‘Question the Powerful’ has for the past six years been putting the spotlight on ideas and practices which undermine the equality of citizens. Those who through their wealth and status seek to expand their power at the expense of others should be subject to sustained democratic challenges.
So if you would like to get involved with questioning the powerful, have a think about doing one or more of the following:
First, spread the word by letting others know about ‘Question the Powerful’, encourage them to bookmark the page, or post a link to this site.
Secondly, send us information on important issues other concerned citizens should hear about.
Last but not least, you can submit draft contributions directly. If the draft is broadly ready for inclusion, it would be printed with your name in the byline (anonymity can be agreed under special circumstances, but transparency is our default position).
If you are considering writing an article for ‘Question the Powerful’, please bear in mind these specifications:
• The topic should be of broad concern relating to how political power is or is not being exercised to help the public, and protect them from neglect or unjust treatment by powerful interests.
• Keep it to between 200-400 words (don’t exceed 500)
• Give URL references for any link to source information or further details that would be of interest to the reader (but not exceeding five if possible)
• Once submitted, all contributions may be edited and posted on ‘Question the Powerful’, while each contributor will retain your respective copyright to publish your article elsewhere with an acknowledgement that it was first featured on ‘Question the Powerful’.
[To find out more, email Henry Tam: hbt21@cam.ac.uk]
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Saturday, 15 September 2012
Unsure about the Start Our Children Get?
To prevent our lives from being blighted by crime, we need an organised police force, not just in the poorest areas of the country, but everywhere. We need them to be properly funded and well motivated. And if a particular force is not as effective as it should be, far from getting rid of the police service altogether, we want to see actions taken to improve the force in question.
A similar observation can be made about the need to prevent our children’s lives from being blighted by problems in their early years. Even those who defend ever widening wealth gaps are reluctant to come out openly against giving children an equal chance at the beginning of their lives. But every effort to move us closer to a common starting point, such as the Sure Start scheme introduced in Britain in the late 1990s, is beset by moves to reverse it.
The principles behind Sure Start are well established. Parents who have ready access to friendly support, expert advice, and a network of caring parents can give their children a more reliable foundation for their mental and physical development. Problems and potential can be spotted early, assistance is readily sought and provided, and the needs of each child are viewed as a whole and not in separate compartments. In practice, some Sure Start children’s centres are more effective than others. The key is to ensure they learn from the best and not lose precious resources to sustain their work.
Unfortunately what we have is a relentless cut in resources since 2010 while the tax rates for the richest are reduced. To deflect attention from this, we hear calls to limit children’s centres to just the “most deprived” areas, and drastically reduce their admin costs. While wasteful costs, be they in admin or any function, should be eliminated, admin is not something that can be simply discarded without consequence. Staff responsible for liaising with parents, organising activities, supervising maintenance, learning from service performance, all do a vital job. Getting rid of them means care and advice providers have to cover admin duties, and service quality suffer.
The argument about shrinking the reach of children’s centres relies on the superficial attraction of concentrating dwindling resources in the “most deprived” areas. But it is flawed in two respects. First, to save money, the “most deprived” will be defined in such narrow terms that many parents and children who need this service would be denied it. Secondly, as a consequence of turning the service into one for the extremely poor, the majority of people would see it as irrelevant to their own needs, becoming indifferent to it being further cut in the future.
We would not want police forces to be retained for just the “most deprived” areas, or to have schools or NHS provisions available for only the extremely poor. Neither should we confine the support provided by children’s centres to just a few stigmatised areas of “greatest need”.
A similar observation can be made about the need to prevent our children’s lives from being blighted by problems in their early years. Even those who defend ever widening wealth gaps are reluctant to come out openly against giving children an equal chance at the beginning of their lives. But every effort to move us closer to a common starting point, such as the Sure Start scheme introduced in Britain in the late 1990s, is beset by moves to reverse it.
