|
On August 13 2011 10:29 sunprince wrote:
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.
So your response to changing in the constitution is to run it by people who are charged with enforcing the existing constitution? I think I'm missing the logic in that. If the existing constitution was fine, why would you need to amend it in the first place? There's a pretty good reason that the people in charge of changes to the constitution are also not the ones in charge of interpreting it, enforcing it, or applying it.
I don't see how you would effectively separate legislature the way it seems like you're proposing and expect to have any functional government, especially when science (something that's always moving quickly) and law (something that is always moving slowly) start butting heads. If the scientific technocrats believe that society would be better served by systematically breeding out genetic diseases and legal technocrats argue that it's unconstitutional, who decides which side wins that argument in this system?
Or are the scientific technocrats only allowed to institute laws and policies that fall in line within the existing legal framework that legal technocrats agree on? If that's the case, what exactly is the point then since it would be the legal technocrats with no scientific knowledge ultimately determining what is or is not permitted? I'll have to admit that I'm quickly getting lost here.
I suppose I was thinking more of a meritocracy that an technocracy now that I think about it...
|
Ever heard of efficient markets? The invisible hand? Yea, it works better than bureaucratic decisions made by "experts."
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-Winston Churchill
|
On August 13 2011 10:52 LegendaryZ wrote:
So your response to changing in the constitution is to run it by people who are charged with enforcing the existing constitution? I think I'm missing the logic in that. If the existing constitution was fine, why would you need to amend it in the first place? There's a pretty good reason that the people in charge of changes to the constitution are also not the ones in charge of interpreting it, enforcing it, or applying it.
That's how it already is. Legal experts dominate both the interpretation and changing of the Constitution.
On August 13 2011 10:52 LegendaryZ wrote:
I don't see how you would effectively separate legislature the way it seems like you're proposing and expect to have any functional government, especially when science (something that's always moving quickly) and law (something that is always moving slowly) start butting heads. If the scientific technocrats believe that society would be better served by systematically breeding out genetic diseases and legal technocrats argue that it's unconstitutional, who decides which side wins that argument in this system?
The Constitution triumphs. To enact such a change, biological technocrats would have to convince legal technocrats that it is worth pursuing.
On August 13 2011 10:52 LegendaryZ wrote:
Or are the scientific technocrats only allowed to institute laws and policies that fall in line within the existing legal framework that legal technocrats agree on? If that's the case, what exactly is the point then since it would be the legal technocrats with no scientific knowledge ultimately determining what is or is not permitted? I'll have to admit that I'm quickly getting lost here.
The Constituion that legal technocrats dominate in only provides for a broad legal framework. It has little to do with policymaking except for providing loose rules that policymakers need to avoid crossing.
On August 13 2011 10:52 LegendaryZ wrote:
I suppose I was thinking more of a meritocracy that an technocracy now that I think about it...
Technocracy can and should be a form of meritocracy, yes.
|
On August 13 2011 10:59 cLutZ wrote:
Ever heard of efficient markets? The invisible hand? Yea, it works better than bureaucratic decisions made by "experts."
Both of those ideas were brough to you by the 'experts' you have so little regard for. And those same experts would support those ideas in a technocracy as well.
|
On August 13 2011 11:04 sunprince wrote:
That's how it already is. Legal experts dominate both the interpretation and changing of the Constitution.
The Constitution triumphs. To enact such a change, biological technocrats would have to convince legal technocrats that it is worth pursuing.
I thought these were the exact problems we were trying to solve with in the first place--the fact that things are ultimately decided by people with absolutely no expertise in the actual issue at hand... Why should a legal expert be consulted at any point in a matter of health or security if there's already an expert consensus within those specific fields that we're arguing the law should be determined by? Shouldn't the legal expert in such a case just be in charge of interpreting and applying the law that the other experts made rather than having a hand in the approval of those laws? -_-;;
The Constituion that legal technocrats dominate in only provides for a broad legal framework. It has little to do with policymaking except for providing loose rules that policymakers need to avoid crossing.
