Mandatory Civil Service?
After reading the articles in the links above, consider some of the questions asked and respond with your original ideas. You can change your position from the assignment you completed in class.
Post your original ideas before Tuesdays' class; then return to comment on a classmate's post. All ideas must be posted before the start of class on Thursday, Feb. 4th.
Here are my responses to the questions following the order that they appear on “Try This One--UGH!!!”
ReplyDeleteThese articles and questions are just jammed with diction that make it sound bad to not support this idea. Especially these examples: “opportunity to participate” and “...would create a sense of patriotism or national unity” :^D yay patriotism and unity and smiles “Or, would it be undemocratic” ← which doesn’t even make sense and it’s as if the article is assigning you to defend a bad point if you disagree. Actually, it’s the black or white fallacy that I think we just learned about.
- I don’t think “all young adults should have the opportunity to participate in a public service program upon graduating high school or college, either in the military or in a civic organization.” - They would not be required to do so.
- They would not have to complete service.
- For no time.
- They wouldn’t be paid because they aren’t doing any service.
- No, a national service program should not be mandatory.
- (duplicate question) Still no, high school or college graduates should not be required to serve a year of national service in the military or a civic organization.
- National service would not create a sense of patriotism or national unity. It would be very democratic but whether it is or isn’t is not the problem. “Go mow the lawn for your neighbors,” “collect money for the homeless,” none of these tasks would create a sense of patriotism. It’s either chores or something the government should already be doing. Or it’s risking your one life, which why should anyone have to do especially since most of our military veterans wish that no one has to risk their life? In addition to that, I’ve read that most of our current veterans only served because they wanted to get out of a bad situation such as a lack of money or a bad family, as I recall.
- The only advantage would be to cover for where our government is giving out: such as with helping the—thanks to the pandemic—now even more massive amount of homeless people in our cities. Another disadvantage would be that rich people would definitely not participate or take an easy way out by somehow convincing policy-makers to make them exempt or allow working for their family’s company to qualify as service. Then, with that bonus year of effort rather than service, the rich people would be even further ahead of everyone else subsequently contributing to an increase in the differences between their social class and everyone else’s.
I agree with your stance that is should not be mandatory. You're right in saying that the government would be forcing citizens to be doing their jobs. I hadn't even thought of that. Also forcing people into is completely wrong. It would cause people to possibly resent those lines of work. I also agree that rich people would find a loophole in it because they always do.
DeleteMandatory servitude in itself is a fallacy. You cannot have mandatory service. The word mandatory keeps it from being service. Service is "the action of helping or doing work for someone." And help by definition is an "offer," not a requirement. Mandatory and service cannot go together. If they want to require it, service isn't the word they should use. And neither is volunteer...
DeleteI do believe young adults should have the opportunity to participate in a public service program; however, they should not be required. Also, if this were to be voluntary, then they should be paid a fair amount (the pay would vary depending on the service program you participate in [it could be an easy way to help support yourself or pay help pay for college]).
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that public service should be mandatory. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of helping out the community if you are forced to do so. I believe focusing on myself will always come first. Once I am living a stable life, then I will seek to help out others. It sounds selfish, but I will prioritize myself always.
I don't believe that mandatory service would be patriotic or undemocratic. It just is. That's the best way I can put it.
Advantages: Public service will always have its benefits. Whether forced or not, helping out others is always a good thing.
Disadvantages: By making everyone do this, people who are struggling either financially, physically, or mentally would be some of the people who need the help; however, they will have a harder time getting help because they would be too focused on helping other people.
Yeah I guess the opportunity is fine to exist, but—and I didn't mention this in my post—I imagining that people would pressure each other into it being essentially mandatory if it became prominent enough. I can see that happening either by, you know, jobs promoting it or just people saying, "have you done your service? I did mine. I love America—do you?" Something like tacking a pay on this stuff like you want would be tough 'cause how much is picking up sticks worth or how much is painting a mural vs painting a solid color worth? It's "service" that people are doing, so who has to fork over the cash? Whoever that is would have to pick the price.
DeleteI agree with your entire second chunk of text that's a great sentiment that everyone should have regarding this, rather than making even busy people or people that would do a crappy job have to do service.
Yeah, your third chunk of text is the same thing I saw. The author was using their rhetoric to manipulate the readers into thinking mandatory civil service is righteous and the just a perfect, great, fantastic, smiley idea. It's weird especially cause they tacked the "in the military" on there when most people hear "service work" and think of like a food bank or old people getting help and the military doesn't even come to mind.
