EPTTry live in a technocratic country for a while and you can probably make up the same thing for technocracy.
Could a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Sufficiency
Canada23833 Posts
Try live in a technocratic country for a while and you can probably make up the same thing for technocracy. | ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
"The members of Technocracy are called 'Technocrats.' The name 'Technocracy' is copyrighted and the right to use it owned exclusively by Technocracy Inc." - Technocracy In Plain Terms The following articles touch upon this common misconception, please read them: Meanderings Into Obfuscation - Lois M. Scheel Who Is A Technocrat? - Wilton Ivie WHO’S WHO OF TECHNOCRACY: SCOTT?, VEBLEN?, HUBBERT? - Walter Fryers Defining "Technocracy" - Walter Fryers ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7DkEn.gif) | ||
|
ballasdontcry
Canada595 Posts
On August 13 2011 22:08 nihoh wrote: By this post, would the PRC be a technocracy? The Secretary of the Party, Hu Jintao is an engineer by trade. def not. a majority of the top politicians in the politburo are either engineers or geologists and they're holding positions irrelevant to their field of expertise. | ||
|
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On August 13 2011 02:25 Jerubaal wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 13 2011 01:49 bonifaceviii wrote: Why are so many people saying economics is a science in this thread? You could call it a 'social science'. Technically, none of the things that we call natural science are in fact a 'science'. It's mostly Empiricism, which are metaphysically baseless 'techne'- arts aimed at creating something. Without going into a long diatribe about how modernist your idea is with respect to an increasing reverence for the material over the metaphysical and a blissful ignorance of all philosophies coming before your own, your argument breaks down simply at the point you realize that most experts are oblivious to the grand scheme of things and will only lobby for what they think is best in their fields. You see this in fields where there is no 'result' to measure, like teaching, all the time. Ultimately what you dream reflects is the belief that 'if only the experts were in charge' society would be awesome. What you don't realize is that there are no easy answers and your longing for a 'technocracy' is just an attempt to ignore wrestling with difficult questions. The idea that you could ignore politicial considerations is a pipe dream. +1 Not enough people value the social sciences and rely on pseudo-science. Jefferson would roll in his grave over the idea of "professionals" running a government. Wouldn't it be like the ascendency system all over again, with families taking over and marrying each other? That's what I think of when technocracy is suggested. There's professional opinion/intellectual honesty and then there is representation. I admit it would be nice to see those two worlds in tandem more often lately in US government. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
On August 14 2011 07:28 tech information wrote: Aristocracy means rule by the "aristos" or "best". Maybe that's what you are thinking about, and there is no doubt plenty of room for interpretation and debate about that concept. However that has nothing to do with Technocracy. Technocracy is a form of goverment proposed by Howard Scott and the Technical Alliance Energy Survey of North America since the winter of 1918-1919, and there is no debate about that, sorry. The following articles touch upon this common misconception, please read them: Meanderings Into Obfuscation - Lois M. Scheel Who Is A Technocrat? - Wilton Ivie WHO’S WHO OF TECHNOCRACY: SCOTT?, VEBLEN?, HUBBERT? - Walter Fryers Defining "Technocracy" - Walter Fryers I merely take issue with that copyright claim - you can't copyright a title or a name like that (That's what trademarks are for, and trademarks are more limited in what they protect from.) otherwise there would have been a bit of a copyright dispute between Technocracy, Inc and White Wolf games. | ||
|
acgFork
Canada397 Posts
| ||
|
The_LiNk
Canada863 Posts
| ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
On August 26 2011 22:53 acgFork wrote: yeah it would rock. no more idiots runnign teh country Yea exactly do you really want to sell out your and your children's and your family's and your Continent's future to the Price System chiselers and remain a mere pawn to the triple oligarchy of business, politics and clericalism? Or do you want to be a part of the design for a New America that will be the glory of all ages? Join TECHNOCRACY REVOLUTION on Facebook! "What Is Our Problem? Charlatans and Fools are Shaping Our Destiny" - Reo McCaslin - 1982 On August 26 2011 23:52 The_LiNk wrote: So the top man of the country needs to be a Engineer Accountant Doctor Lawyer? No you have it all wrong please stay on subject. This is Technocracy not aristocracy or meritocracy; Technocracy is a completely new concept - its current usage and definition pertain properly only to the social concepts, organization, and membership which grew out of the thinking and writings of Howard Scott. The application of the word in any other connotation today is a clumsy usurpation and a fraud. Who Is A Technocrat? - Wilton Ivie ![[image loading]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-khlPqYqgvPQ/Tl2XrUiPpjI/AAAAAAAAAYo/oPM8e4T6ecw/s1600/TechLoop.gif) "Technocracy is truly a unique organization. Many organizations study society as to what if any changes are necessary to assure it has a high morality. Technocracy, however, is the only - and let me hasten to emphasize the only organization - that study society from a scientific perspective, using the scientific method." WHAT IS TECHNOCRACY - At a recent Technocracy Public Meeting, the following was offered as a bird's-eye-view of Technocracy for the benefit of non-members attending. "If and when a scientific-technological society is ever instituted, it will be the one and only grand revolution - a revolution of such a magnitude as to dwarf anything