The principles behind Sure Start are well established. Parents who have ready access to friendly support, expert advice, and a network of caring parents can give their children a more reliable foundation for their mental and physical development. Problems and potential can be spotted early, assistance is readily sought and provided, and the needs of each child are viewed as a whole and not in separate compartments. In practice, some Sure Start children’s centres are more effective than others. The key is to ensure they learn from the best and not lose precious resources to sustain their work.
Unfortunately what we have is a relentless cut in resources since 2010 while the tax rates for the richest are reduced. To deflect attention from this, we hear calls to limit children’s centres to just the “most deprived” areas, and drastically reduce their admin costs. While wasteful costs, be they in admin or any function, should be eliminated, admin is not something that can be simply discarded without consequence. Staff responsible for liaising with parents, organising activities, supervising maintenance, learning from service performance, all do a vital job. Getting rid of them means care and advice providers have to cover admin duties, and service quality suffer.
The argument about shrinking the reach of children’s centres relies on the superficial attraction of concentrating dwindling resources in the “most deprived” areas. But it is flawed in two respects. First, to save money, the “most deprived” will be defined in such narrow terms that many parents and children who need this service would be denied it. Secondly, as a consequence of turning the service into one for the extremely poor, the majority of people would see it as irrelevant to their own needs, becoming indifferent to it being further cut in the future.
We would not want police forces to be retained for just the “most deprived” areas, or to have schools or NHS provisions available for only the extremely poor. Neither should we confine the support provided by children’s centres to just a few stigmatised areas of “greatest need”.
Saturday, 1 September 2012
Political OCD: is there a cure?
In politics, those afflicted with Obsessive Cuts Disorder cannot distinguish between what should be cut back and what should be increased at different times to ensure society as a whole can thrive. All they think about is repetitively cutting taxes for the wealthy minority and cutting public support which would hurt the not-so-well-off majority.
Political OCD tends to affect the extreme right side of the brain. The most common symptom is blindness to evidence, often accompanied by a crushing anxiety that can only be eased through intensive draining of resources from the poor to the rich. If it is not swiftly dealt with, it will lead to severe depression. One of the best known examples concerns a succession of political OCD American Presidents who through the 1920s and early 1930s choked demand so excessively that it brought on what is clinically termed the Great Depression. The masses were deprived of a decent income to spend on anything much, while the rich either hoarded their money or blew it away on speculative bubbles. It rapidly pushed the entire world to the brink of collapse.
On that occasion, it was the careful injection of public investment into the economy, such as the New Deal in the US and the Welfare State policy in the UK, which eventually restored the health of those countries. Unfortunately, individuals prone to political OCD often succumb to prolonged memory loss.
In 2010 when the irresponsible actions of the under-regulated banking sector had left us in the most unenviable state, politicians were split as to what should be done. Those who remembered the past, like the then Labour Chancellor, Alistair Darling, suggested a phased approach to spending cuts, backed by higher taxes for the richest to help fund public investment to stimulate the economy. Under those policies, the British economy began to grow again. But Conservatives like George Osborne, gripped by Obsessive Cuts Disorder, insisted there must be rapid and radical cuts to public spending, while the tax rate for the richest 1% must also be cut as well.
More than 60 of the most eminent economists (Nobel Laureates amongst them) backed the more balanced approach favoured by Darling (see The Financial Times, 10 February 2010: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9fe18c22-1cdc-11df-8d8e-00144feab49a.html#axzz24f6ZLKLe) Osborne ignored them on the basis that he could find 20 other economists who would support his approach, and having won the 2010 elections, embarked on his relentless cuts. But over two years later, growth has completely vanished in what is now a shrinking economy, and of those 20 economists Osborne claimed to be on his side, just 3 still stand by their original assessment (The Telegraph, 19 August 2012: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9486536/Chancellor-George-Osborne-must-tax-and-go-for-growth.html)
So will Osborne change course and adopt a more measured approach? Cut taxes like VAT to help the majority, but not cut elite taxes which only help the wealthiest? Cut waste by all means, but invest in public services that will boost confidence and demand? The signs are not good. And distressingly, despite all the problems caused by his Obsessive Cuts Disorder, some Tory backbenchers actually want to see Osborne’s troubling condition get even more out of control. And over in America, the Romney and Ryan team appears to have learnt nothing from their own country’s history or Britain’s current experience, and promises an unmitigated outbreak of political OCD as the future for America.
