|
On September 13 2011 22:28 sunprince wrote:
The economist doesn't just make the decision on a whim. He runs a cost-benefit analysis showing that the amount of lives saved does not justify the cost.
So who doecides where to draw the line? This is NOT a question an economist can answer. What do you want? Should medical care not be administered beyond the present value of a sick patient's expected lifetime earnings?
Because refusing care beyond beyond the point where it "adds value" is a very economist thing to do.
But what do you do with people that don't work? Parents who stay at home to raise their children etc. They don't work so saving their lives would not add value to society.
Reducing life to a bunch of "rational" decisions would leave the world a sad, sad place to live.
|
On September 13 2011 22:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:41 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
A political scientist is someone who study the political tendencies, not someone who is specialized in political questions. A political scientist will tell you about the difference between this and that kind of constitution and how it affects political tendencies, not if free speech is good or not.
There are tangible benefits and drawbacks to free speech. Political scientists with an emphasis on comparative politics understand them quite well. Just for the record, it comes down in favor of free speech for the most part. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
And I lack expertise. Jesus. You really, really do. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Universal healthcare is not about what is the best way to cure people, it's about who can benefit medicines and on what circumstances. Oie. Nothing to do with science, it's politics again. So, what's the name again of the scientist who decide who has what right? You assume that universal healthcare is a human right. That's a bullshit normative way of looking at it. People deciding that things are "human rights" are simply a way of side-stepping a real analysis of issues. The U.N. declaring internet a "human right" in no way impacts the fact that you can look at the tangible costs and benefits of universal internet access. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Political scientist. Seriously. I think Hitler was what you understand by political scientist: someone who is specialized in taking political decisions. I call that a dictator, but let's not start to discuss semantics, huhu? A political scientist is a person who studies politics. A dictator is a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power. If you can't see the difference between the two, you really are as uninformed as you've been coming off in this thread. Sorry, dude you don't make any sense. Don't you fucking understand that something like universal healthcare is not a question of "efficiency", not even a question of cost, pr anything like that, but it's a philosophical question and that there are no specialist who can deiced for you if you want to live in a society where everybody can go to hospital for free or not? You just started a political discussion. Oh, and nobody is right. Everybody thinks he is right, but, surprise! we just have different opinions. Me, as a citizen, want to live in a society where a homeless who break an arm can go to hospital and have it fix, with my taxes. That's a choice, you understand? There is no scientist who can tell you if it's right or wrong. It's not right or wrong, it's how I think society should be because the opposite, I would find monstrous. That's obviously not the case of someone who vote for the American Republicans. Now, second thing. A political scientist is not someone who study, and therefore is right, on political issues, it's someone who study politics. Politics itself. Someone who knows about political systems, parties, tendencies, etc... I'll stop the ad ominem because it's annoying, but, really, you shouldn't say anybody is not educated enough if you don't know something like that. Good luck with technocracy, I have to work. A question for tonight: "Who is the scientist who knows if abortion should be legal or not". Enjoy. 
...Abortion? who cares about that?
Abortion isn't something that has an effect on the entire population, it isn't funded by taxes, but payed individually, i'm not going to tell someone to have or not to have an abortion because it has no effefct on me, my parents, friends, and the entire population.
However, when something is done on a bigger scale, 1,000,000 times bigger than the one you just refered to, some decision are right, or wrong, they may not be right or wrong for certain individuals, but will be right for pretty much everyone.
The fact that you just refered to both of these cases as the same show that not only you have no understanding on the topic at hand, but probably won't be able to understand it even if you study the subject with a clear mind.
|
Everybody in power needs to answer to someone, otherwise they will become corrupted.
Power corrupts, totall power corrupts totally.
|
On September 13 2011 23:18 ZeGzoR wrote:
Everybody in power needs to answer to someone, otherwise they will become corrupted.
Power corrupts, totall power corrupts totally.
Yeah, they need to answer to someone, not to everyone.
|
On September 13 2011 23:02 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 22:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 13 2011 22:41 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
A political scientist is someone who study the political tendencies, not someone who is specialized in political questions. A political scientist will tell you about the difference between this and that kind of constitution and how it affects political tendencies, not if free speech is good or not.