Yeah that is an advantage, but it's like putting a patch over a problem by making a new kid keep doing the same type of service every time one turns 19 and a new one turns 18. For example, if the community had a big problem with littering and kids just complete service by picking up litter, the litter is just going to come back until the litterbugs are caught and punished. And the kids obviously can't complete service by catching and pummeling the litterbugs. Yeah, that disadvantage was what I was thinking about earlier and while I was typing this comment too. It'd be especially bad for kids that have to take care of their younger sibling alone and they're already working and if they'd be expected to complete service too, that'd be horribly dangerous for that family to say the least.
I agree that it should not be mandatory. I also don't believe you are selfish for putting your own life first. After all, how can we expect to do anything for anyone else if we can't first support ourselves and live stably? Some people literally cannot serve because of their situation. Those are the people in need of service. Therefore it is a service in itself to keep yourself afloat so you are better able to help those that need it.
DeletePersonally, I believe that service should be mandatory, following the example led by several other countries. I find that no one voluntarily does anything without benefit. There always exists a selfish reason behind every act. Even the most "selfless acts" often have a benefit for the doer, whether it is satisfaction in themselves or "looking good." Falling in line with "no one voluntarily does anything", people must be forced into doing good. I believe that the massive amount of good that would be done through mandatory service would outweigh the complaints of people. Additionally, it would save a lot of money for the government if its citizens were mobilized to help, only costing them time. I am not, however, in support of any mandatory military service. That's basically a draft and history has shown us how that goes. I look forward to an avid discussion of this topic.
ReplyDeleteAlso I missed the questions so here are my answers:
Delete-National service should be mandatory
-It would most likely promote at least an awareness of those around us
-Already outlined advantages and quashed disadvantages
I agree with your stance on mandatory service. It would benefit everyone. I also agree on excluding military service. The benefits both socially and economically definitely outweigh any disadvantages to mandatory service!
DeleteI do not agree with you that "no one voluntarily does anything without benefit. There always exists a selfish reason behind every act." I for one love volunteering at many different places and have since I was a kid. I volunteer with men and women of all ages (many young adults) who volunteer because they find it rewarding and fun. Sure a lot of people volunteer because they want hours for a resume or scholarship, but saying that everyone is selfish and no one voluntarily does anything seems a little extreme.
DeleteI feel that national service should not only be an opportunity given to young Americans, I feel it should be mandatory. It benefits both the person involved in the service, as well as communities as a whole. While many may not want to do service, making it mandatory would mean that everyone would have to go through with some sort of service. I feel a large variety of service options should be in place in order to suit different peoples strengths, or even teach people qualities and skills they may have had an interest in. I feel that depending on the service, pay should not be required. Things such as military service, however, are different. Bigger services like military service or tasks that require long-acquired skills (such as trades or positions that require a college degree) should be paid. This will assist in paying off loans for many young adults.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the Op-Ed my opinion still stands that National Service should be expanded. For it to be mandatory would be beneficial to everyone. One year of service is really not a burden to anyone, especially young adults who are just beginning their lives. I do feel that one year of mandatory service should exclude military service. Experience is valuable. Additionally, I do not feel it is undemocratic. It is giving back to the government by helping everyone else. It would also teach people to be a bit more selfless and it would create a sense of greater unity among people. During times like this, national service and unity are especially needed.
Personally, like most people in this class have for NHS, I've completed several volunteer activities. Both involving the school and the community. It always feels good to help others by giving a bit of my time to assist in small projects or tasks.
I agree with the points you made. I did not think about the trades but yes that is very true. Same goes with the military. But you could run into a brick wall with people volunteering for the higher paying jobs and end up dying. I could imagine a poor teen wanting a quick buck and joining the military and getting blown up immediately. I'm sure a lot of problems could arise from paying people. But overall yeah I agree with your points.
DeleteUpon my reading of the articles, I feel like national service should be mandatory. American people are often entitled and feel like they don't have to do anything for their country. Perhaps making them do something useful with their life will cause them to want to be productive and perhaps continue helping the nation. We need more people in the country who are willing to help.
ReplyDeleteI keep getting kicked out of the one article so I'm just gonna answer the questions from the one.
Yes, America should expand national service programs for young adults. There's no down side to doing it. No matter what it benefits the nation.
National service should be mandatory and it would create a sense of national unity. People will want to help the country and do what they can to help everyone grow. The country is full of lazy, ignorant sloths who want everything handed to them in life. If they went out and saw the suffering and demographics of people who need our help then perhaps they'd do something about it. If we have it mandatory, everyone can help contribute to the strength of the nation and that's something they should be proud of.
