Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Lab Assistant
#51 Old 25th Feb 2008 at 3:33 PM
Amen, Freelancer.
Advertisement
Theorist
#52 Old 25th Feb 2008 at 5:20 PM
Absolutely brilliant post, Palabravampiress, you have stated more clearly the same message that I have been trying to convey. Its not the actions that I would object to, it is the forced requirement for those actions. The problem with being voluntold (thank you for the great word, freelancer) is that it wouldn't make anyone give a damn about anyone but themselves, they are only doing it because they have to. Being forced to do something doesn't mean you care about doing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Lab Assistant
#53 Old 26th Feb 2008 at 2:42 AM
Quote: Originally posted by davious
Absolutely brilliant post, Palabravampiress, you have stated more clearly the same message that I have been trying to convey. Its not the actions that I would object to, it is the forced requirement for those actions. The problem with being voluntold (thank you for the great word, freelancer) is that it wouldn't make anyone give a damn about anyone but themselves, they are only doing it because they have to. Being forced to do something doesn't mean you care about doing it.


Thanks. I call 'em like I see 'em and, in this case, I see forced as "not free." That, to me, is a problem. I don't like "click it or ticket" laws. I don't like anti-drug laws. I don't like the idea of mandatory health care. Basically, I don't like any law that makes anything mandatory for any citizen. I am fine with laws that prevent one citizen from impinging on the rights of another citizen. To that end, I agree that a person's property is his or her own, that a person's life is his or her own, and that a person's body is his or her own. Should any citizen deprive any other citizen of any of the above or otherwise deny any citizen his or her rights as guaranteed by the constitution, then that citizen should be held accountable in accordance with the law. I find any other laws - especially those that, "for their own good," mandate citizens to take compulsory action of any kind - to be unconstitutional and unlawful. How can we have a free society if we constantly pass and enforce laws designed to make sure that our citizens act in ways that are supposedly beneficial to themselves and to society? The U.S. isn't about community. It isn't about coerced or forced action. It's about individual sovereignty. The sooner people wake up to that fact, the better. I get very riled up about government types trying to pretend this isn't a free society. I don't care how great or small the freedom in question is; *any* loss of freedom is, in my opinion, too much to ask.
Lab Assistant
#54 Old 26th Feb 2008 at 11:32 AM
I can't avoid thinking that the sort of complete personal freedom palabravampiress speaks of, is a mere illusion in any functional society. There will always be "mandatory" laws (beyond mandatory being nice to each other), even in a "free country" like the US. At the very least they can counteract undesirable "mandatory laws" made by parents or friends. You already mentioned anti-drug laws, as an example.
In particular mandatory education and health care I think rather beneficial in producing independent citizens. If you had the choice of going to school at age 7 would you have gone? Would you regret it now?

About the actual topic: I am not quite decided on this. On one hand, even I think this touches personal freedom a bit much. On the other I have already done my year of mandatory communal service (which in Germany can substitute military service - which is still mandatory for males) and can say that I benefited from it. Both in my approach to work and my social capabilities.
Theorist
#55 Old 26th Feb 2008 at 4:00 PM
Beechwell2, I think there is a difference between most laws, and this kind of law. Most laws, that we have to follow, are designed to prevent us from doing something harmful to either ourselves, or another, or to protect someone's rights. What this idea does, instead of preventing bad, is try to force good. Most laws are "this is a bad idea, don't do it." and this one is the opposite "this is a good idea, you have to do it." I totally get that we should have laws that prevent people from hurting or taking advantage of someone else, or to protect our safety, but, I think what a lot of us are balking at with this, is that it basically would deny people their right NOT to do something. Charity should not be forced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Lab Assistant
#56 Old 26th Feb 2008 at 4:22 PM
Quote: Originally posted by BeechWell2
I can't avoid thinking that the sort of complete personal freedom palabravampiress speaks of, is a mere illusion in any functional society. There will always be "mandatory" laws (beyond mandatory being nice to each other), even in a "free country" like the US. At the very least they can counteract undesirable "mandatory laws" made by parents or friends. You already mentioned anti-drug laws, as an example.
In particular mandatory education and health care I think rather beneficial in producing independent citizens. If you had the choice of going to school at age 7 would you have gone? Would you regret it now?

About the actual topic: I am not quite decided on this. On one hand, even I think this touches personal freedom a bit much. On the other I have already done my year of mandatory communal service (which in Germany can substitute military service - which is still mandatory for males) and can say that I benefited from it. Both in my approach to work and my social capabilities.


True. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive toward it rather than away from it. Also, my theory applies most directly to the United States. It may not be right for every society. Mandatory education, healthcare, and other things may well be beneficial for society and even for the individual citizen, but the term "mandatory" just doesn't belong in the U.S. Drug abuse may have horrible consequences for the abuser and his/her family, but that doesn't mean we need to overcrowd the penal system with people who harm only themselves and do so of their own free will. When you make something mandatory, you don't just demand compliance; you punish non-compliance. I don't think families that can't afford health insurance should be further punished. Like Obama said, families that can't afford health insurance aren't suddenly going to be able to afford it just because the government slaps a "required" label on a cheaper, sub-par plan. I don't think kids who don't do community service should be punished by intelligibility for a diploma to which their grades entitle them, especially since that effectively makes it impossible for them to function in the job market. As far as mandatory education is concerned, well, some families could use an extra income. Others simply can't control rebellious kids. I don't think my tax money should be wasted prosecuting (punishing) such families and such kids for what basically amounts to a failure to do what the government says is good for you. To be honest, a high school diploma won't get you very far, anyway. In a society that values *society* above all else, then sure. Punish citizens for lack of productivity. In a society that values the individual above all else, however, the "punishment" should be the natural effect of the citizen's choices. That's what this country is all about. We're supposed to be free to swim -- or sink -- on our own. That's the whole point.

I see what you're saying about this perhaps hitting even your threshold for when a law is good for you and when it encroaches too much on personal freedom. I'm just not sure where that line is -- or where it should be. The more "good for you" laws that are passed, the farther and farther out that line moves. Maybe I'm being too panicky. Or, maybe as I suspect, I'm being too libertarian. Either way, as an American, I sincerely question the act of forcing those without a vote to do any sort of labor, especially free labor. Coerced or forced labor of every other kind (except as sentenced by a judge for violation of the law) is illegal. Why should this be any different? Why is this form of coerced free labor good just because kids are doing it?

Besides, most kids are, of their own free wills or their parents' wills, already involved in such programs. Most of the kids that I knew also worked. Actually, I think high school kids have the most grueling schedules of anyone in the country. They're up at five or six in the morning to be at school by seven, then they work all day at school. After that, they engage in extra-curricular activities ( like volunteer work). After that, many of them work actual jobs of the low-wage and unsatisfying variety (I know I did). After that, at nine or ten at night, they come home and do a couple of hours of homework. On weekends, they get most of their work and extra-curricular hours in and somehow find time to socialize. For me, breaks from school were even busier. I worked 50 or 60+ hours during summer and holiday breaks. That was the most physically demanding schedule of my life. I'm not so sure we need to force more onto kids' plates.
Lab Assistant
#57 Old 27th Feb 2008 at 1:08 AM
I'm a tad more pissed about the whole, "cleaning trash being for cons" thing. Best freaking paid job I've had so far is as a janitor at a movie theater. So much for college and the use of the GI Bill along with 20 years experience in electronics. It also kinda takes away from the whole "Adopt a Highway" thing.

Nope, while it is stupid to enforce volunteerism, I think the real insult is to those with manual labor or menial jobs. A freaking high school punk should be expecting to start at the bottom with the garbage until they get some useful skills or education or training.

Dodd sounds a tad elitist to me.

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self righteous sixteen year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time" - Neal Stephenson
Theorist
#58 Old 27th Feb 2008 at 1:23 AM
You are calling a wealthy liberal democrat from Connecticut a "tad" elitist, Troll? LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
#59 Old 27th Feb 2008 at 7:50 AM
Maybe his sarcasm meter is broken.
Lab Assistant
#60 Old 28th Feb 2008 at 2:33 AM
Wait, are you saying Dodd isn't one of those "I know how the working class feels and I feel their pain" types?