There are tangible benefits and drawbacks to free speech. Political scientists with an emphasis on comparative politics understand them quite well. Just for the record, it comes down in favor of free speech for the most part. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
And I lack expertise. Jesus. You really, really do. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Universal healthcare is not about what is the best way to cure people, it's about who can benefit medicines and on what circumstances. Oie. Nothing to do with science, it's politics again. So, what's the name again of the scientist who decide who has what right? You assume that universal healthcare is a human right. That's a bullshit normative way of looking at it. People deciding that things are "human rights" are simply a way of side-stepping a real analysis of issues. The U.N. declaring internet a "human right" in no way impacts the fact that you can look at the tangible costs and benefits of universal internet access. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Political scientist. Seriously. I think Hitler was what you understand by political scientist: someone who is specialized in taking political decisions. I call that a dictator, but let's not start to discuss semantics, huhu? A political scientist is a person who studies politics. A dictator is a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power. If you can't see the difference between the two, you really are as uninformed as you've been coming off in this thread. Sorry, dude you don't make any sense. Don't you fucking understand that something like universal healthcare is not a question of "efficiency", not even a question of cost, pr anything like that, but it's a philosophical question and that there are no specialist who can deiced for you if you want to live in a society where everybody can go to hospital for free or not? You just started a political discussion. Oh, and nobody is right. Everybody thinks he is right, but, surprise! we just have different opinions. Me, as a citizen, want to live in a society where a homeless who break an arm can go to hospital and have it fix, with my taxes. That's a choice, you understand? There is no scientist who can tell you if it's right or wrong. It's not right or wrong, it's how I think society should be because the opposite, I would find monstrous. That's obviously not the case of someone who vote for the American Republicans. Now, second thing. A political scientist is not someone who study, and therefore is right, on political issues, it's someone who study politics. Politics itself. Someone who knows about political systems, parties, tendencies, etc... I'll stop the ad ominem because it's annoying, but, really, you shouldn't say anybody is not educated enough if you don't know something like that. Good luck with technocracy, I have to work. A question for tonight: "Who is the scientist who knows if abortion should be legal or not". Enjoy. ...Abortion? who cares about that? Abortion isn't something that has an effect on the entire population, it isn't funded by taxes, but payed individually, i'm not going to tell someone to have or not to have an abortion because it has no effefct on me, my parents, friends, and the entire population. However, when something is done on a bigger scale, 1,000,000 times bigger than the one you just refered to, some decision are right, or wrong, they may not be right or wrong for certain individuals, but will be right for pretty much everyone. The fact that you just refered to both of these cases as the same show that not only you have no understanding on the topic at hand, but probably won't be able to understand it even if you study the subject with a clear mind.
Yeah abortion is not an issue. Really? Ok, if you say so..................
Honestly I don't know what to do with your post, because it's just an ad ominem based on pretty much nothing and a losy reasoning saying that some things were wrong for certain people but right for most of them leading to I don't know what.
What I reproach to you and to sun is to misunderstand what politics is altogether. When we talk about universal healthcare, or abortion, there is no right or wrong, therefore the opinion of specialists or scientist is just irrelevant. It's about choosing the kind of society one wants to live in, and that has nothing to do with anything "objective".
|
On September 13 2011 23:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 23:02 RageBot wrote:On September 13 2011 22:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 13 2011 22:41 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
A political scientist is someone who study the political tendencies, not someone who is specialized in political questions. A political scientist will tell you about the difference between this and that kind of constitution and how it affects political tendencies, not if free speech is good or not.
