time for the betterment of society then it's a step in the right direction for everyone. In college, these are called "internships". They aim to acclimate students to the real world. It's obvious internships aren't mandatory in all fields, mostly they are optional at best. So what is wrong with offering or employing such a program which helps the kids grow and gain experience, while it's a benefit to them, their family and society?

farfromglorified wrote:

"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".

DriftingByTheStorm

Its Evolution Baby wrote:

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.

Apparently i am not allowed to explain this to you, because, according to FFG i am just acting on my ego and am displaying a very limited understanding of the constitution.

In MY OPINION, offering credits to SOME people based on their actions goes against the principles of our constitution. It violates the concept of providing for the GENERAL welfare, and instead provides for the SELECTED welfare.

However, FFG has "rightly" explained to me that i am "cherry picking" and that, unless i am willing to devote all my efforts to the immediate task of shutting down the Department of Education -- which he reminds me the Supreme Court approves of -- i should just shut up.

I had no idea that my point of view was just a broad philosophical, legal, and political statement. That defending such "broad philospohical, and legal" concepts such as that of our constitution some how makes me come off as a pompous arrogant egotistical brat.

Further, FFG now has me confused, because he originaly railed me (twice no less) for calling this slavery. I see now, he seems to be calling it slavery.

??? WTF ???

Any way.
I'm done here.

Let the Obama-bators carry this thread in to the oblivion of obscure value judging and unsubstantiated expression of opinion.

:(

angelica

FiveB247x wrote:

I think the main point is that though. If it helps kids and parents in varying aspects what's the harm?

What I see is that this is the nice/nice people tell themselves, while the actual dynamic is nefarious, coercive and infringing.

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 totally support my son recognizing the inherent contradiction in compulsory volunteering. I support him feeling his feelings of opposition to this situation. On the other hand, I'm the volunteering/compassion queen. He knows this. My son is also one of the most idealist and intelligent people I know. He knows the concept of helping people, of selfless service, etc. It is very different than being coerced to do something nice. Even if we can get 70% of kids on board with a mindless adherence to authority, the principle cannot be justified. In the meantime, we create a majority of children who are being taught a distorted view of 'selfless service'...one that is not selfless service at all, but instead service in order to get something for self in return, and for fear of threat on some level.

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?

I've already answered this. Comparing one bad system to another and using that as justification for the first bad system is a flawed premise.

decides2dream

Vince wrote:

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.

don't be talking sensibly now...;)


far too many articles lately, with not full content, out of context. glad others at least later post in entirety, and/or a link...for full disclosure and information.


i am against 'forced' service, but i like options and encouragement. so i think thus far, sounds good. certainly not a bad idea, at all.

farfromglorified

FiveB247x wrote:

So are you saying we should undo the educational system in our society because it is forced?

LOL...no. I'm saying you should remove the force in your forced systems. Then you'll find out their true value.

We live in a world where money rules all. People are forced to go to school and then forced into the workplace to make ends meat. This is the society and civilization we have not only taken on, but embrace and push onto others. I certainly don't agree with it, but it is what we currently employee. If adjusting graduation requirements to include mandatory work time for the betterment of society then it's a step in the right direction for everyone. In college, these are called "internships". They aim to acclimate students to the real world. It's obvious internships aren't mandatory in all fields, mostly they are optional at best.

"Forced volunteering", something this plan does not amount to, wherein you are criminalizing the act of saying no, is actual force and, in the event that labor is taking place, amounts to slavery. To say that "people are forced to go to school" fits that standard. Criminal penalties exist for the act of not going to school or, more aptly, not sending your kids to school.

People are not "forced into the workplace" as there is no criminalization of not working. Millions of people don't work. Many have never worked. Any attempt, however, to criminalize not working, would then mean that people were in fact "forced into the workplace".

So what is wrong with offering or employing such a program which helps the kids grow and gain experience, while it's a benefit to them, their family and society?

There's nothing wrong with "kids growing and gaining experience, while it benefits them, their family and society". That's a great thing. Employing a tax credit to achieve this is not a terrible approach, but it's not a) a great approach as you have people doing it for poor reasons and b) it's an approach better left to the states.

Actually employing criminal penalties for not "volunteering" is absolutely insane and violates nearly every decent principle of American thought. To suggest that children, college students, or adults somehow have an obligation to your definition of "benefits" or "betterment" is to suggest that you have little regard for human freedoms, alternative perspectives, or humility.

farfromglorified

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Further, FFG now has me confused, because he originaly railed me (twice no less) for calling this slavery. I see now, he seems to be calling it slavery.

