Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • Free Essays • My Term Papers • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Education Public Slave System Public Slave System In 1999, a young man named Ryan John Sargeant removed himself from the public school system. His letter of intent, filled with harsh, condemnatory rhetoric, decried a school system that uses students as, ? a means to an end, a worthless commodity. Pupils are made nothing but workers by the educational system.? Such words would aptly describe a proposal by the United States government, which calls for three years of mandatory public service following high school before pursuing any higher education. A sweeping educational reform of this type sacrifices the Constitutional, personal, and moral rights of the individual students in favor of the public good, creating a new class of disenfranchised and rebellious youths. A mandatory post-high school public service program violates the Constitution of the United States. In Amendment Thirteen, Section One, the Constitution states that ?Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude [emphasis added] ? shall exist within the United States?? A proposal to involuntarily enlist students from the ages of 18-23 in forms of public service (or servitude) blatantly attacks the premise of this basic constitutional right of everyone, including students in the school system. Additionally, the Declaration of Independence, that touchstone of ?unalienable rights,? provides its citizens with ?Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.? Through a public works mandate , the government itself would be depriving each student of their ?unalienable right? to have liberty from oppressive mandatory requirements, barring them from pursuing happiness in whatever manner they choose. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence defines a government as a system ?instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.? Again, a mandatory work program for students attacks the fundamental values of a government for the people, by the people, in favor of a government that legislates basic rights to its people. In countries built without such documents of inalienable rights, mandatory work programs are the norm for their students. In the United States, however, these programs violate the rights of each individual as demanded by the law. Mandatory work programs for students also break a fundamental moral code, alluded to by the Constitution, found in many religious and governmental societies around the earth. As the Constitution recognizes, there exists a ?Law of Nature,? and certain entitlements according to that Law. Among these entitlements is the inalienable right that ?all men are created equal? and worthy of self-determination. This sentiment echoes in the teachings in many of the world?s religions, including the Bible, which states that ?all [men] are brothers,? and that one ?should not be lording it over another.? In all of these human philosophies lies a principle: It is morally wrong to govern or rule over another against their will or by use of force. Legislation that would force students to serve time in public service of any kind removes their basic moral right to self-determination and individuality. No longer would students be free moral agents, able to choose whether or not they agree with the Armed Services, or other public institutions. Instead, these decisions would be legislated and enforced for them. By passing such a law, then, the United States would violate not only its own constitution, but the basic moral values of its people. Once the governmental and moral rights of the students have been broken by this proposal, the resulting disillusion and rebellion created within the students would only diminish any imagined benefits for the public good. History shows, even in recent decades, how oppression by governmental forces often brings rebellion, and with it, tragedy. For instance, the harsh sanctions levied against Germany following the first World War created an impoverished nation ripe for the rise of Adolf Hitler. In his wake, Hitler left a devastated and shaken world and fifty million dead. On a slightly smaller scale, the legislated actions of the United States government during the Vietnam War, including drafts and cover-ups, caused rioting around the country, and even thirty years later breeds a deep mistrust of the government in a large segment of the population. A proposal of mandatory public service fits this paradigm. This legislation, in violating the lawful and moral freedom of its people, creates future non-workers disillusioned or angry with their government. As in the case of Timothy McVeigh, such disillusionment can lead to terrible acts of rebellious destruction. The Declaration of Independence forewarned of this outcome, stating that, ?whenever a form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.? Government mandating of human rights, no matter how trivial they appear, undermine the fabric of the United States government and position it for attack and destruction. A proposal to force students into public service for three years following their high school graduation violates the foundation of the United States, breaking both the law of ?unalienable rights? stated within its Constitution, and the underlying moral law inherent in every human. In addition, this involuntary service would break down the trust and loyalty of the enforced students necessary for the continued success and safety of the government itself. In making students a ?worthless commodity,? undeserving of their own rights as individuals, the United States would abandon its essential framework and defining principles. It would no longer be a government for the people, by the people, for the government itself would no longer exist. Bibliography: Word Count: 890
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests