Printable View
This link on a hitler youth bill (their term, not mine) just passed by the House is on the page linked in this post.
Any opinions? I don't quite know which way to swing. It sounds like a good idea, but it could certainly get out of hand.
AmeriCorps provides quite a bit of help at my daughter's public school, so I know the benefits would be tangible, but I don't know about required civil service.
It is disturbing because the federal government could hardly know what is right for each individual young person and each community. However, if a community decided for itself that the young people in it should do civil service, it would be less objectionable and probably more targeted & productive.
Federally mandated ANYTHING is a bad idea.
If schools want to add this as part of their curricula, I can live with that--I think.
Otherwise this smells like some sort of social-service army draft, and I am calling that icky.
Just say "No!" to violations of the Constitution.
I don't just say no, I say hell no! If a school wants to offer extra credit for something like that, I've got no quarrel. But federally mandated? No, no, no.
Considering that the link in the OP also cites the Free Republic, I'm inclined to take this with a grain of salt.
I've perused the law (available here). It's not as dire as our blogger friend makes it seem. It establishes a number of "corps" type entities to provide assistance in areas such as health, conservation and environment, public safety, and veteran's assistance, among other things. It is community-based, although there are incentives for those participants who come from a disadvantaged background, and it encourages participants to serve in such communities.
Frankly, I'm not seeing much difference between this program and colleges that require internships as a condition to graduate. If it'll help kids get some practical experience and make some money doing it, I'm all for it.
I'm starting from this page and reading onward. I'm not anywhere near through the legislation but what the commentary on that page seems to be up in arms about is section 1302, which starts as follows:
blah blah blah.Quote:
Section 122 is amended to read as follows:
‘SEC. 122. NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS ELIGIBLE FOR PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.
‘(a) Required National Service Corps- The recipient of a grant under section 121(a) and each Federal agency operating or supporting a national service program under section 121(b) shall, directly or through grants or subgrants to other entities, carry out or support the following national service corps, as full- or part-time corps, including during the summer months, to address unmet educational, health, veteran, or environmental needs:
People seem to be seeing the word "required" and saying OMG people will be REQUIRED to serve, it's slavery, how is it voluntary if it's REQUIRED, etc. According to the summary on the page I linked, there is currently no requirement for mandatory service for anyone. What is "required" is - well, it's really thick but I'm reading it as, that the designated service programs are required to EXIST, not that citizens will be required to serve in them.
The whole thing is as Ms. Robyn says, to establish programs that people can volunteer for, and to encourage communities to participate. Without a requirement for service, I'm not seeing anything horrible about that.
Yes. Send the little fuckers to Illinois. We have a distinct lack of pyramids by my house.
I shall live on forever, I am your god.
Read the article and it sounds like Loony Toons scare tactics.
Oh, good. I thought I was reading it wrong. So it is a lot of "nothing to see here, folks." :roll:Quote:
Originally posted by EthelMercaptan
And, just to keep the argument going, even if it were actual federally mandated civil service for young people, I wouldn't have a problem with it. As long as they get a wide choice of options and some sort of financial support while they're doing it, I'm all for it.
Then you would need a Constitutional Amendment.Quote:
Originally posted by WhyNot
And I'm still opposed to any government-mandated community service societies, voluntary or not.
If it's mandated, it's not voluntary, by definition.Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
You're going to be the one most affected by this. If it teaches you something, it's not a bad thing.
I'm okay with that. I think our Constitution could use a few Responsibilities to augment all those Rights.Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
I thought I was of two minds on this. On one hand, I think the idea of putting in a couple of years service to your country is a great idea.
However making it mandatory takes a whole lot away from the idea. I think there should be opportunities including, but by no means limited to, serving in the military, to serve your country. I support this as a 100% voluntary commitment, just like the military is.
Hah! Like anyone can teach a teenager anything...Quote:
Originally posted by MsRobyn
I think anyone who advocates mandatory civil service for anyone else ought to be first in line to participate.
You think it's such a great idea, you go ahead and do it.
Huh, what constitutional amendment? We can force adults into the army, why can't we make the kiddies do stuff?
Had I thought it was a great idea at 17, I would have. Then I got myself all tied up in this having a life and a family to support thing, and I don't have the resources (namely, time without small children to care for) to do it. Which is why I think 17-20 is the perfect age for it, but understand they might need some persuasion, probably in the form of social pressure and money for college or trade school.Quote:
Originally posted by phouka
We shouldn't be able to. Conscription is immoral, involuntary servitude. If the country cannot survive without conscription, it does not deserve to survive.Quote:
Originally posted by SeeOhTwo
A program can be mandated without forcing people to join the program. The existence of the IRS is federally mandated, but people are not forced to work for the IRS.Quote:
If it's mandated, it's not voluntary, by definition.
