|
On August 13 2011 04:54 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 04:49 domovoi wrote:On August 13 2011 04:18 Thorakh wrote:On August 13 2011 04:03 domovoi wrote:What we're actually doing is simply eliminating ideology from the decision-making It's quite naive to believe that scientists don't have their own ideology. Science cannot answer normative questions, and political decisions are often simply that. Moreover, what you ask is often just as important as the answer. You could say, "Scientists, give me a solution to solve global warming." The problem is that they are not qualified to tell you whether or not that solution would be calamitous to human well-being in an economic sense. And that's why there's a bunch of wellrespected economists on the council of course. 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. And that's where the vote comes in. At least we'd have people with a clue disagreeing instead of a bunch of monkeys yelling stuff that they think will get them re-elected next term because the general public is about as smart as the backend of a goldfish.
Meh, like I said earlier, we already have a Technocracy, and it runs fairly well, never mind the few instances where the monkeys make some noise. Economists run the Fed and Treasury, the latter which has Obama's ear. Most economic policies of any consequence flow from them. It's generally accepted that the monetary authority is the last mover.
Ultimately, though, it's not possible to do away with democracy completely. Laypeople outnumber technocrats by a wide margin.
|
Blazinghand
United States25557 Posts
On August 13 2011 07:28 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 04:54 Thorakh wrote:On August 13 2011 04:49 domovoi wrote:On August 13 2011 04:18 Thorakh wrote:On August 13 2011 04:03 domovoi wrote:What we're actually doing is simply eliminating ideology from the decision-making It's quite naive to believe that scientists don't have their own ideology. Science cannot answer normative questions, and political decisions are often simply that. Moreover, what you ask is often just as important as the answer. You could say, "Scientists, give me a solution to solve global warming." The problem is that they are not qualified to tell you whether or not that solution would be calamitous to human well-being in an economic sense. And that's why there's a bunch of wellrespected economists on the council of course. 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. And that's where the vote comes in. At least we'd have people with a clue disagreeing instead of a bunch of monkeys yelling stuff that they think will get them re-elected next term because the general public is about as smart as the backend of a goldfish. Meh, like I said earlier, we already have a Technocracy, and it runs fairly well, never mind the few instances where the monkeys make some noise. Economists run the Fed and Treasury, the latter which has Obama's ear. Most economic policies of any consequence flow from them. It's generally accepted that the monetary authority is the last mover. Ultimately, though, it's not possible to do away with democracy completely. Laypeople outnumber technocrats by a wide margin.
Domovois hits the hammer on the head right here. A lot of the governmental structure (In the US, at least) is controlled and administrated by non-elected officials, from policemen to the treasure to NASA. Most politicians don't actually understand enough to censure the Fed, and given that it's shielded from congress anyways, it's not a huge issue.
|
On August 13 2011 07:50 Blazinghand wrote:
Domovois hits the hammer on the head right here. A lot of the governmental structure (In the US, at least) is controlled and administrated by non-elected officials, from policemen to the treasure to NASA. Most politicians don't actually understand enough to censure the Fed, and given that it's shielded from congress anyways, it's not a huge issue.
It's true that the Fed is an example of a technocratic institution within the government, but they're an exception, not a rule. The judicial system can be considered another example, as it's effectively a technocratic institution of legal experts.
However, both are very constrained and most institutions have much less independent power and are much less insulated from political pressure. The whole idea behind a movement towards technocracy is that we want more parts of the government to be run like the Fed or the judicial system, rather than the status quo of Congress ignoring technical experts on most issues when it becomes convenient to do so.
|
I believe the system could work with a very small amount of kinks/corruption, but with anything new the main problem is getting the people to adopt it. Many countries are democracies - I don't think a majority of the people would be willing to give up their power of voting even if it would be for the best.
