|
On August 12 2011 23:00 Hermasaurus wrote:
You seem to believe that Scientists and other experts of transcended past human emotion onto a platform of sheer objectivity. Which is wrong. The problem with any government is human emotion. No one is exempt from ego, envy, or greed. Being a scientist doesn't assert any higher level of morality than the next person. Which means everyone is capable of corruption, regardless of expertise.
You keep saying that. Let me make this clear for a simpleton like you:
Scientists are not perfectly objective. They are, however, more objective than the average person.
On August 12 2011 23:00 Hermasaurus wrote:
But the thing is morality is subjective, and so on, and so forth. As well as corruption. Just the same as a civilizations success, or a persons. Success isn't objective. You can't suggest that technocracy is objectively better than any other form of politics.
The pros and cons of any policy varies through the eye of the beholder.
That's an idiot's way of looking at it. If everything is subjective, then who cares what we do? Raising GDP, lowering crime, reducing war; all of those things are only subjectively good things right? Some people might think that humans deserve to suffer, therefore, your policies aren't right for everyone! *facepalm*
There are some goals that are overwhelmingly agreed upon as desirable for a nation. Some policies achieve them better than others with fewer drawbacks. These are objectively better policies, and a technocracy is better at achieving them, at the cost of reduced freedom.
|
Im not a fan of any system where people plan my life for me or tell me what to do. Its is impractical as no human or organization is smart enough to plan a society, and it is immoral as it violates individual rights.
Democracy sucks, but I fear a technocracy would be worse.
This aint star trek, people are greedy and corrupt and any system that centralizes power and decision making will attract the most greedy and corrupt humans to the top. Hasnt history shown us that?
|
On August 12 2011 23:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:00 Hermasaurus wrote:
You seem to believe that Scientists and other experts of transcended past human emotion onto a platform of sheer objectivity. Which is wrong. The problem with any government is human emotion. No one is exempt from ego, envy, or greed. Being a scientist doesn't assert any higher level of morality than the next person. Which means everyone is capable of corruption, regardless of expertise. You keep saying that. Let me make this clear for a simpleton like you: Scientists are not perfectly objective. They are, however, more objective than the average person. Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:00 Hermasaurus wrote:
But the thing is morality is subjective, and so on, and so forth. As well as corruption. Just the same as a civilizations success, or a persons. Success isn't objective. You can't suggest that technocracy is objectively better than any other form of politics.
The pros and cons of any policy varies through the eye of the beholder. That's an idiot's way of looking at it. If everything is subjective, then who cares what we do? Raising GDP, lowering crime, reducing war; all of those things are only subjectively good things right? Some people might think that humans deserve to suffer, therefore, your policies aren't right for everyone! *facepalm* There are some goals that are overwhelmingly agreed upon as desirable for a nation. Some policies achieve them better than others with fewer drawbacks. These are objectively better policies, and a technocracy is better at achieving them, at the cost of reduced freedom.
Please tell me where I said that before? Also please reference where scientists are more objective in comparison to normal politicians when it comes to making POLITICAL decisions? I would assume you don't have any data. I would also assume you don't have any data of ANYTHING, because your whole argument is speculation, and YOUR opinion.
|
On August 12 2011 23:05 Traeon wrote:
The more I read from the pro-technocracy people, the more I'm skeptical. The idea comes across as extremely authoritarian and is sold under the guise of a presumed intellectual superiority of the experts.
I call rhetorical BS. You've been vehemently against it from your first post in the thread due to your anti-intellectual attitudes and failure to understand either technocracy or science.
|
On August 12 2011 22:59 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
Well the problem with your version of a technocracy is that it's more commonly known as a dictatorship.
All you suggest be done is that politicians are removed and with it, democratic election, and then you suggest we go on about our business as usual. Please review my posts to learn why you are mistaken. Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
Who do you think are running hospitals right now? Those very same people with PhD's in public health and administration. Who judges over brain surgery cases? Brain surgeons.
Who judges over the grand scheme of things? Politics on a national level? Politicians. Except you want to remove elections... When considering technocracy vs. democracy, we're obviously considering things from a public policy standpoint, not who runs hospitals or performs brain surgery. In other words, who makes laws that hospitals and brain surgeons have to follow. If we did have a more technocratic government, then the health care reform debate would primarily be driven by expert knowledge on how to bring down health care costs. Rather than health care reform that would be the consensus of public health professionals, we instead got a bill that primarily served political interests and did little to curtail dramatically rising health care costs. The real question is, why are legislators with no experience with public health/health administration the ones who are writing up laws? Why not follow the close guidance and directions of experts? The answer is that politicians aren't concerned with what's good for public health, but what's good for reelection. Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
So basically your perceived notion of technocracy boils down to "same shit as we got right now, but remove elections".
Power that cannot be held accountable sounds like a good idea to you? That's obviously not what I've said. As I argued in a previous post, technocracy and democracy is not a binary choice. You can make a government more technocratic in some respects. Nowhere have I argued that you should remove elections. Rather, the main thing I am advocating is for technocrats to be given political power within their narrow fields of expertise.
Yes, so the most accredited of economists who all hold degrees and well paying jobs are going to look over the tax reform whilst knowing in the back of their head that they can't be held accountable for anything they do.
This idea does away with democracy and more importantly, they self purifying ability that the democratic system has. These people would be in no way accountable for their choices and the political system could in no way purge the corruption from it's ranks.
|
On August 12 2011 23:08 Hermasaurus wrote:
Please tell me where I said that before?
You argued that success is objective, which is an obvious pointless line of reasoning, even if not flat-out incorrect.
On August 12 2011 23:08 Hermasaurus wrote:
Also please reference where scientists are more objective in comparison to normal politicians when it comes to making POLITICAL decisions? I would assume you don't have any data. I would also assume you don't have any data of ANYTHING, because your whole argument is speculation, and YOUR opinion.
I actually have plenty of data, seeing as I studied public policy intensively for several years. Please reference any and all political science articles on political decision-making and technological expertise from the last 50 years. Good places to start are John Ferejohn's Pork Barrel Politics, John W. Kingdon's Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, John M. Ziman's The Force of Knowledge, Cass R. Sunstein's Risk and Reason, and James Q. Wilson's Bureaucracy.
Doing so might help you to understand why in our government, bureaucrats and experts are basically constrained from being efficient by political forces.
|
When I read the title I thought it was going to talk about robots controlling government lol
|
On August 12 2011 23:13 zalz wrote:
Yes, so the most accredited of economists who all hold degrees and well paying jobs are going to look over the tax reform whilst knowing in the back of their head that they can't be held accountable for anything they do.
You are aware that in spite of this, most economists have called for the United States to raise taxes, right? And that majority of prominent economists opposed the Bush tax cuts that would have benefitted them? Again, this should suggest that experts are less interested in their own rational benefit and more in choosing the right policy.
On August 12 2011 23:13 zalz wrote:
This idea does away with democracy and more importantly, they self purifying ability that the democratic system has. These people would be in no way accountable for their choices and the political system could in no way purge the corruption from it's ranks.
Who said anything about no accountability? You're making assumptions about this theoretical technocracy. Why wouldn't technocrats answer to their own scientific communities? Why wouldn't they be subject to legal challenges?
|
On August 12 2011 23:13 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 22:59 sunprince wrote:On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
Well the problem with your version of a technocracy is that it's more commonly known as a dictatorship.
All you suggest be done is that politicians are removed and with it, democratic election, and then you suggest we go on about our business as usual. Please review my posts to learn why you are mistaken. On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
Who do you think are running hospitals right now? Those very same people with PhD's in public health and administration. Who judges over brain surgery cases? Brain surgeons.
