Could a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 14

On August 13 2011 04:18 Thorakh wrote:
And that's why there's a bunch of wellrespected economists on the council of course.

On August 13 2011 04:40 Saji wrote:


If your are free you don't impose things (how can freedom be imposed on others). I don't know what you mean by freedom in that context? Or are you talking about privileges when you say freedom?

On August 13 2011 04:49 domovoi wrote:

Well, economists tend not to agree on most matters. And where they do, you end up with fairly market-friendly policies that I'm not sure scientists would be too enamored with.

On August 12 2011 16:49 AustinCM wrote:
Do you think that a Technocracy could work anywhere in the world?

What is a Technocracy you ask?

A Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals, and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields.

So do you think that it would be able to accelerate scientific discovery and advancement and how do you think it would affect the economy of the given country?\

I for one feel that this is exactly what we need and will end the OP with a quote from Winston Churchill.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

How about this, I imagine a technocracy having about a dozen represenatives in each field and their decisions would need a scientific research paper sort of outlining why they made their decision, so people in those respective fields can peer review their decisions. I think that would be able to prevent any corruption.

On August 12 2011 22:32 mopy wrote:
I think democracy can work you just have make sure you get a wide spectrum of people into parliment. In Australia most politicians have background law or business, we don't have enough politicians with backgrounds in science, engineering, health, education ect.

On August 12 2011 17:06 Krogzor Korea(North). wrote:
What an absurd idea.

On August 13 2011 04:49 domovoi wrote:

Well, economists tend not to agree on most matters. And where they do, you end up with fairly market-friendly policies that I'm not sure scientists would be too enamored with.

On August 13 2011 05:34 RodrigoX wrote:
I Think this is a fantastic "idea" but I dont really agree with the idea of the people wanting to make as many scientific advancements possible in charge. While I think that in the end it could prove to be great, But I dont see why if the worlds scientists were in charge of everything, they wouldnt abuse their power to pick the handcuffs of ethics.

Basically what I see, is that we would have a period of terrible things happening, making life better once the technocracy was thrown out because they wouldnt stop abusing power.

On August 13 2011 05:38 julianto wrote:
How would the government work coherently if every domain is looking out for its best interest? Does the distributor of money and power have to be as equally competent as all of the divisions it rules over?
Although I must admit, I liked the sound of this utopian idea when I first read about it. It annoys me to see religious creationists trying to intrude into the biology classroom.

On August 13 2011 05:47 Archontas wrote:
Concentrating any power in the hands of an appointed few, where they have no obligation to explain themselves or have any concerns about being replaced or even questioned, just opens the door further to making decisions for financial or social reasons rather than the 'right' ones. A bunch of really smart economists with no oversight invented the financial product of "derivatives" and melted the world's credit system. A lot of really smart doctors classified homosexuality as a mental illness until about 40 years ago. Really smart engineers launched a shuttle which exploded 73 seconds later. Your utopia is a fantasy.

Yes, in an ideal world, decisions would be made by professionals with complete expertise in their field and total objectivity, but absolutely no political, career, or popular opinion concerns. Also, in an ideal world, everyone would have equal access to food, clean water, and medical care, research scientists would be treated like rock stars, beer would be free, and nice guys would get laid occasionally. We do not live in an ideal world.

On August 13 2011 01:16 NoobSkills wrote:
Best at their jobs, makes the most money, smartest = top dogs and from the private sector is where they would come from.

On August 13 2011 01:18 paradox_ wrote:
You're right, my economic theory is rather weak since my field of study is engineering but the point still stands. There are still going to be different schools of thought, maybe much more subtle but the differences are you said exist. There is no guarantee that those on the committee are more subjective to make decisions on public policy and will even come to a compromise faster than the senate. What you're proposing is basically another senate just on the matter of economics. You think economists are somehow going to show different human behaviour in that their "mini senate" isn't going to breakdown into the gong show that's occurring right now?

On August 13 2011 01:18 paradox_ wrote:
You make it sound as if senators simply make up policy while on the toilet. They have experts and advisers on the matter at hand when they write policy. The senate is simply the forum to present ideas before the people elected make a decision on the value of the idea.

On August 13 2011 01:18 paradox_ wrote:
What you're saying is to simply move this forum to a more specialized location (NAS). Now what happens when the decisions made by this specialized body affects healthcare, because it will. Let's even assume they somehow manage to agree on a policy and then they try to execute it. Why are the other expert bodies going to respect their decision. Why are those that run medical services going to agree to the cuts that they take. How is the NAS going to decide what % can be cut from medical services and what % is going to be cut from education etc. Having technocratic bodies aren't going to solve anything, it'll simply just shift the problem elsewhere.

On August 13 2011 01:20 Saji wrote:
What do you base on that economist would truly address the root cause. (because either they don't want to see/recognize or they just aren't able to see it(if you look at what is done now right?)

On August 13 2011 01:20 Saji wrote:
Is it because you identified economist as "experts" (people that have studied for it) and therefore they should now what is right (being able to see the root cause and act upon it)?

On August 13 2011 01:22 Jibba wrote:
Here's a scenario. Two of the top medical researchers (think Robert Gallo) work for competing pharmaceutical companies each racing to find and patent a cure for Parkinson's disease. The two prospective medicines will use a different method to address the issue. Now these are your two top experts on the field of degenerative brain diseases, but they have their research positions first. When the government is deciding how to appropriate funds for research in that area, who do they turn to? Both of them are competing, and any "objective" third party will not have enough expertise to make a useful decision (seeing as medical technology development is very secretive.)