|
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
|
On April 19 2013 06:14 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:11 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Technocracy does not mean the people who have proven themselves the best leaders get to rule, it means rule by technocrats. It has been tried to various degrees in various countries, particularly State Communist countries like the USSR and China in the 20th century, and it failed miserably. Technocrats are no more immune to political pressure and to human failings than anyone else. I guess I described a modified version that included businessmen whereas conventional technocracies do not, but why shouldn't it work? I'd argue that many of the countries that have had radical forms of government had been economically backward long before adopting their newer gov. and thus aren't the best examples. A country like Singapore or Japan that became a technocracy would, in my opinion, be a fairer judge of its merits.
The problem with technocracy is the absence of an outside judgement. Different fields are ruled by different dominant currents : leftists will for example complain that economists are cold-hearted pro-business fascists, when rightists often whine about how universities and newspapers are ruled by socialist scum.
Besides, what is seen as expertise today may very well be the mistake of tomorrow. Look at the crisis we are facing! It was built by experts. It did not prevent it from happening. The existance of experts in itself is an illusion! If economists disagree, for example, and that one third believes A, another believes B and the last one believes C, then two thirds of the total of these "experts" are necessarily and utterly wrong. Only time (sort of) tells.
|
On April 19 2013 06:36 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:34 hzflank wrote:On April 19 2013 06:32 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:29 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:18 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics. Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there. If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible. On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient. You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts. I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently. Why does that have to be the case? A state owned business should have the same motivations as a privately owned business. For a start if a state owned business does badly then the senior staff should be fired. If it continues to do badly then it should be dissolved. It doesn't have the same motivations though.
Of course it does. How does a business being private or public change the motivations? The motivations of say a public school and a state school differ not because of their ownership but because of their market. If you take any business and privatize or nationalize it without any other changes then it's motivations remain the same.
|
On April 19 2013 06:41 Farmer Poopy wrote:
I don't really think the benefits of having a monarchy outweigh the disadvantages, but if that's what those countries want to do I'm completely fine with it.
That depends on what you class as a country?
If you mean: "if that's what the political ruling class want to do i'm completely fine with it" then i heartily disagree.
If, however, you mean "if that's what the population of that country wants to do i'm completely fine with it" you are deluded because the population has literally zero input on the matter.
|
On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:32 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:29 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:18 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics. Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there. If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible. On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient. You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts. I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently. I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either. The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
Advertising is also incredibly wasteful, unnecessary, and frankly dishonest. We would live in a better world if we bought things off merit rather than subliminal thoughts about brands. The only things I like about ads are when I hear about something new, and there could easily just be a segment on the news or a section of a local paper to describe such an occurence.
Also, this shows how industry improved in the USSR during the 5 year plans.
![[image loading]](http://mail.esdnl.ca/~craig_halliday/5%20year%20plan.bmp)
How horrible! I think this is a pretty good way to show how state run industries can definitely thrive, even though this is sort of a unique case. Consolidation would also be very beneficial in utilities, which aren't shown (pricewise).
|
My emotional and under-educated opinion is to cut ties with the monarch. Appeals to tradition are among the worst reasons to keep something, and I haven't heard any other reasons for Canadians to support the royal family. Plus, I waited almost 5 hours to get through customs at Heathrow. Apparently being a subject of her majesty affords me no more privilege than non commonwealth individuals entering the UK.
However, I really have no idea what the cost of phasing out ties to the monarchy is compared to keeping them. We still have some constitutional tie-ins which are essentially ceremonial(but important) that would take some work to untangle.
On the plus side, when people ask which animal is on specific coins of ours, I get to say a cow.
![[image loading]](http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjUyWDEzMDA=/$(KGrHqV,!lUE5ZEJnmW5BOY,e!(nNQ~~60_35.JPG)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
sometimes it's not very productive to talk to monarchists about why to have a monarchy, just like it's unproductive to talk to justin bieber fangirls about whether that culture is healthy.
don't have a clear idea if the monarchy spawned royal family navel gazing culture is degenerative in some important aspect, such as perhaps making people accept an idea of social privilege and give them some royals to worship. but this sort of thing is not unique to monarchies, so i dunno if removing this particular, rather explicit endorsement of a social elite would have good impact on political culture at large.
i also don't think people who themselves regard the monarchy as merely ceremonial, taking a distanced look at it, has a fair grasp of the real cultural impact of monarchy and thus are able to judge its impact. people tend to think that everyone believes the royals are merely ceremonial, while it's a fact that stuff like teh royal wedding still has enormous popular following and a ton of fangirls who think it's somehow interesting. whatever idea that is powering that popularity is not being properly shown in a distanced view of the monarchy as mere ceremony.
|
On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote:
I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
Then why were communist* economies so weak? Planning certainly wasn't the only problem, if the USSR not only suffered shortages but also a poor productivity.
Well, in fact planning is a problem, because... who is fit to plan the whole economy of a large country?
*or "popular" or "marxists-leninist" if such a use of "communism" offends anyone
|
On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote:
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM
Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
|
On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:32 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:29 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:18 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics. Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there. If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible. On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient. You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts. I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently. I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either. The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated.
