Tough question Ritchie, tough question

If an action doesn’t reduce inequality why is government doing it?

I dunno really. We don’t ask the government to protect the nation by defending it, don’t ask them to define the nation by determining who may enter it, never call for the promotion of innovation and invention through the construction of a patent and copyright system, don’t argue for the repression of criminality through the censures of a criminal justice system, have no wish to generally promote justice through a justice system.

We only ever institute government and governance to reduce inquality, you’re right.

To put it another way, whenever a situation is looked at, and whatever question is asked, the criteria for judgement is does the resulting action reduce inequality and provide more opportunity for those who are otherwise excluded? If the answer isn’t yes in both cases then there is something profoundly wrong.

It’s not rocket science, but it sure as heck works.

The existence, role and funding of the Royal Navy is purely dependent upon its ability to reduce inequality.

17 thoughts on “Tough question Ritchie, tough question”

  1. On the evening of June 6th 1944, Eisenhower reviewed D-Day and asked his staff if it had reduced inequality.

    “We don’t think so”, they said.

    So he recalled all the troops in a heroic action under fire from the enemy and everyone sailed back to Blighty.

  2. good god. He really does just receive some shaft of light down one hole of his stump and then spaffs it all over the internet.

    – Snow clearance
    – filling potholes
    – running the civil law system
    – etc.

    How does all this nonsense fit in to his new overarching theory of government?

  3. Presumably Ritchie would oppose a government policy which raised the income of everyone in the country by £10k, other than one person for whom their income rose by £20k.

    Inequality has increased; abandon the policy!

  4. I presume the gentleman has always been scrupulous in not keeping more than the national average wage for his own use, giving the remainder to those of lesser income.

  5. In the early days before I was persona non grata on the TRUK blog I told him it might be a good idea to reduce the number of posts and perhaps consider what he was writing before posting – I was told ‘that would stop me speaking the truth to power’ – and that ‘he made no apologies for being a consistent campaigner for social justice’ – as several have said – he is eerily reminiscent of the character ‘Roderick Spode’ – and the riposte to him should be equally dismissive:

    ‘The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you’re someone. You hear them shouting “Heil, Spode!” and you imagine it is the Voice of the People. That is where you make your bloomer. What the Voice of the People is saying is: “Look at that frightful ass Spode swanking about in footer bags! Did you ever in your puff see such a perfect perisher?’

  6. “. . . the criteria for judgement is does the resulting action reduce inequality and provide more opportunity for those who are otherwise excluded? If the answer isn’t yes in both cases then there is something profoundly wrong.”

    The answer is *never* yes in both cases. Never. You can do one, or you can do the other, not both at the same time.

    Every damn country that’s embraced the idea that income inequality is a bad in and of itself to be combated (rather than, at worst, a *symptom*) has ruined itself.

    Russia, Cuba, Cambodia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, on and on and on.

  7. Bloke in North Dorset

    I thought the point of the Royal Navy was to provide jobs in Barrow-in-Funess and on the Clyde. The point of the Army is to provide a few jobs for uneducated young men and the sons of the aristocracy. Nobody’s worked out the point of the RAF, or civilians in blue uniforms as I came to know them when posted to an RAF station.

  8. Bloke in Costa Rica

    Anyone who doesn’t know the word ‘criteria’ is a plural noun should be bayoneted.

  9. Agamammon @12.02;

    “The answer is *never* yes in both cases. Never. You can do one, or you can do the other, not both at the same time.”

    A succinct summary of the egalitarian paradox – that to achieve equality you must treat people unequally.

  10. “Were you in the military?
    No, I was in the Air Force.” – GC

    The current Army denigration of our colleagues in faded Prussian Blue polyester is “the paramilitary wing of Ryanair”.

  11. You know what would reduce long term inequality? Forced sterilisation of the Jeremy Kyle class.

    I’m not advocating that, mind.

  12. The closest I can come is to say that the government should do everything possible to avoid unneeded inequality. Defining what equality is is the tricky part. Some people have definitions that make no sense to me.

  13. @ Bloke in Malta

    You’re not thinking ambitiously enough. Don’t sterilise them, shoot them. This will immediately deliver exactly what Richie desires.

  14. The existence, role and funding of the Royal Navy is purely dependent upon its ability to reduce inequality.

    I have been wondering what the modern Royal Navy is for, because it clearly isn’t for protecting the UK. This explanation makes a lot more sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *