U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-04-2008, 09:37 AM
 
48,519 posts, read 81,030,761 times
Reputation: 17978

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
Oh, that's really condescending. Spare me, texdav, you are on the verge of lecturing me on the fine points of English grammar -- you know, me being a brainless idiot from the Soviet Union who doesn't understand American values. Consider the possibility that experiencing life in a different country perhaps gave me a keener sense of the nature of things. The distinctions you try to make are laughable. Although I myself am not Christian, Russia was a Christian country long before the US even existed (why do these evangelicals believe Christianity was invented in America?); the forced "service" was also termed something you do "for the people", rather than the state; those who refused to fall in line were called "enemies of the people", not "enemies of the state"; only dissidents talked about obligations to the state, whereas the state apologists always described them as obligations "to the people" and "to the motherland"; and I hate to break it to you, but President Kennedy was not original with that phrase -- Soviet propagandists used several variants of the expression since the 1930's. So before you lecture me on American values (given that I've lived in the US for a mere half my life) at least try to read something about the apologetics that totalitarian regimes employ. Call it whatever you want -- but being forced to crouch on one's hands and knees and repair concrete joints in the Soviet Union is the same as being forced to crouch on one's hands and knees and repair concrete joints in the United States of America. Saying that it's different because it's America and therefore saintly does not make it any different. I have no problem with someone volunteering community service, or with certain community projects providing volunteer opportunities. I do have a problem with forcing everyone between the ages of 18 and 20 to work for free on projects that the government (sorry, I mean "your country" or "the people") assigns them. As I understand it, this country is founded on the idea of opportunity and voluntary self-realization -- not on the idea of requiring people to contribute their labor in circumstances where they are deprived of any choice. But of course, the biggest problem is that all this free labor will create horrendous unemployment. The Soviet Union at least provided universal housing and universal healthcare, shoddy though they were. How will the unemployed be taken care of here?

And just in case you missed it -- this thread is about mandatory community service, where everyone of a certain age would be required to work for free. Since "mandatory" is the exact antonym of "voluntary", please spare me your exposition on the glories of voluntary service in this country.

As to my experience -- I have worked as a volunteer in this country. It was something that I chose to do and that no one told me to do -- and I had a choice of the volunteer project. This is not at all the same as what the OP suggested should be done in this country.

But you were lecturing us on the on the fact that we wanted to punish people by sentencing them to free work and saying now you knew so much by being a former soviet union citizen. I just point out that I believed you are wrong. If you can't take the ansawer that is too bad. Your not the all knowing wisdom. You worry that jobs will be taken but their are people here that think if you for example came here you added to unemployemnt . But of course many think different;including myself and that you should have opportunity.You seem to on one hand want to prevent service without pay and on the other hands force service that the pay goes to somone else. That is forced work as much as what the OP was talkng about.You would force some to work for their and others universal heathcare; for instance; while not forcing others . It is forced service either way ;just as the OP advocated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-04-2008, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,273,555 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca View Post
I think THAT is usually voluntary in this country, last I checked. People are forcibly drafted into the military only in times of dire need -- not in times of social experimenting -- and the draft ends as soon as that need is no longer.
I'm providing you with an example of government-run service!

Quote:
In that case, why not make everyone work for free all the time, from the age of 5 until death? Let's force your landlord to provide housing for free, construction workers to work for room and board. We can eliminate schools, so that children can be put to work (for room and board) as soon as they are able to stand. We can also eliminate doctors, since it's a waste of money and resources to treat sick people who aren't able to work. And then, we can eliminate police, so that people would provide their own "security". Let's get rid of highways, railroads and airplanes, because everyone can walk everywhere (and carry their lettuce). Last, but not least, we can eliminate the military. I mean, with schools being gone, there won't be anymore engineers or physicists or computer scientists to develop and maintain all that technology that the military uses; while of course, other countries, where people don't understand the value of frugality and ride the Maslow hierarchy like there is no tomorrow will continue to develop military technologies, so our own technology of sticks and stones will be obsolete. So, we'll just be a nation of toothless people with a life expectancy of 35, filling potholes and tilling fields, and that's about it. Sounds pretty much like North Korea.

