|
On August 12 2011 17:09 Slaughter wrote:
The flaw isn't in the systems themselves but in people. If you had a technocracy then those in charge would simply abuse it and suppress things challenging to their viewpoints. Just like now everyone talks over each other.
the current system really, really isn't much better T_____T
like winston churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
it couldn't be a one-leader system though, it would have to be representatives from a bunch of different fields in a council who govern over their specific fields, but can exert some power over other fields maybe. I like the idea that people would come to positions of power through merit, but the general population needs a say. I don't know how to fit both concepts in... maybe you have a system where people vote for different fields and the votes more or less determine the budget? but that would assume that the general population know what's good for them, which they don't... but that's how democracy is supposed to work - people vote for the guy who most closely represents their ideals.
the fields would all have to be categories though. maybe the categories determine amongst themselves how to distribute their budget amongst the sub-categories and stuff, while the general population determines how to distribute the budget amongst the categories. the representatives try and get as much budget for themselves as possible with public speeches and stuff, but having a lot of charisma won't help as much I think. the guy who best details what he's going to do for the population and how the budget allows him to do it would get the votes, and failed promises won't get as many. it's not "oh the republican party failed me last time - now I'll vote democrat" it's "hey he said that we would be able to set up a colony on mars with the budget and didn't - I'm going to give it to someone else this time because those guys can't get things done"
I dunno. political theorycrafting
anyhow thought I should put an example in. say for instance one of the categories is natural sciences - there are a lot of subcategories in there. marine biology, astronomy, astrology, physics, et cetera. all of the subcategories each come up with a representative. then, all the representatives get together and decide who should represent the category (natural sciences). the representative of natural sciences then tries to persuade the public to vote for natural sciences in the upcoming budget election. some of the wealth is then distributed amongst the categories based on the votes. public services also have representatives and are voted upon for budget, but in a different vote.
|
I believe in a mixed system.
In Canada, we have the House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons is elected and they give us our prime minister and stuff like that. The Senate is another body. Every Senator is appointed by the prime minister for a long period.
When the House of Commons votes on something, it has to be approved by the Senate, and then it's good to go.
However, the Senate is made of a bunch of incompetents and it doesn't actually do anything these days. We even talk about abolishing it. Some people, most of my friends at least, are even surprised we have such a thing.
Imo, I would replace these senators by highly qualified individuals in science, as described by the OP. Nomination would be a difficult process, but I believe it could be done by either a lottery out of qualified experts who want to go for it (completely random as long as you qualify), or nomination by universities. It should be about 2 years long I'd say, to avoid corruption. Becoming a senator should give you benefits in your field, such as funds for your research. We want incentives to bring smart people. The task of this Senate would be similar as the one we have right now, vetoing the parliament, but in their respective fields, and they'll actually do their job this time.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields
I love how in college all of the Business majors and English majors bashed on STEM majors and called them nerds.
I agree.
I would much rather listen to Stephen Hawking's point of view of the world, than the great Obama.
|
If something like this were in place, it would have to have similar or better checks and balances in it as democracy does. I basically mean that the government can't be a hereditary dictatorship, that it can't have absolute power, and that the people can overturn it without having to resort to violence if things get bad enough.
All in all it's an interesting idea, but I think one of the best advances that we could make in our current system is to not have professional politicians and to get money out of politics.
Have people trained in managing a lot of things at once and keeping it stable. Critical thinking, training in the scientific method and backed up by the ability to call on the best minds suited to particular important state decisions. This would have to be an improvement over the current prickish, parading peacocks that we have running our countries today.
What happens too often is people are taught not to lead, but to look good leading. It's made a very shallow and corrupt political system which has screwed us over badly.
|
Being highly skilled in a particular science such as a medical doctor doesn't equate to an ability in public administration of that area. There are many "experts" that don't know the first thing about anything outside the details of their specialty.
|
On August 12 2011 17:07 MonsieurGrimm wrote:
it seems like a very, very vague concept. are representatives from certain fields elected by the people? by their peers? is there a president or just a council of representatives? how do you make sure the different fields are represented fairly? and so on and so forth. a system based on merit rather than public approval seems nice... but I absolutely think that the general population needs a say and obviously checks and balances need to be put in place.
Perhaps it doesn't exactly entail creating a totally new system of government. Perhaps a technocracy can be created within the current system. I think all it takes is the voters understanding who to vote for, and those educated in the sciences and arts getting invovled in politics. If the voters vote in politicians who are technocrats, then they have essentially established a technocracy within the current system.
