Coerced Volunteerism: An Oxymoron

"Liberal" used to refer to people who wanted to liberate people from the oppressive power of government. If that's the case, then I'm a big liberal. But the current American meaning of liberal redefines it as: "to be liberal with other people's money extracted by law as a means of redistributing wealth through means of government." It means being liberal with other people's money, talent, and time.

From this, a twisted idea of service arises. Coerced Volunteerism.

The very essence of being a Volunteer means that you choose to freely give up your time, treasure, and talent to benefit others. It's a sacrificial act that isn't in it for the money, but rather because one is called to it by conscience. If someone comes to you and says, "You must spend 50-100 hours each year in community service", it is no longer a voluntary act. If someone entices you with an exorbitant hourly wage of say $40 an hour, it is no longer volunteerism...it called a job.

I think back to Michelle Obama's speech to UCLA students in which she said of her husbands Service Corp idea:

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourself to be better. That you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed."

Will require? Will demand? Will never allow? Exactly how does that work?

Obama's Service Corp plan will appear non-mandatory by luring highschool and college students with $40/hr pay...at a cost of $65-$100 Billion at taxpayer's expense. And that's a conservative estimate. But it essentially ruins the whole spirit of volunteering by very definition.

And consider that we live in a nation where more than 90-million people perform volunteer service through their churches and non-profit organizations every year. Why do for free something you can get paid for?

And since the government is paying for it, the government can (and will) define the role of service and the kinds of volunteering that is acceptable. This problem is currently showing itself in the 'faith-based' initiative. For instance, Christian organizations can qualify for federal dollars for national marriage initiative programs. BUT...to continue receiving the funding, they have to remove the Christian essence that makes their approach so uniquely effective.

What about ramifications if one does not serve? Can one be kept from certain advancement if one does not participate? Will one receive social stigmatization? What protects citizens from such a program turning into community activism and indoctrination?

The idea that you will be required to volunteer for service is an oxymoron. Americans are extraordinarily giving and generous people. And whenever the need has arisen, Americans have equally risen to the challenge by giving of their time, talent, and treasure. Don't ruin the true spirit of volunteerism by forcing it or turning it into a job.