humankind has accomplished in eons. Humankind has had only one revolution of such magnitude. It was when human hunters and gatherers became villagers, cultivating the fields and domesticating animals. That revolution, itself, took thousands of years to accomplish, and is still going on in some parts of the world." TECHNOCRACY VIEWS REVOLUTION IN TERMS OF SOCIAL CHANGE - John A. Taube ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U4nQstPIxv4/TlZunDNCcZI/AAAAAAAAAYM/JlbwRuiGiQ0/s1600/Technocracy+-+behind+the+lines.png) Further reading: Awesome Technocracy magazines on the Internet Archive - you have never seen anything so cool in your life | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On September 13 2011 08:18 DeepElemBlues wrote: Technocracy is even more susceptible to bad ideologies than democracy. Unless you want society "run" by machines (which wouldn't be a technocracy, it'd be a blockbuster movie), the "technocrats" would still just be human beings. Those specific human beings think and make decisions using a different set of standards than most of ordinary people though. Not to mention that they can make informed decisions, rather than decisions based on corporate campaign funding, lobbying, or gaining insight by conversing with the supernatural forces. | ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
It is perhaps one of the major ironies of history that a new, and the only adequate approach (to solving problems that have plagued mankind for eons) should have been projected and offered by certain interpreters of applied physical science who distinctly disclaim as their motivating force an idealistic search for truth, love, peace, harmony, and other imponderables. WHAT IS TECHNOCRACY - At a recent Technocracy Public Meeting, the following was offered as a bird's-eye-view of Technocracy for the benefit of non-members attending. ![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-m1Dh8oHMLn8/TgFMgPLJqGI/AAAAAAAAAR8/GW0EOU9UQzQ/s1600/253465_10150268337987930_678742929_9066891_586630_n.jpg) | ||
|
temporal
1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Pajegetc
United States3158 Posts
| ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
On September 13 2011 08:44 Pajegetc wrote: I don't think it would be any different then the system we have now. Since they to would be subject to corporate interest that infest government today. No. You are still confusing Technocracy with "aristocracy" which means rule of the aristos, or best. Technocracy is a totally different concept which is incompatible with the Price System. Can you get that into your head? ![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kNgP-UZwBVE/Tm6cNQiHpqI/AAAAAAAAAZE/aBzn1iPlaDM/s1600/cash.gif) Technocracy is at one and the same time the most truly conservative and the most utterly revolutionary social movement in existence. Technocracy is anti-fascist. What is more important, it is also anti-Price System. This is the basic requirement for social change. No other social movement meets it. The Price System of trade and commerce is the root cause of most of our modern social problems. Ergo, abolish the Price System and we clear the way for a solution of our problems. That is the revolutionary part of Technocracy. The conservative part appears as follows: Nearly all the worthwhile things in our modern American culture came about as a result of the advance of Science and Technology. Technocracy seeks to conserve and enhance these things. These facts require a little study to understand. The Body of Thought of Technocracy is an open book. Every citizen is invited to join Technocracy and investigate it from the inside. Great Lakes Technocrat - July August 1947 The Technocrats regard themselves as being in the enemy territory of the Price System. ![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Qu-BnlzmlFc/Tm6cExC-gGI/AAAAAAAAAZA/Gok-WOvZTyw/s1600/yyvsmall.gif) | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
 The original "American" democracy was supposed to be about a government where normal people could be in charge. Hence the voting system allowing "everyday" people be in charge because you didn't "have" to be some rich/royal guy to be the leader of the world. Of course, that was a failure too lol | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On September 13 2011 09:11 tech information wrote: No. You are still confusing Technocracy with "aristocracy" which means rule of the aristos, or best. Technocracy is a totally different concept which is incompatible with the Price System. Can you get that into your head? Technocracy is anti-fascist. What is more important, it is also anti-Price System. This is the basic requirement for social change. No other social movement meets it. The Price System of trade and commerce is the root cause of most of our modern social problems. Ergo, abolish the Price System and we clear the way for a solution of our problems. That is the revolutionary part of Technocracy. The conservative part appears as follows: Nearly all the worthwhile things in our modern American culture came about as a result of the advance of Science and Technology. Technocracy seeks to conserve and enhance these things. These facts require a little study to understand. The Body of Thought of Technocracy is an open book. Every citizen is invited to join Technocracy and investigate it from the inside. Great Lakes Technocrat - July August 1947 The Technocrats regard themselves as being in the enemy territory of the Price System. So long as humans are in charge, greed will overrun them in time. Any attempt to believe this does not happen is silly. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I really think this is the pinnacle of technocratic arrogance. That a scientist, a professional or expert, can simply know enough to make things run well. Also disagree with the thought that the price system is the root cause of most of our modern social problems. It's the only way to ensure the needs of people are met! This is a system, the market, that essentially is a solution to the bigger problem of moving goods and services around. Make profit by selling someone else what they need etc etc. Horrible idea. | ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-2KyqfLACPJ0/Tm6jVPiPExI/AAAAAAAAAZI/F5jhnNAfKLI/s1600/huh.jpg) Technocracy works BECAUSE humans are greedy, etc, not IN SPITE OF IT. Read this article about trying to control people's morality: JOHN A. TAUBE 55 Chumasero 7E San Francisco, CA 94132 Phone/fax: 415-334-3733 E-mail: techocrat@technocracysf.org October 17, 1996 Letter to the Editor SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE Fax: 415-896-1107 San Francisco, California Dear Editor: Concerning your October 13, 1996 article Public Citizen Number One (your title for the presidential Green Party hopeful, Ralph Nader) I find it necessary to comment from a background reflecting Technocracy Inc., an educational research organization. The article in a question and answer format and contained the following. Question: "Are the American people getting the government they deserve?" Answer: "They're getting the government that their level of civic energy has produced. They need to expand dramatically their civic energy and not let a few active citizens hold up the democracy for the rest of them, because they can't bear that burden." If one had read the entire article one would have a feeling of just exactly what Nader meant by "a few active citizens hold up the democracy for the rest of them." He is speaking about corporate America. To him they are the "bad guys with the black hats." Nader writes and speaks in a manner that leaves one to believe that the people that make up corporate America constitute a criminal group, and are vicious, morally corrupt individuals. It is obvious that Nader does not understand the driving force in our socioeconomic system, the "Price System." He fails to recognize that corporate America's dedication is to how many pieces of gold they --individuals in this group -- can acquire. He also fails to see that morality can be preached, and all sort of laws can be passed, but when it is all over, corporate America will still be corporate America and nothing basic will have changed. In Nader's answer he says that: "They (the public) need to expand drastically their civic energy. . ." The questioner should have said that he really has not answered the question: Are they or are they not responsible? Furthermore, you (Nader) say what they need to do; but I ask you, in your opinion, "will they do what they need to do?" Nader's answer to this question would have been interesting. Technocracy's answer to the posed question is that there is no indication that American people will do what they need to do. Such an answer is in agreement with Technocracy's statement that social change will not come until the limits of social tolerance are reached. Followers of Nader will most likely disagree with Technocracy. They believe that by passing "socially conscious" laws, that meet a high morality standard, we can keep our "Price System" and our problems will be solved. Technocracy would remind all North Americans that our "Price System" fit the requirement of a past primitive and crude agrarian age without earth shaking disasters. To keep our "Price System" intact in today's scientific, technical age invites such a disaster. Technocracy invites North Americans to study its proposal and see that an earth shaking disaster need not be our destiny. We can have humankind's most glorious age. Respectfully, John A. Taube | ||
imallinson
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On September 13 2011 09:14 lorkac wrote: What's funny about this OP is that it assumes that just because people are scientists and engineers that they wouldn't make the same corrupt decisions currently do The original "American" democracy was supposed to be about a government where normal people could be in charge. Hence the voting system allowing "everyday" people be in charge because you didn't "have" to be some rich/royal guy to be the leader of the world. Of course, that was a failure too lol Part of the way this is meant to stop corruption is to take a much more scientific approach to government. If you look at scientific fields they system is very well set up to eliminate corruption through peer review. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Those specific human beings think and make decisions using a different set of standards than most of ordinary people though. No, they don't ._. What you're saying is idealistic at best and fantastic at worst Not to mention that they can make informed decisions, rather than decisions based on corporate campaign funding, lobbying, or gaining insight by conversing with the supernatural forces. Those aren't exactly very realistic arguments to use outside of the internet =/ Part of the way this is meant to stop corruption is to take a much more scientific approach to government. If you look at scientific fields they system is very well set up to eliminate corruption through peer review. This unfortunately simply isn't the case.The history of science is that bad scientific ideas don't die out because they are bad, they die out because their proponents die off. And "science" certainly isn't immune to quacks and demagogues. Here's a link of the "Top Scientific Scandals" of the last decade (according to the author). http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/jan2010/science-scandle-decade.html I'm not saying that the scientific method is unreliable or that scientists are more or less dishonest than the average person, but the point is that they are people, they do make mistakes, some of them are in it for themselves or their cause and not for finding the truth, etc. They're no different than any other group of people when it comes to faults and flaws. The problem I have with various "ocracies" other than democracy that are thrown out as possibly better alternatives is that they all share one underlying assumption: These people are less vulnerable to the corrosive effects of power and money. There is nothing about being a scientist or some other kind of "technocrat" that gives you Extra-Special Vision and Incorruptibility. | ||
| ||
