Should young adults have to take part in 1 year of community service?

1. 0

   jacobt2posted 14 years ago

   People within and outside of the US government have debated on the issue of whether young adults of the ages of about 18-22 should be have a mandatory one year period of community service that they must complete. Do you think this should be required of young adults or not? Why?
   
   jacob

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      How about a radically different approach? Everyone should be engaged in community service for life. Then we might learn the benefits of community, instead of competition.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Jewelsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         It would solve allot of problems and the least of those would be getting things done.
         
         Participation, socializing, achievement, self-betterment.  Imagine life not evolving around the television. Geez, that would be novel!

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Paragliderposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Hey, I've talked myself out of a job - I work in television

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Jewelsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Oh dear!  You could get rehired as administrator and advisor for ethics in schools. That way kids would want to do community activities.

               replyreport
2. 67

   ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

   No they shouldn't. Mandatory service is not service, it's slavery.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Christa Dovelposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Precisely my thoughts.

      replyreport
3. 61

   alexd181posted 14 years ago

   Exactly, what reason would you have for such a thing? Control over others, all I can think of really.

   replyreport
4. 81

   sunstreeksposted 14 years ago

   I'm not saying that I agree with free labor, it would definitely piss me off to be told I HAD to do community service after I was out of High School and already working a full time job.
   
   But, I do somewhat think that the 50+ hours of serving in the community required to graduate high school Obama is proposing has some merit. As long as there are legitimate reasons why some students would be allowed to not participate and still grad.
   
   Helping a private business, never. Substituting community service for other peoples jobs, nope, don't like the idea. But, assisting with the cleaning up of local parks and school grounds, participating in tutoring for the younger kids, etc. Good learning experiences. Community services is something that should be associated as being voluntary, so.. Call it something else.
   
   Is it forced free labor, ya sort of. But, I think the experience in itself would do a lot for teens and help them to think about more then just themselves.
   
   I really think it would have been very beneficial for my generation if we had to do it in High School. I probably would have protested back then about it too =P But, I think it would have been good for us.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      jacobt2posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Great answer, I agree. If the young adults or even younger students maybe juniors and seniors were required a certain number of hours such as 50-70, I think that is plausible. But I do not think young adults or students should be required to take part in a whole year of community service. The students that already are striving to make a difference and get in a good college are probably already in various organizations related to school such as FCA, Student Council, National Honors Society, etc. many of which do require a small amount of service hours.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Laura Berwickposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I agree. There's is no need to spend a year doing community service after graduating highschool, although I think programs like that should be offered for kids who are interested. 50+ hours required to graduate highschool is an excellent idea however. Special circumstances should allow this requirement to be waived of course, but for most kids it would do them a world of good. Although some kids resist and don't "like" doing it, they learn a lot from the experience, give back to society, even if they don't realize it. Also, learning to suck it up, and do something you don't like is a pretty valuable lesson to learn before being launched into real life.
      
      I also think that if it was instituted as a rule for only new students entering highschool, there would be hardly any growing pains at all. Kids would just accept it as something that they have to do to graduate.

      replyreport
5. 60

   Colebabieposted 14 years ago

   I had to complete 75 hours to graduate high school. In Florida, our state scholarship program requires community service hours.
   
   There should not be mandatory community service for those above 18. As far as for high school students in order to obtain college scholarships, yes.

   replyreport
6. 79

   Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

   I agree, I think it can teach kids that they should give a little back for all they receive. It can also give them skills that can only help them when they have to enter the working world. And I agree...it should be community service...not working for a private company.

   replyreport
7. 60

   goldentoadposted 14 years ago

   I'm all for it. I think people should serve in the community or military service during those years. I didn't appreciate jack at that age and I screwed around and sold drugs. I think it would make everyone more aware of world and community spirit going forwards as adults.

   replyreport
8. 72

   livewithrichardposted 14 years ago

   I think if they want public money for college then yes, they should serve in the military.  I would have never made it through college had I not joined the Army out of high school.  It made me mature enough and disciplined enough to handle the pressues of college.  Though it also gave me an extreme resistance for authority which is probably why I'm self employed.

   replyreport
9. 61

   Lisa HWposted 14 years ago

   I don't think it's the government's business to teach kids anything.  It's the responsibility of parents.  If you raise your kids the right way they will naturally be people who find their own way of giving back to the world.  Community service is a fine punishment for kids/people who get in trouble.  Lots of kids just naturally seek out things they can do as volunteers.  The government ought to clean up its own failures in the school system, courts, welfare programs, etc. etc., and there wouldn't be such a need for community service.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Very good point.

