Re: Individualisation
Hi tedd
I don’t want to make light of the problem of domestic violence – far from it. But I want to point out that the statements being bandied about in this discussion like
<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> “I believe that the only fair way is for the government to deal with everyone as individuals who are responsible for their own finances and to leave moralising and life choices out of the equation.”<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->
and
<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> “I'm all for individualisation. Leaving provision for children aside I do think one's life choices should be your own business.”<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->
are extreme libertarian statements, and those who make them would probably feel the need to qualify them fairly severely on more careful reflection.
If somebody chooses to marry or move in with a partner – the legislation applies equally in both cases – one of the unfortunate but unavoidable consequences is that they make themselves potentially more vulnerable to violence from that partner, and we recognise that in our laws by providing them with additional remedies, beyond those available in cases of violence against single people. I think that’s right and proper, and I imagine that everyone else participating in this discussion does also. What I’m asking them to recognise is that, notwithstanding the broad statements already made, they do not <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> really<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> believe that the state should simply ignore life choices, since here is an area where the state recognises and accepts the consequences of a life choice and treats people differently as a result, and (I presume) they think that this is right.
I would not for an instant compare domestic violence and tax equalisation, but what I am doing is suggesting that, for most people, there is an area – quite a wide area, going well beyond domestic violence – where they accept that the state <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> should<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> recognise and give effect to the life choices which people make, and another area where it is inappropriate for the state to intervene. Drawing the line between the two areas is not easy, but it certainly cannot be done with sweeping statements like “the state should ignore life choices”.
The truth is that, most of the time, most of us <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> want<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> the community – and that includes the state - to recognise and accept our life choices, not ignore them. Religious and moral considerations aside, the reason we marry as oppose to living together is because we want formal, social, legal, community recognition of our relationship, and the reason we live together rather than marry is because we want to keep it private – our concern and nobody else’s. If we have children we want them to be recognised as dependent on us, because that is the reality. And so forth.
A tolerant and progressive society does not ignore life choices – it accepts them. And it only favours one alternative in a life choice over another where there are clear social reasons for doing so – social reasons which for the most part have nothing to do with the welfare of the people making the choice, since their welfare is best promoted by allowing them to make choices without interference.