Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess
What makes this a particularly bad idea is that America is a land of liberty. That means free choice, and yes, accepting the consequences of that choice. Which means leaving open the choice NOT to participate. Most may agree that morally, serving is the "right" thing to do, but choice is fundamental part of liberty.
And accepting the consquences could be a bureaucratic nightmare in itself. You can't graduate if you don't contribute 50/100 hours? To what? You're talking about making government bigger to "enforce" volunteerism.
And I can envision the courts becoming involved over disputes between what is and what isn't community service .....
A good idea, in theory only.
|
Look, I think President Obama's plan is probably to shore up Americorps and/or CityYear programs for middle/high schools students. If kids want $4000 to go toward a collegiate education, they can do some odd hours of community service. If that means wearing orange vests and picking up trash at the park/street, then, that's what it means.
If that means, "candy striping"/Habitat for Humanity/clerical filing work, etc. young people really need "directions" of that of stewardship and service...
If they don't want the money or reduction in student loan debt, they don't have to give of their time during college. The Feds currently do this for other programs. If you take the money, you must do the duty. That's the incentive. The government cannot have an unengaged collecting resources citizenry. It's unfair to those citizens who are engaged in some form.
For:
“I would define liberty to be a power to do as we would be done by. The definition of liberty to be the power of doing whatever the law permits, meaning the civil laws, does not seem satisfactory.”
"If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind whom should we serve?"
~President John Adams, 2nd President of the US.