The Federal Plantation
On January 10, 2007, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives that is so repugnant and abhorrent it must be shown the light of day. H.R. 393, a.k.a the “Universal National Service Act of 2007,” seeks to impress every man and woman between the ages of 18 and 42 into forced servitude for the federal government for a period of two years. That is not a misprint. In my estimation, this makes Charles B. Rangel (Dem. - N.Y.), who introduced the bill, public enemy number one, with Osama Bin Laden running a distant second. See also, a list of cosponsors.
What’s worse, this concept has mainstream traction, with Hillary and Obama both hinting at its support during this evening’s MTV/MySpace forum. Watch Hillary say she’s in favor of two years of national service (happens at about 2 minutes into the video). When asked about educational expenses, she says “. . . so that’s why I’m in favor of two years of national service, where you could earn up to $10,000 a year doing national service and go right into helping you pay for college.” No doubt the person asking the question did not realize that the national service she refers to is not optional.
Obama’s pitch was even less reassuring (happens at about 5:40 into the video): “. . . one of the things that I’ve proposed, for example, is that I will give a $4000 tuition credit - every student, every year - so that they are not being loaded up with enormous debts, uh, but there will be a community service - a national service component. The military could be one way for you to get this $4000 tuition credit. Another way would be to work in an under-served school that needs help. Another way would be to work in an under-served hospital or a homeless shelter, or a veterans home. The point is, I think it is important for young people to serve.” This is apparently how he spins his platform of “Requir[ing] 100 Hours of Service in College . . .”
Need I even cite the Constitution?? Thirteenth Amendment:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
(4.08, 13 votes)
Loading ...Related Posts
- Federal Reserve Notes Still Redeemable?
- The Definition of Insanity
- Huckabee: ‘Amend the Constitution to God’s Standards’
- Mitt Romney Kinda Sorta Against Gun Control - or Not
- Making Your Own Money
Frightening. I have e-mailed my Congressman urging him to oppose it. Thanks for the heads-up.
Are you mentally handicapped? How about physically? If not, then why are you all so afraid of becoming a part of your own government? Don’t you see the reasoning behind this? It’s a liberal action being undertaken to ensure that we, the average middle class citizen/joes who make up the majority of the population, stay in tune and on top of our governing bodies. Forcing the average American to take part in their own government(note that civilian occupations are discussed, military service being optional) is the only real way to get to the masses of American citizens with their heads in the sand, the forcing those masses to realize the gaping differences between a functional government and the American government seems like one of the only sane political ideas that I have heard, of late. So before you’re filled with dread or spite or libertarianism over the aspect of being forced to partake in governmental duties, take into consideration that it is our obligation to partake in the system that allows us to live as we do, and strive to improve it and take it’s reins away from those who would strive to monopolize it for their own ends.
Mr. Hummel,
My respectful umbrage has driven me to reply.
Are you mentally handicapped? How about physically? If not, then why are you all so afraid of becoming a part of your own government?
Your response suggests that only those who are physically or mentally handicapped should be weary of being ordered to do tasks by their government. In this way, you hold very similar views to Samuel Cartwright, who, in 1851, coined the term “drapetomania” to explain the physical and psychological deformities that drove slaves to run away from their plantations. The desire for freedom is not a mental or physical handicap.
Furthermore, I don’t feel it is necessary to debate the merits of forced servitude (though in the rest of my response, I may indulge). This is the myth of the “happy slave populations” that was debunked by W.E.B. DuBois and many others. Allowing one group of people to force another group of people to labor against their will is simply wrong (except as punishment for a crime).
It’s a liberal action being undertaken to ensure that we, the average middle class citizen/joes who make up the majority of the population, stay in tune and on top of our governing bodies.
I’m not sure why you italicized the word liberal, but in worldwide politics, the term liberal means “a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties.” It wasn’t until FDR that it came to mean the growth of government for the good of the people. There is nothing liberal about forcing people to serve the government, and is a total abrogation of one’s civil rights.
Your suggestion that either forcing people to serve in the military or serve in an “underserved school” is a way of making sure people are “on top” of our government is facially inconceivable. This isn’t being “on top,” it’s being “on the bottom” of our government - in the most servile posture possible. The government routinely takes 30% of everything people own on an annual basis - this should be enough to perk some ears! In any event, soup kitchen work isn’t going to bring you up to speed on HR 1955.
Forcing the average American to take part in their own government(note that civilian occupations are discussed, military service being optional) is the only real way to get to the masses of American citizens with their heads in the sand, the forcing those masses to realize the gaping differences between a functional government and the American government seems like one of the only sane political ideas that I have heard, of late.
Forcing average Americans against their will to be so encroached upon that they will act out nebulous metaphors like “pulling their heads out of sand” is the ONLY sane political idea you’ve ever heard of?? This simply cannot be true, and also, conditioning people to serve at the president’s direction is not going to “wake people up.”
So before you’re filled with dread or spite or libertarianism over the aspect of being forced to partake in governmental duties . . .
Libertarianism, as I practice it, is the simple idea that one person’s freedoms end where another person’s begins. This mindset has no conceptual similarity to “dread” or “spite” as your sentence suggests. If these emotions should manifest themselves when one’s freedoms are trampled upon, then this result simply justifies not having trampled them in the first place. Also, the duty of the government is to secure your freedom - not to feed the homeless (that’s all of our moral obligations) - so I don’t consider this “partak[ing] in governmental duties” or “taking the governmental sacrament” or any such nonsense.
. . . is our obligation to partake in the system that allows us to live as we do, and strive to improve it and take it’s reins away from those who would strive to monopolize it for their own ends.
Now we agree. But whereas I believe it is my personal obligation, you believe I must be forced against my will to do so. There is an important difference. There are already ample opportunities for both you and I to go out into the community and give our time and talents. I suggest we heed the call. I hate to consider my attitude toward the same should the government ever require me to do so.