I generally refer to myself as a Social Liberal. How can you be a Socialist and a Liberal at the same time, I hear you ask? Well, therein lies a tension that forces a constant re-evaluation of one’s support for political ideas and policy; a process which every political brain should constantly be conducting.

I am Liberal in that I see the ultimate goal of politics as a quest to free people. Freeing entrepreneurs to innovate and grow the economy is just as important as freeing employees from over-prescriptive bosses; freeing people from unjustified intrusion into their personal lives, like the snooping on people’s emails, matches freeing police and other local public servants to be creative and improve the standard of outcomes that local government can achieve. It means freeing people of different sexes, ethnic backgrounds, sexualities, abilities, and states of physical and mental health to work in a sector of their choice, lead their personal lives in private, and worship as they wish without prejudice, stigma or economic penalty.

I am Social in that I see the State as a vehicle for social justice*. Social justice means making sure that we don’t loose sight of the ultimate goal of markets, which is a means to efficiency, not justice. While we require that entrepreneurs be incentivised to push the boundaries of technology and organisation efficiency, we also require that for every increase in economic output there is a corresponding rise in overall living standards. Trickle down theory is all very well, but the State is there to police the implementation of that theory, and prevent exploitation, short-termism, and all the other market failures that lead to social injustice.

In truth I see myself as neither a Socialist nor a Liberal, since both positions are ultimately too extreme for me. I don’t believe that social justice should ever be wholly sacrificed in the name of personal freedom, and neither should overzealous redistribution of wealth stifle people’s freedom to create, innovate and improve the world. Rather, the joint justification, the double-litmus of any policy, is that it increases freedom or social justice without decreasing the other**. It is in these terms that I frame my discussion of social justice, and under these conditions that my support for concepts like redistributive tax and minimum wages stands and falls (not respectively), as you will see.

* the principal argument for the state is still to ensure the rule of law/prevent anarchy, but since this is essentially the starting point of economics it is also in the State’s power to dictate the terms of those economics.

** unless the massive benefit to one is outweighed by the small decrease in the other, one should never box oneself in in such broad terms!