|
On August 13 2011 08:08 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 07:50 Blazinghand wrote:
Domovois hits the hammer on the head right here. A lot of the governmental structure (In the US, at least) is controlled and administrated by non-elected officials, from policemen to the treasure to NASA. Most politicians don't actually understand enough to censure the Fed, and given that it's shielded from congress anyways, it's not a huge issue. It's true that the Fed is an example of a technocratic institution within the government, but they're an exception, not a rule. The judicial system can be considered another example, as it's effectively a technocratic institution of legal experts. However, both are very constrained and most institutions have much less independent power and are much less insulated from political pressure. The whole idea behind a movement towards technocracy is that we want more parts of the government to be run like the Fed or the judicial system, rather than the status quo of Congress ignoring technical experts on most issues when it becomes convenient to do so.
I can't understand this. Politicians rarely ignore technical advice. They just shop for the advice they want: whatever opinion you need, you can find an "expert" who will say it. Then instead of proclaiming "I am proceeding against popular opinion", it becomes "I am on this side of the debate." And I don't see a technocracy solving this, because of the examples I mentioned earlier: professionals and experts are not immune to ignoring the facts that don't suit them or taking a political stance.
While democracy is painful sometimes, its the only way that works. Progression in technical fields often occur along with advances in the understanding and education of the public, and I don't think that's a coincidence. A "leave it to the experts" stance never ends well. As Heinlein said, specialization is for insects. Yes, practical implementation says there will always be appointments, but if a position of power is appointed, it should be appointed by someone who is voted for by citizens.
|
On August 13 2011 08:19 Archontas wrote:
I can't understand this. Politicians rarely ignore technical advice. They just shop for the advice they want: whatever opinion you need, you can find an "expert" who will say it. Then instead of proclaiming "I am proceeding against popular opinion", it becomes "I am on this side of the debate." And I don't see a technocracy solving this, because of the examples I mentioned earlier: professionals and experts are not immune to ignoring the facts that don't suit them or taking a political stance.
What you're ignoring is that politicians find 'experts' who aren't really experts at all. For example, conservatives in the United States cite cranks to argue there's no such thing as global climate change, when 99% of scientists agree it's a fact. Likewise, you can find 'experts' who will disagree with evolution, but the overwhelming majority of real scientists will tell you otherwise.
A real technocracy gives minimal weight to fringe theories and relies on scientific consensus. Only in a democracy like ours do cranks have so much influence, because voters are too stupid to know the difference between empirical science and junk/corporate-influenced/religious pseudoscience.
|
On August 13 2011 08:08 sunprince wrote:
It's true that the Fed is an example of a technocratic institution within the government, but they're an exception, not a rule. The judicial system can be considered another example, as it's effectively a technocratic institution of legal experts.
Pretty much the entirety of the Executive branch is run by technocrats. And Congress has delegated a lot of its power to Executive branch agencies because they know it's too complicated to hash out the details of any particular legal regime. Yes, there is political pressure in the form of people voting for the CEO of the Executive branch, but there's definitely a big buffer.
|
On August 13 2011 08:36 domovoi wrote:
Pretty much the entirety of the Executive branch is run by technocrats. And Congress has delegated a lot of its power to Executive branch agencies because they know it's too complicated to hash out the details of any particular legal regime. Yes, there is political pressure in the form of people voting for the CEO of the Executive branch, but there's definitely a big buffer.
They don't determine policy though (aside from sometimes having advising the policymaking process), they merely implement it.
That's the key difference between a more technocratic government and a more democratic government that uses technocrats to run their bureaucracies.
|
On August 13 2011 08:36 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 08:19 Archontas wrote:
I can't understand this. Politicians rarely ignore technical advice. They just shop for the advice they want: whatever opinion you need, you can find an "expert" who will say it. Then instead of proclaiming "I am proceeding against popular opinion", it becomes "I am on this side of the debate." And I don't see a technocracy solving this, because of the examples I mentioned earlier: professionals and experts are not immune to ignoring the facts that don't suit them or taking a political stance. What you're ignoring is that politicians find 'experts' who aren't really experts at all. For example, conservatives in the United States cite cranks to argue there's no such thing as global climate change, when 99% of scientists agree it's a fact. Likewise, you can find 'experts' who will disagree with evolution, but the overwhelming majority of real scientists will tell you otherwise. A real technocracy gives minimal weight to fring theories and relies on scientific consensus. Only in a democracy like ours do cranks have so much influence, because voters are too stupid to know the difference.
