In preparation for a Cambridge PhD seminar later this week, organised by the splendid Elsa Lee, I've been asked\u00a0to prepare a ...<\/p>\n
\"5 minute introduction that gives a flavour of your worldview (broadly conceived to include your axiological, ontological and epistemological, social, cultural and political approaches).\"<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I'll be starting with the heroic John Lilburne<\/a>,\u00a0a 17th century English puritan and Leveler who was about 250 years ahead of his time.<\/p>\n
In all my academic life, I've never had to say anything in public about my\u00a0\"political approaches\", although I think a read of my 1300 or so posts on this blog might make these reasonably clear. \u00a0Thinking about what to say has, however, been most instructive as I've had to be reasonably clear to myself about what I think.<\/p>\n
I am a social liberal, and have much in common in that regard with a whole slew of academics. \u00a0I want freedom of thought and conscience, and a for everyone to be free to live a life, as Amartya Sen put it, that they have reason to value \u2013 providing it does not prevent others living their own valued life. \u00a0This implies an intolerance of intolerance, which\u00a0can get troublesome rather quickly in a university.<\/p>\n
But most social liberals tend to be social democrats who believe in the perfectibility of humanity whether through reason, taxation or behavior change strategies \u2013 or all three. \u00a0But it seems to me that there\u2019s nothing particularly moral about bossing people about and telling them how to live their lives.\u00a0 As such, I\u2019m a political and economic liberal as well.\u00a0\u00a0This might be summed up as a wish for free markets and a limited state \u2013 because, on balance, these are good for society and humanity.<\/p>\n
Of course, the word 'liberty' doesn't travel well, meaning different things in different cultures. \u00a0The English liberty is quite different from\u00a0the French libert\u00e9, for example, and many political parties with the name liberal, are actually what others sees as conservative. \u00a0The Economist's Johnson column<\/a> has helpfully summarised all this.<\/p>\n
None of the above, I think, makes me neoliberal. \u00a0But what do I know?<\/p>\n