I am all for a technocracy though. I think its absolutely crazy that we trust people who don't know much about the sciences and the arts to hold the power to make decisions with such far reaching consequences as to affect the very standard of life as we know it (exaggerating a bit).
Then again, the government does not really deal with science based issues on a day to day basis does it? And when it does, does it not call in experts to advise them?
|
Problems with "pure" technocracies are obvious. The most notable one being self-interest for the technocrats in question.
Pure democracies are also problematic. That's why almost none exist today.
Most democracies try to introduce technocratic principles through several steps, the most notable one being representation.
|
The first thing I thought of when i saw technocracy versus democracy is.
Why are they mutually exclusive? Yes you have election for your president etc that's fine. We could elect technocratic ministers from a pool of qualified individuals. Put up a few requisites ie. Health minister has to have an MD etc. And from there elect them into power.
False dichotomy. /thread
|
WOAH WOAH WOAH holdup.
You can't bring Churchill into this without also quoting:
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
So although you tried to suggest that he didn't believe in democracy. Actually he still thought it was the best option.
|
Each group would undermine each other for the money in their field, eventually causing Christianity to win out. Technocracy would not work.
|
On August 12 2011 17:37 supdubdup wrote:
Each group would undermine each other for the money in their field, eventually causing Christianity to win out. Technocracy would not work.
thats how democracy works right now dude, without the christianity bit
also a technocracy would probably be secular
|
On August 12 2011 17:40 MonsieurGrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 17:37 supdubdup wrote:
Each group would undermine each other for the money in their field, eventually causing Christianity to win out. Technocracy would not work. thats how democracy works right now dude, without the christianity bit also a technocracy would probably be secular
hahahahaha..would be secular. Even our government has...religious ties. And if u didn't get my point, exaclty, Technocracy is no greater than democracy.
|
I'd rather people with a clue about the world be in charge, rather than brainless politicians.
|
On August 12 2011 17:17 Misanthrophic13 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fieldsI love how in college all of the Business majors and English majors bashed on STEM majors and called them nerds. I agree. I would much rather listen to Stephen Hawking's point of view of the world, than the great Obama.
Just to make this clear: do you think that a physicist understands more about economics than an economist? or more about law than a jurist?
|
I'm sure if a country was going to entirely disassemble their political system and pioneer a technocracy, they would consider something as obvious as self-preservation amongst the elected representatives.
I've only wondered this for a few minutes, but the only real concern I would have would be who gets elected to represent their field? Most the greatest minds would be working for a company in some way shape or form and that brings in serious ethical dilemmas.
Imagine a company having one of their scientists involved in the "government", sounds like great advertising. Not to mention how having a guy who worked for you being in control of funding and ruling within that field could help a business.
And if you don't pick someone from a the business sector, where would you find potential candidates?
Freelances?
Current members of the government?
University academics ?
Any ideas?
|
We could probably transform the US Senate into a technocratic arm of the government. Require some basic things to run for office, an MD, PE, PhD, or some high level of decoration, then let the people vote on them. At worst, we'd get 100 of 1 profession in the Senate, but at least we'd know what everybody was worried about (or who was the most charismatic =P ).
|
Yeah I agree Infest all the terrans please
they had it coming..... (shakes fist)
|
I'd be automatically against this is the average person wasn't so fucking stupid.
|
On August 12 2011 17:49 Kh0nsu wrote:
I'm sure if a country was going to entirely disassemble their political system and pioneer a technocracy, they would consider something as obvious as self-preservation amongst the elected representatives.
I've only wondered this for a few minutes, but the only real concern I would have would be who gets elected to represent their field? Most the greatest minds would be working for a company in some way shape or form and that brings in serious ethical dilemmas.
Imagine a company having one of their scientists involved in the "government", sounds like great advertising. Not to mention how having a guy who worked for you being in control of funding and ruling within that field could help a business.
And if you don't pick someone from a the business sector, where would you find potential candidates?
Freelances?
Current members of the government?
University academics ?
Any ideas?
At least in a technocratic democracy, at worst we'd get to pick our poison. Right now, the scenario is no different that what you mentioned. Large companies pay legions of lawyers to come up with model legislation that fits their agenda, and then these groups submit them to ignorant lawmakers who have no real option other than take these documents and build off of them. People who have no experience in any of these fields have no other people to look to than those sent to them by those who can afford to send somebody. This also means they have the resources to pass along ideas that will benefit them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