Those two examples came to mind as I was typing, actually  And I agree with you completely, their "experts" aren't really experts. But who decides what constitutes an expert? Someone has to make that call. Its easy to say "other professionals in that field" but then, what level of education constitutes a professional?
Eventually, it comes down what to the public at large believes - I don't believe there is any getting away from that. And thus educating the public should be our goal, not finding a system which compensates for stupid people.
|
On August 13 2011 08:42 Archontas wrote:Those two examples came to mind as I was typing, actually And I agree with you completely, their "experts" aren't really experts. But who decides what constitutes an expert? Someone has to make that call. Its easy to say "other professionals in that field" but then, what level of education constitutes a professional?
Generally, it's determined by being accepted by other experts, which in the case of scientists, generally takes the form of having a doctorate and publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals. In a technocracy, you need a majority of other experts to agree with you, for your expertise to have any weight. Therefore, someone who wants to argue that evolution is an incorrect theory better have a whole lot of evidence instead of a few logical fallacies.
On August 13 2011 08:42 Archontas wrote:Eventually, it comes down what to the public at large believes - I don't believe there is any getting away from that. And thus educating the public should be our goal, not finding a system which compensates for stupid people.
Educating the public is a key goal, absolutely.
But even a well-educated public isn't equipped to make technical decisions on issues as monetary policy. I'd rather have well-educated citizens voting on monetary policy than uneducated citizens, but it's probably still better left to economists.
|
On August 13 2011 08:47 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 08:42 Archontas wrote:Those two examples came to mind as I was typing, actually And I agree with you completely, their "experts" aren't really experts. But who decides what constitutes an expert? Someone has to make that call. Its easy to say "other professionals in that field" but then, what level of education constitutes a professional? Generally, it's determined by being accepted by other experts, which in the case of scientists, generally takes the form of having a doctorate and publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals. In a technocracy, you need a majority of other experts to agree with you, for your expertise to have any weight. Therefore, someone who wants to argue that evolution is an incorrect theory better have a whole lot of evidence instead of a few logical fallacies. Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 08:42 Archontas wrote:Eventually, it comes down what to the public at large believes - I don't believe there is any getting away from that. And thus educating the public should be our goal, not finding a system which compensates for stupid people. Educating the public is a key goal, absolutely. But even a well-educated public isn't equipped to make technical decisions on issues as monetary policy. I'd rather have well-educated citizens voting on monetary policy than uneducated citizens, but it's probably still better left to economists.
Okay then, looks like we don't disagree on much then. I absolutely agree that those who are better informed should be closer to the actual decision, and some sort of de facto technocracy for aspects of policy are inevitable and already in place for developed democracies.
