EPTEven if it is yes, professionalism and knowledge does not guarantee personal accountability or integrity in any shape way or form, so those in power are still easily corruptible. Those who aren't in power will be the masses, who simply can't all be so educated as to be able to know everything they need to know to be "informed citizens". Mankind simply isn't education-centered enough to be able to handle such a form of government.
Could a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
Even if it is yes, professionalism and knowledge does not guarantee personal accountability or integrity in any shape way or form, so those in power are still easily corruptible. Those who aren't in power will be the masses, who simply can't all be so educated as to be able to know everything they need to know to be "informed citizens". Mankind simply isn't education-centered enough to be able to handle such a form of government. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
That's basically asking for corruption, nepotism, stagnation, and decline. | ||
|
valheru
Australia966 Posts
I know there are obvious problems (who assigns the scholars how are they chosen etc) and I don't really know a lot about civics but that is my best idea on how to govern, since (I think) it should eliminate the problem of MPs knowing squat about things like computer science the internet and at times (most disturbingly I think) economics and law. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On August 12 2011 18:03 aebriol wrote: You can't have the people in charge also be the ones that decide who is in charge. That's basically asking for corruption, nepotism, stagnation, and decline. Or a democratic technocracy could emerge, where those in power would only have a say in who CAN be in charge based on very loose criteria. After that, the people would have the final say in who is and isn't worthy to lead. It's not a farfetched idea to require elected officials to hold some level of higher education or licensing in their respective field. As long as the licensing remained the professional level standard and didn't "devolve" into, "you have to be a level 27 Doctor to run for office!" I think we'd be ok. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
- Winston Churchill That pretty much says it all. Fuck yes I'd take technocracy, is that even a real question ? " Hi, would you rather have the people who rule your everyday life to have some sort of knowledge on the things they are supposed to make decisions on or would the current system consisting of populistic full of shit politicians and ex-celebrities with IQ in the tens and no achievements what so ever suit you better? " | ||
|
Hermasaurus
54 Posts
| ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On August 12 2011 18:38 Hermasaurus wrote: China is a movement for technocracy is it not? It kind of is. But then once the people begin to expect more it might not work as well. China is in a transitional state, I'm not sure if they will stand their Government forever. (although actually I think they do a really decent job). | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
A Technocracy is a form of government in which engineers, scientists, health professionals, and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields. Technical expertise is determined by... a written test? If Susskind and Hawking have another disagreement, does the government shut down? How would you pass a budget when all the groups think their field is the most important? P.S. economists in charge of the economy... | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
Moving towards more technocracy by giving these experts more power would probably be a good thing in terms of efficiency, but bad for democratic freedom. For example, there's pretty strong scientific consensus that we should teach evolution and never creationist pseudo-science, that vaccines should be mandatory, and that we need to take drastic measures to avert global warming. If we had a technocracy, we'd enact all of these, whether the majority of (ignorant) American citizens want them or not. The results would obviously be beneficial, but it goes somewhat against American ideals as we've come to understand them. What it ultimately comes down to is whether you think that all people should decide how their country is run, or only qualified people should. Unfortunately, you're gonna have a hard time convincing the rather dim-witted and anti-intellectual public to give up power to the "nerds"/"geeks"/"fags" that they prefer to make fun of. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 12 2011 18:41 gyth wrote: Technical expertise is determined by... a written test? Technical expertise is determined by the relevant expert community, which generally use scientific consensus and meritocratic/bureaucratic structures to determine qualification. For example, most scientific fields consider attainment of a doctoral degree as a measure of basic proficiency in the field. On August 12 2011 18:41 gyth wrote: If Susskind and Hawking have another disagreement, does the government shut down? Obviously not. Decisions are made by consensus, and the status quo prevails if there is not a supermajority in favor of a policy change. On August 12 2011 18:41 gyth wrote: How would you pass a budget when all the groups think their field is the most important? It's not like that's anything different from what we do now. You do the exact same thing, which is compromise. The key difference is that compromise will be based more on scientific debate and changing the minds of other experts and less on catering to voters and special interest groups. | ||
|
Spidinko
Slovakia1174 Posts
On August 12 2011 18:41 gyth wrote: Technical expertise is determined by... a written test? If Susskind and Hawking have another disagreement, does the government shut down? How would you pass a budget when all the groups think their field is the most important? P.S. economists in charge of the economy... Well, for one they could use similar methods science uses. There are agreements of course. They don't know everything. But the process itself works pretty well. The idea of technocracy is great. Implementing it in real world situation wouldn't very easy, though. | ||
|
brain_
United States812 Posts
People have been convinced to hand power (and surrender freedom) to "experts" since the very first governments... It has always ended in disaster. Give people their freedom, let them act as autonomous actors without restrictions, and be amazed as they magically figure out the most efficient and desirable ways to do things via phenomena such as the price mechanism. TL;DR: Voluntary human cooperation, trade, and ingenuity > using force to control people "for their own good". | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On August 12 2011 18:25 HwangjaeTerran wrote: " Hi, would you rather have the people who rule your everyday life to have some sort of knowledge on the things they are supposed to make decisions on or would the current system consisting of populistic full of shit politicians and ex-celebrities with IQ in the tens and no achievements what so ever suit you better? " The problem is that most people do not think like you do. Most Americans would rather have an 'unsophisticated regular guy' as their elected leader, rather than an 'deceptive elitist intellectual'. That's why it's actually imperative for politicians to downplay their intelligence to the public as much as possible. | ||
|
LAN-f34r
New Zealand2099 Posts
 )? Would it be voted by other qualified people (after all, the do know the most about each-others qualifications). Would anybody who is qualifies be part of a council? | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
Better than a democracy (most likely), but there's still even better alternatives to both imo. Also, I don't feel like being "better than a democracy" is a high standard. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
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. 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. | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
Some of the greatest empires were quite undemocratic What makes an empire great? Conquest??? | ||
|
Mobius_1
United Kingdom2763 Posts
But it's not going to work very well, not until after thousands of years of adaptation and adjustments in both how the system works and how the citizenry act. I personally would like the current democratic systems to further incorporate expert judgment, so for experts to have influence on political decision making rather than publishing papers that all but fly under the radar of political agendas and corporate bullying. Finally, if one were to be instituted, it's very difficult and polarising to decide who will "rule". (Especially social) sciences are plagued with opposing views, differing opinions, and revolutionary innovations, all of those present issues for technocratic systems. PS I feel a lot of Asimov's works incorporate technocratic ideas, with scientists being put in charge with restoring society or continuing humanity or otherwise taking on huge responsibilities. They work out well in fiction, at least!  | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
Among other things yes, but none more than sustained conquest. Don't mistake military conquest for the only form of conquest either, it's just the most direct and most commonly measured. | ||
| ||