There are tangible benefits and drawbacks to free speech. Political scientists with an emphasis on comparative politics understand them quite well. Just for the record, it comes down in favor of free speech for the most part. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
And I lack expertise. Jesus. You really, really do. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Universal healthcare is not about what is the best way to cure people, it's about who can benefit medicines and on what circumstances. Oie. Nothing to do with science, it's politics again. So, what's the name again of the scientist who decide who has what right? You assume that universal healthcare is a human right. That's a bullshit normative way of looking at it. People deciding that things are "human rights" are simply a way of side-stepping a real analysis of issues. The U.N. declaring internet a "human right" in no way impacts the fact that you can look at the tangible costs and benefits of universal internet access. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Political scientist. Seriously. I think Hitler was what you understand by political scientist: someone who is specialized in taking political decisions. I call that a dictator, but let's not start to discuss semantics, huhu? A political scientist is a person who studies politics. A dictator is a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power. If you can't see the difference between the two, you really are as uninformed as you've been coming off in this thread. Sorry, dude you don't make any sense. Don't you fucking understand that something like universal healthcare is not a question of "efficiency", not even a question of cost, pr anything like that, but it's a philosophical question and that there are no specialist who can deiced for you if you want to live in a society where everybody can go to hospital for free or not? You just started a political discussion. Oh, and nobody is right. Everybody thinks he is right, but, surprise! we just have different opinions. Me, as a citizen, want to live in a society where a homeless who break an arm can go to hospital and have it fix, with my taxes. That's a choice, you understand? There is no scientist who can tell you if it's right or wrong. It's not right or wrong, it's how I think society should be because the opposite, I would find monstrous. That's obviously not the case of someone who vote for the American Republicans. Now, second thing. A political scientist is not someone who study, and therefore is right, on political issues, it's someone who study politics. Politics itself. Someone who knows about political systems, parties, tendencies, etc... I'll stop the ad ominem because it's annoying, but, really, you shouldn't say anybody is not educated enough if you don't know something like that. Good luck with technocracy, I have to work. A question for tonight: "Who is the scientist who knows if abortion should be legal or not". Enjoy. ...Abortion? who cares about that? Abortion isn't something that has an effect on the entire population, it isn't funded by taxes, but payed individually, i'm not going to tell someone to have or not to have an abortion because it has no effefct on me, my parents, friends, and the entire population. However, when something is done on a bigger scale, 1,000,000 times bigger than the one you just refered to, some decision are right, or wrong, they may not be right or wrong for certain individuals, but will be right for pretty much everyone. The fact that you just refered to both of these cases as the same show that not only you have no understanding on the topic at hand, but probably won't be able to understand it even if you study the subject with a clear mind. Yeah abortion is not an issue. Really? Ok, if you say so.................. Honestly I don't know what to do with your post, because it's just an ad ominem based on pretty much nothing and a losy reasoning saying that some things were wrong for certain people but right for most of them leading to I don't know what. What I reproach to you and to sun is to misunderstand what politics is altogether. When we talk about universal healthcare, or abortion, there is no right or wrong, therefore the opinion of specialists or scientist is just irrelevant. It's about choosing the kind of society one wants to live in, and that has nothing to do with anything "objective".
With a given set of utility functions, there is in fact a right and or wrong. You just need a good utility function.
|
On September 13 2011 23:19 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 23:02 RageBot wrote:On September 13 2011 22:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 13 2011 22:41 sunprince wrote:On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
A political scientist is someone who study the political tendencies, not someone who is specialized in political questions. A political scientist will tell you about the difference between this and that kind of constitution and how it affects political tendencies, not if free speech is good or not.
