Recently someone tried to refer to me as a lazy lefty
benefit bum and that is why I am a lefty, and that I’ve never had a full time
job in my life. The irony is the person who claimed this of me is on the same
benefits as me! Anyways the difference being I went straight from school into
having kids and 3 years of an abusive relationship and then into education and
onto uni. I worked from the age of 13 and smashed my way through education with
excellent grades and a not so ideal home life.
Now I’m doing a law degree one of the heaviest degrees whilst working
part time and being a single mother with hardly any support system (unlike the
person throwing the false verbal abuse at me to try and impress and make
themselves feel superior).
You would feel from such abuse that this person may think
that people on benefits are the scum of society and lazy. Yet again very ironic
as they are too on benefits but won’t admit that online because it will make
their awful comments about people seem very hypocritical. So today in a very intense lecture the topic was on
autonomy and self-ownership. The debate
was based on the tax system and such society structures.
A famous writer (Nozick) in
the jurisprudence and philosophical world argues basically that no-one has the
right to force measures upon others, as then you own them. So for example
forcing a nation to give blood is basically owning them. Well this argument was
then transferred to people selling their labour. The argument was that taking
tax from people’s earnings effectively is a way of owning them as they have no
say in keeping the fruits of their labour. I really struggled to find my opinion on this
concept. I could not shift in my mind
that actually autonomy is a doubled edged sword. Not only that, should autonomy
be at the expense of others in society? It was argued that we can dismiss that.
But you cannot. To say believing in autonomy means that you believe a person is
owned if they are ever forced to do something, you have to take autonomy very
literally. It was an internal battle in me. I definitely don’t believe that
people should be owned.
I agree with autonomy. But at the same time I could not justify to myself that
the poorer in society should be so disposable in the name of autonomy.
Complicated right?
I put forward the arguments that tax is a good thing for the
poor but that I still believe in autonomy and it was batted down. I needed a
stronger argument than just that. Some heated debate happened. People believed
that Class A should not be responsible for class B, and class B shouldn’t be so
lazy. They should try to go get enough wealth to become part of class A no one
is stopping them . I found it hard to listen and not retaliate. I am a bit of
an advocate of defending the less fortunate see. It is not a child’s fault they
are born into a poor family. And actually Class A are so protective of their
wealth that they make it hard for class B to accrue any. As it would start to
level the playing field and then class A would no longer be class A as we all
would be on the same level. Let’s call it Class A-. So this view I would see as very classist and
unfair. We are all human and it is by pure luck that we are born into rich or
poorer families and have varying levels or resources available to us to attain
wealth. Some such as disabled people are completely unable to be as resourceful
as the average citizen anyway. Ownership and autonomy in this sense would mean
they get no money and effectively die….fair? No. But then the argument was
turned on its head.
It didn’t matter that it was fair. Ownership is more
important. The government should not be allowed to own us and make us pay
taxes. If people want to they can but it shouldn’t be forced. Here’s the
problem that won’t work . Hardly anyone would voluntarily pay taxes, especially when people who are poor are demonised by the elite
classes and everybody is brainwashed by programmes like benefit street. No one
wants to pay taxes (even my boyfriend
admitted if he didn’t have to pay taxes he wouldn’t but more of a self-thing
rather than not agreeing with where it goes) because they think the jobless are
lazy scum. Like the benefit recipient who called me lazy benefits bum lol! See
how good the media is at brainwashing. They have actual benefit recipients
spewing crap about benefit people. My point is for whatever reason (wanting
more money or not agreeing with where the money goes) people wouldn’t pay tax
if it wasn’t forced.
Anyways effectively it was agreed that yes ownership would
probably mean that yes people will die because they do not have the access or
resource to attain the wealth to live. Those who favour this
libertarian approach would say that is an acceptable thing to attain true
freedom and ownership. I was just still not okay with this. This internal
battle was raging like a bloody monster inside me. I wanted to still advocate
autonomy but also respect the fundamental rights of all humans. I wanted to
remain humanitarian. An option was presented to me that self should be seen as
community. Absolutely love the idea. Kudos Jordan! But the truth is I just felt
it didn’t retain a respect for individual autonomy whilst promoting welfare
state for the less fortunate and needy.
Anyways I walked 2 miles to pick my kids up after that
lecture. There’s a saying that most famous ideas were conceived on a walk. I
shit you not its true. I had my lightbulb moments, just too bloody late to win
my arguments in a popular knighthood fashion. Here were my thoughts:
A)
Absolute autonomy is a double edged sword. Being
able to own ourselves completely and abide to no rules sounds awesome but even
speaking in a slavery context it can be used in a bad way. Ownership allows
slaves to not be slaves. But ownership and autonomy also allows slave owners to
do whatever the fuck they want to, so then it becomes a war, survival of the
fittest or strongest between the two opposing people. So I think we can all agree
that there should be a promotion of positive autonomy (no one should be a
slave) and a restriction of negative autonomy (no one should be allowed to have
slaves and do whatever they want).
B)
Taxes can promote and enhance autonomy. I do
agree that tax rates are entirely flawed. That is for another conversation. But
rational tax rates can enhance autonomy of self and others. Paying taxes
enables police to protect and intervene from robberies and attacks, protecting
physical and mental autonomy. As autonomy is a double edged sword! You have the
autonomy not help a poor shit, but the poor shit has the autonomy to rob you
for survival, or an immoral person may even rob you just because they want more
than necessary and find it funny. Either way taxes promote standard of living
to prevent that kind of society etc.
C)
If you’re still really not an advocate of what I
have put forward and agree with the Class A v Class B theory I argued against
in my lecture. . . . .You know when you start work or accumulate wealth you are
going to pay tax. Therefore no infringement of autonomy has occurred as you
have already consented to the tax system by conduct. Even if you want to argue
that you have no choice but to work to survive, your own classist attitude is
another double edged sword. If you don’t want to pay tax don’t work. It’s luck
of the drawer, it’s not our fault that you don’t have the skills to live off
the land. We shouldn’t be forced not to have a tax system because you want to
work without paying tax. This argument many people would not want to agree
with. But when you really think about it, you agree to tax when commencing
work. It’s practically contractual. Therefore ownership and autonomy are
actually not infringed upon.
That is how I found a way to respect autonomy while still
justifying some restrictions on autonomy. I mean a humanitarian perspective and
love for the world in all led me to find these solutions.
So yeh only love people!!!
Peace out x