      replyreport
10. 57

    Dame Scribeposted 14 years ago

    Community service for young offenders, yes. It's a gentle approach to get teens in touch with *reality* and pay back for offences. My son had to do 40 hrs volunteer for graduation and I think it's a great *good citizen* program that they will have experience for the rest of their lives.

    replyreport
11. 67

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    Enforced community service teaches nothing.  You take a bunch of kids and make them do something they might or might not want to do.  We already do that with school "for their own good" and just look at the dropout rates.  Have you ever tried to force someone to do something?  Do they do it as well as they would have had they chosen to do it?  No they don't. 
    
    We went from a conscript army that couldn't stop guys in black pajamas in Vietnam, because they didn't want to be there, to a highly motivated military that can cut through just about anyone else's army in a few weeks.  What's the difference.  Our troopers volunteer, they ask to be at the front lines defending us and our way of life.  That makes all the difference in the world.  Choice.

    replyreport
    1. 49

       CORBETTLEEposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I must agree that forced serce is useless but I must ask have you spent any real time in uniform have you seen combat. Most historians believe that it wasn't the troops that failed to perform in Vietnam but the then administration trying to micro manage the hostilities and refusing to allow action that would prevent resupplying the enemy

       replyreport
       1. 67

          ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          That and the fact that we were involved in a civil war with ideological overtones.  The entire war from Washington to Saigon was fought over political, not military objectives.  That's why we lost.  It would have been better to never have gotten involved.  And some historians believe it was micromanagement.  I'm sure I could find plenty that would argue just the opposite.

          replyreport
          1. 49

             CORBETTLEEposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Cant and wont argue the overtones I will agree that it was a political objective but I also think that the military is a political tool and once the fighting begins every square inch of ground is a military objective, every military engagement is won or lost with the men in the field but to say that it was our conscripted men as the fault gives dishonor to each conscript who fought and died thinking he was protecting your freedom

             replyreport
             1. 67

                ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                It's not my fault they were duped by their own government.  They might have thought they were protecting us, but they weren't.  It was a stupid waste of lives.  If we wish to honor them then we must ensure that the conditions that allowed such a thing to happen in the first place never happen again.  Clausewitz said that 'War is politics by other means'. The military should never be used for political ends.  War is too important a business to leave in the hands of politicians.

                replyreport
                1. 72

                   someonewhoknowsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   I'm thinking that it was partly intended to do something for the businesses that are connected to the military,I heard that during the vietnam conflict general mc Aurther wanted to stop the bombing ,and was overuled by Henry Kissinger,for business reasons

                   replyreport
                   1. 67

                      ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Nah, you're thinking Korea.  Mac wanted to use nukes on China, but Truman was afraid that would bring the Soviets in on it.  Mac went public with his disagreement with Truman and Truman sacked him.  Vietnam had a whole different crop of generals.

                      replyreport
                      1. 72

                         someonewhoknowsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         I remember you saying that,well I'm not an expert on war ,so I believe you,however ,war is a business that makes people money,lots of money ,banks have funded boths sides of a war ,because of money.If they did fund our enemy as has happened in the past ,you would think that would be a treasonable act.

                         replyreport
                2. 49

                   CORBETTLEEposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   The criminal in all war is the man or men pulling the strings and not in the field fighting. whether the Solder, Sailor, Airman or Marine was duped or not at the time he was fighting for what he thought was your freedom, Just to be maligned by you is truest form of patriotism. Fighting to continue to give you the right to vilify them. then you agree and disagree with me in the same sentence, regardless WAR IS POLITICS. If not the Politician. President , Congress, or some other elected leader who? The business of war is death and destruction and should be left in the hands of the warriors, as to the application and strategy, but the when and the where and the why has to be left up to the civilian or you have the Military government that you condemned in Politics and sci fi.
                   Am I reading your tone right or am I taking unjust umbrage, it really sounds like you don't honor those who protect you freedoms if you don't should we stop?
                   War is always going to occur. the only way we can be sure that the ones we are in are just is by placing in office those who will ensure that the application of force is the last step and that that step is in-fact necessary

                   replyreport
                   1. 67

                      ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      Wrong.  The purpose of our military is to ensure the territorial integrity of the United States.  Not ot go gallivanting around the world on whatever criminal enterprise the political class wants you to do.
                      
                      As for honoring the military, dude my dad served in the Marines for 21 years.  He spend his whole adult life waiting to protect this nation.  You know what he got.  Somalia.  Someplace we never should have been.  The military does not do God's work, it protects the citizens and territory of the US.
                      
                      If I sound ungrateful to the military that is not my intent.  What I do have a problem with is the way our military is used to pursue an agenda that is suspiciously mercantile in nature.  Our boys and girls who serve deserve better than that.

                      replyreport
                      1. 49

                         CORBETTLEEposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         So what exactly are you expecting, a military governed by the military, No military, or a military that needs to be coxed to perform, or decide itself whether they are going to fight today or not? Please name your Commander in Chief, and please don't say God because then we'll have to argue over which God, (Why did you drag god into a political debate?), or even if there is one, and then when this Commander says fight do we wait for YOU to say whether or not this fighting is for Territorial Integrity and does that Integrity actually stop at our physical boundaries or is it OK to take the war to the enemy. 
                         If it is your intent to denigrate those, (politicians), who place our men and women in harms way rather than those actually fighting then I again refer to my above statement that it is up to US you and me and every other voter to ensure that the right man or woman reaches office.

                         replyreport
                         1. 67

                            ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                            A military that becomes politicized is no longer a military but a political body.  There are plenty of examples around the world and throughout history that show a military loses its way when it becomes political.
                            
                            Wow, you must really be naive.  There is no man or woman that is "right" for the office of the President.  The Presidency has accumulated powers that would make King George III blush with envy.  The problem isn't the military, it's the political class and people's misplaced faith that politicians really are there to help govern a people rather than skim off the top of the taxes and garner bribes. 
                            
                            The only reason we should ever have to use our military is due to someone invading the territorial US.  That's it.  Any other use of force is due to someone else's agenda and that agenda, in the end, works against the good of the American people.

                            replyreport
                            1. 59

                               tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                               I thought you said (over and over and over) that you were an historian?

                               replyreport
                   2. 63

                      Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                      What freedoms exactly?

                      replyreport
                      1. 49

                         CORBETTLEEposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                         This freedom for one do you think you can spout as a citizen of China that you don't have freedoms on the Internet and get away with it?
                         what about freedom to attend the church of your choice. In China find a church of Christ then go in I dare you.

                         replyreport
                         1. 59

                            tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                            Millions and millions of Chinese citizens 'spout' on the internet everyday and there are Christian churches in China. It's far from ideal, but it's not like 30 years ago.

                            replyreport
                            1. 49

                               CORBETTLEEposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                               So you honestly believe that the freedoms of the average citizen in china is equal to those here in the United States, or that there isn't a place in the world that has less freedoms than you, or that you don't have any freedoms?
                               Your reply posting Quote "What freedoms?" implies that we have none and your reply to my comments on the the military imply that the armed forces don't have members that fight and die almost daily to keep you safe and free. Ill ask you why do you stay in such an unsafe freedom-less country, we will let you leave and not return, please do so.

                               replyreport
                               1. 59

                                  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                  When did I say any of that? The rest of your post seems like it was intended for someone other than myself so I won't comment on it.

                                  replyreport
                            2. 49

                               CORBETTLEEposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                               my appologies to an earlier reponse i mistook you for someone else

                               replyreport
                               1. 59

                                  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                  No worries.

                                  replyreport
12. 65

    Ivorwenposted 14 years ago

    I volunteered alot when I was a teen, but it was my choice. 
    Mandatory service is the opposite of choice.  If scholarships have requirements attached to them, that is one thing, because they are to be earned.

    replyreport
13. 61

    Laughing Momposted 14 years ago

    I think kids should definitely serve their communities.  Not all of them will appreciate it.  Not all of them will learn anything from it, but those that do will realize what they walked away with is invaluable. 
    Our homeschool group does a large community service project every semester.  Most grumble the first time, but they all learn to enjoy them and look forward to them.  It gives them a huge feeling of accomplishment and makes them more aware of differences in people, cultures, and social classes.  It helps to break down the barriers.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       jacobt2posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       This is so true. I have definitely experienced that on many mission trips that I have been a part of.

       replyreport
14. 77

    frogdroppingposted 14 years ago

    Why on earth should young adults be forced to work for free? And it does beg the question ... how can said governments use community service as a punishment?
    
    Like some have already said - free labour. I don't see why programs can't be set up with the choice to participate - but removing the ability to choose just isn't cricket.
    
