Rudd and deregulation

If Kevin Rudd thinks that neo-liberals have pushed the deregulation barrow too far then why does he have a “Minister of Deregulation”? I mean he could have called the position “Minister of Regulation” if it was just about tightening up regulations. Is this more Kevin Rudd double speak? Is he a closet neo-liberal?

6 thoughts on “Rudd and deregulation

  1. Don’t leave anything out, Damian. I’m honestly offended that you take this line with our Prime Minister.

    You left out douchebag.


    They don’t want to deregulate. from the very first days Tanner was in he talked about how they could create better regulation, not less.

    This government is worse than Whitlam’s. At least Whitlam’s cut tariffs.

    You now have SwanDive talking about how patriotic it is to pay more tax.

  2. “You now have SwanDive talking about how patriotic it is to pay more tax.”

    I just caught the first wave of preparatory tax “reform” propaganda this evening (ABC). I hope the policy astute contributers to this blog NAIL THEM GOOD and make a stand on this.

  3. Agorism is looking like a fine option.

    You’ll get free market, socially liberal conservatives being willing to pay taxes to defeat an utterly evil enemy (e.g USSR). The taxes we pay and are scheduled to pay are utterly wasteful, paying for pet projects to stroke people’s ego’s.

    It’s not even a matter of nationalisation vs the private sector. So much money has been wasted, that a lot of the increase in budget outlays in previous years would have been well received if it was used on real roads, real soldiers, real dams, real power grids etc.

    NSW has the biggest budget ever and it cannot afford to build new power stations. Rudd has spent over 600 mln AUD on Aboriginal housing and not one house has been built. The stimulus package for community housing has seen a decrease in houses – they’ve knocked more down than they’ve built. Eight months on, they credit the Q1 and Q2 recovery on this money that has been wasted and has had no real results?

    These guys make Hawke and Keating look like statesmen and political legends.

  4. I understand where you are coming from Terje but it is a silly thing to pursue. As you all know there are different schools of thoughts within the libertarian ideals from the anarchists and anarcho-capitalists to the minarchists.
    The title Minister for Deregulation is designed to satisfy the broad group of Libertarians and Liberals like those found here. I think you know that.

    Also for those that saying its about more regulation, in some cases you are correct, but that is to ease the pain on the larger number of people that will feel it mostly due to no fault of their own. Or it could simply be putting the effective regulation in place before removing the ineffective.

    In other cases, it is about deregulation but not NO regulation as it seems this place sometimes suggest but that is probably being misconstrued.

    I think the goal of the office is to find the minimal effective regulation, although mistakes are made a long way as in any job, I would think the concept should suit the Minarchist libertarians more so than any other group.

    Whilst with any school of thought they might not agree completely, they should have some truck with it. Failing that, it is nothing more than partisan bandwagon jumping.

    If anything, I think Libertarians as a group need to be clear whether they mean deregulation (as in some regulation) or no regulation.

  5. “If anything, I think Libertarians as a group need to be clear whether they mean deregulation (as in some regulation) or no regulation.”

    Industry and commerce need to be ‘regulated’ in real time through the principles of property, contract, greed and fear.

    Non-political institutions (associations, ratings agencies, private arbitration etc.) are able to perform far more competently then their political counterparts due to real time competitive forces and the profit/loss motive.

Comments are closed.