Values and beliefs - i'm confused...

So the Conservatives have a new leader... (I know, it's been more than a month since D.C. won the leadership contest - still, he is new-ish). He is young, energetic and he sometimes doesn't even wear a tie. And now I am confused.

But before I explain why, I must make a little confession: I am a liberal. No, not the transatlantic, heart-bleeding type, not even the current wishy-washy lib-dem kind. I am what Hayek would have called (ironically - see below - in an Essay entitled Why I am not a conservative an Old Whig. Ok, I am an Economist and I believe in free-trade, the rule of law, competition and individual initiative (broadly speaking the economic liberal consensus). Probably because I am an Economist, I used to see those characteristics as a given, as the most logical way to conceive the organisation of a society. Having read Hayek, I now realise that freedom is not free (reading this motto on the Korea Memorial in D.C. - the city, not the man - was a real eye-opener) and that the promotion and defence of freedom is indeed a never-ending task (talking to my non-economist and non-liberal friends is always a humbling experience). I tend to place a higher importance on other liberal values, as I recognise that these sought-after economic traits are actually grounded in deeper philosophical values. Liberalism starts with the individual and is therefore concerned with more than just material aspects. It is an integral worldview, that encompasses freedom of thought, autonomy from an arbitrary power (be it secular or spiritual) - as Kant said, Freedom "is the privilege to lend obedience to no external laws except those to which I could have given consent".

Being a liberal I am not a conservative (observe the non-capital C). I am not even a natural Tory voter (as with any organised political machine, principles are second to pragmatism, and the Conservatives have exhibit on more than one occasion a nasty habit to subordinate those liberal ideals to other, darker convictions , especially once one leaves the economic arena... not to mention the fact that I am not even British!). I would not, however, exclude voting for them, were I enfranchised, as I know that it is in this party where I am more likely to find like-minded people . Or so I thought.

Because here comes the new leader along and he confuses the hell out of me (no, not the tie thing - I actually spent all my university years dreaming of a job where I would not have to wear a tie; I now work for a firm where ties are not compulsory... but I have chosen to wear one every single day... talking about deep rooted convictions...). The other day, he made a speech to lay down the foundations of his health policy (to be unveiled sometime in the next... 18 months). Ok, the guy may be working to shed the nasty party image, but I actually could not believe what I was reading:

The National Health Service is an incarnation of the belief at the heart of British society that the wealthy and the healthy have an enduring duty to protect the poorer and vulnerable from life's risks. The belief that a sick child should be treated with the best possible care, without anyone asking if her dad can afford it or whether her mum has the right insurance cover.The only thing that should matter is the patient's need at the moment of presentation.That is the basic entitlement at the heart of the NHS: its reason for existence.

The Conservatives seem to have ditched in less than a month the Thatcherite legacy and have apparently come back to one-nation toryism. In this particular example, Cameron is steering the party towards a Rawlsian view of the world (still liberal, but with a more social-democrat, transatlantic flavour).

So where do I stand on this one? hard to tell. It is hard not to accept the logic of Rawls's Original Position. One can always, obviously, criticise the assumptions behind Rawls's Second Principle of Justice ("Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity"): it assumes that all individuals in the Original Position are risk-averse. It is easy to forget that by lumping everyone in an all-inclusive and cohesive category and taking the choice of this category as a univertsal truth, we are actually making worse off all those individuals who would take a chance at life's big lottery.

See, my hard-core liberal principles would lead me to believe: this is wrong, we have to minimise the areas where we are likely to constrain the freedom of a minority just for the sake of maximising the utility of a majority. Yes, I am not as naive as to not recognise that this is the very essence of democracy, but one has to limit those areas (an hence the state) to the bare minimum. I am also sensitive to the idea that creating a big state machine, even if one nourishes the most noble intentions, is highly risky: this erosion of the principles of individual freedom can later lead to other more dangerous attacks on liberties. It sets a precedent that other less charitable minds can exploit.

But when I place myself in the Original Position, I find that, because I am not a risk taker, I would actually favour, in principle, a national health system like the NHS. It is somehow easier to defend a thoroughly liberal position when it comes to argue that the state - which in a democracy is supposed to follow the will of the majority - should not dictate how individuals chose to live their lifes than to advocate against the NHS, even if the arguments are based on the same principle.

I am still confused. I agree with Cameron that one should get clarity on principles before drafting policies, but the deeper I dig in my own convictions the harder it is for me to formulate a set of beliefs with internal consistency (don't get me started on education, please). Should I compromise, review my beliefs, accept that there are differing shades of grey? Or should I stick to the liberal principles come what may? Or should I just accept it and get on with my life, like nearly everyone else?

In this occasion I am happy not to be a politician, especially one running a party that is desperate to come back to power... Still, credit to David Cameron for shaking things a bit and for making me think.