There are tangible benefits and drawbacks to free speech. Political scientists with an emphasis on comparative politics understand them quite well. Just for the record, it comes down in favor of free speech for the most part. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
And I lack expertise. Jesus. You really, really do. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Universal healthcare is not about what is the best way to cure people, it's about who can benefit medicines and on what circumstances. Oie. Nothing to do with science, it's politics again. So, what's the name again of the scientist who decide who has what right? You assume that universal healthcare is a human right. That's a bullshit normative way of looking at it. People deciding that things are "human rights" are simply a way of side-stepping a real analysis of issues. The U.N. declaring internet a "human right" in no way impacts the fact that you can look at the tangible costs and benefits of universal internet access. On September 13 2011 22:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Political scientist. Seriously. I think Hitler was what you understand by political scientist: someone who is specialized in taking political decisions. I call that a dictator, but let's not start to discuss semantics, huhu? A political scientist is a person who studies politics. A dictator is a ruler who assumes sole and absolute power. If you can't see the difference between the two, you really are as uninformed as you've been coming off in this thread. Sorry, dude you don't make any sense. Don't you fucking understand that something like universal healthcare is not a question of "efficiency", not even a question of cost, pr anything like that, but it's a philosophical question and that there are no specialist who can deiced for you if you want to live in a society where everybody can go to hospital for free or not? You just started a political discussion. Oh, and nobody is right. Everybody thinks he is right, but, surprise! we just have different opinions. Me, as a citizen, want to live in a society where a homeless who break an arm can go to hospital and have it fix, with my taxes. That's a choice, you understand? There is no scientist who can tell you if it's right or wrong. It's not right or wrong, it's how I think society should be because the opposite, I would find monstrous. That's obviously not the case of someone who vote for the American Republicans. Now, second thing. A political scientist is not someone who study, and therefore is right, on political issues, it's someone who study politics. Politics itself. Someone who knows about political systems, parties, tendencies, etc... I'll stop the ad ominem because it's annoying, but, really, you shouldn't say anybody is not educated enough if you don't know something like that. Good luck with technocracy, I have to work. A question for tonight: "Who is the scientist who knows if abortion should be legal or not". Enjoy. ...Abortion? who cares about that? Abortion isn't something that has an effect on the entire population, it isn't funded by taxes, but payed individually, i'm not going to tell someone to have or not to have an abortion because it has no effefct on me, my parents, friends, and the entire population. However, when something is done on a bigger scale, 1,000,000 times bigger than the one you just refered to, some decision are right, or wrong, they may not be right or wrong for certain individuals, but will be right for pretty much everyone. The fact that you just refered to both of these cases as the same show that not only you have no understanding on the topic at hand, but probably won't be able to understand it even if you study the subject with a clear mind. Yeah abortion is not an issue. Really? Ok, if you say so.................. Honestly I don't know what to do with your post, because it's just an ad ominem based on pretty much nothing and a losy reasoning saying that some things were wrong for certain people but right for most of them leading to I don't know what. What I reproach to you and to sun is to misunderstand what politics is altogether. When we talk about universal healthcare, or abortion, there is no right or wrong, therefore the opinion of specialists or scientist is just irrelevant. It's about choosing the kind of society one wants to live in, and that has nothing to do with anything "objective".
Can you explain to me, why I don't care about abortion, while I do care about universal healthcare?
|
As already pointed out by others, we already have a highly technocratic society both in form and in function.
And it's worked oh-so-well, hasn't it? (Well yes, it has, but lots of people posting here think otherwise apparently).
It makes sense that most posters here who either have zero political power because they don't participate or feel like they don't because they're young and are just looking for a way to express their newly found political instincts would shit on democracy.
Sometimes these threads are like listening to a 14 year old who just lost his virginity last month eagerly talking about the "new" position he "discovered" with his girlfriend and how it will revolutionize sex everywhere!
|
^^ What he said. We basically already have a technocracy in place.
The appointees and employees of every Federal agency are more or less technical experts in their field, and they generally have full control over the laws (answerable only to the Federal courts and Congressional amendment of their chartering laws) to do whatever they want in their respective fields.
lol @ this thread and how it managed to get to 25 pgs.
|
This is called an Oligarchy. If there is a panel of a small amount of people who unilaterally decide what is best for a nation (or a segment therein), this small amount of people will eventually forget the good of the people and become subjected to corruption and abuse of power, putting the needs and wants of a tiny portion of the population over the needs of the rest.
|
Wouldn't a perfect democracy be a technocracy anyway? Everyone would know enough to make an educated vote and that is the whole point of a technocracy.
