much of what is political discourse these days, revolves
around this issue of personal autonomy…
let us put some meat on this issue…
now many on the right want an end to the “welfare state”
and why? Because it is said to “encourage” people not to work,
to live of the government… two things, first of all, it is assumed
that it is bad to live off of the government, no arguments are made
to defend this proposition… secondly, why is work and making people
work, so important? I have worked over 40 years and it hasn’t done shit
for me…I just wasted over 40 years working for the benefit of others,
work certainly didn’t work for me…I get a few years of bad health and then
death… was that really worth 40 plus years of work? Once I retire,
and that is looking to be around 67 for me, about 4 years from now,
and I will, according to statistics, I shall live until I am 76…
and so I will get 10 years of retirement and most of that will be
spent in ill health… and then I die… given the time spent working
and the time on retirement, it isn’t even a good investment to work…
time working ratio to time retirement…
but one will say, but Kropotkin, if we don’t work, how are we supposed
to gain the toys of modern society… the cars, houses, TV sets, couches
that make working, worth the effort? I hold that those “toys”
are useless and in fact, dangerous to us as human beings…
we are led to think that the point in life, the meaning of existence,
is the acquisition of these toys… which is not true… the only things we
actually need in life is the physical needs, food, water, shelter,
health care, education… and the psychological needs, love, esteem,
safety/security, for example… we have bodily needs and we have
psychological needs… and buying a new car doesn’t fit into these basic needs…
but it does fit into our ego needs… look, I can afford a new car and you can’t…
that type of 4 year old crap of dominance…
so, in denying people their ability to gain the basics of food, water,
shelter, education and health care, how do we justify that?
by claiming that if people get “entitlements” they won’t work…
and yet, what about our personal autonomy? they are those who
say, if you don’t produce, you don’t deserve to be rewarded…
if you fail to “earn your bread” you won’t, you don’t get anything…
and where exactly is that written? you might call one who doesn’t
work and still earns something a leach, but we have corporations
that pay no taxes and still get tax benefits… how is that any different
than those people who get 'entitlements" and don’t pay for it?
for example, EXXON-Mobil has made billions in profits and yet,
they pay no taxes… they get legal entitlements and yet not putting
a dime into the pot… why is that possible for EXXON-MOBILE
and not a family in New York? why are some entitlements
acceptable and some are not? What criteria are we using that
allows one, but disallows the other…
so the question of personal autonomy is really an “ad hoc” one,
the situation determines the autonomy/the ethics…
and once again, we have situational… whatever, be it
social, ethical, moral, political (abortion) or philosophical…
let us work us a consistent, universal personal autonomy that
works in all situations and all times/places…
instead of doing what people do, which is “ad hoc” useful in
the moment…
Kropotkin