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self righteous sixteen year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time" - Neal Stephenson
#61 Old 1st Mar 2008 at 6:37 AM
I suppose it's possible that Dodd's actually observed a working class person.

Possibly through a very powerful telescope.
#62 Old 1st Mar 2008 at 3:13 PM
Im not American, and Im not in school, but I think it seems like something I could have done in school without complaining. Getting out in the "real world" a bit, meeting people and giving a hand. Sounds like a good thing. Same time its a bit provoking how its connected to patriotism and the current political situation. It could just as well be a way to inform students how their community works, and how to be part of it.
Obviously it cant be both mandatory and volunteer-ish (sp?) at the same time. I guess the kids will "rebel" against the contradiction. I would.
Theorist
#63 Old 1st Mar 2008 at 3:39 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Troll
Wait, are you saying Dodd isn't one of those "I know how the working class feels and I feel their pain" types?


Perhaps, lol...as for the being a "feel their pain" type, unless there is also a Hope, Connecticut, I don't think it could apply to Mr. Dodd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Lab Assistant
#64 Old 9th Mar 2008 at 4:44 AM
I don't really have an issue with 'forced volunteerism'. I guess it is because in order to get my confirmation I had to do community service and now to graduate from college we have to do service learning which is basically community service. I mean, I personally am going to have a million other things to do in order to graduate and adding volunteering and then writing papers on the experience is probably going to make me crazy but heh. There is really nothing I can do about it, I mean I did place myself in this position by attending a Catholic University so I really shouldn't complain.

The only thing I see wrong with it is that they try to make it sound like a good thing. It isn't necessarily bad but there is a huge difference in wanting to volunteer as opposed it being a requirement to graduate or something along those lines.

Oh well. Maybe it will help someone out there!
Lab Assistant
#65 Old 13th Mar 2008 at 5:49 AM
Quote: Originally posted by GummiBears
I don't really have an issue with 'forced volunteerism'. I guess it is because in order to get my confirmation I had to do community service and now to graduate from college we have to do service learning which is basically community service. I mean, I personally am going to have a million other things to do in order to graduate and adding volunteering and then writing papers on the experience is probably going to make me crazy but heh. There is really nothing I can do about it, I mean I did place myself in this position by attending a Catholic University so I really shouldn't complain.

The only thing I see wrong with it is that they try to make it sound like a good thing. It isn't necessarily bad but there is a huge difference in wanting to volunteer as opposed it being a requirement to graduate or something along those lines.

Oh well. Maybe it will help someone out there!


What you're talking about isn't forced, though. Like you said: you placed yourself in that position by attending a Catholic University. Anything you do to graduate from that school is completely voluntary.

Attendance at high school is mandatory until a student reaches the age of 18, though. If the parents don't put the kid in a private school, that makes required events that take place as part of the mandatory school experience mandatory, as well. This idea goes a step further and allows the school to dictate what students must do outside of school. I mean, that's taking the already questionable premise of mandatory education and subtly extending it to really creepifying levels. The government shouldn't be able to force people to perform any sort of labor... especially under such a thinly veiled premise as this.
#66 Old 6th Apr 2008 at 10:57 PM
I'm currently in the last semester of my junior year and I think it's absolutely idiotic that students should do so many hours of volunteer work.
And I'm not saying this because I don't want to - I did volunteer work for a recycling drive with my school for two years - freshman and sophomore years - and one of those years I also volunteered at a summer camp for the children of college students. What's worse at my school is that volunteer hours aren't counted until junior year (haven't volunteered anywhere this year)
A new class my school has instituted for next year includes a number of volunteer hours as well.

My biggest problem with this? Students are busy.
Every single person I know is involved with extra-curricular activities and/or sports and quite a few have jobs. Still more of them, myself included, are taking college classes.
If you're smart enough to pass college-level credits, and have more than enough credits to graduate, why should you be held back because you didn't have time to volunteer your junior and senior years?
 
Page 3 of 3
Back to top