The shoreline of Autonomy has been under attack for hundreds of years. Perhaps since time immemorial. Yet Autonomy, in its philosophical sense, is the single most important ingredient of our persona which separates us from the animal world. It allows us to make moral choices, not merely the limited choices of necessity. It allows us to decide whether we wish to eat meat at all, rather than the more utilitarian choice of ‘antelope or rabbit today?’

I asked on Friday for your help in defining Autonomy. Your generous response made it one of the more fascinating threads I have seen on this blog. You seem to be fairly evenly divided as to whether we are born with the ability to display autonomy – or whether it is something that is bequeathed to us by some ‘higher power’. It is as I suspected, and very much the reason I posed the question. It is, I also suspect, the product of many years of Fabian propaganda that anyone might even suppose that autonomy was ‘given to us’ by someone more powerful. I wish now that I had asked you to give me some indication of your age – it might have been instructive.

Given that Autonomy is so important to our view of ourselves as the superior mammal on this planet, it is remarkable that we are so careless with it. We leave it lying around, ready for others to snatch. We clap like seals when it is handed back to us – nay we celebrate its return. We neither mourn nor complain that it was initially removed from our lax grasp in order that it might be ‘returned to us’.

We celebrate 16^th birthdays as being the date on which we can activate the choice as to whether to continue living with our parents, and pass no comment on the fact that this choice was removed from us as birth, not just by our dependence on adults at that age, but by the laws of those who govern us.

We wax lyrical that our governors see fit to allow us to love, and share our life with, an increased range of people these days, yet few comment on the ludicrous nature of rules which purport to curtail our autonomy regarding who we may care for and express that care towards.

Autonomy should be the quasi-Buddhist chant that we mutter from early childhood. Aut – Om – Om – Om – Mani; the soothing knowledge that we are not mere domesticated mammals; we are the possessors of something more profound. The ability to make moral – and immoral – decisions as to how we live.

The precursor to all this soul searching on my part was an e-mail from a commentator, telling me the story of ‘Sue W’. It concerned the infamous Mental Capacity Act. (Well, how long did you think it would be before I mounted my favourite hobby horse once more?)

Sue was estranged from her family, an adult, she had transgressed one of those rules by which families seek to curtail our Autonomy. Sue had embraced a ‘gay’ lifestyle. She had a wide circle of close and loving friends who continued to support her when she developed MS. She was an independent lady; she made excellent arrangements for her future; drew up a Living Will and a Last Will and Testament, adapted her home for her diminishing ability, and moved closer to a specialised care home for her future use. She failed, however, to make provision for her Autonomy – a lasting power of attorney to appoint someone to make decisions for her.

Time passed, and Sue was admitted to hospital with an infection unrelated to her MS. Whilst there, the authorities claimed her Autonomy. Sue was lucky in one sense, in that they did at least hand her autonomy to her Father – the preference stated by the Court of Protection is that this precious ability be handed to an independent Solicitor, a ‘professional deputy’ who by definition will not be in your geographical area, and will never meet you.

She was, of course, unlucky in that the law dictates that control of her free will was handed to her biological father. A man who disapproved of her lifestyle and the choices she had made.

Sue died in February, separated from her wide circle of friends, from those she loved. Her Father sold her home, disposed of her lifetime’s possessions. Despite all her careful arrangements, despite the choices she had made in life, despite the authorities being in full possession of the proof of those choices, they had no legal standing.

She could of course, had she been aware in time, have bought her Autonomy back from our rulers, by filling in 25 intricate pages of information and parting with £240.

She would have been buying back her birthright from the government. Surely the ultimate proof that we are willing slaves?

We can muster thousands of students to riot in London over an increase in fees for education. We can reel out yards of column inches on ‘Free Speech’. We can denounce the ‘Nanny State’ from morn til nightfall. Yet how often do we refer to the basis of our delineation from domesticated animals, our ability to decide to speak out, our ability to decide to enter further education, our ability to choose our friends and our lifestyle, whether to be dependent victims or independent freewheelers – to our Autonomy?

The erosion of the cliffs of autonomy has been shrouded in secrecy – it’s not just the province of the Mental Capacity Act – it goes far deeper than that. It is our dumb acceptance of the fact that we are pathetically grateful when small dollops of it are handed back to us, it is the syndrome by which the Black nations were once made to be grateful for ‘freedom’, it is Stockholm syndrome of the slaves.