People should get paid for doing the work depending on the work. Treat it like a normal job and perhaps people can start a career there. It should be something that is encouraged and has benefits.
Overall, national service should be mandatory. Drawing reasons not to do it from the constitution is a stretch and seems lazy. Sure people will find a way around it but that happens for everything (Vietnam -- if they find a loophole for this, hold something away from them until they complete it or something). People sure love to complain about the country but they're the same ones who aren't willing to help make it a better place.
In my personal opinion, I do not believe entitled nor "lazy, ignorant sloths" is the way to describe the American people as a whole. While some may definitely be, what needs to be focused on with matters like this is those who have nothing. Forcing impoverished constituents to serve in this national service delays their life; it is very difficult for people who are already working one or more jobs in attempts to pay his/her/their bills to go to college and do the service you desire. It is nearly impossible in the status quo to find enough money to successfully pay these people a decent wage and not go further into deficit. Although I am sure many of us want to help our country, for some it is not possible for them to actually do it.
DeleteI can definitely see your point and understand where you were going with this; however, I feel as if you took the wrong approach. The way you put it, it seems as if acts of service should be used as a punishment, but people should also get paid for doing such..? And your point about "making [entitled Americans] do something useful with their life" completely denotes any worth in all acts made by anyone if they're not made to serve their country -- a very nationalistic approach, in my opinion. I'll admit, Americans do tend to have a hero complex (especially considering the way our education system runs regarding history), but exposing them to the horrors of their own world will not increase their desire to help -- in fact, it would probably make them feel helpLESS, if anything. All in all, very Thomas Hobbes of you.
DeleteAfter reading the articles and utilizing additional information, I do not believe national service should be mandatory. While there is no harm in creating additional programs, we cannot force everyone into them. To just make them participate in this labor without compensation is unconstitutional and tyrannical. But the government right now really doesn't have that much money to spend without going further into deficit. The people who this would effect the most are those in poverty who can barely afford college and has little to no resources. When working a lot to try and pay bills it leaves little time for this national service that is supposed to "increase patriotism". For those of higher classes who do not have to work day in and day out to support themselves and possibly their family, this public service is an easy task but those in poverty who are already struggling will end up with nothing but more disgust for America. An advantage could be that it helps the American people be more involved in society with mental health programs, the military, etc but the downfalls that I previously mentioned regarding the negative impact on lower income constituents outweighs all of this.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that mandating service would be a major disadvantage for people living in poverty. If they are already struggling and spending a lot of their time working to try to meet their minimum needs, I do not think adding additional volunteer hours into their lives would be helpful. It seems that would lead them with less time to work, and I feel that could mean they would need further assistance from service programs. So.. wouldn’t that increase the need for volunteers at food banks and similar places?
DeleteAfter reading the articles, my stance on the topic has stayed the same. I believe that the opportunity should exist for Americans, but it should not be mandatory. The way I looked at it was that many young adults struggle with mental illness and Americans of all ages struggle with physical disabilities and neither civic duties nor military are the right fit for them. I agree with what most people commented about it being rewarding and beneficial, but making it mandatory will defeat the purpose because they will get a lot of kids who do not want to partake in any of the organizations, will not do the work, and will probably make it miserable for everyone else who actually wants to be there. I think they will also have to normalize the opportunity (still not making it mandatory) if they want to get more volunteers. That way, people do not think they are wasting their time. Like Ben said, I do not think mandatory service would be patriotic or undemocratic.
ReplyDeleteI think the service opportunity can be for a long as the volunteers want, and they should be able to choose whether they want a more military type duty or a more civic duty.
While I might not agree with your stance, I find your points definitely legitimate. As with most things, a system which would have mandatory service would most likely have exceptions for those with physical disabilities as well as lower pressure situations/ assignments for those who struggle with mental disabilities. I do agree that volunteer work is a wonderful thing and that people want to be there, and personally I wished more people found it rewarding like I do and you seem to do.
DeleteP.S.: My original post with "selfishness" has a whole entire line of reasoning and I hope to clear it up because on its face it seems like I believe people suck (which to be fair, most do).
A lot of valid points here! Requiring service completely disregards the possibility that there WILL be people who are unable to do such acts, and may make them feel as if they are doing a disservice to their country by not fulfilling their mandated civil duties. Along with this, forcing people to perform services against their will would prove to be detrimental to the overall progress of the service itself, as their lack of desire to be there drags down everyone else present (especially if there are multiple unwilling people present).