By the way -- have you ever stopped to think that the way you live your life is your choice? This is the second time you are suggesting others should be compelled to live the way you live.

(Please don't go down the Maslow hierarchy road. You have access to a computer and you use the internet. For entertainment. Enough said. From what I can tell, you spend quite a bit of time here, so obviously, you do need those things that are higher on the Maslow scale. By the way, you mentioned in another thread that you bought your girlfriend a car. Was that natural exchange too or did you pay for it? And if you did pay for it, where did you get the money?)

P.S.2: You've worn the same socks for at least 15 years? And the same underwear? Ew. And they were already "pre-owned" when you bought them? Ew. And you change them only once every few days? Sorry, but that's just gross. I hate to ask about your toilet paper usage.
Oh, I don't wear socks! What a waste of material!

I'm not compelling anyone to live as I do. I have no desire to have power over others. I want power over myself only. I don't want others trying to tell ME what to do. I AM, however, pointing out that it is POSSIBLE to do so--since I do. I'm at least ONE example, proving that it can be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2008, 02:48 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,939,282 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
But you were lecturing us on the on the fact that we wanted to punish people by sentencing them to free work and saying now you knew so much by being a former soviet union citizen.
At least I am not making outrageous statements, like that experience and knowledge makes one biased. Sounds like you believe that knowledge hinders understanding -- as in, because I know so much about the Soviet Union, I cannot possibly understand American values. Incidentally, I am curious about the source of your expertise about the Soviet Union. Based on your prior statements, I believe my knowledge of its society and culture is objectively greater than yours -- much, much greater -- and though I realize it sounds unpleasant, I am not going to bend the truth just to be nice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Your not the all knowing wisdom.
Really? Is it because my opinion is different from yours, or because I haven't done enough unskilled manual labor to make me the all-knowing wisdom and an expert on comparative sociology? Oh, well. At least having experienced different societies has given me some perspective that is probably be lacking in someone who buttresses his argument with slogans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
You worry that jobs will be taken but their are people here that think if you for example came here you added to unemployemnt .
Well, there may be people who think the moon is made of green cheese, and there is nothing anyone can do to change their mind about it. In any event, this concern may at least be arguable when it comes to illegal immigrants or other illegal workers. I, on the other hand, came here legally and was always paid prevailing wage. Moreover, adding people to the population also increases the size of an economy by increasing demand for goods and services. In other words, when the population increases, so does the number of available jobs. So, people who claim that immigrants contribute to unemployment simply by immigrating are clearly mistaken -- not because immigrants "should have the opportunity", but because the statement that (legal) immigrants create unemployment is simply wrong. By contrast, creating a stream of free labor -- that comes to the employer at a drastically reduced cost and that does not involve any increase to the volume of the economy -- would cause a meteoric rise in unemployment. That, in turn, would lead to a decrease in the demand for goods and services, since fewer people will be able to afford them -- and consequently, even more unemployment. It is noteworthy that slavery brought about the total collapse of ancient Rome's economy precisely for this reason -- because the majority of the free population could neither compete with the handful of wealthy landowners and their armies of slaves, nor could they find gainful employment, since those who had the means to employ them were better off just buying more slaves. This historical example is extreme, but the problem here would nevertheless be similar: if everyone between the ages of 18 and 20 was put to work for free, these involuntary workers would create a significant displacement in the work force, with a consequent snowball effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
You seem to on one hand want to prevent service without pay
I don't want to force anyone to do anything. I am against forcing -- FORCING -- as in "requiring" -- as in "do this or go to jail" -- forcing people to work for free. If someone wants to perform brain surgery at no charge, it's his choice, the keyword here being "choice". What I don't want is for people to be required to work a job at no compensation (and "required" means they would have no choice). I am also against forcing business owners to hire anyone if they don't wish to -- but I sure as hell don't want the government to require 18-year-olds to subsidize them through free labor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
and on the other hands force service that the pay goes to somone else.
I'm sorry, I'm doing what now? Saying someone should perform the service and someone else should get paid? I said nothing of the sort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
That is forced work as much as what the OP was talkng about.You would force some to work for their and others universal heathcare; for instance; while not forcing others . It is forced service either way ;just as the OP advocated.
I never said people should be forced to work for universal health care. Universal health care (whether you support the idea or not) is funded with taxes. Having to pay taxes does not obligate you to work (people who don't earn anything don't have to pay anything), nor does having to pay taxes force an individual into any particular occupation. Or, by being forced to work, you mean people have to have jobs in order to pay for their health care? Again, having to purchase life's basic necessities does not (1) per se force anyone to work (since you can elect not to purchase health insurance and let the chips fall where they may, like TKramar) and (2) it does not force you into any particular occupation. Last, but not least, even though a job is a necessity for most of us, at least we get paid for it -- how you can suggest that a paid job is exactly like an unpaid one is beyond me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2008, 02:52 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,939,282 times
Reputation: 3848
SuSuSushi, thanks!