Who judges over the grand scheme of things? Politics on a national level? Politicians. Except you want to remove elections... When considering technocracy vs. democracy, we're obviously considering things from a public policy standpoint, not who runs hospitals or performs brain surgery. In other words, who makes laws that hospitals and brain surgeons have to follow. If we did have a more technocratic government, then the health care reform debate would primarily be driven by expert knowledge on how to bring down health care costs. Rather than health care reform that would be the consensus of public health professionals, we instead got a bill that primarily served political interests and did little to curtail dramatically rising health care costs. The real question is, why are legislators with no experience with public health/health administration the ones who are writing up laws? Why not follow the close guidance and directions of experts? The answer is that politicians aren't concerned with what's good for public health, but what's good for reelection. On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
So basically your perceived notion of technocracy boils down to "same shit as we got right now, but remove elections".
Power that cannot be held accountable sounds like a good idea to you? That's obviously not what I've said. As I argued in a previous post, technocracy and democracy is not a binary choice. You can make a government more technocratic in some respects. Nowhere have I argued that you should remove elections. Rather, the main thing I am advocating is for technocrats to be given political power within their narrow fields of expertise. This idea does away with democracy and more importantly, they self purifying ability that the democratic system has. These people would be in no way accountable for their choices and the political system could in no way purge the corruption from it's ranks.
You seem to be implying that democracys purge corruption. Perhaps things are better in the Netherlands but in North America our elected officials break the law constantly, and there is NO recourse. A politician only goes down when the media wants them to and broadcasts their indescretions to the world.
I agree with your criticisms of technocracy however I think you have a rosy eyed view of democracy. Being able to choose which fascist gets to run my life every four years is hardly the best system concievable.
|
As a counter argument, I propose a Democracy wherein only citizens of a predetermined IQ are allowed to vote. xD
Seriously, I've met so many "hard science people" who I'd never want running anything that it's flooring. Specific professional segments of the populace shouldn't control things. If you have something you're grasping for it sounds like Aristotle's philosopher kings. Unfortunately they don't exist.
|
On August 12 2011 23:24 Equity213 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:13 zalz wrote:On August 12 2011 22:59 sunprince wrote:On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
Well the problem with your version of a technocracy is that it's more commonly known as a dictatorship.
All you suggest be done is that politicians are removed and with it, democratic election, and then you suggest we go on about our business as usual. Please review my posts to learn why you are mistaken. On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
Who do you think are running hospitals right now? Those very same people with PhD's in public health and administration. Who judges over brain surgery cases? Brain surgeons.
Who judges over the grand scheme of things? Politics on a national level? Politicians. Except you want to remove elections... When considering technocracy vs. democracy, we're obviously considering things from a public policy standpoint, not who runs hospitals or performs brain surgery. In other words, who makes laws that hospitals and brain surgeons have to follow. If we did have a more technocratic government, then the health care reform debate would primarily be driven by expert knowledge on how to bring down health care costs. Rather than health care reform that would be the consensus of public health professionals, we instead got a bill that primarily served political interests and did little to curtail dramatically rising health care costs. The real question is, why are legislators with no experience with public health/health administration the ones who are writing up laws? Why not follow the close guidance and directions of experts? The answer is that politicians aren't concerned with what's good for public health, but what's good for reelection. On August 12 2011 22:48 zalz wrote:
So basically your perceived notion of technocracy boils down to "same shit as we got right now, but remove elections".
Power that cannot be held accountable sounds like a good idea to you? That's obviously not what I've said. As I argued in a previous post, technocracy and democracy is not a binary choice. You can make a government more technocratic in some respects. Nowhere have I argued that you should remove elections. Rather, the main thing I am advocating is for technocrats to be given political power within their narrow fields of expertise. This idea does away with democracy and more importantly, they self purifying ability that the democratic system has. These people would be in no way accountable for their choices and the political system could in no way purge the corruption from it's ranks. You seem to be implying that democracys purge corruption. Perhaps things are better in the Netherlands but in North America our elected officials break the law constantly, and there is NO recourse. A politician only goes down when the media wants them to and broadcasts their indescretions to the world. I agree with your criticisms of technocracy however I think you have a rosy eyed view of democracy. Being able to choose which fascist gets to run my life every four years is hardly the best system concievable.
