Behind Blue Eyes

Iain Dale reports that Boris is said by The “Independent” to be a libertarian, as if this somehow this is Bad News for the Tory Party. I admit to not being a professional political pundit, but my limited understanding of libertarianism is that it puts individual freedom of choice at the heart of everything. Libertarians believe that the state should not coerce people into doing anything. They believe that, left to their own devices, people will voluntarily do “good” because it is in own interest to do so and because humans are – in the most part – kind, community spirited beings. Libertarians think that the state’s only role should be to protect our borders and uphold the rule of law. This contrasts with socialism’s starting point which is that individuals are weak and greedy therefore the state must set narrow limits on what people are and are not allowed to do.

While I do not count myself as a full-blown libertarian, I hold in contempt anyone who pretends that it is a totally unfeasible or particularly nasty proposal. The idea that libertarians are somehow just selfish and greedy comes from the same chapter as the popular myth in the mid 1990s that all Tory MPs were just in it for themselves. It is easy to say “your ideology is evil” than to actually argue against it coherently. This is what the Left tried to do against Boris during the election. Please note: your attacks failed.

I am not a full-blown libertarian on the basis that I believe that in certain circumstances the state does have a role to play beyond keeping us safe from outside attack and internal disorder. I also wonder how we could get from where we are now with our watered down version of socialism to an ideologically pure libertarianism. I have been trying to boil down into a few words what my own personal philosophy is and I think I have it now. I believe that the state should only ever use the minimum force necessary.

That means that if the the electorate believes (as I do) that a high quality education should be available to every child no matter how wealthy their parents are, then the state might choose to fund school places for every child. But the state should not go any further than handing the money for school places to the parents. It should not tell schools what to teach or how to teach it. It should not involve itself in what types of schools are available or how they determine who should attend. For those interferences are not necessary to achieve the desired result of universal education.

It means that if the electorate believes (as I do) that people should not starve to death for lack of employment, then the state might choose to give money to people when they are in need. But it doesn’t mean that the state needs to run a complex tax and benefits system which encourages people to stay out of work even if there is work available.

It means that I don’t believe that it is Parliament’s role to tell people how to live or encourage them to live in a particular way. It means that vested and special interests should be ignored. It means that unless people are interfering with somebody else’s life, they should be pretty much be left alone to get on with their own. That means social and economic liberalism and sensible, properly enforced laws.

I am beginning to think that what I believe and what David Cameron believes are not that different. If Boris is pretty close too then all the better. Are views like mine Bad News for the Tory Party? I hope not, because I think that there are a great many people who aren’t Classical Tories nor leftie “liberals” who could vote for that formula.

Picture credit: Newsbiscuit via Iain Dale