This plan, as Obama proposes it, it not slavery. The arguments of some here seem to be, however, as they propose compulsory community service without a connection to direct benefit or actual choice.

FiveB247x

People are taught behavior, ideas and beliefs. I'm sure your child albeit figuring out lots on his own, got much of his patterns from you and others - correct? That is no-more "infriging" than a program aimed at the same outcome. Our educational system isn't going to change, but we can change some aspects of it in order to help benefit society and those being educated in the process. That's all this program aims to do and can do. Also, installing a program that reinforces view of selfless-service or similar is silly. Everyone and everywhere in society already has that well instilled - blaming this kind of program certainly wouldn't be the guilty party. I'm also pretty certain that if someone is a responsible parent, they install these things into their children on their own and don't look to government and school as moral teachers in shaping such important ideas in their children. Perhaps that's the problem in itself?

angelica wrote:

What I see is that this is the nice/nice people tell themselves, while the actual dynamic is nefarious, coercive and infringing.


I totally support my son recognizing the inherent contradiction in compulsory volunteering. I support him feeling his feelings of opposition to this situation. On the other hand, I'm the volunteering/compassion queen. He knows this. My son is also one of the most idealist and intelligent people I know. He knows the concept of helping people, of selfless service, etc. It is very different than being coerced to do something nice. Even if we can get 70% of kids on board with a mindless adherence to authority, the principle cannot be justified. In the meantime, we create a majority of children who are being taught a distorted view of 'selfless service'...one that is not selfless service at all, but instead service in order to get something for self in return, and for fear of threat on some level.

I've already answered this. Comparing one bad system to another and using that as justification for the first bad system is a flawed premise.

FiveB247x

I disagree with much of what you stated and won't keep going back and forth as we'll begin to repeat ourselves.

But I would like to make this one comment in response to this: "To suggest that children, college students, or adults somehow have an obligation to your definition of "benefits" or "betterment" is to suggest that you have little regard for human freedoms, alternative perspectives, or humility."

Have a look around our society. We are no longer the bastion of hope, pillar of freedoms and experts of humility and similar. Generically speaking (collectively), we are a selfish, self-interested society filled with people looking out for themselves, while the government sets the climate. Most people are more concerned about their own bs, then helping out their fellow citizens and similar. This fact is apparent in just about every aspect of our daily lives. We see it on the news, read about it in the papers... it's who we are (either because we believe it or enable it). It is who we are because we have been taught to be and act this way, mostly because it is how to be the most successful in our civilization. There's no undoing this notion without creating a new system (something most do not want to do). But something we can alter, are ways to enact the same type of characteristics and benefits which bold well towards the way we want our society and civilization to be. Whether it's something small like volunteering (which this program addresses) or basic tenets of being a good, responsible citizen and person (things we could all easily agree on).

farfromglorified wrote:

LOL...no. I'm saying you should remove the force in your forced systems. Then you'll find out their true value.

"Forced volunteering", something this plan does not amount to, wherein you are criminalizing the act of saying no, is actual force and, in the event that labor is taking place, amounts to slavery. To say that "people are forced to go to school" fits that standard. Criminal penalties exist for the act of not going to school or, more aptly, not sending your kids to school.

People are not "forced into the workplace" as there is no criminalization of not working. Millions of people don't work. Many have never worked. Any attempt, however, to criminalize not working, would then mean that people were in fact "forced into the workplace".

There's nothing wrong with "kids growing and gaining experience, while it benefits them, their family and society". That's a great thing. Employing a tax credit to achieve this is not a terrible approach, but it's not a) a great approach as you have people doing it for poor reasons and b) it's an approach better left to the states.quote]

puremagic

Funny how a Bush Sr. policy that has been around for more than 15 years all of sudden has been transformed into an Obama is Pro Slavery policy. The same mandatory community service policy that has endured and been expanded upon throughout both the Clinton and Bush Jr. administrations.


1989-1990
President George H.W. Bush creates the Office of National Service in the White House and the Points of Light Foundation to foster volunteering.

1990
President Bush signs the National and Community Service Act of 1990 into law. The legislation authorizes grants to schools to support service-learning through Serve America (now known as Learn and Serve America) and demonstration grants for national service programs to youth corps, nonprofits, and colleges and universities.