How can i argue with this? Your simplified "Media rules the world" position isn't based on any realism.
I can tell you that your perception of reality is warped but what good would that do?
|
On August 12 2011 23:16 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:08 Hermasaurus wrote:
Please tell me where I said that before? You argued that success is objective, which is an obvious pointless line of reasoning, even if not flat-out incorrect. Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 23:08 Hermasaurus wrote:
Also please reference where scientists are more objective in comparison to normal politicians when it comes to making POLITICAL decisions? I would assume you don't have any data. I would also assume you don't have any data of ANYTHING, because your whole argument is speculation, and YOUR opinion.
I actually have plenty of data, seeing as I studied public policy intensively for several years. Please reference any and all political science articles on political decision-making and technological expertise from the last 50 years. Good places to start are John Ferejohn's Pork Barrel Politics, John W. Kingdon's Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, John M. Ziman's The Force of Knowledge, Cass R. Sunstein's Risk and Reason, and James Q. Wilson's Bureaucracy. Doing so might help you to understand why in our government, bureaucrats and experts are basically constrained from being efficient by political forces.
You lack the ability to see from a different perspective. Instead of a technocracy, why don't you look into dictatorship.
|
On August 12 2011 16:49 AustinCM wrote:
Do you think that a Technocracy could work anywhere in the world?
What is a Technocracy you ask?
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.
So do you think that it would be able to accelerate scientific discovery and advancement and how do you think it would affect the economy of the given country?\
I for one feel that this is exactly what we need and will end the OP with a quote from Winston Churchill.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Shit, wrong forum, please move to the General forum...
Yes lets give control to the "experts" and democracy is pretty bad as well I guess that's that's why I live in a republic.
|
On August 12 2011 23:25 Kimaker wrote:
As a counter argument, I propose a Democracy wherein only citizens of a predetermined IQ are allowed to vote. xD
I'm partly amenable to that, but even smart people have a tendency to stick their noses in areas they know nothing about and then vote on them.
On August 12 2011 23:25 Kimaker wrote:
Seriously, I've met so many "hard science people" who I'd never want running anything that it's flooring. Specific professional segments of the populace shouldn't control things. If you have something you're grasping for it sounds like Aristotle's philosopher kings. Unfortunately they don't exist.
Philosopher kings wouldn't be my goal. Ideally, I'd want a democracy where people only vote on issues they are knoweldgeable about. Even better if it means everyone is very well-educated and can thus vote on a lot of things.
What we have in reality, though, is an idiocracy where people love to vote despite their ignorance and short-sighted self-interest.
|
I don't think technocrats are going to make many decisions that would benefit the poor... Also, combining technocracy with democracy is just going to be one hell of a headache.
|
On August 12 2011 23:30 Hermasaurus wrote:
You lack the ability to see from a different perspective. Instead of a technocracy, why don't you look into dictatorship.
You have no idea what you're talking about, so instead you try to attack me by equating technocracy with dictatorship. GTFO of the thread, troll.
|
United States43869 Posts
Part of the ongoing problem with drug legislation is that politicians refuse to listen to the scientists and doctors who actually know the medical risks of taking drugs.
|
On August 12 2011 23:31 meegrean wrote:
I don't think technocrats are going to make many decisions that would benefit the poor...
You do realize that every major reform movement which benefits the poor is backed by academics?
On August 12 2011 23:31 meegrean wrote:
Also, combining technocracy with democracy is just going to be one hell of a headache.
We already have it to some degree in America. It's just really weak technocracy, because our technocrats have very limited power, and politicians can just ignore or override them.
|
The closest example of technocracy in a country would be the current leadership in China.
Almost everyone of them have an engineering degree -_- and look how they turned out.
The major problems are:
A) The lure of power. It wouldn't stop anyone that wants to have that power to study in science instead of say law if science degree is more valued. Politicians like it or not probably excelled in their school years to get that far and don't call politicians dumb, they might make dumb decisions but it's unlikely that they are not intelligent.