|
do I want to trust so called experts?..why would I trust people with knowledge so incomplete?..anyway here in switzerland our democracy is almost a system where only the people vote who actually have, or think they have, an idea on whatever specific topic is to vote for. Which make it somewhat work in the long run. I prefer a democracy over a technocracy any day, simple cause the decisions made bascially have no large impact at all when you think further then 5-10 years. The damage is therefor reduced and the only real problem that remains is the fact that you became a politician in the first place cause you are not suited, not able to do anything else, usless people they are..Meaning the people in charge are generally handicapped by having simply not enough brainpower...what would be best is plato's idea of a philosopher state, for the knowledge of a true philosopher is as complete as it can be. Yes I dislike the so called modern science and most of the politicians who abuse their power to make a lot of money, and yeah I do study philosophy )
|
On August 13 2011 08:47 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 08:42 Archontas wrote:Those two examples came to mind as I was typing, actually And I agree with you completely, their "experts" aren't really experts. But who decides what constitutes an expert? Someone has to make that call. Its easy to say "other professionals in that field" but then, what level of education constitutes a professional? Generally, it's determined by being accepted by other experts, which in the case of scientists, generally takes the form of having a doctorate and publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals. In a technocracy, you need a majority of other experts to agree with you, for your expertise to have any weight. Therefore, someone who wants to argue that evolution is an incorrect theory better have a whole lot of evidence instead of a few logical fallacies. Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 08:42 Archontas wrote:Eventually, it comes down what to the public at large believes - I don't believe there is any getting away from that. And thus educating the public should be our goal, not finding a system which compensates for stupid people. Educating the public is a key goal, absolutely. But even a well-educated public isn't equipped to make technical decisions on issues as monetary policy. I'd rather have well-educated citizens voting on monetary policy than uneducated citizens, but it's probably still better left to economists.
Better? The monetary policy of basically the entire western world has been a gigantic disaster for the last few decades, creating one bubble after another. It is hard to fail more than what has happened.
|
On August 13 2011 08:39 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 08:36 domovoi wrote:
Pretty much the entirety of the Executive branch is run by technocrats. And Congress has delegated a lot of its power to Executive branch agencies because they know it's too complicated to hash out the details of any particular legal regime. Yes, there is political pressure in the form of people voting for the CEO of the Executive branch, but there's definitely a big buffer. They don't determine policy though (aside from sometimes having advising the policymaking process), they merely implement it. That's the key difference between a more technocratic government and a more democratic government that uses technocrats to run their bureaucracies.
Don't believe everything you learn in High School civics. Sure, theoretically, the Legislature legislates and the Executive executes, but in reality, the Executive probably determines policy more than the Legislature. For example, the FCPA says don't bribe foreign officials, but it's really left to the courts and DOJ to (a) determine what it means to bribe an official, (b) decide whether or not to loosely or tightly enforce the statute (even though the FCPA is pretty old, it's only in the past 4-5 years that enforcement has become a major concern for companies) and (c) determine what measures a company should take to ensure compliance. All of those impact policy more than the text of the FCPA.
It's even more like this for anti-trust policy, since the Sherman and Clayton Acts are so old, vague and unhelpful. It's been the courts, DOJ and the FTC that pretty much determine all anti-trust compliance and enforcement. And they heavily rely on economics.
Or how about patents. Congress has some say in procedure and broad subject areas, but what ends up being patented is mostly the say of the Patent Office and the courts.
|
Did you know that some of the same people who caused the Ecoonomic crisis in the US were University proffessors? *cough*Ben Bernanke*cough**cough*
|
On August 13 2011 09:14 xarthaz wrote:
Better? The monetary policy of basically the entire western world has been a gigantic disaster for the last few decades, creating one bubble after another. It is hard to fail more than what has happened.
Please substantiate your borderline conspiracy theory claims with some actual evidence please.
On August 13 2011 09:22 domovoi wrote:Don't believe everything you learn in High School civics.Sure, theoretically, the Legislature legislates and the Executive executes, but in reality, the Executive probably determines policy more than the Legislature. For example, the FCPA says don't bribe foreign officials, but it's really left to the courts and DOJ to (a) determine what it means to bribe an official, (b) decide whether or not to loosely or tightly enforce the statute (even though the FCPA is pretty old, it's only in the past 4-5 years that enforcement has become a major concern for companies) and (c) determine what measures a company should take to ensure compliance. All of those impact policy more than the text of the FCPA.
In the interests of full disclosure, you're talking to a political science graduate here. The implementation of policy has some effect on policy, but ultimately bureaucracies are constrained by the letter of the law, if not the spirit. Regardless, should bureaucracies attempt to determine policy in controvention to Congressional interests it's very easy to pursue legal/legislative channels to stop it, should it become a problem.