DeleteI believe that everyone should be granted the opportunity to serve. It is a wonderful thing to do and there should be more voluntary servitude in the world. However, I stress the word voluntary. Just because I think everyone should feel compelled to serve does not mean I think it is right to require it. Making service mandatory literally defeats the purpose. One does not truly serve if they are required to do so. It means absolutely nothing when you are forced to "serve." I don't think forced servitude would create patriotism or national unity. If people don't want to serve voluntarily, they will not be happy about being forced to and losing an entire year of their life to do something they don't want to do. All it will do is create more resentment for our government, especially since the 13th amendment protects against involuntary servitude... I know that is supposed to mean slavery, which is a more negative thing than service, but it is still a fact that mandatory service is involuntary service. People helping other people is amazing. But it doesn't go well when it is forced. I can honestly say that the "service" I have done for NHS doesn't really feel like service. It doesn't feel like it matters or that it is impactful. It feels like I am meeting a requirement. I get a much different feeling from going on mission trips and choosing to serve, CHOOSING to sacrifice. And I think most people will agree with that assessment. It doesn't mean anything to be told you have to do something. In fact, it often just makes people angry to be forced to do something. Perhaps a better solution would be to foster the desire to serve, not require it.
ReplyDeleteAlso as far as being paid to serve goes, I don't know how I feel about it. I suppose if you spend all your time working in a national service program you're going to have to be paid just so you can survive. But for most cases you shouldn't be paid to serve. Again, that defeats the purpose. It is volunteering. You don't get paid when you volunteer.
I agree with your stance on getting paid to take part in these services. It truly isn't really volunteer work if you are working to earn a paycheck every other week. That's what people in the olden days would call "jobs". Volunteer work is obviously supposed to be an individual's volunteered time, not time they spend to earn cash.
DeleteThrough a further examination into the prompt and reading the available articles, my original response has not been changed.Young adults should have the opportunity to participate in a public service program in a civic organization, and in order to persuade people to be the change they wish to see in the world, a national service program should be required. I firmly believe that, although there would be complaining about having to do said services, there were be vast unity in the people as they all worked together to make something better in their community, in their state, in their nation. Thus far, as proven by the near past, people will not do much of anything if there is not really something in it for them or they are forced to do so, such as going to school or signing up for the Selective Service. Through adding a mandatory national service plan (that they do NOT get paid for - that just makes it a job), people will hopefully be pushed to realize that not everything they accomplish needs to be self-based, but rather they can help those around them, which would lead to more awareness of those in need and more helping hands extended. Civic organizations are created for educational or charitable purposes, for helping those that are in need (those that are in danger, those that are in unstable financial situations, the list goes on and on) in relations to what that organization is, and would not hurt for people to join in on making that difference.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the additional articles, I still believe that national service should not be mandatory. I do, however, think that volunteering should be strongly encouraged as serving others has undeniable benefits for both parties. Serving others provides a great opportunity for character development, but I don’t think this will happen if a person’s choice is take away. Also, when people have no interest in doing something, they usually do not adequately perform it. I feel it would pointless to mandate a person to provide a service that they will not put effort into as that service is unlikely to benefit the people it is intended for completely. There are a lot of potential benefits of having a society with people who frequently engage in service activities, but I don’t believe any of these benefits are likely to occur if individuals are resentful for being forced to spend their time there.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your argument, specifically your point about lack of effort. With this minimal effort put into service, those on the receiving end of the services will not get optimal treatment, whatever it may be. I, personally, know that if I am forced into an activity I don't desire to participate in, I put in the least amount of effort just to get it over with. Overall, the forcefulness defeats the purpose of actual service. Service is supposed to consist of people that actually want to volunteer to assist in different ways; it would simply just become a job with no pay if mandatory national service became the law.
DeleteAfter now having read the articles, I still believe that national service should not be mandatory. I feel that forcing 18 year olds to participate in service programs takes away the authenticity factor. If it is not something they want to do, they will most likely lack motivation. To specifically discuss the military, I agree that the lack of ideal candidates is unfortunate; however, I especially believe that military service is the one aspect of this argument that should be completely left optional. It does feel "undemocratic," and the government would come across as too powerful to uphold the fundamentals of democracy (mainly freedom). The claim that this mandatory service would "forge a renewed sense of citizenship" is false; though it may affect a small percentage of young Americans in this way, I believe that the majority of people around my age would feel less positive about the country if it is forcing them into something they did not choose to do.