Considering that every law has to be constitutional, I would hardly call it "loose rules", especially when you start dealing with initiatives that begin to discard individual rights for the greater good of society or vice versa. I don't just mean security issues either. Just about everything from health to welfare often tread these boundaries between the individual and the collective.
|
On August 13 2011 11:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
I thought these were the exact problems we were trying to solve with in the first place--the fact that things are ultimately decided by people with absolutely no expertise in the actual issue at hand... Why should a legal expert be consulted at any point in a matter of health or security if there's already an expert consensus within those specific fields that we're arguing the law should be determined by? Shouldn't the legal expert in such a case just be in charge of interpreting and applying the law that the other experts made rather than having a hand in the approval of those laws? -_-;;
Legal experts have very little direct influence over policy decisions, serving primarily as a constraint.
I think the problem you're having is distinguishing between constitutional law and policy/administrative law. Legal technocrats dominate the former, but it doesn't affect the latter as much as you're making it seem.
On August 13 2011 11:19 LegendaryZ wrote:
Considering that every law has to be constitutional, I would hardly call it "loose rules", especially when you start dealing with initiatives that begin to discard individual rights for the greater good of society or vice versa. I don't just mean security issues either. Just about everything from health to welfare often tread these boundaries between the individual and the collective.
Yet only a minority of laws ever run into problems with constitutionality. For the most part, policy decisions that potentially violate the constitution aren't even on the table in the first place, since threatening civil rights is rarely an ideal option if it can be avoided.
|
Fuck yeah. It's way too "lib'ral" though. Dem derr conservatives would get all panty-bunched if a buncha-lib'tards wuz in charge of the cunt'ree. MITT ROMNEY. Yerrrrhaww. We need's us sum honest-ter-gawd religius ledership! yeerrrrrr!!! dey tooker jerbs!
Yeah but really, technocracy is a cool idea and all, but it simply would be impossible to implement in today's domestic AND global political climates.
|
Are these officials voted on or elected? It seems corruption would be very potent in a system with such few players.
However, if everything ran smoothly and without interference, the system sounds like it would work marvelously, as you would have competent officials directing in their feilds of interest.
|
On August 13 2011 11:34 sunprince wrote:
Legal experts have very little direct influence over policy decisions, serving primarily as a constraint.
I think the problem you're having is distinguishing between constitutional law and policy/administrative law. Legal technocrats dominate the former, but it doesn't affect the latter as much as you're making it seem.
Yet only a minority of laws ever run into problems with constitutionality. For the most part, policy decisions that potentially violate the constitution aren't even on the table in the first place, since threatening civil rights is rarely an ideal option if it can be avoided.
That's because politicians (many of whom at least in the United States are probably close to what you would consider legal technocrats given their heavy legal background) are always arguing about it to the point where very few laws that actually challenge the boundaries pass the legislative process. There are, however, arguments made every single day within the legislature about bills that never pass, many of which would probably serve to our social benefit. Just because politicians do the work beforehand doesn't mean controversial bills are never on the table in the first place. It's just that politicians often act as their own constraint rather than your suggested system where a separate entity would act as a constraint to a group of people whose primary interest isn't actually the law so much as enacting positive progress.
I took a bit of time to read through some of the other posts in the thread and I noticed that you referred to China as a technocracy, which it really isn't (at least not in the way you're describing a technocracy). The background of Chinese politicians is definitely more based in engineering and the sciences overall whereas US politicians primarily come from legal backgrounds, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still politicians often making decisions on subjects outside of their expertise. Just like the US, they are advised by expert opinion, but are free to override that opinion when they decide to.
You could certainly make an argument that people trained in engineering or the sciences are more likely to have real world problem solving skills than legal experts, who primarily make careers playing with words, but China also pays a very real price for that in the form of lagging behind in human rights and individual freedoms despite the effectiveness of their calculated social decisions. These limits have also played a large part in creating a huge class division and level of political corruption that would make you seriously wonder if China should be really be considered a model in any way, shape, or form for what a society or government should strive for.