I completely disagree with this view. The essential point is positive versus negative rights:Quote:
I'm okay with that. I think our Constitution could use a few Responsibilities to augment all those Rights.
You believe in positive rights, "rights" that aren't really rights at all, but that are entitlements, duties, and "responsibilities", as you put it. They state that a person has the positive obligated to do something or to be put into a certain state. Negative rights, like all the rights in the Constitution, state that a person is prohibited from taking a certain action on another person. Libertarians are ardent defenders of negative rights, but they reject positive rights entirely.Quote:
Originally posted by Wikipedia
I do not believe that anyone has a "duty to society" to take any action. Rights are not ambiguous things that must be tempered with responsibilities—rights are completely good things that provide the framework for interacting in a free society, where people do not use force against one another (or do so only in retaliation to aggression, if necessary). The idea of positive rights is one of the most harmful ideas ever to exist—it is the foundation of all forms of statism: socialism, Communism, Fascism, etc.; they are all bound by the idea that people have a duty to society, and that proper moral behavior in personal life (economic or social, although there is really no difference) needs to be dictated by the government.
Why not just let them get a job doing something useful that other people actually want enough to pay them for, instead of just because they think it would be splendid idea?Quote:
Which is why I think 17-20 is the perfect age for it, but understand they might need some persuasion, probably in the form of social pressure and money for college or trade school.
Example of negative vs. positive rights: if I see someone passed out on the side of the road next to a crashed car, I may not take his wallet or kill him, because that would violate his rights; he has the negative right not to be stolen from or killed. On the other hand, I am not obligated to call an ambulance or give CPR, either; he does not have the positive right to CPR from passers-by.
So conscription in the U.S. during WW2 was immoral? Even after Pearl Harbor?
That aside,
I wasn't being obtuse, why would you need an amendment for mandatory civil service? Not that I favor such a thing and neither does Obama, dishonest republican hysteria not withstanding.Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
I turned 18 the year the Selective Service registration requirement was signed into law by president Carter. It was a strange time, coming about only a few years after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam (the most shameful and immoral example of selective conscription in modern American history, imo.) I remember my mother being furious about SSS and having long discussions with her about whether I should register. At the time I wasn't living in the U.S. but I never seriously considered becoming an ex-pat because of it. I understood her point of view, though, since she knew several families who lost sons in that tragic intervention.
Sorry, kind of wandered off track there. :smile:
Yes, it was.Quote:
Originally posted by SeeOhTwo
Because mandatory civil service would be "involuntary servitude", which is unconstitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment. I'm aware that the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft in a time of war is Constitutional, but mandatory civil service is not the same thing (plus I think the Supreme Court was wrong in the first place).Quote:
That aside,
I wasn't being obtuse, why would you need an amendment for mandatory civil service? Not that I favor such a thing and neither does Obama, dishonest republican hysteria not withstanding.Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
I turned 18 the year the Selective Service registration requirement was signed into law by president Carter. It was a strange time, coming about only a few years after the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam (the most shameful and immoral example of selective conscription in modern American history, imo.) I remember my mother being furious about SSS and having long discussions with her about whether I should register. At the time I wasn't living in the U.S. but I never seriously considered becoming an ex-pat because of it. I understood her point of view, though, since she knew several families who lost sons in that tragic intervention.
Sorry, kind of wandered off track there. :smile:
But how do you reconcile your argument with educational programs that require unpaid internships or some other unpaid experience as a condition to receive a degree or a professional license? For example, virtually all states require at least a semester of student teaching in order for a candidate to receive a license to teach. This semester is generally unpaid. How is that different from your notion of involuntary servitude?Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
That said, I've read the text of the bill, and I see nothing that says this service is required or unpaid. Indeed, it may be a tremendous boon to students who come from a privileged background; they can gain experience in working with people who aren't so privileged.
Quite simply, the difference between the two situations is one of the voluntary nature of each. Becoming a teacher is a far, far more voluntary effort than being an American citizen (at least for those born here). While one could make a technical argument for the voluntary nature of the latter, it would be disingenuous at best. The case for being a teacher (or any other profession in which state licensing requires a mandated period of service) being voluntary is much stronger.Quote:
Originally posted by MsRobyn
Ah, Libertaria, where the government will chase your mugger to the ends of the earth in order to preserve your rights, but leave you bleeding to death in the road while it does so.Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
Ah, Noncomprehendia, where the government makes sure we know the English language, but not how to read it.
