compensation is a form of Coercion.. in the end we will not agree on this, so let us just agree to disagree.
It's probably best to register, but who is qualified to vote, is for the most part up to the States....
If you think compensation is a type of coercion, than you really don't understand the term. At least not in any normal, accepted meaning of the word.
That is just plain ludicrous. The grant or loan is incentive to register and attend college. No pressure is involved. You can take it or leave it.
An incentive is a form of Coercion, if people are paid or offered something in return for something else it may effect their decision as whether to partake or not. It especially effects the people in poverty. People should be able to make informed decisions to participate based on the real risks and benefits of participation, not on compensation or incentives. Compensation or incentives could be seen as exerting undue influence on potential participantsÂ’ decisions about whether to take part. eg if you are a student in poverty the compensation or incentive of the grant could exert undue influence to sign the registration as you know you could not afford college any other way. .
Really, perhaps you would like to point it out, while you are at it you can read the following An incentive is a form of Coercion, if people are paid or offered something in return for something else it may effect their decision as whether to partake or not. It especially effects the people in poverty. People should be able to make informed decisions to participate based on the real risks and benefits of participation, not on compensation or incentives. Compensation or incentives could be seen as exerting undue influence on potential participants’ decisions about whether to take part. eg if you are a student in poverty the compensation or incentive of the grant could exert undue influence to sign the registration as you know you could not afford college any other way. Compensation or incentives are not Coercion when the level of Compensation or incentives are not excessive, the value of a student grant compared to the value of registration would certainly be excessive.
No. As I pointed out, you are just wrong about that as a matter of legal definition. Making you an offer that you are free to decline is not coercion. When you go to work in the morning, you will be paid for carrying out certain tasks. There was an offer of emplotment for compensation that you accepted. You had to apply for that. You may have had to get certifications, such as college degrees. You may have had to apply for security clearance. You may have had to get a driver's licence and insurance. You may have had to prove residency. Etc, etc. Your employer made an offer that involved the work and application requirements. You will be paid only if you fulfill those requirements including the work. None of that is coercion. You may chose to disinclude yourself at any time before signing any employment contract, and any time after that as per that contract.
That implies that a person in poverty is free to decline, even though declining will remove their chance to climb out of poverty .. so I ask you this .. you are a student who lives in abstract poverty, you have the opportunity to go to college but can only do so with a grant, it would be against your moral and ethical code to sign the registration .. what would you do? this is equal compensation for the services provided and as such is not coercion, the coercion would come if the compensation offer were excessive. You may also not disinclude yourself due to compensation offered and as such may not be making an informed decision to participate based on the real risks and benefits of participation, but on the compensation or incentives offered. If I offered you one weeks wages for one days work the incentive of the money would influence your decision, even if the work were something you would not normally do or was against some held belief, ergo the excessive money offer would be a form of coercion in an attempt to place undue burden on your choice to achieve the goal I desire.
My reputation is sound, yours not so much. still waiting for you to point out where I don't understand the term or are you avoiding that one.
I like some of the questions you raise. I just note that I know of specific individuals (through my daughter, not personally) who are in poverty and who are not accepting government help to go to college for a combination of a couple reasons. First, they have seen people who owe money, and their experience is that it is a deadly trap. Beyond that, they see no possible future where such sums could be paid off by them - nobody they trust has gone to college, and the future after college is mere myth to them. Besides, they know that it is not certain that they would graduate - leaving monstrous debt and no diploma. So, these guys are great math students and they absolutely refuse to go to college under those conditions. In our system, price (including for work, products, or anything) is set by capitalism - if you could have gotten the same for less, then you paid too much. So I doubt your definition of "excessive". Excessive would be when the government offered more than what was necessary in order to get the desired participation. That is capitalism, not coercion. When you disinclude yourself it can be for ANY reason. Salary is certainly one very valid justification fot quitting a job. So is flipping a coin. Your employment contract may include other limits, but it was your choice to sign that contract, and that contract is part of why you get the pay you get. Yes, I know there is the problem of desperate people doing desperate things. Somewhere a line needs to be drawn on what is coercion. Is a prostitute a victim or a perpetrator? What should the law say about a man who steals bread to keep his family alive? What does it say when a giant corporation is successful by offering employment for wages nobody can live on, requiring these people to take food stamps and charity? How can we tolerate higher education pricing out of the market the very people who need it most - and (to put purely economic emphasis) those will almost certainly require major support from the rest. The education example is easier, I think. The guys I pointed to want the product, but can not possibly accept the offer. We need education to be available to those who have desire and capacity. So, as per capitalism, the offer was too low. In fact, it was way too low.
I don't need to evade anything. You presented a false and absurd definition of coercion and I'm just happy to note it as long as you're willing to stick with it.
I generally don't disagree, but that was not the point I was making ... personally I think offering large sums of money as a means to gathering signatures is excessive, but in the end that is only my opinion.
As I understand it, the offer is for support for attending college. Fake students are headed for calamity if they sign for student loans and then find a way to misappropriate that support for some other use. When I went to school, that wasn't even possible, as the year I borrowed, that money went to the school without me getting my grubby little mitts on it. So, a signature is involved, but calling it "gathering signatures" makes no sense to me.
The fact that men are required to sign the registration in order to receive funding is certainly gathering signatures .. if it was not gathering signatures it would not be required.
Applying for a loan is a financial transaction. Obviously it involves a signature as it is a legal commitment. Please get serious.
May I ask have you read the full list of exchanges, because my responses have all been aimed at this comment. However there is still an incentive to volunteer for selective service since student loans are contingent (for men currently) on registration. now perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick, but I read that as saying that in order to receive funding a person MUST register for selective service, no registration no funding, and that to me is a form of coercion.
I'm pretty sure that all males are required to register within 30 days of their 18th birthday as a matter of law regardless of this education offer. I wonder what the heck the author of that law in your quote was thinking about. Are they trying to get those under 18, the really bright ones, to register and maybe leave school for war? Are they trying to get those who want education but are breaking the registration law? The education benefit is still a legitimate offer even with such BS written into it. But, I would be in favor of getting rid of the military connection. The whole idea of military service in trade for education hits me as the wrong direction. I'm completely in favor of giving those who serve access to education, but anything in the direction of requiring service in order to go to college is nonsense. We need our budding young scientists and engineers going to college, not to war. We're 5% of the world population, and we're choosing to compete economically on the basis of stuff you only learn in college. And, college graduates are responsible for the majority of successful new businesses in America. Maybe I didn't understand your argument.
Yes I believe that is correct. Though in my opinion compulsory registration should be for both genders (not just men) or preferably not at all. Anything that has the word compulsory in it to me is a form of coercion .. though I also understand that is some circumstances it is necessary ie drivers licence.
Why would you want to vote? In my country voting is mandatory. It ruins a few Saturdays each year. Now a referendum I can get in to. So long as it's one that carries weight.