    My kids would now or sometime soon be expected to put in more hours than they already do. They work hard enough as it is!
    
    I'm all for community co-operation but give people the choice. Just because a person is a young adult it doesn't give others the right to decide what they should do with some of their time.
    
    And one last point: I've worked directly with kids that have completed varying types of community service. It worked well for some. Others resented it and learned nothing.

    replyreport
15. 61

    BP9posted 14 years ago

    While I believe in public service for all, regardless of age, I think that mandatory service of any kind is (by definition) akin to and a launchboard for another incarnation of the military draft.  For me, that prospect is not necessarily a positive one.  This is my opinion, though.
    
    I also do not agree with the mindset that views public service merely as "punishment."  I have always been encouraged to volunteer growing up and though the work I have done was not always immediately pleasurable when I did volunteer, I learned much in the way of appreciating the value of those who help others or their communities in general, not because they were being paid, but because it was something they could be proud of.
    
    That said, I would propose that maybe service not be mandatory for all young adults, but for those recieving government grants for school.  There could be a stipulation made that says that those recieving said monies do mandatory public service as a requirement to recieving such.
    
    Again, these are just opinions, but I do see the value of public service to young people, as well as the community at large, as I am a product thereof.

    replyreport
16. 63

    Mishaposted 14 years ago

    Ya sure, we want to teach our kids how to be good slaves

    replyreport
17. 67

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    Not slaves, Misha, we just want them to do feel good stuff and sing kumbaya all day long, then become good little consumers and never question anything from their betters.  Surely there's nothing wrong with that.

    replyreport
18. 72

    someonewhoknowsposted 14 years ago

    I can see the practical reasoning behind such a requirement.However it should be limited in scope to helping the large older population we are faced with,and those who can't help themselves do what most of us take for granted.This will give them insight into what to expect when they get older and have to face the same challanges and make them better able to become the leaders of the future.
    
    I do have some reservations though,about what the government may expect them to do as opposed to what the people expect them to do.If,i'm not mistaken didn't the germans do something like this,to indoctrinate them into doing policing of the neighborhood.I think they called them the brownshirts and they were expected to be good little NAZI's

    replyreport
    1. 67

       ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       They may not start out with brownshirts, but sooner or later they'll break them out someone.  That always happens when you take choice away from people.

       replyreport
19. 64

    kmackey32posted 14 years ago

    My daughter helps out at the nursing home because she wants too not because she has to. I dont think they should be made but encouraged..

    replyreport
20. 0

    jacobt2posted 14 years ago

    Ok, it seems as if the majority of us do not like the idea of a requirement for a pretty long period of time of service, but what about a certain number of hours required of juniors and/or seniors before they graduate?

    replyreport
    1. 67

       ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       How does that change anything?  Involuntary servitude is involuntary servitude. Most kids won't learn anything if you force them.  Look at how well our mandatory attendance laws have gotten kids more educated.

       replyreport
    2. 65

       Ivorwenposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       No.  Why make it harder for kids to graduate? 
       There are enough young people falling through the cracks as it is, and not getting the education they need.  I don't think this would help in any manner, and I would not want my children to have any part of it.
       
       The only 'service' I would let my children take part in, in a mandatory way would be an FFA action.  I don't know how wide spread those are, but where I came from, they were a time honored tradition.
       
       
       
       
       
       

       replyreport
21. 70

    lrohnerposted 14 years ago

    When my kids were school aged, I lived in both Connecticut and Florida. Both had a hefty community service requirement by senior year of high school or they don't graduate. One of my kids completed her "community service" in Florida by directing traffic at concerts, soccer games, etc. at the American Airlines stadium nearby. Now THERE's community service if I ever heard it.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       jacobt2posted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Ok, so did you like that or disagree with it?

       replyreport
       1. 70

          lrohnerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          I'm fine with anything that keeps the kids busy and teaches them a good work ethic, but my kids personally didn't get much of the "community service" aspect. Now, if their community service had been something that really benefited those in need like raking leaves for the elderly, helping out at a homeless shelter, etc., I'd be all over it in a heartbeat!

          replyreport
          1. 0

             jacobt2posted 14 years agoin reply to this

             That definitely counts as community service

             replyreport
22. 60

    logic,commonsenseposted 14 years ago

    Mandatory service for 2 years. 
    Give them the choice of where and what the service will be.
    We live in the best country on the planet and the privilege of living here should incur some personal cost.  Millions have died to give us the opportunities we have.  A couple of years out of ones life is a small price to pay.  I gave 3 years and am proud of my service with no regrets.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Frankly see neither logic, nor common sense here

       replyreport
       1. 60

          logic,commonsenseposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          There are none so blind as those who will not see.

          replyreport
    2. 67

       ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah they gave their lives so that we could live under the banner of liberty.  It's great that you served and got a lot out of it by the sounds of things.  But you chose to do so.  It's people choosing to serve in our military that makes it the deadliest force on the planet.  Conscription will ruin that edge that we've successfully honed for 30 years.

       replyreport
    3. 82

       Jewelsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I live in the best country on the planet.  You need to get out more! LOL

       replyreport
23. 0

    Leta Sposted 14 years ago

    What kind of public service?
    
    And no, it should not be mandatory. However, an alternative, paying or experience-building option--say 2 years of community service teaching, working in resource development, etc., that would forgive student loans would probably be a very welcome option.  I know I would have jumped at the chance.
    
    As it went, I did the community service/peace corp type thing right out of college and didn't get paid for it (very tiny stipend) and still have my full student loan load, .  Oh, yaah!

    replyreport
    1. 67

       ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Some of that is already done via certain scholarships, they make it a requirement that if you take their money, you have to do some sort of service.  Which is great.  If you take the money, do the service, if you don't want to do the service, don't take the money.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Would have jumped at it.  Both money for college and work experience...cannot go wrong.

          replyreport
          1. 67

             ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             I agree, I'd have done the same, but it must be left up to choice.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Choice, choice, choice...can't even say 'free will' like Rollo May might have.  Choice.  You and Aya.    You guys might make a cute couple.  lol

                replyreport
24. 83

    C.S.Alexisposted 14 years ago

    personally I think it would do the world good and it should be based on a test that shows were each young person has weakness in life skills and education.

    replyreport
    1. 82

       Jewelsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I like this way of thinking.
       
       I think perhaps the wording needs a bit of tweaking. Anything mandatory is automatically going to get the militant strong headed "you're not going to tell me what to do" people flying flags.
       
       Community service has allot of benefits. School doesn't teach life skills.  In fact it sucks at life skills.  It's all about surviving the bullies and enduring boredom because of a lack of inspiration in school systems.
       
       Lots of kids have no idea what they want to do when they leave school. Working at McDonalds or Walmart for most is not a career choice but is there by default.  Getting out in the community and seeing what's out there just might help a few.  It's not about getting jobs done that need to be done and nobody is going to get paid for.
       
       Kids need to learn about taking responsibility. Also how they can fit in in the world as far as their own worth. Networking is also an advantage for these kids. You never know who they might meet and what opportunities will open by doing community based work.

       replyreport
       1. 0

          jacobt2posted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Well said, this is one of the benefits of getting out and serving.

          replyreport
25. 67

    ledefensetechposted 14 years ago

    Heh.  We're both libertarians, so it's not surprising that we sound the same.  We're born with free will, choice, well that's a bit different.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Some people have more choice than others you are saying?  Like those with Ponzi schemes or locked-up diamond markets? 

       replyreport
       1. 67

          ledefensetechposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Choice is what you do, it's not a condition of being human like free will.  Free will is the condition which allows us to make choices.  Hey if you choose to get involved in a Ponzi scheme, that's on you.  Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.  There's no such thing as a free lunch, we all pay for our choices in one way or another.

          replyreport
26. 59

    tksenseiposted 14 years ago

    You live in Red Sox nation?

    replyreport
    1. 82

       Jewelsposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Red Sox?  You kidding.  Is that football or baseball - I'm ignorant! LOL
       
       Google is amazing isn't it.  Baseball.  Ummm........no.

       replyreport
27. 56

    andromidaposted 14 years ago

    I think young adults should take part in community service because it will be a learning experience but the duration should be 2-3 months.The duration can be extended if someone agree to volunteer more than 2-3 months.Otherwise,longer period community service will be a mental burden for them.

    replyreport
    1. 63

       RKHenryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I disagree.  That infringes on our freedom.  Making kids work???  Who are we to make anybody do anything other than ourselves? 
       
       America is about being free.  I'd prefer to keep it that way.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          We make people do stuff all the time.

          replyreport
28. 58

    Blackngoldbananaposted 14 years ago

    Community service is a good idea...not just for young people...and its not service if you HAVE to do it, but you should be rewarded in some way such as a credit toward student loans or something.

    replyreport