Yes, and, ideally, the licensing organization would itself be private, not part of the government. But that is not exactly issue #1 on my priorities, and it's not really relevant, either.Quote:
Originally posted by ulfhjorr
No, "Libertaria", where instead of merely locking your mugger up and telling him not to do it again when he gets out, he has to pay or work off the costs of your medical treatment, plus damages for your suffering. Another thing about the Thirteenth Amendment is that criminals can be subject to involuntary servitude as part of their punishment.Quote:
Originally posted by Stanislaus
Now, the likely counterpoint is, "Couldn't a rich mugger go around stabbing people for fun while laughing off the costs?" That is a valid objection to a purely compensation-based justice system, and it's why I believe retaliatory-based justice is necessary, too.
The Selective Service Program is the same thing for over 18. As mentioned above, we could make people join the military. Not that anyone would consider doing it.. But legally, it's there.
We make people under 18 go to school, why not have one of those classes be "go to the old folk's home and have a talk with them", or "Instead of 45 min of doing nothing every day for first period (which was my senior year, IIRC) we go plant some trees or shovel some sidewalks within a few blocks area." Get an A for something that you'll use.. Human kindness. Don't want to do it? Ok, fail.. And hope that use for trig balances things out.
Or just do good at football and get an A in gym.
Now, this is a bit of a hijack, but I believe that school should be made voluntary, and that public schools should be abolished and possibly replaced with vouchers (it would certainly be a political necessity). That way, children can do what they and their parents think is actually best for them, instead of being forced to sit in classes all day that they don't care about. Schools could bring in classes like the ones you describe, where students are, theoretically, educated instead of "taught", where the schools are not beholden to standardized tests. Or they could stick with the plain, old-fashioned approach for families who would like that better (I, personally, would hate your ideas. Human kindness should not be forced down students' throats.). They could even try completely different models, like the education of old that focused more on rhetoric and logical thinking than on learning facts and doing problems. A student could even choose to work instead of learning things that will be of no real value to him. (Let's face it, some people are not as smart as others, and there is no real need for them to have a degree, or even a diploma. Besides, if you graduate public high school with a "D" or even a "C" average, you haven't learned crap.) And as long as it is used to further the child's interests, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to keep the voucher money. Some people do, in fact, need money more than they need education.Quote:
Originally posted by Clayton_e
But there would be choice, instead of assigning people to schools in the local area (which, ironically, discriminates against the poor because guess where the poor live? In poor areas).
Also, the fact that the draft is currently legal doesn't mean that's morally right, which is precisely why we don't use it any more. In addition, the whole idea of "conscientious objectors" was stupid. Not wanting to fight because I don't want to die is, frankly, "conscious" reason enough. Heck, not wanting to fight because I just don't want to do it makes just as much sense as not wanting to fight because I'm Amish or something. Does anyone want to defend that?
Would these non-public schools that people have a choice of be required to accept a voucher as the WHOLE tuition fee? Because if they aren't, you haven't opened up any choices at all for poor families. Even with current voucher programs, in the few places they're being administered, the voucher for the individual student's "share" of property tax revenue pays for a fraction of a private school tuition. People who can't make up the difference are still screwed, more so now that you've substantially reduced the amount of money that public schools are allocated by instituting vouchers.Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
Vox, not everything comes down to money. Education, even basic education, is a social good. I don't think that someone who is destined to work at Wal-Mart needs a classical education, but at the same time, they could benefit from classroom training in money management and home economics, among other subjects. In any event, some kids do choose the work route; that's called co-op education. Kids go to work for half the day and spend the other half in school. The idea is to train kids in good work habits while giving them the education they need to survive in the adult world.
That said, I get the feeling that you come from money and you don't have much occasion to know people who don't. There's nothing wrong with that, but you can't let an attitude of "I got mine" inform your worldview. Other people should have the same opportunities for a decent life that you have, and if that means subsidizing their education or giving them the opportunity to learn job skills in a program like the one this thread is about with my tax dollars, then I'm happy to do it.