We should strive to improve education and reduce the effect of tabloids and other media like that, as other posters pointed out.
|
On September 13 2011 18:30 Timestreamer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2011 17:22 lorkac wrote:On September 13 2011 17:11 Timestreamer wrote:On September 13 2011 15:59 lorkac wrote:On September 13 2011 15:33 sunprince wrote:
The point is, technical experts use their expertise in decision-making when they have the power to do so. The big pro for technocracy (not that I'm saying there are no cons), is that you get to have things like doctors shaping the health care reform process, instead of people who don't know anything about it. You actually have that option with democracy. The populace "could" vote for doctors and engineers. Technocracy is forcing leaders to be doctors and engineers--not allowing any other option. It is leadership by government decree, government choice, and government desires. It is limiting human options in the hope that "the experts" know better than feeble civilians. The populace could do that. Or they can vote for free candy. Politicians are the real experts in the field of manipulation the general public. If the public votes for what they believe is the best, then an expert in civil engineering doesn't a stand to be voted to a housing committee, next to the politician who promises free housing for all. Oh how cute How very very cute. You're like what, 19? 20? Almost 21? How simplistic a world view you have Leaders are either chosen by the people, or they're not. You don't trust voters obviously, so you're hoping for a governmental authority to benevolently choose a benevolent leader. Yeah... I love imagining worlds where the people in charge are never corrupt. Those ideas are indeed very cute. Thanks, you're cute as well. Back to the subject at hand though.... 1) Age is irrelevant, unless you're going with the whole "cute line of thought", and trying to date me. Thanks, but I think I'll pass. 2) I'm hoping for people who understand about housing and civil engineering to vote for a leader for a housing committee. Not people who can make the best speeches. 3) Never talked about corruption, and of course this has been mentioned before. I believe it was sunprince that said that corruption will always be a problem, but at least the corrupted officials will know what will be the consequences of their actions. It isn't a solution, but then again - neither is democracy.
What's cute is that you feel that a democracy is not governed by experts in their field (it is) and that a democracy does not have panels put together by experts in its fields (it is) and simply assuming that the only thing that makes up a democracy is politicians and oligarchs (it isn't)
The reason Democracy doesn't work is because when people are given what they are asking for in a mass scale--they don't actually want it. They ask for education, so taxes increase to be able to pay for education, a large section of the population doesn't like the tax increase and so force a tax decrease, education goes down, people then complain why education is bad and why government keeps wanting to raise their taxes. Because people don't like being given what they're asking for. So what does our (I'm American) government do? They put together a ridiculous number of panels and groups of experts whose only job is to figure out what the people need from infrastructure to economics to medicine etc....
The main limiting factor of democracy is public opinion. The only difference between a technocracy and a democracy is that, in a technocracy, you want to shut up the opinion of the people you dislike. Which is fine, it works for fascists and dictators and communists, which is okay. Just stop pretending that technocracy is something it isn't. Which is innately better just because you don't have to listen to stupid people (already done) and you don't have to worry about money (already done). Here's the thing. Unless you make the entire planet a non-price system, you will still need currency in order to deal and interact with the rest of the planet. Unless technocrats believe in complete and total isolation where the public has no say in policy and only the elite chosen few gets a say in how society is run. Sure, lots of countries have done that. Heck, Korea is doing it now.
Technocracy is nothing new, heck, it's barely clever. This one girl I knew from high school (American remember) once told me that she had a perfect system of government where all she did was shoot stupid people in the face with a shotgun, that way only experts in their fields got a say in policy. I know you guys don't believe in shooting people in the face, but I'm just saying this all just sounds very childish to me.
You not wanting to bring your age in consideration is what really solidifies this. Being that this is the same idea as a lot of american high school kids used to have more than a decade ago, it's about as refined. Still just as silly
Corruption happens. And when it does, the people suffer. This doesn't matter what system is in place be it democracy or dictatorship or technocracy. Democracies and Dictatorships *do* have their panel of experts. They *do* have experts in their respective fields help dictate and define policy. Technocrats simply feel that their experts will be less corrupted than democracies and dictatorships because... oh because they're "good people." lol
|
On September 14 2011 00:41 Thorakh wrote:
Wouldn't a perfect democracy be a technocracy anyway? Everyone would know enough to make an educated vote and that is the whole point of a technocracy.
