Wrong to work?

Hmm, I happened upon an interesting discussion yesterday in which a lawyer was arguing with a benefit recipient about the relative merits of their respective endeavours. The lawyer pontificated about the apparent lifestyle choice of the supposed scrounger and its validity, resting on the principle ‘wrong to work’.

The benefit recipient, quite rightly asked what (if anything) positive came from the lawyer's work. The lawyer lost the argument (soundly, it appeared to me) when the only response mustered was 'achieving equality for clients'. This was countered with the accusation that, as an intangible benefit, equality didn’t count as value.

Then, naturally, the labels started flying, starting with something like commie, which resulted in the lazy and obvious retaliation of fascist, swiftly followed by Tory, red, chav, scum, toff and all the usual suspects and before you could say ‘giro’ the whole argument was a busted flush.

If the validity of somebody's existence lies in the sum of 'worth' they provide to the world, it could very easily be argued that lawyers, as a ‘species’, contribute very much to the deficit. In fact the best paid lawyers are generally retained by those whose own actions are highly questionable – that’s antimoral leverage in action. It is no accident that many US politicians and presidents have practised law, a trend becoming ever more popular over here.

So, stalemate? I don't believe in rewarding idleness - how could any rational thinker? But I actually quite like the idea of 'wrong to work' in a sense - it is often said that if you find a job you love you never have to work again. And if more people were happy there would be less need for bloody lawyers in the first place!

I understand and support the idea of a financial safety net – instant evictions and suchlike would only create yet more work for lawyers, after all – but any such system will always be open to exploitation by the unscrupulous. We’ve seen it happen time and time again.

But, rich or poor, fit or lame, the concept of earning a living still applies. If you earn your place by graft or talent or by the largesse of those around you it shouldn’t matter until you are perceived as taking the piss. This applies as much to tax-avoiders being ostentatious as it does to those fraudulently ‘on the sick’. Nobody should get a free ride (although you should be allowed to coast in the slipstream from time to time).

Self-sufficiency is a laudable aim and moral self-sufficiency is a grand idea, except for the huge lack of self-awareness that man displays, but unless you want to cut yourself off completely it can rarely work. Bartering a few eggs or an occasional sack of spuds is hardly likely to fund a Sky subscription. For that you need money.

And there’s your problem, right there. Even if you reset everything and money became merely an intermediary currency, it would take no time at all for human avarice to re-establish, then accelerate, the wealth gap. In a grown-up world, I guess you just have to accept that and choose which course of living makes you least unhappy.

Is it so wrong to work? (Comments below)

Mental

Grist to my mill to see this Daily Mail article which considers a supposed human right to claim benefits and lead a comfortable standard of living. Yet this isn't a comedy sketch and nobody is laughing. (In fact, the removal of the sense of humour from the national psyche seems to be yet another part of the Socialist project to destroy all that was once good about the British - will the last comedian standing please turn off the lights?)

We live in a world where, it seems, individual rights take precedent over the rights of the majority; over the national good. From a once-upon-a-time where children were to be seen but not heard, today the mewling infant is given immediate succour and an example is set for the rest of its life. Scream and ye shall gain.

From the shrieking demands of various left-wing special interests, we end up with the ridiculous notion of equality AND diversity being conjoined in a single oxymoronic phrase. All must have prizes, all must be happy and if governments have to pay people not to riot, which is what we're really talking about here, so be it. Anything rather than face reality.

And the reality is that equality is a delusion that could only be swallowed whole and supported by the mentally ill.

It used to be a joke when, in the nineteen seventies, the criminals' arrest mantra "I know my rights" began to be taken up by one and all in a disturbing swell of individual entitlement. Now, everybody knows that the rights of the criminal far exceed the apparent rights of their victims. Habitual offenders hypocritically demand personal rights to trespass even as they deny those rights to those they trespass against.

Where is the right not to be burgled, the right not to feel a minority in the country of your ancestors, the right not to have to hand over every penny of your life's earnings to get what others - the idle - get for free? If you have the right to choose indolence, surely I have the right NOT to pay for your choice?

The only winners here are natural criminals. By natural criminals I mean those who want what I've got without having to work for it - a dole-monkey is no different from a burglar. Or a criminal defence lawyer, for that matter. Because those who aid and abet crime are themselves part of the crime.

Once upon a time two things would have been certain in the case of Hannah Bonser, the cold-blooded murderess jailed for killing a teenager for no reason whatsoever. The first is that it would probably have never happened. The second is that she would have been swiftly tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. But, her human right to deliberately interfere with her mental balance, coupled with her human right to therefore do what the fuck she wants, has led to a defence (thankfully failed, yet paid for by us – we’re all still victims here) that she was not accountable for her actions. 

You’d have to be mental to believe that this system of abused human rights legislation ought to be extended still further; even thinking about it is enough to drive you round the bend. When will we say enough is enough? Last year's rioters were criminals or the criminally stupid. Maybe the next crop will be judged merely criminally insane and thus not responsible for their deeds. 

Shoot me now.

A Few Good Men

In a follow-up to yesterday's housing benefit story I offer another view, from The Daily Mail's Stephen Glover. Of course there's a problem right there. As soon as I cite the Daily Mail, there will be a visceral reaction from certain quarters that the DM is only capable of biased reporting which, ironically enough, is exactly what that article is complaining about.

I got into a small twitter-spat last night on similar lines; that from one perspective another's viewpoint will be biased. In this case I was 'chatting' to a lawyer, in my opinion a profession with no more sense of right and wrong than many of the villains it often represents. (Nothing personal, Jane.) It came down to a simple choice - given a vote would you put to the sword all the tradesmen (such as electricians) or could you suffer to live without lawyers?

Survey: Given a choice, who would you put up against the wall?

          A) Bent, scum-sucking, parasitic lawyers, or
          B)  Good, honest, down to earth tradesmen

Do you see what I did there? I deftly employed a certain amount of barely discernible spin to influence your vote, just like the politicos do. (Although in this case there was no need; the lawyers every time, right?)

In the movie, Colonel Jessup said "You can't handle the truth!" But what IS the truth? I know what I think - and so do you - but there is always more than one way of looking at any issue, to wit:

• Did the government just generously increase pensions or viciously slash them?
• Did they cut their wealthy chums a nice tax break, or will the 45% rate actually increase the overall tax take, which is far more important for the country? (The reaction of wealthy Français to proposals to increase theirs to 45% suggests the latter but only time will tell.)
• Have we actually had any real cuts in public spending yet, or is everybody just reacting the way The Guardian and the BBC tells them they should?
• Living standards falling is not the same thing as true, harsh austerity - many people live beyond their real means anyway. For the greater majority, life continues pretty much the same with a bit of added thrift. Sounds sensible to me, but to some it's like stamping on the heads of babies.

Both sides let their political affiliations affect their judgement, which makes rational discussion and debate almost impossible. To the left any reductions in public spending are a calculated assault on the very poor. To the right, those in work cannot be expected to forever pay for more and more poor - they breed, you know.

But worse than that, it makes it nigh-on impossible to even know what the truth is because those who deliver this important information may often be biased themselves. (Take a bow, the popular news media.) Then it all comes down to perception and acceptability. While the last government were spending every penny they could to buy acceptance, riding the wave of worldwide fiscal madness and impropriety, nobody cared because the world looked like they thought it ought to look.

Truth or Beauty?

I have a feeling that what we are experiencing right now is nothing more or less than naked reality. And while the truth doesn't have to be ugly, it often falls short of what you might want to be told. But, as Paloma Faith asks, "Do you want the truth or something beautiful?"

Please feel free to vote on the lawyer thing by casting your vote in comments, below.