Once they are in power, those with political OCD will remorselessly cut until there is nothing left but a tiny oasis of wealth in the middle of a desert of desolation and unemployment. Ultimately, the only cure is in the ballot box.
Political OCD tends to affect the extreme right side of the brain. The most common symptom is blindness to evidence, often accompanied by a crushing anxiety that can only be eased through intensive draining of resources from the poor to the rich. If it is not swiftly dealt with, it will lead to severe depression. One of the best known examples concerns a succession of political OCD American Presidents who through the 1920s and early 1930s choked demand so excessively that it brought on what is clinically termed the Great Depression. The masses were deprived of a decent income to spend on anything much, while the rich either hoarded their money or blew it away on speculative bubbles. It rapidly pushed the entire world to the brink of collapse.
On that occasion, it was the careful injection of public investment into the economy, such as the New Deal in the US and the Welfare State policy in the UK, which eventually restored the health of those countries. Unfortunately, individuals prone to political OCD often succumb to prolonged memory loss.
In 2010 when the irresponsible actions of the under-regulated banking sector had left us in the most unenviable state, politicians were split as to what should be done. Those who remembered the past, like the then Labour Chancellor, Alistair Darling, suggested a phased approach to spending cuts, backed by higher taxes for the richest to help fund public investment to stimulate the economy. Under those policies, the British economy began to grow again. But Conservatives like George Osborne, gripped by Obsessive Cuts Disorder, insisted there must be rapid and radical cuts to public spending, while the tax rate for the richest 1% must also be cut as well.
More than 60 of the most eminent economists (Nobel Laureates amongst them) backed the more balanced approach favoured by Darling (see The Financial Times, 10 February 2010: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9fe18c22-1cdc-11df-8d8e-00144feab49a.html#axzz24f6ZLKLe) Osborne ignored them on the basis that he could find 20 other economists who would support his approach, and having won the 2010 elections, embarked on his relentless cuts. But over two years later, growth has completely vanished in what is now a shrinking economy, and of those 20 economists Osborne claimed to be on his side, just 3 still stand by their original assessment (The Telegraph, 19 August 2012: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9486536/Chancellor-George-Osborne-must-tax-and-go-for-growth.html)
So will Osborne change course and adopt a more measured approach? Cut taxes like VAT to help the majority, but not cut elite taxes which only help the wealthiest? Cut waste by all means, but invest in public services that will boost confidence and demand? The signs are not good. And distressingly, despite all the problems caused by his Obsessive Cuts Disorder, some Tory backbenchers actually want to see Osborne’s troubling condition get even more out of control. And over in America, the Romney and Ryan team appears to have learnt nothing from their own country’s history or Britain’s current experience, and promises an unmitigated outbreak of political OCD as the future for America.
Once they are in power, those with political OCD will remorselessly cut until there is nothing left but a tiny oasis of wealth in the middle of a desert of desolation and unemployment. Ultimately, the only cure is in the ballot box.
Wednesday, 15 August 2012
The Targeting of ‘Troubled Families’
One way of explaining the UK Government’s policy on ‘troubled families’ is to ask people to think about the trouble extremely wealthy families must have – how to keep up their stratospheric status, manage their tax returns, stop relatives fighting over their inheritance. Conveniently, the Sunday Times Rich List identifies the 1,000 families most troubled by these problems.
Next think about the troubles caused by families responsible for crime and anti-social behaviour such as fiddling taxes on a massive scale, speculating with other people’s savings, or running businesses that harm the economy and the environment. These families protect their own and persist in their wrongdoing regardless of the consequences for the rest of society. Most of these families are likely to be rich, and since we do not have any reliable data on who they are exactly, we could just use the top 1,000 families on the Sunday Times Rich List as a proxy and target ‘interventions’ at them. The Government would dismiss such an approach as wrong-headed, mixing up the use of the term ‘troubled’. Yet this is what the Government has done with poor families.