I'm going to stop posting because I don't feel I really have anything else to add, but I think there's a lot of stuff that's going to have to be worked out if any society ever wants to make this a practical form of government. It seems to me like it would require a lot more cooperation and trust between various parties than seems to be practical in this day and age. If it turns out that it can solve real problems efficiently and effectively without sacrificing our moral values (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, blah, blah, blah...) then I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it. I suppose I'll leave it at that.
|
On August 13 2011 00:57 paradox_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 00:43 mcc wrote:On August 13 2011 00:27 paradox_ wrote:On August 13 2011 00:05 mcc wrote:On August 12 2011 23:36 haduken wrote:
B) The lack of empathy. Scientists care little about your average citizens. Sometimes the populace do things that are against logic. Public mood can swing one way or another and a scientist is not equipped to deal with that unless he has prior experiences in political science which will end up like the system we have now. Scientists would have less patient for people's opinions when he consider himself smarter than them and a scientist is just as likely as the next person to be influenced by interest groups.
This rather bad and very insulting argument. It also shows you have no experience with scientists. Why the hell would they lack empathy, they are not robots. If anything in history highly educated people showed more empathy. Also if anyone, current politicians lack empathy in much greater degree as politics is basically fight for power and that attracts more ruthless people. Gandhi is probably on everyone's top 5 list if not on top of the list of most empathetic figures in history. He's not a scientist. He was a lawyer. There are plenty of cases of highly educated doctors performing unethical research e.g. doctors in Nazi Germany that performed experiments on the Jewish population. I'm not saying all scientists are evil and lawyers are empathetic but rather, empathy is independent of the type of education they recieved or if they received education at all (eg Mother Theresa was born to a politician father and had no real education as she decided to become a nun pretty young). Edit: I just read who you responded to, I disagree with him as well but my point still stands on the matter of highly educated people showing more empathy. You are kind of right as I did not word my point properly. First we are talking statistics, so individual examples are not disqualifying my point. Second, basically what I meant is that highly educated people in history showed more empathy towards people they were not close with. This basically because they think more about public policy issues and similar. So it is not capacity for empathy I am talking about. For example movement to abolish slavery came form educated circles, ... Ah ok understood. But to further discuss your point by your own logic though 1 example isn't representative of the whole picture. Educated circles existed when slavery started (I know slavery existed since humans developed the idea of ownership, but I'm referring to lets say the last 2 centuries). If they are more in tune with the human condition they would have not allowed or at least resisted slavery far earlier in human history. The idea that experts are more equipped or less equipped to be empathetic isn't valid imo. They're human. The individual is either empathetic or they're not for whatever reasons it may be. Politicians can be empathetic just as much as a scientist and scientists can be as "evil" as a politician.
I'll start from the end.
Your last sentence is correct, but I never said anything contrary. In discussions about human behaviour and society everything is about statistics. Politics is fight for power and some traits are necessary to be good at it. Looking at politics as it is, empathy is not one of them. Actually being ruthless liar is much better trait. Again that is not to say that all politicians are like that, just that people like that are attracted to politics and good at being ones.
In my last post I said that educated people in general(experts are subset of that) are not better equipped to be empathetic, so I am not sure why are you pointing it out. Also the only reason we are discussing empathy and experts is because the guy I responded to described scientists as unempathetic monsters, my point about educated people was just a little "side-point".
Of course educated people existed when slavery started. The same way there were educated people supporting Nazis even in their worst atrocities, how does that refute my point. I have no problem conceding that point if good argument comes around. It is not like in this area things are known well, so my observation/conjecture might be easily wrong, but that is not refuting argument. When slavery was started all people were around, but the movement to end it started in educated circles. And once again to reiterate this is not a statement about capacity for empathy, just that educated people are slightly more prone to think about more distant things and question things. And please as a counter-argument do not use an example of a educated person being cruel or close-minded as we are talking statistics.
On August 13 2011 01:00 Jibba wrote:
And the movement to institutionalize slavery also came from educated circles. The post-Bacon's Rebellion horror that was slavery in the American South was entirely created and led by aristocrats and the educated. I don't see your point.
