Address to the Nation

[MrFun]

[Solomwi]

Assuming your unresponsive answer to be a yes, what differentiates compulsory, non-compensated service and slavery in your eyes?

[MrFun]

You don't think college funding is a form of compensation?

[OzzyKP]

That's not what he asked.

[MrFun]

Since the program DOES offer compensation in form of college spending, his question is pointless in this discussion.

[Solomwi]

Since the program DOES offer compensation in form of college spending, his question is pointless in this discussion.

No, it isn't. It goes to your specific qualm(s) with what Ben posted. It's clear that you disagree with his description of the bill (and fairly well established that you're right to), but I'm interested in whether you also disagree with his characterization, independent of his misconceptions about the actual proposal.

And to answer your question, yes, but I consider room and board, however meager, a form of compensation, as well. If we were going by my standards, non-compensatory wouldn't be an element and everything would turn on the compulsory part.

[Theben]

No, it isn't. It goes to your specific qualm(s) with what Ben posted. It's clear that you disagree with his description of the bill (and fairly well established that you're right to), but I'm interested in whether you also disagree with his characterization, independent of his misconceptions about the actual proposal.

It doesn't matter. What Ben said was, as usual, far off from reality, which is the only reason(AFAIK) MrFun called it nonsensical. Now you're asking if what Ben said was correct, would it still be nonsensical? Of course not.

And to answer your question, yes, but I consider room and board, however meager, a form of compensation, as well. If we were going by my standards, non-compensatory wouldn't be an element and everything would turn on the compulsory part.

That's a good point, which is why I doubt it'll ever be mandatory service.

[MrFun]

No, it isn't. It goes to your specific qualm(s) with what Ben posted. It's clear that you disagree with his description of the bill (and fairly well established that you're right to), but I'm interested in whether you also disagree with his characterization, independent of his misconceptions about the actual proposal.

And to answer your question, yes, but I consider room and board, however meager, a form of compensation, as well. If we were going by my standards, non-compensatory wouldn't be an element and everything would turn on the compulsory part.

Yes, any form of compulsory service or labor without any form of sufficient compensation would be a form of slavery. So there's my answer.

So you and I have a disagreement then on the importance/significance of whether or not there is compulsion in service or labor. I think some forms of compulsory service, WITH sufficient compensation, is legitimate. For instance, we are all compelled to pay our taxes or face the serious consequences (okay, except for political appointees). But in return, we enjoy public facilities and public services that are paid for through our taxes.

I used the qualifier, "sufficient" with compensation because antebellum slave owners in United States argued that they already compensated their slaves with the pathetic-excuse of shoddy shelters, poor clothing, and a restricted rationing of food. None of the so-called "compensation" that slaves supposedly received in antebellum United States qualified anywhere NEAR sufficient compensation. Not to mention that, unlike today's forms of compulsory service, slavery rested on the demeaning, degrading premise that blacks were less than human - they were nothing but chattel.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think some forms of compulsory service, WITH sufficient compensation, is legitimate. For instance, we are all compelled to pay our taxes or face the serious consequences

That's not 'compulsory service' as the term is defined to mean in this context.

[MrFun]

Then pick whatever else comes to your mind to go with my explanation.

[Solomwi]

It doesn't matter. What Ben said was, as usual, far off from reality, which is the only reason(AFAIK) MrFun called it nonsensical. Now you're asking if what Ben said was correct, would it still be nonsensical? Of course not.

Well, Ben's statement contained a factual (though incorrect) description and a characterization. MrFun was perfectly clear that he thought the description was nonsensical, but it wasn't clear whether he thought the characterization was nonsensical on its own or just in light of the inaccuracy of the description.

It doesn't matter with regard to any defense of Ben, but that's not why I'm asking the question. I'm asking out of genuine curiousity about whether MrFun would object to the same characterization of a program that did fit Ben's description. Of course it matters to that. For the record, I appreciate your ability to answer my question directly.

[Solomwi]

Yes, any form of compulsory service or labor without any form of sufficient compensation would be a form of slavery. So there's my answer.

So you and I have a disagreement then on the importance/significance of whether or not there is compulsion in service or labor. I think some forms of compulsory service, WITH sufficient compensation, is legitimate. For instance, we are all compelled to pay our taxes or face the serious consequences (okay, except for political appointees). But in return, we enjoy public facilities and public services that are paid for through our taxes.

I used the qualifier, "sufficient" with compensation because antebellum slave owners in United States argued that they already compensated their slaves with the pathetic-excuse of shoddy shelters, poor clothing, and a restricted rationing of food. None of the so-called "compensation" that slaves supposedly received in antebellum United States qualified anywhere NEAR sufficient compensation. Not to mention that, unlike today's forms of compulsory service, slavery rested on the demeaning, degrading premise that blacks were less than human - they were nothing but chattel.

Taxes don't involve compulsory service, for obvious reasons (hint: if you earned $0 for the year, how serious would the consequences of not paying taxes be?). The rest of this post dodges the question. Remember, Ben's description included non-compensation, and that "degrading premise" is hardly a necessary aspect of slavery.

[MrFun]

Taxes don't involve compulsory service, for obvious reasons (hint: if you earned $0 for the year, how serious would the consequences of not paying taxes be?). The rest of this post dodges the question. Remember, Ben's description included non-compensation, and that "degrading premise" is hardly a necessary aspect of slavery.

I did not intend to dodge your question. Yes, I included the premise of degradation with slavery but in that same post, I answered your question on the point of compensation. You can go back and reread it - I said that any compulsory service without sufficient compensation is a form of slavery.

[Solomwi]

I did not intend to dodge your question. Yes, I included the premise of degradation with slavery but in that same post, I answered your question on the point of compensation. You can go back and reread it - I said that any compulsory service without sufficient compensation is a form of slavery.

I saw that, but my question wasn't about compensation. In my question, non-compensation is stipulated. Let me try to put it in a concrete example.

If Obama proposed that all American youth be required to perform two years of non-compensated, assigned public service, say, from their 18th to 20th birthdays, would you object to someone characterizing it as a "slavery program"?

[MrFun]

I saw that, but my question wasn't about compensation. In my question, non-compensation is stipulated. Let me try to put it in a concrete example.

If Obama proposed that all American youth be required to perform two years of non-compensated, assigned public service, say, from their 18th to 20th birthdays, would you object to someone characterizing it as a "slavery program"?

This would be a form of slavery.

I did answer your question about non-compensation by saying that compulsory service without compensation is a form of slavery. Unless you're saying there's a difference between the word, "non-compensation" and the phrase, "without compensation."