They have used data relating to 120,000 families which were troubled by five or more of these conditions:
a) no parent in work
b) poor quality housing,
c) no parent with qualifications,
d) mother with mental health problems
e) one parent with longstanding disability/illness
f) family has low income,
g) family cannot afford some food/clothing items
There is nothing here about criminality. We don’t know if 50%, 25%, or 5% of these families have been more or less involved in any form of undesirable activities compared with the average population (whereas we at least know, for example, that 25% of those on the Sunday Times Rich List donate to the Conservative Party).
Yet the Government insists that they are concerned with these 120,000 ‘troubled families’ because, in the absence of any evidence apart from interviews with 16 selected families, it claims that their “children are not at school and family members are involved in crime and anti-social behaviour.” And they will target them to make them more responsible.
Instead of targeting criminals, this approach fires blame indiscriminately at poor people. But should poor people complain if the Government is prepared to spend nearly £450 million to help those classified as ‘troubled families’? Apart from wondering what ‘help’ is forthcoming on the basis of being branded criminals, poor people’s abilities to hold their families together are severely undermined by the Government’s decision to place the greatest burden of public service cuts on the poorest in society. The tax credit changes alone would deprive working couples with children (earning less than £17,000 a year) £848 million a year: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/apr/05/tax-credit-changes-bleak-friday-poor-families. Overall, the poorest 10% in the UK will by 2012-1013 lose 30% of their household income as a result of the Government’s policies (that is 15 times more than the richest 10% who would lose just 2%: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/how-cuts-will-make-britain-more-unfair). In that sense, they really are in trouble.
Next think about the troubles caused by families responsible for crime and anti-social behaviour such as fiddling taxes on a massive scale, speculating with other people’s savings, or running businesses that harm the economy and the environment. These families protect their own and persist in their wrongdoing regardless of the consequences for the rest of society. Most of these families are likely to be rich, and since we do not have any reliable data on who they are exactly, we could just use the top 1,000 families on the Sunday Times Rich List as a proxy and target ‘interventions’ at them. The Government would dismiss such an approach as wrong-headed, mixing up the use of the term ‘troubled’. Yet this is what the Government has done with poor families.
They have used data relating to 120,000 families which were troubled by five or more of these conditions:
a) no parent in work
b) poor quality housing,
c) no parent with qualifications,
d) mother with mental health problems
e) one parent with longstanding disability/illness
f) family has low income,
g) family cannot afford some food/clothing items
There is nothing here about criminality. We don’t know if 50%, 25%, or 5% of these families have been more or less involved in any form of undesirable activities compared with the average population (whereas we at least know, for example, that 25% of those on the Sunday Times Rich List donate to the Conservative Party).
Yet the Government insists that they are concerned with these 120,000 ‘troubled families’ because, in the absence of any evidence apart from interviews with 16 selected families, it claims that their “children are not at school and family members are involved in crime and anti-social behaviour.” And they will target them to make them more responsible.
Instead of targeting criminals, this approach fires blame indiscriminately at poor people. But should poor people complain if the Government is prepared to spend nearly £450 million to help those classified as ‘troubled families’? Apart from wondering what ‘help’ is forthcoming on the basis of being branded criminals, poor people’s abilities to hold their families together are severely undermined by the Government’s decision to place the greatest burden of public service cuts on the poorest in society. The tax credit changes alone would deprive working couples with children (earning less than £17,000 a year) £848 million a year: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/apr/05/tax-credit-changes-bleak-friday-poor-families. Overall, the poorest 10% in the UK will by 2012-1013 lose 30% of their household income as a result of the Government’s policies (that is 15 times more than the richest 10% who would lose just 2%: http://falseeconomy.org.uk/cure/how-cuts-will-make-britain-more-unfair). In that sense, they really are in trouble.
