First a preamble: this article has taken rather a long time to see the light of day. This is due to the fact that (A) my production of written work is rather slow and (B) that I have dug myself into a hole which I am finding it rather difficult to get out of. However;
I have a problem. It occurred to me about a week after the demonstrations on the 12th of December against the increase in tuition fees, and the problem is thus; On the day of the protest, I broke a law. That law was the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act of 2005 (SCOPA), which has a clause in it which states that no-one may protest within (approximately) half a square mile of Parliament.
I broke this (SOCPA) law because I do not accept this law. I do not feel bound by it; indeed I would argue that I am not bound to obey such a law. At no point in my life have I accepted this law, at no point has anyone asked me for my opinion on this law, or allowed me to have a say in its construction. However, in the eyes of the state I am bound by it, and may legitimately* be punished if I break it.
To return to my point - the state considers that I am bound by this law, and in breaking said law it may legitimately punish me. As I have said, I refute this law on the grounds that I have never accepted this law. This argument entitles us to disobey any law that the state should proclaim.
Fine, this is an excellent conclusion - one which many Anarchists have come to - and is valid. We shall then assert that a person has the right to disobey any law which they did not give their consent to. Whether or not they may retract this consent is another discussion.
Now if I (and by degrees the rest of the populace) am not bound by this law, and by the same token persons are not bound to follow any law which they have not expressed their consent to - then under what grounds can I require of them that they should subsidise tuition fees?
The reason I was marching was that I wanted the persons in this country, many of whom don't go to university and have no interest in going to university, to financially support higher education. What right do I have to attempt to force them to pay for tuition fees? Even if 99% of the population wanted the state to subsidise higher education, this argument still stands for the 1% who would be against such a subsidy.
First, one might say that the general population have to pay taxes (whether or not they think it is right or wrong), and that these taxes fund many services that the individual may not wish to support, for example; nuclear weapons, MP's expenses and bank bailouts, to name some current contentious issues. Certainly, many people, if given the choice, would not wish to pay for such service. However, they are forces into doing so by the state, which certainly does not make it right. Even if (as noted above) the majority of the population advocate such taxation, such a scheme still forces the individual to capitulate.
So let us say that the bill had not been passed, and let us say that my protesting had a direct effect upon the vote. My actions would have then ensured that an individual was forced against his or her will to pay for a service they did not want. By breaking this law, they would then face a punishment for refusing to pay their taxes.
So how can I justify my breaking a law when my actions have resulted in another individual being forced to adhere to a law they have not voluntarily agreed to? Indeed, how can I support any action which infringes upon the rights of others?
You probably don't like this conclusion. I don't like it either. If you can prove it invalid please post your response.
*A note on legitimate; even though the practice of kettling is widely considered to be illegal, this is of no importance here. Were I arrested under SOCPA (or for any other crime), the argument still stands.
Richard Trist