ReplyDeleteThe public service programs that I can understand are ones "focused on combating climate change [and] treating mental health and addiction." I believe these are topics everyone, especially our generation, needs to be educated on, and there are very few ways that one can obtain this knowledge. Nonetheless, as I previously stated, the authenticity factor is removed when forcefulness is brought into the picture. I still do not support even this being mandatory, just strongly encouraged among the youth.
DeleteI agree with your first point, it does take the spark out of serving your country; however, we're in a crisis and this could really help our country. Nobody wants to clean the streets of our filthy cities or stand out in the cold to pass out resources to the homeless but it all, nonetheless, needs done. I also agree with your stance on the military aspect of the argument. Being forced to join the military is definitely "undemocratic." You can't/shouldn't force someone to join an organization like the US military if it goes against their morals or beliefs (etc.). I do agree that people our age would hate it. I might hate it. But, again, I feel the bigger picture is more important.
Even after reading the articles, I'm still very much in the middle regarding whether or not civil service should be mandatory. The pros include benefiting the community, providing a base citizens can connect over, potentially increasing the country's morale / sense of patriotism, higher levels of government participation in communities (instead of them being on a pedestal ABOVE the citizens and being seen as untouchable), and as a way for people to pick up new skills and interests. The cons include increased tension, resentment toward the government, people will still refuse to serve, and can be seen as a threat to personal freedoms. Along with this, forcing all citizens to partake in service disregards any conditions that may inhibit them from doing such (ie disabilities -- both physical and mental -- or illnesses). Either way, if service was mandatory, I stand by the notion that military service is excluded as well as pay -- it's a SERVICE, one need not risk their life or earn a wage like a job, it defeats the point. Services are meant to be voluntary and without the expectation of anything in return, any sort of pay defeats the purpose and makes the act feel less impactful -- an act driven by money is lesser than an act driven by empathy and the desire to make the world better. So, I suppose I would say I lean more toward civil service not being mandatory.
ReplyDeleteI agree, that mandatory service could boost morale and give young Americans a renewed sense of patriotism, but also your point of chancing the opposite effect. While the pros are enticing, that is putting faith in the eagerness to serve, which is where I believe that your cons would be more likely to come to fruition. Your point about disabilities did make me think though, would they have exceptions, like the draft? It would null the "mandatory" in mandatory service, but if they could make exceptions for that, why not those struggling financially who need to uphold a job? Or those who simply cannot balance college and their service? There are too many "ifs ands and buts" for such a large program to blanket everyone and be effective.
DeleteBefore I get into the reasoning and answering I’ll state my opinion, in general I do believe everyone should be required to give some amount of time to their communities/country through the military. I don’t always agree with the methods or actions of the US military by any means; however, after reading the articles it showed me that this required service could mean many different things.
ReplyDelete-I do think all young adults should have the opportunity to participate in a public service program upon graduation either in the military or in a civic organization.
-I do believe citizens should be required to do so. However, if you’re going to make servitude mandatory the least you could do is include demographics like women and the Deaf in all fields of the military.
-After reading the articles I see that there are a variety of different service opportunities that one can complete. Daniels lists that people in this line of service could be “sanitizing public places, bringing food to the hungry, supporting the elderly, taking temperatures at public gathering spots, supporting local government agencies, tutoring elementary school students,” etc.
-I believe one year of service would suffice.
-I don't think the people should be paid for their service. One, that would bankrupt us and two, that defeats the purpose of service.
-Yes, a national service program should be mandatory.
-I believe national servitude would create a sense of national unity. I feel that the tasks that would be asked of the people would connect them to their communities and their country while also giving them a chance to do said things with a group of other people their own age.
-I believe the biggest benefit of this would be to clean up our country’s act as a whole. There are homeless people struggling everywhere, our cities are disgusting, our water is polluted, children and families are starving and sick. Something has to change.
I agree, as proposed specifically in the Daniels' article, that "young adults should have the opportunity to participate in a public service program." I believe that making it mandatory is going too far. I think while there are plenty of "good" options for them to participate in, what happens when the "good" ones are taken? How are these service requirements decided upon? I think forced labor in any sense has far too great of a chance of getting skewed for the increased gain of those in charge or simply falling victim to petty politics. Even now, most people are encouraged to do a service for their country, through employment. In exchange for providing goods and services and keeping the economy functioning, people earn wages. Even then though, they can choose whether or not that job is worth the pay to them, they still are not required to work. I feel strongly that as a country we should push for the voluntary service of young adults, and that making it mandatory and taking that choice away from people has far too much grey area and opens the door for more "mandatory" concepts that we are not ready for.
ReplyDelete