Laysayfare: Aww, I am so flattered. (I'm taken, though.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2008, 02:55 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,832,193 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I'm providing you with an example of government-run service!
yes, but what you and texdave seem to be misunderstanding is that you are providing examples of *voluntary* government service. the post office is government service as well, but do you actually think that it applies any more than our current *voluntary* enlistment in the military?

Quote:
Oh, I don't wear socks! What a waste of material!

I'm not compelling anyone to live as I do. I have no desire to have power over others. I want power over myself only. I don't want others trying to tell ME what to do. I AM, however, pointing out that it is POSSIBLE to do so--since I do. I'm at least ONE example, proving that it can be done.
the problem that i see with your reasoning is that even if you are not consciously saying that others should have to live as you do, you are using your lifestyle as the measuring tool by which it is presumed to be ok to force other people into involuntary voluntary service.

what that amounts to is that you are saying that others should have to live as you do. i can understand if you think that your lifestyle is ideal. but you are in the minority. if it doesn't work for 99 out of 100 people (and i would be willing to bet that it would be even a smaller minority than this), then it should not be held up as the model lifestyle.

Quote:
I've never injured myself on the job, and don't have much use for health insurance. In fact, I've recently cancelled it because it was a waste of money. Transportation comes in the form of my own two healthy legs...it's only a ten minute walk from my home! But I've walked for two hours before to get to work...and two hours back. Not a problem to me. As far as clothing? I've had the same clothes for 15 years, at least. They were purchased at Goodwill...and I'll wear the same clothes several days in a row. Why not--I don't break a sweat.
again, you are in the minority. quite obviously, health care is a major issue, otherwise, it would not be so important to *every* government, culture, and person (minus yourself it seems) on the planet. your lifestyle is of absolutely no benefit to the majority of people on earth--the fact that you seem to enjoy it does not automatically grant it some sort of validation-by-personal-opinion clause.

i have a favor to ask of you: a few years down the road, when you realize that you are not as young as you used to be, not as invulnerable, and not as resilient, having been struck with the horrible reality that is cancer, diabetes, partial paralysis, brain trauma, loss of limb, or whatever it may be, please resurrect this thread and let us all know whether your 2008 lifestyle is still working for you.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2008, 02:59 PM
 
Location: NYC area
3,486 posts, read 4,939,282 times
Reputation: 3848
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I'm providing you with an example of government-run service!
Thanks a lot, but this thread isn't about government services -- it's about requiring people to work at no compensation. Incidentally, many of those people would be placed with private employers, so examples of government services are totally irrelevant here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I'm not compelling anyone to live as I do. I have no desire to have power over others. I want power over myself only. I don't want others trying to tell ME what to do. I AM, however, pointing out that it is POSSIBLE to do so--since I do. I'm at least ONE example, proving that it can be done.
This thread isn't about whether it's possible to work for free -- it's about whether everyone between the ages of 18 and 20 should be required to work for free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2008, 03:20 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,832,193 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
This thread isn't about whether it's possible to work for free -- it's about whether everyone between the ages of 18 and 20 should be required to work for free.
note the emphasis i placed on the everyone portion. one or two people might be able to make the system work for them in such a way that they don't require health care, incomes, or even socks, but the rest of the populace would not be able to do so. can you imagine if everyone in the country decided tomorrow to quit their jobs, cancel their health insurance, take off their socks, and never work another day in their life (some people thought that the last few weeks in the stock market were hairy...)?

