Obama Proposes *Mandatory* Community Service

[ParanoiA]

Nobody argues that taxes are a way to instill civic responsibility into adults. And why? Because they are forced to do it.

 

Great point.

[Mr Skeptic]

Taking our property is theft. Forcing us to work is slavery. At the very least it is involuntary servitude, abolished in the 13th amendment.

 

I'm pretty sure slavery was never outlawed. It is still allowed as a punishment for a crime. And taking of property can be done legally, eg taxes.

[ecoli]

I'm pretty sure slavery was never outlawed. It is still allowed as a punishment for a crime. And taking of property can be done legally, eg taxes.

sure and eminent domain as well. But just because something is accepted as law doesn't mean it's, in reality, allowed by the constitution.

[Pangloss]

Slavery in the United States was outlawed by the 14th Amendment.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[ParanoiA]

I'm pretty sure slavery was never outlawed. It is still allowed as a punishment for a crime. And taking of property can be done legally, eg taxes.

 

It was, with the exception you cited.

 

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude' date=' except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/quote']

 

I mentioned the taking of property as theft as a moral reference of what we're essentially doing as a government, to compare to the further insult of forced labor. Not to mention endangering someone's life should you put them in a situation they're not equipped, or appropriate to handle, like ecoli noted.

[Sisyphus]

For my two cents, I don't think it's necessarily a good idea, but I can't really get excited about it, either. What we're talking about is a suggested additional graduation requirement: an hour or two a week of civic involvement, for which will be awarded an apparently generous tax break. Now, you can complain about mandatory school attendance, and I might agree with you, but I don't really see this as any different. So if it's "socialist," then it isn't newly socialist, by any means.

[big314mp]

See, offering a tax break (or, possibly college scholarships) is like offering payment for work rendered. It's pretty fair in my book.

 

It still makes me dubious as to the "civic responsibility" bit, as now it just sounds like a paying job, rather than charity work. But if getting youth out to work is the goal, then go for it.

[swansont]

Other than ParanoiA's rather extreme view on this, nobody else seems to have addressed the idea that there is educational value in community service, which is likely why it is put in terms of student participation rather than being age-specific. You may not like having to read Shakespeare in class, either, but education isn't about what students want. Public service, I would argue, has educational value, and that appears to be the context in which the plan is being offered. This is no more oppressive than mandating that everyone complete four years of English classes, or algebra or whatever your least favorite subject is/was in school. Not all will appreciate it, but some may value the sense of accomplishment of having helped someone or improved one's community and/or country.

[npts2020]

The real problem is how to cultivate altruism in young people who are expected to learn to compete in a system where self interest reigns supreme.

[ParanoiA]

The real problem is how to cultivate altruism in young people who are expected to learn to compete in a system where self interest reigns supreme.

 

Try persuasion. I realize that's so extreme ( )...but give it a try. Cultivating respect is a problem today too, and it's best taught by example.

Edited November 9, 2008 by ParanoiA

[big314mp]

Other than ParanoiA's rather extreme view on this, nobody else seems to have addressed the idea that there is educational value in community service, which is likely why it is put in terms of student participation rather than being age-specific. You may not like having to read Shakespeare in class, either, but education isn't about what students want. Public service, I would argue, has educational value, and that appears to be the context in which the plan is being offered. This is no more oppressive than mandating that everyone complete four years of English classes, or algebra or whatever your least favorite subject is/was in school. Not all will appreciate it, but some may value the sense of accomplishment of having helped someone or improved one's community and/or country.

 

But is forcing charity the right way to teach charity? Is that real education? I think this is one of those, "You can lead a horse to water..." moments, where forcing someone to do something doesn't necessarily teach them the value of it.

 

The real problem is how to cultivate altruism in young people who are expected to learn to compete in a system where self interest reigns supreme.

 

Perhaps this is something that needs to be taught in Social Studies class. I don't think there are any easy solutions to this, but perhaps if you make altruism the focus of Social Studies class, and teach that to children from a very young age all the way through high school, then you may be able to achieve what ParanoiA is arguing for.

[iNow]

It's not forcing altruism any more than requiring drivers insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle is dictatorial. If you want A, you need to complete B. It's like saying that students are "forced" to study in order to graduate. Choose your verbs cautiously, folks.

[jackson33]

It's not forcing altruism any more than requiring drivers insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle is dictatorial. If you want A, you need to complete B. It's like saying that students are "forced" to study in order to graduate. Choose your verbs cautiously, folks.

 

 

Then why not require students to voluntarily work in their chosen field. If they are studying medicine- volunteer at hospitals, Law- work around a courtroom and if Social Services then in community service.

 

The idea in the first place is submission to possible failure, which seems counter productive to the purpose of education or achievement with perseverance.

[big314mp]

It's not forcing altruism any more than requiring drivers insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle is dictatorial. If you want A, you need to complete B. It's like saying that students are "forced" to study in order to graduate. Choose your verbs cautiously, folks.

 

altruism: a concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

 

(from a google search of define: altruism)

 

Now doing community service out of altruism is wonderful. Doing community service because you have to, however, is not altruism. "Forced altruism" is something of a contradiction, and a rather ridiculous one at that. I get the image of the Salvation Army in ski masks with guns.

[Pangloss]

I think you missed the point -- he's saying (and I agree) that the right is using the phrase "forced altruism" as a spin tactic. It's not a matter of altruism.

 

I think it's a matter of whether these kids will be indoctrinated into a culture of service. I think that's a positive thing in general, showing kids how they can go about contributing to their country. I buy the high school thing, but I stop short at the college level. They should become volunteers at that point, though I would support some limited degree of required service if they are receiving federal grants and low-interest loans.

[big314mp]

I think you missed the point -- he's saying (and I agree) that the right is using the phrase "forced altruism" as a spin tactic. It's not a matter of altruism.

 

[...]

 

I buy the high school thing, but I stop short at the college level. They should become volunteers at that point, though I would support some limited degree of required service if they are receiving federal grants and low-interest loans.

 

So (although I haven't made this point very clear) we basically agree. My objection was to making a rather arbitrary demographic perform community service, just for the giggles of it.

 

I believe that high school students often already do a fair amount of community service, because, if nothing else, colleges like to see it on resumes. I'll point out that this is a rather limited sample size (my friends/classmates), which does not accurately represent youth as a whole.

 

I should also clarify a point:

 

Community does something for you (pays for your school), then you do something for the community (public service). This is something that is fair, and if implemented properly, could teach public service. The implementation would need to teach students why they are doing the service.

[Pangloss]

I'm not so concerned with the "why" as I am with the "how".

[big314mp]

Why the government should/should not implement it?

 

or

 

Why the students are/are not doing the service?

[swansont]

I think it's a matter of whether these kids will be indoctrinated into a culture of service. I think that's a positive thing in general, showing kids how they can go about contributing to their country. I buy the high school thing, but I stop short at the college level. They should become volunteers at that point, though I would support some limited degree of required service if they are receiving federal grants and low-interest loans.

 

I agree. I think the notion that college students might be working their way through school is being overlooked.

 

But is forcing charity the right way to teach charity? Is that real education? I think this is one of those, "You can lead a horse to water..." moments, where forcing someone to do something doesn't necessarily teach them the value of it.

 

I don't think that portraying it as charity is necessarily apt. You could be picking up garbage in a park or on the highway.

[iNow]

Further, when someone has spent hours picking up trash from the roadside, in the future, they are that much less likely to deposit their own trash on to the roadside. When you pick up someone else's litter, you're less likely to litter yourself. Such services give a sense of place, a sense of connection, and an understanding of the interconnectedness in our culture. It would be unfair to categorize public service as nothing more than charity. It's about community, responsibility, and stewardship, as well.

[ecoli]

Further, when someone has spent hours picking up trash from the roadside, in the future, they are that much less likely to deposit their own trash on to the roadside. When you pick up someone else's litter, you're less likely to litter yourself. Such services give a sense of place, a sense of connection, and an understanding of the interconnectedness in our culture. It would be unfair to categorize public service as nothing more than charity. It's about community, responsibility, and stewardship, as well.

apparently, it's also about putting street cleaners out of a job, while you could be doing something yourself that actually makes money.

[iNow]

Your snarky post does not change the inherent truth in mine.

[JohnB]

Further, when someone has spent hours picking up trash from the roadside, in the future, they are that much less likely to deposit their own trash on to the roadside. When you pick up someone else's litter, you're less likely to litter yourself.

I believe iNow is correct. In my industry, those who make or especially clean the wall panels are those who don't mark them themselves and have an interest in stopping others from marking them too.

apparently, it's also about putting street cleaners out of a job

I fail to see the problem, unless you want a society that requires a large number of street cleaners. Less litter means cleaner neibourhoods. This helps engender civic pride. There is also less smell and a reduction in vermin and the risk of disease.

 

Street cleaners are the social equivalent of your mother, tidying up after you. Ideally, a society should be adult enough not to require someone to tidy up after it. Governments have better uses for money than tidying up after people who are too lazy to walk 20 ft to a rubbish bin.

 

And maybe the street cleaners would rather be doing something else but do the job because they realise that somebody has to do it.

[ecoli]

Street cleaners are the social equivalent of your mother, tidying up after you. Ideally, a society should be adult enough not to require someone to tidy up after it.

not really... I don't pay my mother to clean my room.

 

Governments have better uses for money than tidying up after people who are too lazy to walk 20 ft to a rubbish bin.

that's true enough, but its going to happen anyway... unless you hire people to follow would-be litterbugs and fine them.

 

And maybe the street cleaners would rather be doing something else but do the job because they realise that somebody has to do it.

more likely they can't get a better job because they're immigrants, etc.

 

Your snarky post does not change the inherent truth in mine.

I didn't mean to sound snarky, merely terse. I apologize for that.

 

 

But, I must disagree with your assumption that mandatory community service will instill pride in the community. For some it would... but these people would probably do community service anyway. For other people, they would just be pissed the government is making them do yet another thing that they don't want to do. You can't legislate community pride.

[iNow]

No worries, ecoli. You're a good dude, and I recognize that (except for that "can't get a better job b/c they're probably immigrants" comment... not sure I feel like taking you to task over that one right now).

 

I do, however, disagree with your basic premise. You suggest that getting people to serve their community is going to put existing municipal workers out of a job. I think that is very unfounded.

 

We pay our street sweepers and our trash collectors and our recycle bin processors to do these jobs, but they can't keep up. There is still trash on the street. Additionally, they don't inspect the highways nor all of the intersection corners. They don't walk the grounds at schools or old folks homes. They don't mow the grass at the food bank, or prepare and serve the food at the bank. They don't help out at the Goodwill or the Habitat for Humanity building homes and assisting after natural disasters.

 

They are invaluable members of our society, but they can't do it all, as evidenced by the state of our streets and highways and schools, as well as the lack of staff at places like Habitat or food banks.

 

Hence, we supplement their efforts. People who commit crimes often are given community service as part of their punishment. There are a lot crimes committed, and thousands and thousands of hours of community service assigned. Yet our municipal workers still have jobs, and are even under staffed and over worked at that.

 

 

Adding more people to the "task force" won't take their job away from them, it will make it easier, less taboo, and bring our communities into a better place since the work to be done won't seem so overwhelming and never ending.

 

My point wasn't about "pride," it was about recognizing how our actions impact our community, and making ourselves better because of that recognition.

Edited November 10, 2008 by iNow