Egalitarian? Accept no subsidy

If you compare the experience of a small shop owner with industries that get government support, one thing becomes clear. All industry support is cronyism.

It's cronyism because players in similar situations are treated differently based on how connected they are to the government. Some connected firms and employees get support; shopkeepers, small business and independent contractors don't.

That's why government decisions about support for the car industry, drought-affected farms, SPC Ardmona and Qantas are so important for Australia's economic culture. We are in the middle of deciding if Australia is to continue to be a low-level crony culture.

This isn't an expression of free market dogmatism. It may be true that the economic benefits of competition are undeniable, the flow-on to ordinary consumers substantial.

It is an expression of the hard-wired human desire for fairness. All people and all businesses in similar circumstances should be treated equally before the law, and in all government decisions.

This is at heart an egalitarian view. It is one that the great liberal democratic reformers of the past 350 years have supported: that privileges due to blood relation, class, faction, influence, connections and donations (as well as bribes) should not affect how a government deals with people.

In short, government funds shouldn't be the plaything of connected insiders. And wage earners and shopkeepers are not responsible for making up for any business's lousy risk management.

Nothing can make this clearer than a comparison of farm drought relief, car manufacture support, and the similar circumstances but very different experiences of a retail or convenience store owner who lives above their shop.

Farm businesses are a business. Drought is a known risk for farming. More than 120 years of data makes that clear. The only uncertainty is when and for how long. All businesses facing the certainty of a large risk are responsible for managing those risks - taking on risk is a key reason they reap the benefits of their investments.

Bailing out farms that can't manage known risks is simply subsidising a badly-managed business because it is badly-managed.

No corner shop that goes broke because a supermarket opens nearby gets a bailout, or interest subsidy, or mental health support. And that is a risk that is far less likely than drought.

They get nothing other than Newstart. Not even sympathy. And certainly nothing from sentimental news programs talking about "doing it tough". That is the way it should be. They paid their money, and they took their chances.