Not quite (if I'm reading technocracy correctly). I don't know anything about bio-nano-technology, and I don't feel I should have a say in matters of bio-nano-technology.
|
On September 14 2011 00:41 Thorakh wrote:
Wouldn't a perfect democracy be a technocracy anyway? Everyone would know enough to make an educated vote and that is the whole point of a technocracy.
We should strive to improve education and reduce the effect of tabloids and other media like that, as other posters pointed out.
take a government system (doesn't matter which)
Imagine if it ran perfect with no corruption and it's leaders were benevolent and only thought about the good will of the people.
And the people themselves were not greedy so that their monetary system was not a goal in and of itself but people actually aimed to trade for the best possible outcome for all parties involved (and all parties not involved)
Viola! Technocracy
Yes, it's that silly.
|
lorkac, you are completely misrepresenting technocracy. Seriously, it's like listening to a strawman argument about evolution from a religious nutjob.
he only difference between a technocracy and a democracy is that, in a technocracy, you want to shut up the opinion of the people you dislike. who don't know what they're talking about.
Unless technocrats believe in complete and total isolation where the public has no say in policy and only the elite chosen few gets a say in how society is run Excuse me, but having a technocracy doesn't mean schools disappear. If everyone is given an equal chance at going to school, everyone can 'make it'.
Technocracy is nothing new, heck, it's barely clever. This one girl I knew from high school (American remember) once told me that she had a perfect system of government where all she did was shoot stupid people in the face with a shotgun, that way only experts in their fields got a say in policy. I know you guys don't believe in shooting people in the face, but I'm just saying this all just sounds very childish to me. So you heard an opinion from a girl which wasn't even a description of a technocracy and then proceed to dismiss the whole idea of technocracy?
Corruption happens. And when it does, the people suffer. This doesn't matter what system is in place be it democracy or dictatorship or technocracy. Democracies and Dictatorships *do* have their panel of experts. They *do* have experts in their respective fields help dictate and define policy. Technocrats simply feel that their experts will be less corrupted than democracies and dictatorships because... oh because they're "good people." lol So your argument is that corruption happens in all systems and therefore a technocracy is bad?
take a government system (doesn't matter which)
Imagine if it ran perfect with no corruption and it's leaders were benevolent and only thought about the good will of the people.
And the people themselves were not greedy so that their monetary system was not a goal in and of itself but people actually aimed to trade for the best possible outcome for all parties involved (and all parties not involved)
Viola! Technocracy
Yes, it's that silly.
And that is not something to aim for or what...? Eliminating people who have no clue from the system would already go a long way.
|
On September 14 2011 01:01 Thorakh wrote:lorkac, you are completely misrepresenting technocracy. Seriously, it's like listening to a strawman argument about evolution from a religious nutjob. Show nested quote +he only difference between a technocracy and a democracy is that, in a technocracy, you want to shut up the opinion of the people you dislike. who don't know what they're talking about. Show nested quote +Unless technocrats believe in complete and total isolation where the public has no say in policy and only the elite chosen few gets a say in how society is run Excuse me, but having a technocracy doesn't mean schools disappear. If everyone is given an equal chance at going to school, everyone can 'make it'. Show nested quote +Technocracy is nothing new, heck, it's barely clever. This one girl I knew from high school (American remember) once told me that she had a perfect system of government where all she did was shoot stupid people in the face with a shotgun, that way only experts in their fields got a say in policy. I know you guys don't believe in shooting people in the face, but I'm just saying this all just sounds very childish to me. So you heard an opinion from a girl which wasn't even a description of a technocracy and then proceed to dismiss the whole idea of technocracy? Show nested quote +Corruption happens. And when it does, the people suffer. This doesn't matter what system is in place be it democracy or dictatorship or technocracy. Democracies and Dictatorships *do* have their panel of experts. They *do* have experts in their respective fields help dictate and define policy. Technocrats simply feel that their experts will be less corrupted than democracies and dictatorships because... oh because they're "good people." lol So your argument is that corruption happens in all systems and therefore a technocracy is bad? Show nested quote +
take a government system (doesn't matter which)
Imagine if it ran perfect with no corruption and it's leaders were benevolent and only thought about the good will of the people.