Most political scientists would agree that while executive bureaucracies have great power (to a degree that might surprise the average American), they still bow to Congress when the latter asserts itself. Further, they try to constrain themselves so as not to provoke such Congressional power, especially since Congress determines their funding. In other words, Congress is like the employer and the bureaucracies are like fairly independent high-level employees.
On August 13 2011 09:22 domovoi wrote:
It's even more like this for anti-trust policy, since the Sherman and Clayton Acts are so old, vague and unhelpful. It's been the courts, DOJ and the FTC that pretty much determine all anti-trust compliance and enforcement. And they heavily rely on economics.
Ultimately, it's still the choice of Congress to give them such free reign, and they do obey when Congress chooses to reign them under the threat or implementation of new legislation and/or funding cuts.
|
The whole idea of having educated minorities making opinions despite the views of the uneducated majority for the overall benefit of the nation isn't really a novel one and I think that there's a really good reason that we've historically moved away from that. People have a desire to have their voices heard in spite of what many people may view as their collective ignorance.
I think politicians represent people to a much greater degree than most would really like to admit. They are put in their positions not because of any expertise, but rather due to their ability to appeal to the public and unite people behind certain policies, both favorable and unfavorable. Their lack of expertise in any given matter is compensated for by their various advisers and use of hearings and committees. Their greatest trait, however, is really their ultimate flaw which is what the OP effectively calls them out for. Much like the uninformed public they represent, they themselves are often ill informed and have to make decisions about who to trust. Much like the average person, these decisions are partially guided by cold, hard logic and partially guided by their own moral principles.
My belief is that it's this balance between logic and moral integrity that makes democracy as successful as it is. While a practical technocracy doesn't necessarily preclude adherence to moral values, as an ideal, it cannot and that's really where it fails. The thing is that human beings are creatures that are always struggling to maintain a balance between logic and morality and it's only natural that their governments (assuming that the governments represent their people) represent the same conflict. In the face of the debacle known as modern politics, it really seems romantic to fall back on a system where there seems to be a single correct path laid out before you and I'm not going to argue whether it would actually be better or worse in terms of results because I don't know. All I'll say is that there's a big part of human experience that isn't dictated by science or technical expertise. Our values of freedom, individual rights, justice don't necessarily stem from any real logical basis (in fact logic would often seem to contradict our claim of such rights or values) and I don't think anyone here would doubt the importance of these values or be willing to let them go just because some experts could agree on a good reason for why they are outdated beliefs that don't match our social realities.
I may have gone off quite a bit with my post, but it seems that people are thinking a lot about things like climate change, but not really thinking so much about things such as privacy. Just to give my own quick examples, could you come up with a purely logical reason (not based at all on moral values) for the government NOT to be allowed to tap our phones or be able to reference on internet browsing history on demand for the purposes of preserving public safety? There's a lot of in justice that governments can get away with and DO get away with in the name of serving the greater good so I suppose I'm just very skeptical about the entire idea of any form of government where that would really overly emphasize that aspect of decision making.
Edit: Also, as far as science goes, there really aren't a whole lot of issues out there where there's a 99% scientific consensus about any given subject that would matter from a policy standpoint and even less where the government would act contrary to such a consensus barring any potential ethical issues.
|
On August 13 2011 10:01 LegendaryZ wrote:
Just to give my own quick examples, could you come up with a purely logical reason (not based at all on moral values) for the government NOT to be allowed to tap our phones or be able to reference on internet browsing history on demand for the purposes of preserving public safety?
Yes. One cannot deny that there is some sort of marginal utility to privacy, and that protections against excessive government power are a logically advantageous goal.
Additionally, such invasion of privacy may be deemed unconstitutional by legal experts as well, which would prohibit it.
On August 13 2011 10:01 LegendaryZ wrote:
Edit: Also, as far as science goes, there really aren't a whole lot of issues out there where there's a 99% scientific consensus about any given subject that would matter from a policy standpoint and even less where the government would act contrary to such a consensus barring any potential ethical issues.
