Socially Ideological, Economically Pragmatic

In my last post, I described myself as a libertarian.

Perhaps what I meant was, I am socially libertarian.

This means I basically adhere to Mill's harm principle in all cases: if no one is being harmed by an action other than the actor, it is a permissible action, as long as everyone involved is consenting.

Without compromising my position, there must be laws to protect children and other vulnerable people. But rational, free thinking adults? Let them do as they please as long as no one is being harmed.

This is a debatable position and one that is not based in pragmatism. I have an ideological belief in liberty.

As an atheist, I believe humans probably have just this one life and just this one body. To control what another human being does with their life or with their body is to meddle in the one life they have been given.

If a person chooses to take drugs, they are only harming themselves. It is self punishing.

However, am I an economic libertarian? In many ways, yes.

Do I believe the state should have a monopoly on fizzy drinks? Of course not. Anyone should be able to make and a sell a sugary drink, which allows consumers the complete freedom to put their money where they wish.

In this sense, tax should be as low as possible so that individuals can choose what to do with their fairly earned income.

However, when it comes to healthcare, prisons or education, my views are a little different.

These are the foundations of a flourishing society and are too important to be left to private companies in all cases. Instead, I take a pragmatic approach: that is, what works in practice?

If the state can provide healthcare that leads to everyone, regardless of wealth staying away from illness, then it should do so.

If state run prisons reduce incidents of reoffending and successfully tackle crime, then they should remain publicly funded.

Does this make me a socialist, libertarian leftist? Not necessarily.

I have no ideological opposition to corporations or austerity. I would, for instance, describe Corbyn as an ideological socialist, believing that the state is better on ideological grounds.

Conversely, Osborne as Chancellor was ideologically committed to austerity and reducing the size of the welfare state.

So perhaps a new paradigm is needed. It's not about left or right; authoritarian or libertarian. It's about ideological vs. pragmatic.

I am socially ideological and economically pragmatic.