B) The lack of empathy. Scientists care little about your average citizens. Sometimes the populace do things that are against logic. Public mood can swing one way or another and a scientist is not equipped to deal with that unless he has prior experiences in political science which will end up like the system we have now. Scientists would have less patient for people's opinions when he consider himself smarter than them and a scientist is just as likely as the next person to be influenced by interest groups.
C) Lawyers and business people while do not make the best decisions all the time (or at all) is the closest we can get to get a group that is some what equipped with running a nation. Likely it or not, that is what we have now.
D) We need good administrators and great decision makers which are things that no degree or knowledge can teach you. We need someone who is powerful and resourceful enough to muster support to implement what ever the nation needs.
E) I do think that there should be a functional and political separation in positions. Say for I.T ministers, there should be one person elected by his peers and one that is appointed by the political bloc, there should be a vote called on all major decisions in the actual research / industry that the decision will effect but this is not almost possible due to budget and time.
People should understand that politics is not always about doing the best thing. It often comes down to compromises (for interest groups) and budget.
|
On August 12 2011 22:44 Sablar wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2011 22:23 sunprince wrote:On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
I think many people seem regard scientists like some sort of rational, methodical robot that will carefully weigh the evidence and decide what is right. I don't think anyone has suggested this. Rather, they are beter than average people at rational, methodical thought, but obviously not perfect. On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Scientists agree about nothing and there are always different camps within diciplines much like political parties. False. Scientists agree about a great many things. When they do disagree, then that's something you don't have enough knowledge to act on anyway. On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Sociology and stuff regarding the whole society can't really be measured though, and there would never be a consensus or even close to it regarding what was right. This goes for economics, psychology etc as well. False. Look up a sociology or economics journal sometime. Both fields are rooted in empirical science. I can't speak for psychology personally, but I would assume the same is true of it as well. And again, there is plenty of consensus in every field. Just about everything studied up to the undergraduate level is scientific consensus. It's enough to fill vast libraries and most of Wikipedia. You seem to be working off of popular stereotypes about science, without any idea of how it actually works. On August 12 2011 22:16 Sablar wrote:
Making sure to consult those who have knowledge in fields relevant to decisions is of course important, but that's how it's done today. Yes, but then the politicians ignore or override those experts, which is how we get a lot of problems. Look at pretty much any field of science and people will be disaegreeing. From the existence of some theorized physical matter to the motivations of humans or the most important reasons behind unempoyment. There are contradicting results and camps with different ideas and discussions that pretty much never get settled. There isn't a consensus, instead text books are filled the "the x perspective" as opposed to "the y perspective". Something being "rooted in empircal sciences" doesn't mean that is somehow objective or that there is a right answer. It's far too complicated to know about all the factors in society in order to make accurate preductions about economics or about how crime will be effected by different changes in society. You just can't control such variables and because of that science can't give any clear answers. At best there is good line of reasoning behind whatever prediction is made. In the end that line of reasoning may or may not be better than that of an elected politicians, but that alone doesn't make it a better system. Also sociology is more qualitative than quantitative overall. So don't say things are false when they aren't, and don't question my character because I was the only one who admitted to using generalizations about scientists.
They are disagreeing about some things and agreeing about others. Those things that are not agreed upon are considered as of yet unknown or not precise. 100 years ago there was disagreement about general hereditary mechanisms in biology, not anymore, now the disagreements are about small details of those mechanisms. Social sciences are the ones with all the "perspectives", but even those are getting better. And being rooted in empirical science actually means exactly that it is objective.
The point is not what might be. The point is that the expert has higher probability of making a right call and that is it. Also there is no necessity to eliminate democratic procedures in general, I think a hybrid system would be better. Basically people would vote on the matters of general policy as in those cases the science often has nothing definitive to say. For example people would vote on the level of social services they want and similar stuff and than technocrats would implement the details to the best of their knowledge. Also you can add even some democratic control over the technocrats, but it has to be well thought through so they do not become today's polititians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