See the paragraph above. Institutionalizing slavery was just a last step and has to necessarily come from ruling (not necessarily educated) circles. But were they on average more pro-slavery than non-educated people ? My guess would be that no.
|
On August 13 2011 02:48 Sablar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:44 mcc wrote:On August 12 2011 22:44 Sablar wrote:On August 12 2011 22:23 sunprince wrote:On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
I think many people seem regard scientists like some sort of rational, methodical robot that will carefully weigh the evidence and decide what is right. I don't think anyone has suggested this. Rather, they are beter than average people at rational, methodical thought, but obviously not perfect. On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Scientists agree about nothing and there are always different camps within diciplines much like political parties. False. Scientists agree about a great many things. When they do disagree, then that's something you don't have enough knowledge to act on anyway. On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Sociology and stuff regarding the whole society can't really be measured though, and there would never be a consensus or even close to it regarding what was right. This goes for economics, psychology etc as well. False. Look up a sociology or economics journal sometime. Both fields are rooted in empirical science. I can't speak for psychology personally, but I would assume the same is true of it as well. And again, there is plenty of consensus in every field. Just about everything studied up to the undergraduate level is scientific consensus. It's enough to fill vast libraries and most of Wikipedia. You seem to be working off of popular stereotypes about science, without any idea of how it actually works. On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Making sure to consult those who have knowledge in fields relevant to decisions is of course important, but that's how it's done today. Yes, but then the politicians ignore or override those experts, which is how we get a lot of problems. Look at pretty much any field of science and people will be disaegreeing. From the existence of some theorized physical matter to the motivations of humans or the most important reasons behind unempoyment. There are contradicting results and camps with different ideas and discussions that pretty much never get settled. There isn't a consensus, instead text books are filled the "the x perspective" as opposed to "the y perspective". Something being "rooted in empircal sciences" doesn't mean that is somehow objective or that there is a right answer. It's far too complicated to know about all the factors in society in order to make accurate preductions about economics or about how crime will be effected by different changes in society. You just can't control such variables and because of that science can't give any clear answers. At best there is good line of reasoning behind whatever prediction is made. In the end that line of reasoning may or may not be better than that of an elected politicians, but that alone doesn't make it a better system. Also sociology is more qualitative than quantitative overall. So don't say things are false when they aren't, and don't question my character because I was the only one who admitted to using generalizations about scientists. They are disagreeing about some things and agreeing about others. Those things that are not agreed upon are considered as of yet unknown or not precise. 100 years ago there was disagreement about general hereditary mechanisms in biology, not anymore, now the disagreements are about small details of those mechanisms. Social sciences are the ones with all the "perspectives", but even those are getting better. And being rooted in empirical science actually means exactly that it is objective. The point is not what might be. The point is that the expert has higher probability of making a right call and that is it. Also there is no necessity to eliminate democratic procedures in general, I think a hybrid system would be better. Basically people would vote on the matters of general policy as in those cases the science often has nothing definitive to say. For example people would vote on the level of social services they want and similar stuff and than technocrats would implement the details to the best of their knowledge. Also you can add even some democratic control over the technocrats, but it has to be well thought through so they do not become today's polititians. I was arguing that science can't predict the consequences of many or most political decisions, and that there is much disagreement. I'm not saying that they don't agree on anything. I just think it's a shame when people expect science to be able to explain everything because it can't. Rooted in empircal sciences doesn't mean that it is objective, it just means that the data is objective, not the interpretation of the data or the choice of which data was collected. It's perfectly possible for 2 scientists to gather data on the same phenomenon and reach completely different conclusions. The data in social sciences is used more as an argument because the data in itself doesn't really prove anything. Normally it´s used to back up an underlying and more complex theory that doesn't come as a necessity from the data collected (in the cases where quantitative analysis is even used). I still prefer an expert on a subject over a politician when it comes to making a decision. Just not sure how such a thing could be implemented and who would decide which expert is the best suited for making such decisions. It's not like a democratic decision would be viable because people have no idea which expert on the same subject is the most qualified, and the alternative is some sort of academic peer election but I can't help but think that this would turn the scientific community just as bad as the political one.
Well we are not in disagreement that much, at least as far as social sciences go. I have slight disagreements but that would be off-topic.
As for the practical implementation. One thing it would be necessary (as in all policy decisions on complex things) to experiment somewhat. Does this work, no, we need to change it and so on. But few things to note, for it to be better than current state it is not necessary to get the best expert, you can just get an ok expert. So if you went a voting for expert route, you can just vote for expert from the pool of experts that satisfy some criteria relevant for the position.
It is strange that people in this thread often construe arguments that show that technocracy (of whatever flavor) would have some problems. Of course it would. The point is if it would be better, even slightly, than current state.
|
Northern Ireland25216 Posts
Personally I'm all for it in theory, but it's difficult to imagine how to implement it fairly.
Democracy is a nice concept, but kind of gives us some flawed results for a multitude of reasons. I'm not one of those elitist people who think that everybody but me is an idiot, but the mass-media don't exactly help in this regard. It's why a disappointingly large proportion of people think that they are taxed too much despite empirical evidence to the contrary. They believe that benefit scroungers are a massive, massive problem destroying the nation when in reality it's other things, oh of course and that immigrants are to blame for EVERYTHING.
At the VERY least, can we at least please have proper appointments made in existing government departments? I mean is that too much to ask? I mean for a position requiring legal expertise, somebody with legal training is really kind of preferable (although at least in the UK a large proportion of our representatives have studied in law).
I suppose an argument could be that the Civil Service, at least in the UK does a large amount of the actual work for the incumbent government, so I guess experts in their fields do have a degree of influence in this regard
|
On August 13 2011 04:23 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +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. Wellrespected by whom? Are we using a circular peer system where members of the ruling class are well respected by other members of the ruling class? If we mean wellrespected by the people then just have those people express their respect through a vote and have a democracy just as we have now. And scientist that appreciates empirical data must agree that Democracies have functioned far better than any other form of government yet tested.
The circularity is broken by the fact that the "ruling class" is open to everyone. Also technocracy does not mean eliminating democratic elements entirely. It might mean limiting positions to experts satisfying some criteria. And all current democracies have if not theoretical than practical limitations on who can hold an office.
|
Northern Ireland25216 Posts
Also @mcc I do enjoy a lot of what you're putting down here, just seeking clarification on a point. You claim that a relative lack of empathy is integral to the success of a politician or is a beneficial character trait to have. Is this why a representative democracy can only succeed in benefitting the whole populace to a certain extent and never being 'completely just'. The kind of characters who gain positions of power are by default not the kind of people to risk popular support in doing 'the right thing'?
Also, 28 hours without sleep may explain the incoherence of that last post
|
On August 13 2011 15:09 Ubertron wrote:
Also @mcc I do enjoy a lot of what you're putting down here, just seeking clarification on a point. You claim that a relative lack of empathy is integral to the success of a politician or is a beneficial character trait to have. Is this why a representative democracy can only succeed in benefitting the whole populace to a certain extent and never being 'completely just'. The kind of characters who gain positions of power are by default not the kind of people to risk popular support in doing 'the right thing'?
Also, 28 hours without sleep may explain the incoherence of that last post
My opinion would be that not lack, but limited empathy or ability to ignore empathy is often correlated with traits that are common in people drawn to power. Total lack of empathy would mean psychopats and although some of them are very very good at acting they are not, for whatever reason, present in political circles in history in big numbers. My guess would be that the reason is that humans evolved to be very good at recognizing and instinctively disliking psychopats.
As for my opinion on democracy. I actually think democracy is very good maybe even necessary system, but my reasons are probably different than most people. I think the biggest benefit of current democratic systems is that politics provides outlet for ambitious people that want power. In other systems those people might start (military)coups or other violent problems whether in democracy they have an peaceful outlet. This is actually my big problem with incorporating too much technocracy into our current system, but I think there are ways to do it, you just need to leave enough democratic elements in the system. Of course democracy has other benefits that everyone somewhat agrees on.