but whatever; i'm getting distracted from the real issue, which is the idea that anyone would be required to serve in any fashion.

a) unconstitutional. period.

b) economically unfeasible.

c) (one of the ideas that really seems poorly thought out me) it does absolutely nothing in the way of repairing the social damage caused by negligent parents, inadequate school systems, and little work experience, which is apparently what the thesis of this thread revolves around. a forced worker is never going to be a productive worker, nor is he going to take to heart any of the life lessons that he is supposed to be learning while scraping fecal excrement from the bottom of sewer pipes, nor is he going to learn anything from it in retrospect when he looks back on it in 20 years. when you force people into service, they hate it, hate you, hate the job, hate that period of their life, and don't learn all of the great things that *voluntary* service teaches.

if you want to correct society, slavery is not the way to do it. i'm all for offering incentives to those that are willing to detach themselves with the school-career track that has hypnotized so many of us in this culture, but it still needs to be voluntary service in order for it to be meaningful, and in order for it to serve the purpose that we are pretending that we want to correct here.

aaron out.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2008, 03:32 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,273,555 times
Reputation: 10915
Quote:
Originally Posted by stycotl View Post
yes, but what you and texdave seem to be misunderstanding is that you are providing examples of *voluntary* government service. the post office is government service as well, but do you actually think that it applies any more than our current *voluntary* enlistment in the military?



the problem that i see with your reasoning is that even if you are not consciously saying that others should have to live as you do, you are using your lifestyle as the measuring tool by which it is presumed to be ok to force other people into involuntary voluntary service.

what that amounts to is that you are saying that others should have to live as you do. i can understand if you think that your lifestyle is ideal. but you are in the minority. if it doesn't work for 99 out of 100 people (and i would be willing to bet that it would be even a smaller minority than this), then it should not be held up as the model lifestyle.



again, you are in the minority. quite obviously, health care is a major issue, otherwise, it would not be so important to *every* government, culture, and person (minus yourself it seems) on the planet. your lifestyle is of absolutely no benefit to the majority of people on earth--the fact that you seem to enjoy it does not automatically grant it some sort of validation-by-personal-opinion clause.

i have a favor to ask of you: a few years down the road, when you realize that you are not as young as you used to be, not as invulnerable, and not as resilient, having been struck with the horrible reality that is cancer, diabetes, partial paralysis, brain trauma, loss of limb, or whatever it may be, please resurrect this thread and let us all know whether your 2008 lifestyle is still working for you.

aaron out.
If I was unhealthy enough to not be able to work? I'd do the RIGHT thing, the HONORABLE thing--I'd eliminate myself. I'm all for euthanasia!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2008, 03:44 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,832,193 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
If I was unhealthy enough to not be able to work? I'd do the RIGHT thing, the HONORABLE thing--I'd eliminate myself. I'm all for euthanasia!
k. i'm not really sure what to do with this statement except to point out again that this is not what is considered normal or healthy for the rest of society. thus, i don't see how it relates to the thread as a whole.

also, what does 'unhealthy enough not to be able to work' have to do with the discussion? health care is needed by more than just those that are on bed rest. you might need health care when a drunken teenager runs you over in his daddy's h3 on your 2-hour trek to work next week. sure, you might be perfectly healthy except for the compound fracture in your leg, and the grade 3 concussion in your head, but does that mean that you should off yourself for the good of humanity? no. it means you bite the bullet, pay the doc for the surgery and the cat scans, and recuperate to again offer your services at a later time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2008, 04:23 PM
 
Location: Aiken S.C
765 posts, read 1,680,876 times
Reputation: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
If I was unhealthy enough to not be able to work? I'd do the RIGHT thing, the HONORABLE thing--I'd eliminate myself. I'm all for euthanasia!
work or die???? http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/evilgrin/evilgrin0036.gif (broken link) http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0099.gif (broken link) http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0012.gif (broken link) http://img2.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0009.gif (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top