The other problem with your school argument, Vox, is that it ignores the fact that most children don't know what they're good at, what options there are in life, and what they want to be when they grow up. Telling a 6 year old that he can choose whether or not to go to school and what kind of school to go to will create a nation of 6 year olds in The Spongebob Squarepants Fireman and Astronaut Academy.
We create a general education curriculum in order to expose them to topics, styles of learning and working, and even just books they won't be exposed to in their homes. Only after years of this do some of them get a realistic inkling of what they might want to do with their lives. It seems that this starts to happen for most of them around 17 or 18, right around when mandatory schooling is about to end. (Some of us, like yours truly, take a bit longer than that!)
Besides, in the real world, school isn't mandatory. Details and oversight vary by state, but all states have some form of "homeschooling" option, which can be used to do the very things you're suggesting.
Quote:
Originally posted by Vox Imperatoris
Which is why I believe it should be abolished. But it still is legal. If WWIII broke out tomorrow there could be a knock at your door (should you be male and in the age range) and next thing you know you'll be at boot camp.
Non-military mandated civil service? To a point.. I'd go with it, like small efforts around a town, say, managed by a local chapter much like a club. If you're 15-18 you register and put in four hours a week doin' something.
on edit.. was kinda amusing to see the thread title "Federally mandated civil service for young people?" and the last post made by "WhyNot"
Screw the little bastards. A stint in boot camp would do most of them a world of good, if for no other reason than it would knock that insane "sense of entitlement" out of their heads. The world isn't about you, bubbie. Learn it, live it.
Besides, there's a lot of trash to be picked up, and jail-birds can't do it all. :tongue:
Shee-it. I don't think jail birds can do it at all anymore, can they? Doesn't forced labor interfere with their pwecious widdle civil liberties or somethin'? I heard they hang around the prison weight-lifting rooms all day exchanging phone numbers so that when they get out of prison, they have new and exciting crime networks all lined up. Lazy bastards don't even make license plates anymore, much less bust up rocks on the roadside!Quote:
Originally posted by silenus
(Only partly joking.)
I don't mean to pick on you or on this comment in particular -- it's just one example among many. Also, I recognize that, whatever this bill is, it's not mandatory for the kiddies; I'm cool with things like the Peace Corps and I'm assuming I'll be cool with this. But since a lot of people here are defending the idea that the government could legitimately require service from young people:Quote:
Originally posted by MsRobyn
I don't think the federal government has any legitimate purpose in trying to force people to improve themselves. I would not trust a government to make appropriate decisions about what I or my child should experience in life. I don't think it's a legitimate part of the government's duties to shove citizens down the path to enlightenment or self-actualization or anything like that. It is not in any way a boon to a person to be forced to spend part of their life in involuntary servitude; I do not feel like the government is more able than I am to decide what is good for me, and I haven't committed a crime to justify my freedom being taken away.
I also, frankly, shudder to imagine some of the things a government might decide to do with an army of conscripts at their disposal. Fairly recently, the government, for instance, decided to topple a foreign government and then leave troops over there for years to occupy it. Most people here don't think that decision was justified; why are you so confident that future governments will make better decisions, when they have even more bodies at their disposal to do what they want with? I imagine a lot of you are fine with an Obama administration and a Democratic congress pulling the strings, but do you want to imagine what would happen after the next GOP takeover, when Sarah Palin is the one in charge?
And that doesn't even get into the joke the program will likely be -- groups of teenagers sitting around, doing nothing in particular, planting a couple flowers here and there is what I'm expecting.
. . . counseling pregnant women not to get abortions, teaching the kids why condoms don't work . . . the possibilities to help the community are endless!Quote:
Originally posted by clayton_e
I don't get the joke. Is the joke about people who uncritically repeat dumb talk radio lies? Because prisoners are quite routinely forced to work. They've even brought back chain gangs in some places.Quote:
Originally posted by WhyNot
I made a really long post, and my browser crashed. :sad: Luckily, Excalibur said many of the things I wanted to say.
I want to elaborate a little on the issue of criminals, though. I do believe that it is right to force criminals to work involuntarily, but not to "reform" them in any way. The government should pay back their victims for the cost of their crimes (since the victim needs the money, for medical treatment, for example, now and not later) and then force the criminal to pay the balance back (if he dies first, then the government should confiscate from his estate). In addition, there should be some additional penalty to act as a deterrent to committing crime in the first place, so people can't just steal a one-of-a-kind item if they want it, even if they pay for it in full, or assault others just for fun, etc. I don't want to drag it too far off the subject, but that's why I believe criminals, not innocent people, should be forced to labor.