Sunday, 5 August 2012
Your Power, Your Government
Power is not evenly distributed in society. And history provides a constant reminder that those who manage to get away with amassing ever more power over others will have growing opportunities to take unfair advantage over the rest. Power struggles between individuals only perpetuate the structure of dominance.
The only way to break out of the cycle of arbitrary control by the powerful is where society invests its collective power into a government over which it exercises democratic control. Through their government, citizens can then ensure no individuals or groups can be so powerful as to harm others without being held to account by a public authority to which they must submit.
Unfortunately in practice, not all those who bid for political power will necessarily serve the common good. Some have an impressive command of rhetoric, matched only by their lack of competence in tackling real problems. Others are adept at deceiving the public when their goal is to exploit the reins of government to help themselves and their friends. But sweepingly curtailing the power of government would hamper those who have an effective plan to secure a just order for all, and unwittingly help private oppressors who can only be deterred by a robust state.
To live in freedom, we have to shoulder the responsibility for distinguishing between contenders for political office – between those who will maintain a balance of power that will enable all to interact without fear or inferiority; and those who will accentuate power differences by handing even more power and resources to the already strong to lord over their fellow citizens.
We need to expose self-defeating cynicism that dismisses all government activities, and increase public understanding of political words and deeds. If you would like to help ‘Question the Powerful’ by writing about political leaders and the impact of their actions, get in touch and we will send you a simple set of specifications for your contributions. Whatever country you live in, your government exists to exercise collective power on your behalf. The more is known if that power is actually used for the common good, the less likely would it be misused for private gains.
[If you want to get involved, email Henry Tam: hbt21@cam.ac.uk]
The only way to break out of the cycle of arbitrary control by the powerful is where society invests its collective power into a government over which it exercises democratic control. Through their government, citizens can then ensure no individuals or groups can be so powerful as to harm others without being held to account by a public authority to which they must submit.
Unfortunately in practice, not all those who bid for political power will necessarily serve the common good. Some have an impressive command of rhetoric, matched only by their lack of competence in tackling real problems. Others are adept at deceiving the public when their goal is to exploit the reins of government to help themselves and their friends. But sweepingly curtailing the power of government would hamper those who have an effective plan to secure a just order for all, and unwittingly help private oppressors who can only be deterred by a robust state.
To live in freedom, we have to shoulder the responsibility for distinguishing between contenders for political office – between those who will maintain a balance of power that will enable all to interact without fear or inferiority; and those who will accentuate power differences by handing even more power and resources to the already strong to lord over their fellow citizens.
We need to expose self-defeating cynicism that dismisses all government activities, and increase public understanding of political words and deeds. If you would like to help ‘Question the Powerful’ by writing about political leaders and the impact of their actions, get in touch and we will send you a simple set of specifications for your contributions. Whatever country you live in, your government exists to exercise collective power on your behalf. The more is known if that power is actually used for the common good, the less likely would it be misused for private gains.
[If you want to get involved, email Henry Tam: hbt21@cam.ac.uk]
Saturday, 28 July 2012
Can the NHS Stay in the Race?
In the wake of the heartfelt celebration of the NHS at the Olympics opening ceremony in Britain, it is vital to remind everyone that the goal posts for the survival of our public health service have been moved to favour private competitors.
The UK Conservative-led coalition Government has been telling voters that although they had previously promised they would not subject the NHS to another costly top-down reorganisation, they had changed their mind because they had come to believe that the NHS was too inefficient in saving lives and it would only improve if the private sector was given a much bigger role in delivering health services as it does in the US.
However, voters may have serious doubts about the government pressing ahead with reforms estimated to cost between £1.3 billion and £2.5 billion (Dept of Health and Treasury’s estimates respectively) when they learn two key facts.
First, Professor Colin Pritchard, whose research has been praised by the government, has undertaken a study (with his colleague, Mark Wallace), ‘Comparing the USA, UK and 17 Western countries’ efficiency and effectiveness in reducing mortality’ (published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Short Reports). Out of the 19 countries examined, the UK with its NHS system came 2nd in terms of cost effectiveness in saving lives. The US with its heavy reliance on the private sector came 17th. The UK has in fact a much more efficient health service when it is far less dependent on the private sector like the US.