You don't need a 99% consensus; 66.6%-75% will do for most things the way it does in a democracy.
Off the top of my head, I can tell you that (in recent years) our policies on the budget/deficit/debt, health care reform, global climate change, education, and scientific research have all run against scientific consensuses in various major ways.
|
On August 13 2011 10:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 10:01 LegendaryZ wrote:
Just to give my own quick examples, could you come up with a purely logical reason (not based at all on moral values) for the government NOT to be allowed to tap our phones or be able to reference on internet browsing history on demand for the purposes of preserving public safety? Yes, there is. One cannot deny that there is some sort of marginal utility to privacy, and that protections against excessive government power are a logically advantageous goal. Additionally, such invasion of privacy may be deemed unconstitutional by legal experts as well, which would prohibit it.
Privacy has utility for the individual, not for society as a whole. If the logical argument is going to be to provide protection against government power, there is no logical reason for any government to jeopardize itself by allowing oppositional powers to gain any foothold or dissent. Also, so far a social welfare is concerned, the preservation of individual privacy allows for much more risks overall than it resolves. Simply put, there's no great social benefit to be had in disallowing people to be strip searched before getting on an airplane... Our disagreement of the practice stems from our moral beliefs more so than any logic.
While invasion of privacy may be deemed unconstitutional by legal experts today, given a government where policy is made by people that have no vested interest in preserving our current constitution without a logical reason for doing so (one could make plenty of good reasons why the second amendment shouldn't exist anymore), it means little since constitutions could be amended accordingly, forcing any legal experts to apply their expertise within those new confines. Ultimately, you would be at the mercy of how far these experts are willing to take their views of what would be beneficial to society.
|
On August 13 2011 10:20 LegendaryZ wrote:
Privacy has utility for the individual, not for society as a whole. If the logical argument is going to be to provide protection against government power, there is no logical reason for any government to jeopardize itself by allowing oppositional powers to gain any foothold or dissent.
Privacy does have utility for society as a whole as society is made up of individuals. There are intangible social drawbacks to invasion of privacy, such as harming people psychologically. If enough people people are sufficiently harmed by such drawbacks, then the costs of invading privacy outweigh the benefits to individual safety.
On some level, a society has to select a point somewhere along the continuum of privacy and safety. Utlimately, since the public has a very poor and non-empirical way of evaluating risks to safety (hence why we have panics which drastically hurt freedoms in the wake of focusing events, while ignoring major killers such as obesity), it's better for experts to decide.
You might be surprised by this, but in a more technocratic America, there would likely be less invasion of privacy in the interests of law enforcement. Most of our recent implementations of such policy, such as the Patriot Act, were founded in public fear rather than expert consensus.
On August 13 2011 10:20 LegendaryZ wrote:
Also, so far a social welfare is concerned, the preservation of individual privacy allows for much more risks overall than it resolves. Simply put, there's no great social benefit to be had in disallowing people to be strip searched before getting on an airplane... Our disagreement of the practice stems from our moral beliefs more so than any logic.
There is a social benefit, because people don't like it. While that has a foundation in moral issues, that discomfort is nevertheless legitimate, has real effects such as discouraging people from using air travel, and must be taken into account.
On August 13 2011 10:20 LegendaryZ wrote:
While invasion of privacy may be deemed unconstitutional by legal experts today, given a government where policy is made by people that have no vested interest in preserving our current constitution without a logical reason for doing so, it means little since constitutions could be amended accordingly, forcing any legal experts to apply their expertise within those new confines. Ultimately, you would be at the mercy of how far these experts are willing to take their views of what would be beneficial to society.
Legal experts would be the defining technocrats in any attempt to amend the Constitution, so unless there's a radical shift in their opinions (which only usually occurs in the face of drastically changing evidence or nature of life), the Constitution will generally remain static.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