Autonomy is ours for free at birth; true we only gradually grow into an ability to physically exercise it, but it is there from our first breath. We need to reclaim it, to hold it as the benchmark against all legal erosions, to protect it; for without it, all ‘Human Rights’ are meaningless.

Aut – Om – Om – Om – Mani.  Aut – Om – Om – Om – Mani.

robbiethered
January 18, 2011 at 17:46

Thanks for this article, and the links it contains.

Normally people’s “hobby horse” are subjective, selfish and irritating to
put it mildly. However, “Normally” most certainly does not apply in your
case.
Long may you favour your hobby horse!

richard January 18, 2011 at 03:36

Me neither. It’s psychopaths. Political ponerology and the “Guinsberg
humanoid” theory are worth a study.

Captain
Ranty January 17, 2011 at 19:46

I used my lawful name. Captain: of the Ranty family.

But I suspect queenie knows nothing about the difference between humans and
artificial constructs.

Lizards, eh? Who knows their thought processes?

CR.

(Before you all shout at me, I am not a fan of the lizard theory).

richard January 17, 2011 at 18:28

Quick question – do you type your full name or is it something like
“Captain; of the family Ranty” to distinguish the living man from the legal
person?

richard January 17, 2011 at 18:25

Ta!

Captain
Ranty January 17, 2011 at 16:10

No, my NOUICOR went to the Home Office. I sent this affidavit as a first
step to becoming a Freeman. (I have subsequently learnt that the change
happens in your head, not by sending bits of paper).

Lawful Rebellion is revoking your allegiance to the monarch. There are two
affidavits to send. The second follows the first by 40 days.

Details here:

http://www.tpuc.org/node/257

No harm befalls those who enter Lawful Rebellion. It is a lawful, peaceful,
honourable act. More than that, it is an obligation.

CR.

Captain
Ranty January 17, 2011 at 14:21

Oh, and the cost of my plan?

2 x first class stamps, 2 x sheets of A4, and 2 x envelopes.

Freedom from the state for less than a quid.

CR.

richard January 17, 2011 at 15:48

Would that be a NOUICOR which you can download on your post of 7th Jan?
Or does lawful rebellion require a different approach?

Captain
Ranty January 17, 2011 at 14:19

Richard,

I entered Lawful Rebellion on 15th July 2009. I revoked my allegiance to
the monarch and transferred it to the Barons Committee (lawfully formed in
2001) and my instructions are clear:

“together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us
in all possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and
in any other way they can, until redress has been obtained as they see
fit…”

I am distressing and distraining as often as I can. That includes not
filling in government forms, not paying taxes, and generally being a PITA.

In short, I have lawful excuse. I am prepared to test this in court.

CR.

Captain
Ranty January 17, 2011 at 12:56

Nothing but wild applause from me, Miss Raccoon.

I (deliberately) conflate freedom and autonomy. It stands to reason that if
you are free you are autonomous.

I will display my autonomy, and my freedom, (and as an added bonus, my
defiance and my disgust) when the Census form drops through my letterbox.

CR.

richard January 17, 2011 at 13:33

There’s a threat of £1000 fine for not providing Lockheed Martin with
your details (which are then the property of Uncle Sam via the Patriot Act).
What’s your plan, Captain? I can’t afford a grand, or the loss of earnings
if I’m sitting in jail. There’s a gun to our heads here.

Bill January 17, 2011 at 15:29

The Easy way to deal with the census 2011.
Well I sent it back as
instructed. Royal Mail must have lost it!

PT January 17, 2011 at 12:44

True autonomy would be an ideal, and workable in a world where all people
lived their lives and exercised their rights with due regard for the rights
and lives of others. Would that we knew of such a world! Speaking practically,
we live in a world where it is frequently necessary for someone or something
to rein in the excesses of those who do not subscribe to that ideal. I’m
thinking neighbours from hell, undisciplined youth, bankers, loan sharks and
so forth. In a world of 8 billion souls, it becomes increasingly a problem to
reconcile one person’s “freedom to” with another’s “freedom from.”
Collectively, we allow “The State” to do the job, with better or worse results
depending on where you happen to live. Complete autonomy is a non-starter, at
birth or any other time. The Court of Protection however…. well, since they’re
essentially civil servants, obviously they’ll do whatever makes life easier
for themselves, to hell with the customer (as if they would recognise the
concept of a customer.) Perhaps they’re too autonomous and fall into that
category of those whose behaviour needs to be reined in.