1992
A bipartisan group of Senators drafts legislation to create the National Civilian Community Corps as a way to explore how to use post-Cold War military resources to help solve problems here at home.

The Maryland State Board of Education adopts a mandatory service requirement to graduate from high school.

1993
The Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development endorses the importance of linking service with learning.

http://www.nationalservice.gov/about/role_impact/history_timeline.asp

angelica

FiveB247x wrote:

People are taught behavior, ideas and beliefs. I'm sure your child albeit figuring out lots on his own, got much of his patterns from you and others - correct? That is no-more "infriging" than a program aimed at the same outcome.

No matter what my 'programming', or that of the school, society or what have you, the inherent contradiction with coercive volunteering exists. Even when many don't see or understand it.

baraka

I agree that 'compulsory volunteerism' is an oxymoron, although I'm not sure this is what Obama is proposing. I do have a question, though. Is there anyone here that believes in the abolition of compulsory education for children (those under 18)?

slightofjeff

I really don't have a strong opinion either way ... except for I'm kind of against the government forcing anybody to do anything. Also, I'm not really clear on the specifics of the Obama plan. However ...

1989-1990
President George H.W. Bush creates the Office of National Service in the White House and the Points of Light Foundation to foster volunteering.

"Fostering" volunteerism and "forcing" volunteerism are two different things. if I recall correctly, the 1000 pts of light program basically just recognized people for the good works they performed of their own accord. Not the same thing as (apparently) Obama is proposing.

1990
President Bush signs the National and Community Service Act of 1990 into law. The legislation authorizes grants to schools to support service-learning through Serve America (now known as Learn and Serve America) and demonstration grants for national service programs to youth corps, nonprofits, and colleges and universities.

This is interesting, but I'm not sure if it's the same as what Obama is proposing either. Here, the government is offering grants -- that's extra money -- to schools in order to assist with these projects. These projects aren't mandatory. The Obama plan -- if I'm reading correctly, and it's possible that I'm not -- would actually WITHHOLD funding from schools that didn't force their kids to perform these kind of services. There's a difference.

1992
A bipartisan group of Senators drafts legislation to create the National Civilian Community Corps as a way to explore how to use post-Cold War military resources to help solve problems here at home.

I don't see what this has to do with this thread at all.

The Maryland State Board of Education adopts a mandatory service requirement to graduate from high school.

This is the state board of education, not the federal government.

1993
The Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development endorses the importance of linking service with learning.

Again, this is "endorsing" service. Not forcing. Plus, I'm not sure what the Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development is in the first place. Is it affiliated with the federal government at all?

slightofjeff

baraka wrote:

I agree that 'compulsory volunteerism' is an oxymoron, although I'm not sure this is what Obama is proposing. I do have a question, though. Is there anyone here that believes in the abolition of compulsory education for children (those under 18)?

No. As I said earlier, I am generally against the government forcing people to do much of anything.

But I think basic education is important enough that the government should be allowed to require it.

angelica

baraka wrote:

Is there anyone here that believes in the abolition of compulsory education for children (those under 18)?

I personally accept 'what is' as is. I certainly don't believe in imposing my beliefs on anyone, so therefore I am not behind any sweeping movements for anyone.

It's obvious that as our systems evolve to more and more healthy, functioning levels, things will look dramatically different in all levels of human systems. And for me, it's obvious that this evolution will include the falling by the wayside of much that occurs at this point in time, including what goes down in the school systems.

I do believe that most of our human systems, as is, consistently contribute to humans being disconnected from life.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

I agree that 'compulsory volunteerism' is an oxymoron, although I'm not sure this is what Obama is proposing. I do have a question, though. Is there anyone here that believes in the abolition of compulsory education for children (those under 18)?

:raises hand:

angelica

farfromglorified wrote:

:raises hand:

*ducks and covers*

farfromglorified

angelica wrote:

*ducks and covers*

LOL...

farfromglorified

slightofjeff wrote:

But I think basic education is important enough that the government should be allowed to require it.

Can you define "important enough"?

Its Evolution Baby

farfromglorified wrote:

:raises hand:

The problem I see is that our nation is already getting dumber and more lazy as our technology increases. There is no reason to learn math or science when we have the internet and computers to figure everything out for us. No time to read when we have 500 digital channels to watch.

Making school not a requirement will just facilitate this process in my view.

A lot of people think we have a nation of sheep as it is, how will keeping them uneducated help matters???