kAs someone often portrayed as the party's high priest of economic liberalism, I have no inhibitions about arguing for competitive markets and an open, free-trading economy, and for maximising the contribution of wealth-creating private entrepreneurs.
Indeed, this is part of a long liberal tradition and it stands in contrast both to socialism and to big-government conservatism and protectionist economics of the kind practised by Gaullists in Europe and the Bush Administration in America.
Economic liberalism is not, however, the same as a "free for all". It fits well with a strong commitment to environmental values.
Big changes in consumer behaviour and production technology can be achieved in a free society only through the use of market instruments such as traded permits and environmental taxes; not by government direction and controls.
From a highly recommended article in the Telegraph via Tim Worstall. My main quibble with the Orange Book (see Matthew's comments here as well) is that it overestimates the role of government as a provider of doing good. It seems to (rightly) accept that government overestimates it's ability to deliver socialist policy, but that it is capable fo delivering liberalism. This is what i'd call a post-Chamberlain view of "state as liberator", where government is seen as a neutral tool for whatever policy input is decided. This view neglects the Public Choice criticism that governments have a natural tendency to grow - regardless of intention - and even "positive" policy can have unintended conseqeunces. I'd never expect a politician to genuinely campaign for a skepticism toward government (it's rare to make an argument that reduces the scope of your profession) but Cable comes as close as I think we can rightfully hope for.
If Mr Cable can import Mr Buchanan into his political philosophy, he'll find an intellectually robust - and socially just - system of government.
Yes, Buchanan would be a good addition.
Posted by: Tim Worstall | January 09, 2006 at 07:07 PM