And the people themselves were not greedy so that their monetary system was not a goal in and of itself but people actually aimed to trade for the best possible outcome for all parties involved (and all parties not involved)
Viola! Technocracy
Yes, it's that silly.
And that is not something to aim for or what...? Eliminating people who have no clue from the system would already go a long way.
Never said Technocracy was bad. Just saying it isn't anything different from what people use now. It's nothing special at all. It's pretty much just like what high schoolers think politics should be. "let's just get rid of stupid people."
And yes, you're assumption that *equal access* to schools equates to *equal opportunity* is also a very childish outlook on reality and reeks of privilege.
What I'm dismissing is not Technocracy, it's this misguided belief that "the general public" would not only accept a social system where they have no say--but that the public would also be happy in that social system. It's not really about the specifics of technocracy, it's the inherent belief that technocracy somehow does something new and unique when it really doesn't. It all boils down to the same thing.
Which is "Eliminating people who have no clue from the system."
It's foolhardy not because it's not a good goal to have, it's foolhardy because technocrats operate in the assumption that other governmental systems don't already operate under that same premise
Like I said, it's cute and very high schoolish.
|
In a lot of ways technocracy is already present in a lot of democratic countries. Running a country is complicated and it is unlikely that your elected officials will be experts in every field that needs regulation and legislation. So when making a decision about education, you will inevitably need advice from teachers, when making a military decision, you get advice from military officers, when making a decision about energy policy or transportation, you get advice from engineers, when considering taxation, you talk to economists. The less the politicians know (and are aware of it) the more weight the advice will have and thereby the political power could be said to be in the hands of the "craftsmen".
|
Could it be? Surely.
Would it be? No.
|
What you are discussing is nothing new because as I said what you are all discussing is called "aristocracy", rule by the aristos, or "best", a well-known political philosophy concept which has been discussed since Plato's times. You are using the word Technocracy wrong. Technocracy is opposed to both democracy and aristocracy. Technocracy refers to a system of functional governance for North America proposed by Howard Scott which is meant to replace our 7000 year old Price System with a totally new concept in accordance with the technological age in which we live. Either you investigate Technocracy on technocracyinc.org the official website of the original organisation before posting completely unrelated things under the name "technocracy" or create a new discussion called "aristocracy vs. democracy" or "expertocracy vs. democracy", suit yourself, if you find that discussion interesting. But do not continue showing your ignorance, incompetence and disregard for honesty by misusing a word which does not belong to you.
|
On September 14 2011 02:32 tech information wrote:What you are discussing is nothing new because as I said what you are all discussing is called "aristocracy", rule by the aristos, or "best", a well-known political philosophy concept which has been discussed since Plato's times. You are using the word Technocracy wrong. Technocracy is oppsed to both democracy and aristocracy. Technocracy refers to a system of functional governance for North America proposed by Howard Scott which is meant to replace our 7000 year old Price System with a totally new concept in accordance with the technological age in which we live. Either you investigate Technocracy on technocracyinc.org the official website of the original organisation before posting completely unrelated things under the name "technocracy" or create a new discussion called "aristocracy vs. democracy" or "expertocracy vs. democracy", suit yourself, if you find that discussion interesting. But do not continue showing your ignorance, incompetence and disregard for honesty by misusing a word which does not belong to you.
Not complaining about aristocracy. Just saying that isolationist ideals that attempt to let go of money is not new and pretending it is is very silly
EDIT::
Wow, technocracy sounds even sillier if you look through the website lol
EDIT2::
Omg! Technocracy is even worse on that website than I thought! lol
People work for nothing, and they like it, because yeah... (that's his argument actually)
Money doesn't matter and people won't care about incentives, because we say so... (That is also their argument)
People will work less, retire early, and get more, because... he doesn't really say why he says that that's just how it works.
lol
My god, I actually thought that Technocracy was at least comparable to other governmental styles. It's actually far worse if you listen to what it has to say lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