EDIT:I just noted your qualification of "lack" with "relative", so just ignore my tangent about psychopats 
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 13 2011 09:47 sunprince wrote:
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. No, we wouldn't. o.o Quite the opposite, in fact. Congress has shown time and time again that they will cede to a strong executive and leave EO's unchallenged.
If you actually did study political science, then this would be an example of disagreeing "expert" opinions.
|
On August 13 2011 15:36 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2011 09:47 sunprince wrote:
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. No, we wouldn't. o.o Quite the opposite, in fact. Congress has shown time and time again that they will cede to a strong executive and leave EO's unchallenged. If you actually did study political science, then this would be an example of no consensus being met.
"when the latter asserts itself" was the key I would guess
|
On August 12 2011 19:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 18:53 brain_ wrote:
People have been convinced to hand power (and surrender freedom) to "experts" since the very first governments... It has always ended in disaster. No, it hasn't. Some of the greatest empires were quite undemocratic, and those that became more democratic declined as a result. The United States could speculatively be considered an example of the latter. Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 18:53 brain_ wrote:
TL;DR: Voluntary human cooperation, trade, and ingenuity > using force to control people "for their own good". Yeah, that's worked out real well for us. Notice anything about the US economy lately? That's what happens when you cater to the people; year after year of spending increases and tax decreases because both are popular. Take a look at my home state, California. Want to guess what analysts conclude is the main reason why our state's budget problems are so terribad? Because we have a proposition system that make the state more democratic, thus allowing voters to consistently vote down tax increases while voting in more spending. Enjoy your idiocracy.
Government corruption, populism, and tax-related class warfare are the exact opposite of what I'm advocating. There is nothing voluntary about government or taxation.
Government being directly in the hands of the people results in bankruptcy as people vote themselves all sorts of goodies, then fight over who has to pay the interest on the debt. Government in the hands of a privileged few (which all governments are) results in corruption, tyranny, and debt as the political class does everything it can to stay in power.
Government in all forms is bad. All have collapsed. The best government is none at all. Price mechanisms and consumer choice are a fantastic nonviolent way for people to communicate their desires.
As for the "greatest empires" being undemocratic... Those empires became "great" because of their initial economic freedoms and small, relatively accountable governments. Their economic success then led to vast expansions in power, and they all ended up being strangled by entrenched political classes, corrupt governments, unsustainable conquests, and debt - all the pitfalls of large government. And as for your idea of a "great" country, take colonialism as an example: colonialism is a net negative for countries. European powers on the whole never made money via colonial conquests, rather, a small class of politically connected people (businessmen in cahoots with government, politicians, rulers, etc) benefits while the general population is forced to foot the bill. So when you see a big successful powerful country, I see one that has already begun its decline, and whose people are thoroughly enslaved. The United States is a good modern example of this.
|
Worse than the current system. Participate in society, vote for representatives to vote on matters of national importance. With the current issues concerning voting-with-other-people's-money I really would be behind pay taxes and get the vote.
In the words of the great William F. Buckley, Jr:
I’d rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the dons of Harvard.
|
What kind of decisions are the people in the OP's committee able to make? You need to be more specific about what a technocracy actually is, and not just make very simplistic statements about how it would work. Where do you draw the line in specialization in as far as it correlates to positions of power? I.e., do military generals completely control the military and all of its actions? Can a committee of doctors legislate moral law regarding abortion? And aren't internet privacy issues something that should be determined by a broader base of experts than just people who are proficient with computers?
I think there are too many interconnected aspects of society and policies, both socially and morally, that make this impractical.
That said, I do think there should be an objective lens cast upon the current bureaucratic nature of many committees and organizations. I think we all can oppose a system of favors and promise keeping towards appointments of officials in the discussed fields, but I don't think that means that we can blatantly declare that every area of governmental policy should be solely and unquestionably implemented by the academics or professionals in those fields.
If we could be more specific about what we are actually talking about, and fully consider the scope of the implications of the "technocracy", then we might have a useful discussion about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