SadButMadLad January 17, 2011 at 13:11

It is an ideal, but we can still get a lot better than currently.
Autonomy can mean self control for an individual as well as a group or
organisation. Anything where the self control can be exercised without
having to go to a higher power.

With autonomy at a local level you can still sort out the neighbours from
hell (who are usually placed there by the state away from a previous
community), undiciplined youth (who exist because of the lack of control by
the state and the parents who have released responsibility to this uncaring
state), bankers (should have been allowed to fail), etc. The community
(village, town or council) will make up the rules according the demands of
their environment, not the rules of the state which have no connection with
the local environment.

Anyway why would autonomy be any worse than the state. Sure, some things
might be worse, but many other things will be better. But at least you can
learn from your mistakes. The state never learns from its mistakes.

Captain
Ranty January 17, 2011 at 13:28

Saddy,

I have no desire to blow my own trumpet but perhaps this article wot I
wrote might help?

http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2010/11/hierarchy.html

This knowledge gets me through each and every day. I smile a lot more
than I used to as well.

How can I not when I know that government agents are lower than
maggots? No, really. They are.

CR.

will January 17, 2011 at 18:44

apologies but i must beg to differ

“a world where all people lived their lives and exercised their rights
with due regard for the rights and lives of others” is possible where law is
not imposed by force but voluntarily agreed upon for mutual benefit. sounds
mad but think of a polycentric system of law which was more akin to our car
insurance market. your insurance policy is reciprocal. if you get hit you
get paid. but in order to get other companies to pay, your company has to
promise the same in return. so if you hit someone else then you have to pay.
laws would be stronger due to the reciprocity you mention becoming
blindingly explicit.
voluntarism by way of private legal insurance,
dispute resolution, or protection agency would be far more ethically
principled than coercive monopoly legal system imposed top-down by an
elite.
it does sound utopian and idealist but why aim short? if noone had
ever experienced our current car insurance market that too would seem
naieve, complicated and unworkable.

speaking practically can be pretty dangerous. compromising principles is
a slippery slope.

it can be a common tendency to conflate ‘the state’ with law and order.
anti-state ideas do not automatically equate to lawlessness. the state may
seem to be the monopoly provider of both but that does not preclude better
alternatives in the absence of the state. just imagine how much more
straight forward it might seem to some to suggest national car insurance
along the lines of national health insurance. we know it would be as
terrible as the NHS is compared to free market alternatives. now work that
idea backwards and apply it to the monopoly on law and order that the state
holds. we have the nhs of legal systems. have a look at the alternative http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

will January 17, 2011 at 11:52

Raccoons are firing on all cylinders today! First Withers on Fabianism, now
this on it’s antithesis – Autonomy. great stuff, makes me want to fly post it
across the country.

I believe praxis of self-ownership is the next step for evolution of
civilisation. rational and objective reductionism has concluded self-ownership
to be the first principle of human existence. from this derives property
rights and the non agression axiom. coercive authority cannot pass testing
against this principle and thus the state is an unjust and illegitimate
concept. such individualism permits both voluntary collectivism and autonomy
and anything on the spectrum between those points. anarchy does not mean chaos
and it does not mean autarchy. there can be order and collective
organisation.

interesting point on parenting stamping on autonomy/self-ownership from
one’s very outset. Stefan Molyneux (whose ideas I am unashamedly fanatical
about) has a lot of material at freedomainradio about that exact subject.

Richard B January
17, 2011 at 11:31

Good post, very thought-provoking. And now I can sleep, after finding out
why you wanted all that definition stuff!

Joe Public January 17, 2011 at 11:07

Ah, the reason for the Autonomy-understanding request!

In this context there is the ability to differentiate between ‘Wants’ &
‘Needs’.

” It allows us to make moral choices, not merely the limited choices of
necessity. It allows us to decide whether we wish to eat meat at all, rather
than the more utilitarian choice of ‘antelope or rabbit today?’”

No animal would ever make a Bobby Sands decision.