Speak to any Young Liberal and it won’t be long before you hear the phrase “nanny state”.  In fact, we have a Senate inquiry into the evils of the nanny state going on right now instigated by that champion of small government, David Leyonjhelm.

Sounds good.  We don’t want no stinkin’ bureaucrats telling us what to do!

We shouldn’t have to build pool fences or wear bike helmets.  We shouldn’t have to vaccinate our kids and we should be able to smoke when and wherever we want.  Food labelling is unnecessary and there should be no laws restricting media ownership or content.  We should all carry guns so we can keep the nation safe.  Free trade and tax cuts are good.  Minimum wages, penalty rates, wage rises and welfare are bad.

The neo-classical view is of individual consumers and firms and does not recognise the legitimacy of collective action.

It presumes equal opportunity for all where success is dependent only on willingness to work hard and take risks.

It values, rewards, and protects the owners of the capital, the entrepreneurs willing to take a financial risk with borrowed money, but does not consider the labour and social framework on which their success depends.

Those who educate our children, who care for us when we are sick or old, who keep us safe, who volunteer to help the vulnerable, will only be judged by their productive contribution to the economy rather than to society.

The conservative government’s aim is to privatise everything and let the market rule.  User pays.  Work, save, invest.  Don’t rely on the government to provide services, infrastructure, or a safety net.

This is apparent in the public service where the current buzz word is ‘contestability’.  If a private firm can do it cheaper then outsource.  This strategy has led to job losses, a decline in services and accusations of systemic rorting.

The move to rely on political advisers and strategists and to use external consultants has meant government ministers are no longer listening to their departments and the wealth of knowledge and experience of senior public servants who have served for decades has been ignored in policy making dictated by lobbyists and marketing teams.

Small government sees no value in any form of collectivism.

The common wealth, our assets, are being sold off for private investors to reap the profits.  Foreign companies are making superprofits developing our resources and are now taking over our farmland, utilities and transport infrastructure.  Investors have made the housing market unaffordable.

Wages and workplace conditions are under attack on many fronts – the minimum wage, penalty rates, stagnant growth, freezing the superannuation guarantee, the rise of contract employees, 457 visa workers, free trade agreements, supply chains that involve slave labour overseas and the demonisation of unions.

Public health and education are being actively undermined with an obvious preference towards private schools, hospitals and health insurance.

Welfare is no longer seen as a crucial part of a healthy society but as a drain on resources that should be directed towards tax cuts and concessions.

Wars being fought in the name of freedom seem as much about protecting capitalism as democracy.

There are few groups powerful enough to provide a collective voice against the ravages of corporate greed.  Churches are being ignored, unions undermined, and governments bought.  Even our right to challenge in a court of law or through legislation is being undermined.  The media is largely complicit backed by economists who have scant regard for societal and environmental considerations.

The only protection left is the ballot box but are Australians willing to unite against the real enemy??


theaimn.com/why-do-voters-fall-for-the-con-that-small-government-is-a-desirable-
thing/

Just add more sugar and it will sell 

Wait: no, more more more 

crocodile wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:


Well it would put them out of a job.

Government shouldn't be big or small, but the correct size for the task at hand.

It would be great if regulation wasn't required, but the market can't regulate itself in an acceptable manner, and people really are poo at making some decisions that can impact society in a negative way.

It's important that people have a sense of freedom, too - but that doesn't mean US style "rugged individualism" either

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 3:06pm:

Business's fail:  haven't you heard yet?

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 3:06pm:


The man is an ideologue though. His goal is less government, not the correct amount of government. He is far too biased to make an accurate assessment.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 3:18pm:


So do gummints

crocodile wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 4:08pm:


There is a lot of things the feds should get out of.

The LDP are the only party that says the feds should not be involved with health or education they are state matters.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 24^th, 2015 at 3:44pm:


His viewpoint as necessarily economically centric, and there many goals a government may have beyond simple economics. That said, not all economists agree with his approach Angus Deaton the latest winner certainly thinks government and regulation has it's place.