Skin in the Game

One of the most befuddling of life’s riddles is how can a relative few, dictate terms to a much larger group?

The answer to that has been found by radical groups and extremists the world over.

The Nazis for instance, were only a small percentage of the German people but they managed to control and coerce into compliance, an entire generation in the name of their murderous ideology.

It’s a similar story  in Iran where a small group of Islamic hardliners beat and imprison the people who dare to buck the system.

Here’s an example of how things have changed.

This is a photo Sky News Host Rita Panahi put online about how her mother lived before the Islamic revolution.

Compare that to what masquerades as equality in Iran now.

This week the tales of women killed there because they refuse to wear the hijab - or islamic headscarf - have been horrifying.

There are reports that 41 protesters have so far been killed while demonstrating in support of Mahsa Amini (below), who was allegedly killed by the morality police.

Here’s some recent footage of the protests.

That’s an example of how a religious minority control the political decision making to their advantage.

There are many other areas it happens. We discuss a lot of them on this program regularly - concepts of gender, race, creed, colour are more reflective of extreme ideas than mainstream thought.

So too is the policy response to global warming, COVID, renewable energy  and a host of other measures.

To coin a phrase, it really does appear the nutters are running the asylum.

But how does that happen? How is it that a relatively small group can influence events to such an extent that they can control the majority.

It’s a real life version of that game theory known as the prisoner's dilemma.

That’s where even rational people won’t cooperate despite it being to their advantage to do so.

It happens in almost every field of human endeavour - sport, politics you name it, there is always someone seeking an advantage at someone else’s expense.

A book I recently read, called Skin in the Game by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, covers a similar subject. . He’s one of those super smart maths blokes who can break really challenging concepts down into something we can all understand.

One chapter of the book deals with exactly the issue I have outlined.

That chapter is entitled "The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority." Taleb writes:

"It suffices for an intransigent minority –a certain type of intransigent minorities –to reach a minutely small level, say three or four percent of the total population, for the entire population to have to submit to their preferences."

He gives a number of examples about how this works ranging from Halal food certification through to disabled bathrooms and peanut allergies.

In these circumstances Taleb refers to the minority as the intransigent ones and the majority as being flexible.

This explains why a  substantial percentage of meat products in Australia, the UK and the like is halal certified despite a much smaller percentage of the population actually being Muslim.

The majority of the flexible group don’t care while all of the intransigent group have skin in the game.

In political terms think about it like this.

It appears the Greens Party are basically running the country. Labor are scared of them and the Liberals think aping after their policies will prevent the drift of their supporters.

But the Greens have an intransigent base of somewhere around 8-10%. This is  a quarter of the sticky vote of both the Labor and Liberal parties. How is it that the Greens carry more weight?

They do so because the seemingly rational people in the major parties refuse to cooperate.

Plus, some of the flexible people, who are in those major parties will lend their support to the Greens crazy marxist agenda because it makes them feel good.

The Greens also have what is referred to as  the power of veto. They can influence the feeble minded minority in other groups outside of their own, giving them greater power.

To provide another highly simplified example, in a group of all men, it’s likely you could get away with serving just beer. But if you add a small percentage of women to the mix, most hosts would also offer wine.

The lazy host might presume that because most men will also drink wine, he could serve only wine and save the expense of providing different drinks and having  to wash up two different types of glassware.

Again, the minority have changed the behaviour of the majority.

Taleb provides further examples including a meeting of international executives at a German firm. If just one of the group didn’t speak German, then the entire meeting was to be conducted in English.

This is exactly the genesis of cancel culture?

Cancel culture doesn’t exist because the majority of people are up in arms over a tasteless joke or fringe behaviour. Most don’t care or if they do, don’t care enough to kick up a fuss.

That leaves the tiny minds of the hysterical activist to dominate the public square, calling for cancellation.

Thus, as Taleb writes:

"It is the most intolerant person who imposes virtue on others precisely because of that intolerance."

That begs the question - as posed by Skin in the Game.

"Clearly can democracy –by definition the majority — tolerate enemies? The question is as follows: “ Would you agree to deny the freedom of speech to every political party that has in its charter the banning the freedom of speech?” Let’s go one step further, “Should a society that has elected to be tolerant be intolerant about intolerance?”

He then surmises:

So, we need to be more than intolerant with some intolerant minorities. It is not permissible to use “American values” or “Western principles” in treating intolerant Salafism (which denies other peoples’ right to have their own religion). The West is currently in the process of committing suicide.

Which brings me back to the Greens.

Their voters are hard core. Sure, most would also be ignorant marxist watermelon heads but they simply aren’t for moving.

Thus, if one major party needs the support of these intransigeants to form government then they, the minority, end up dictating the terms.

Yet their terms are strongly anti-civilisation, anti-people and anti-progress. They are anti-science, anti-liberty and against free speech

Indeed some of their representatives seem to hate the very country that has given them so much.

That’s the minority voice that’s trying to set the agenda for the entire country.

And what do most of the rest of us do? We shrug our shoulders and say they are a tiny weird fringe and their kooky ideas will never catch on.

Well my message to you is it doesn’t have to catch on to the majority - the poison just has to enter the minds of a few committed activists for the fringe minority to start dictating terms to us all.

As Nigel Farage said earlier this week:

"It’s not enough to simply maintain the status quo, we actually need to move the needle back to where it belongs."

So how can we do that? Again,  I’ll quote from Skin in the Game.

The entire growth of society, whether economic or moral, comes from a small number of people. … Society doesn’t evolve by consensus, voting, majority, committees, verbose meeting, academic conferences, and polling; only a few people suffice to disproportionately move the needle. All one needs is an asymmetric rule somewhere. And asymmetry is present in about everything.

That my friends is our opportunity.

We need to find that lever, put our shoulders to it and move the needle, just like the lefties have been doing for years.