Secondly, the Government’s insistence that injecting a much greater dose of profit-motive into the NHS would have positive rather than negative effects becomes less convincing when the widespread suspicion that profit-seeking would undermine healthcare is being confirmed. In its report, ‘Private hospital told doctors to delay NHS work to boost profits’, The Independent newspaper [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/private-hospital-told-doctors-to-delay-nhs-work-to-boost-profits-7962582.html 22 July 2012] revealed the practice by a private hospital of deliberately delaying operations it has been contracted to carry out for the NHS in order to nudge patients towards signing up for private healthcare which would give the hospital a bigger profit.
As the Government pushes ahead with steering NHS hospitals to do much more private work, the profit-motive would spread faster and wider, and hospital administrators would increasingly weigh money-making opportunities more and more against caring for patients who do not pay. The only prospect of halting this is for the Government to have a change of heart, or for the UK to have a change of government.
[For a report on the unlikelihood that the substantial reforms costs would lead to any long term savings, see: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23e48198-e845-11e0-9fc7-00144feab49a.html#axzz21NdPGcFo; for a PDF version for Pritchard and Wallace’s study: http://shortreports.rsmjournals.com/content/2/7/60.full.pdf+html]
The UK Conservative-led coalition Government has been telling voters that although they had previously promised they would not subject the NHS to another costly top-down reorganisation, they had changed their mind because they had come to believe that the NHS was too inefficient in saving lives and it would only improve if the private sector was given a much bigger role in delivering health services as it does in the US.
However, voters may have serious doubts about the government pressing ahead with reforms estimated to cost between £1.3 billion and £2.5 billion (Dept of Health and Treasury’s estimates respectively) when they learn two key facts.
First, Professor Colin Pritchard, whose research has been praised by the government, has undertaken a study (with his colleague, Mark Wallace), ‘Comparing the USA, UK and 17 Western countries’ efficiency and effectiveness in reducing mortality’ (published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Short Reports). Out of the 19 countries examined, the UK with its NHS system came 2nd in terms of cost effectiveness in saving lives. The US with its heavy reliance on the private sector came 17th. The UK has in fact a much more efficient health service when it is far less dependent on the private sector like the US.
Secondly, the Government’s insistence that injecting a much greater dose of profit-motive into the NHS would have positive rather than negative effects becomes less convincing when the widespread suspicion that profit-seeking would undermine healthcare is being confirmed. In its report, ‘Private hospital told doctors to delay NHS work to boost profits’, The Independent newspaper [http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/private-hospital-told-doctors-to-delay-nhs-work-to-boost-profits-7962582.html 22 July 2012] revealed the practice by a private hospital of deliberately delaying operations it has been contracted to carry out for the NHS in order to nudge patients towards signing up for private healthcare which would give the hospital a bigger profit.
As the Government pushes ahead with steering NHS hospitals to do much more private work, the profit-motive would spread faster and wider, and hospital administrators would increasingly weigh money-making opportunities more and more against caring for patients who do not pay. The only prospect of halting this is for the Government to have a change of heart, or for the UK to have a change of government.
[For a report on the unlikelihood that the substantial reforms costs would lead to any long term savings, see: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23e48198-e845-11e0-9fc7-00144feab49a.html#axzz21NdPGcFo; for a PDF version for Pritchard and Wallace’s study: http://shortreports.rsmjournals.com/content/2/7/60.full.pdf+html]
Sunday, 15 July 2012
Pyramid Hockey
Welcome to pyramid hockey. The rules are simple. One team permanently occupies the top of the pyramid and hits as many balls as they please down the sides. The other team based at the bottom half has to try to stop the balls hurtling down with nothing but a teaspoon. If just one ball reaches the ground, then all those below lose and have to do the bidding of the winners. If anyone on the lower reaches should exhibit the rare but otherwise useless skill of catching a ball with a teaspoon, carrying it up the slippery slope, and throwing it through a 2 square inch goal, then that individual, not their team, would be rewarded with being moved to the top.
You may wonder who apart from those granted a top position would agree to play such a game. Wouldn’t people refuse to accept these patently lopsided arrangements? The odds are stacked against them, and however hard they try, the great majority of them would remain humiliated losers.
But the organisers of pyramid hockey have a few tricks up their sleeve. They tell the losers that the whole pyramid would collapse and crush them if they do not abide by the rules of the game. They impress on those low down that they should always defer to the winners who deserve all their advantages. And they encourage the lowly occupiers to play a mini-version of the game where they can easily defeat the even more marginalised groups stranded at the very bottom, who would then be at their mercy.
If the delusion takes hold, the majority of people will come to accept it as the only game in town. Many of them will form a deep attachment to it as ‘their’ tradition. They find it odd, if not irritating, that some people should question the basis of the game. Some may even become immensely hateful towards anyone who dares to try to replace pyramid hockey with some fairer sport where, on a level-playing field, the winner does not take it all.
Judging by the vitriolic attacks on the efforts of progressive reformists everywhere, the spirit of pyramid hockey is alive and well across the world (not least in the US in the run-up to the Presidential Elections). For people fearful of not having a mighty elite in whose reflected glory they bask on bended knees, and even more in dread of being denied victims below them to tread on, there could be nothing worse than the prospect of being deprived of their favourite game. Yet for their own sake, not to mention those who have already seen the outrageous rules for what they are, it is time for it to end.
Let us remind them that in every sphere of life, today and throughout history, allowing anyone to get away with having too much power – as military, political or business tyrants – is bound to end up with arbitrary commands subjugating everyone else to their whims. The only remedy is to share power out more evenly, democratically, cooperatively.
With wiser rules, we can produce more sustainable outcomes, and share the fruits of our labour in line with criteria everyone has signed up to. A better future awaits all, except for the few who want to hang on to their winnings in the unapologetically nasty game of pyramid hockey.
[Follow Henry B Tam’s updates on Twitter]
You may wonder who apart from those granted a top position would agree to play such a game. Wouldn’t people refuse to accept these patently lopsided arrangements? The odds are stacked against them, and however hard they try, the great majority of them would remain humiliated losers.
But the organisers of pyramid hockey have a few tricks up their sleeve. They tell the losers that the whole pyramid would collapse and crush them if they do not abide by the rules of the game. They impress on those low down that they should always defer to the winners who deserve all their advantages. And they encourage the lowly occupiers to play a mini-version of the game where they can easily defeat the even more marginalised groups stranded at the very bottom, who would then be at their mercy.
If the delusion takes hold, the majority of people will come to accept it as the only game in town. Many of them will form a deep attachment to it as ‘their’ tradition. They find it odd, if not irritating, that some people should question the basis of the game. Some may even become immensely hateful towards anyone who dares to try to replace pyramid hockey with some fairer sport where, on a level-playing field, the winner does not take it all.
Judging by the vitriolic attacks on the efforts of progressive reformists everywhere, the spirit of pyramid hockey is alive and well across the world (not least in the US in the run-up to the Presidential Elections). For people fearful of not having a mighty elite in whose reflected glory they bask on bended knees, and even more in dread of being denied victims below them to tread on, there could be nothing worse than the prospect of being deprived of their favourite game. Yet for their own sake, not to mention those who have already seen the outrageous rules for what they are, it is time for it to end.
Let us remind them that in every sphere of life, today and throughout history, allowing anyone to get away with having too much power – as military, political or business tyrants – is bound to end up with arbitrary commands subjugating everyone else to their whims. The only remedy is to share power out more evenly, democratically, cooperatively.
With wiser rules, we can produce more sustainable outcomes, and share the fruits of our labour in line with criteria everyone has signed up to. A better future awaits all, except for the few who want to hang on to their winnings in the unapologetically nasty game of pyramid hockey.
[Follow Henry B Tam’s updates on Twitter]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)