EPTCould a Technocracy be Better than Democracy? - Page 30
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
tech information
105 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 14 2011 07:16 DeepElemBlues wrote: Philosophy of government by the people and for the people and inalienable rights are not smokescreens for bad arguments from conservatives, no more than the philosophy of economic egalitarianism and social rights are a smokescreen for bad arguments from liberals. I'm not equating the two. I'm suggesting that American conservatives make use of it as a rhetorical tactic on a frequent basis (and the reason why has to do with pandering to a religious base which prefers rhetoric over logic). | ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbaki
Belgium141 Posts
On September 14 2011 07:19 tech information wrote: Why are you even posting here if you haven't read the discussion Promise, next time I'll put a post on each page just for you to know I'm reading. In 30 pages you still didn't noticed that your beloved text book model isn't only not demonstrated as the most performant but also can't be accepted in any way as an alternative model by current societies? Maybe i should have pointed that out for you. | ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
| ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On September 14 2011 07:15 lorkac wrote: Step one, assume we care about homeless people. Step two--oh wait, we're still arguing over step one. Before people want to figure out what's best, they need to actually care. How do we know if people care or not? Oh right, argue about it  No, you can measure how much people care about homeless people. Economists do calculations like this all the time. You can either (a) survey people or (b) look at how much of their money/time the average citizen gives to homeless people a year. From here, you can calculate the assigned or implicit value that citizens hold for homeless people (in other words, how much people care). Using this value, you can calculate how much health care for homeless people is worth to the citizens, and therefore whether the cost is worth it. | ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbaki
Belgium141 Posts
On September 14 2011 07:25 tech information wrote: As I said make another discussion called "expertocracy vs. democracy" and debate the notion of governement of the people vs. governement by experts, or "aristocracy vs. democracy" and debate the notion of governement of the people vs. government of the best. You will find nothing useful will come out of it. But you can't hijack a word you don't own. What you call hijack I call realistic practical adaptation or even transition model. I had enough, don't worry I won't post here again unresquested but you have to know that your lack of lateral thinking is turning this thread in a Superman vs Batman thread. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
I'm not equating the two. I'm suggesting that American conservatives make use of it as a rhetorical tactic on a frequent basis (and the reason why has to do with pandering to a religious base which prefers rhetoric over logic). The only two things I can think of where that is the case would be prayer in school and teaching creationism in school, which are not very big issues even if they were in the past. Prayer in school was a big national issue 25ish years ago, but creationism has mostly been a local issue that only gets play nationally because atheists from everywhere get very sensitive about it rightly or wrongly. Technocracy was America's fastest growing social movement. Nothing like it has ever existed on the face of the earth. Scientologists would probably be pretty steamed to hear that. | ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Scott Scott had "overstated his academic credentials",[5] and he was discovered not to be a "distinguished engineer".[6] [1] | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On September 14 2011 07:35 DeepElemBlues wrote: I've never heard of Howard Scott and neither has 99.5% of the population of the US or the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Scott lol. I love how all the problems about the ideology are exemplified in its founder. | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On September 14 2011 07:31 Grumbaki wrote: What you call hijack I call realistic practical adaptation or even transition model. I had enough, don't worry I won't post here again unresquested but you have to know that your lack of lateral thinking is turning this thread in a Superman vs Batman thread. The obvious answer is superman prime. He has no need of money, nor open elections and is the best at everything by decree. Batman is merely a citizen doing his best to help others while trying to make money on the side. Batman is therefore unrealistic. | ||
|
MozzarellaL
United States822 Posts
On September 14 2011 07:33 tech information wrote: so you think you know better than the founding scientists of the Technical Alliance, Howard Scott and a century of Technocrats such that you can make changes at will in the Technate design? who do you think you are I think anyone with a Bachelor's in industrial engineering knows better than the founding 'scientists' of the Technical Alliance | ||
|
sorrowptoss
Canada1431 Posts
| ||
|
tech information
105 Posts
On September 14 2011 07:32 DeepElemBlues wrote: Scientologists would probably be pretty steamed to hear that. Ok why don't you make a discussion called "Scientology vs. democracy" then and talk about the influence of science advisors in government or something. You can't. Ron Hubbard incorporated Scientology in 1953. Scientology is based on his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Howard Scott incorporated Technocracy in 1933. Technocracy is based on the research and findings of the Technical Alliance of 1918. Nobody had ever heard of it before. What gives you the right to dirty Technocracy's name with your stupid unrelated concepts? Why doesn't anyone coopt Scientology's name? | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Batman is merely a citizen doing his best to help others while trying to make money on the side. Batman is therefore unrealistic. I have to disagree, I don't think even Superman Prime could stand up to the goddamned Batman's godly level of planning and preparation. He makes Brainiac look like a toddler. Ok why don't you make a discussion called "Scientology vs. democracy" then and talk about the influence of science advisors in government or something. You can't. Ron Hubbard incorporated Scientology in 1953. Scientology is based on his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Howard Scott incorporated Technocracy in 1933. Technocracy is based on the research and findings of the Technical Alliance of 1918. Nobody had ever heard of it before. What gives you the right to dirty Technocracy's name with your stupid unrelated concepts? Why doesn't anyone coopt Scientology's name? Well, if I really wanted to make such a silly thread, I could I guess... I don't know why no one has co-opted Scientology's name, probably because Scientologists would sue the bejesus out of them. Also I was teasing you by implying that Scientologists would huffily claim that they are in fact the biggest growing movement in America. | ||
|
Grumbaki
Belgium141 Posts
On September 14 2011 07:33 tech information wrote: so you think you know better than the founding scientists of the Technical Alliance, Howard Scott and a century of Technocrats such that you can make changes at will in the Technate design? who do you think you are You're asking for it. According to you own "Technocratic" standard, why the F should a PhD in political science (among other degrees) "young" professional with experience in 4 countries (including special models as PRC and RoC) should be bound to think only in the words of a 1920 self proclaimed "engineer"? Your dogmatism even prevent european classic Technocracy to be discussed. Are we even allowed to modify the colors of the logo? It's so pre 50... | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On September 14 2011 07:40 tech information wrote: Ok why don't you make a discussion called "Scientology vs. democracy" then and talk about the influence of science advisors in government or something. You can't. Ron Hubbard incorporated Scientology in 1953. Scientology is based on his earlier self-help system, Dianetics. Howard Scott incorporated Technocracy in 1933. Technocracy is based on the research and findings of the Technical Alliance of 1918. Nobody had ever heard of it before. What gives you the right to dirty Technocracy's name with your stupid unrelated concepts? Why doesn't anyone coopt Scientology's name? Can't tell if... Oh, who am I kidding, obviously trolling but so much fun lol | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
Oh, who am I kidding, obviously trolling but so much fun lol who trolls for 6+ straight hours, its a true believer man i mean really you could get high, eat, take a nap, play sc2, take a shower, get laid, do almost anything in that time to take a break... but no. | ||
| ||