A Capitalism discussion with iyerbeth, we havent done this before 
First there isn't a million brand of cola, and even if their were that is not a bad thing if people want those million brand of cola, if they don't want them some or lots or all will go bust until there is what people want assuming the market isn't rigged in some way either by the government or by collusion of firms.
Don't really know what you mean by waste inherent capitalist production to bottom up efficiency in industry. As for trade secrets, patenting medicines etc they aren't really capitalist features they are corporatists features that I don't generally support. Finally market suitability if you mean licenses and government/regulator criteria then i'm against those if you mean something else I don't know what that is, the only suitability is what people want and can buy or what the government says is legal.
|
Well in all honesty, and I can probably speak for fellow countrymen, our king and rest of the royal family means very little to most of us. Sure, you always got your flag-waving patriots, but the royal family isnt really something you should be proud of. The king isnt that involved in politics either : hes more there for the ribbon-cutting and stuff.
So, yeah, we have a monarchy, but if the royal family wasent there, most of us would probably not notice any significant differences.
|
On April 19 2013 06:48 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote:
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person.
The same goes for wealth etc.
|
On April 19 2013 06:51 blackone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:48 McBengt wrote:On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote:
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing. I don't necissarily agree with him, but he does have a point. We live in a democracy, not an aristocracy. We are supposed to be ruled by representatives of the people, and one could argue that a person of average intelligence represents the people better than a more intelligent person. The same goes for wealth etc.
"Represantation" is such a polarizing word. Does it mean the average of everything to represent what the population is like? Does it mean that the person has views that most of the population agree with?
Your post leaves me wondering, really. It's not that I disagree with you necessarily, just an interesting quirk of words.
|
I am curious.
Are the people who are voting for "No Goverment"
anarchists or right americans who are afraid from the goverment
having to much influence?
|
On April 19 2013 06:54 Paljas wrote:
I am curious.
Are the people who are voting for "No Goverment"
anarchists or right americans who are afraid from the goverment
having to much influence?
I'm curious, I've seen already a few people on the internet organizing
their sentences like this
but I've never figured out
why?
|
On April 19 2013 06:47 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote:
I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated. Then why were communist* economies so weak? Planning certainly wasn't the only problem, if the USSR not only suffered shortages but also a poor productivity. Well, in fact planning is a problem, because... who is fit to plan the whole economy of a large country? *or "popular" or "marxists-leninist" if such a use of "communism" offends anyone
If you'd like I would be happy to discuss the problems communist archetype economies have faced (and explain why the USSR is a particularly bad example for the opposition), but before I do, I just want to make my original point clear. I wouldn't say capitalist economic structure isn't productive or able to produce creative solutions, it clearly is. My point was that there are factors which would seem to limit it, and yet it's the people and not the system that are productive and creative and that any reasonable system is capable of them.
On April 19 2013 06:50 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote:On April 19 2013 06:32 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:29 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:18 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. And how exactly do sweeping changes like that become implemented? Don't get me wrong, when you say "nationalized all industries", you are definitely speaking my language, but I think the journey is oftentimes far more important than the destination when it comes to politics. Realistically it would have to be either a very slow process where you nationalize things one by one, starting with the obvious ones like utilities and things like steel, which would be met with a lot of resistance and which would basically not happen, mostly because of things like lobbying. Hopefully people would begin to see its merits and things would progress from there. If there was an explosive push for it, however, then feasibly there could be a revolution of sorts, but that will never happen so long as people can go out to eat at Applebee's and watch movies. There would have to be a revolution among the educated but disenfranchised, which I still don't see happening. Still, with time, conditions may change and the idea could become feasible. On April 19 2013 06:19 Zaros wrote:On April 19 2013 06:16 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:12 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:07 Chocolate wrote:On April 19 2013 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 19 2013 06:02 Chocolate wrote:
What we truly need is a technocracy run by the leaders of industry, economics, and science (with restrictions, i.e. the current CEO of Ford should not be making decisions). Then we could rise above the uneducated and politically apathetic masses of a republic and the luck (and helplessness) that comes with monarchy while giving everybody the power to contribute simply by being highly knowledgeable in a field. Jesus Christ I hope not. Why not? Why should the people who have proven themselves to be among the most capable leaders of their respective occupations not rule a nation? Because their respective occupations are not ruling a nation. Anyone who thinks scientists are somehow "better leaders" needs to revisit the symposiums and community meetings that took place alongside the "Is Pluto a planet" debate. I also highly recommend the works of Thomas Kuhn. As to putting the leaders of industry in charge......well I daresay that human history is full to the brim with reasons why private interests oftentimes do not align with public interest, particularly where industry is concerned. If we nationalized all industries but structured them like corporations there would be no private interests to speak of. Then in a few years down the line they would all become unprofitable and inefficient. You don't know that. Are you referring to the USSR? That country was backwards and poor to begin with. I also think running things like a corporation could help alleviate stagnation. A negative flow of cash would have to lead to forced changes on behalf of whatever body oversees everything or a restructuring of sorts. I'm referring to any state run industry, if there is no profit motive there is no reason to do things efficiently and for the customers and it also stifles innovation even if it could be run efficiently. I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either. The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated. A Capitalism discussion with iyerbeth, we havent done this before First there isn't a million brand of cola, and even if their were that is not a bad thing if people want those million brand of cola, if they don't want them some or lots or all will go bust until there is what people want assuming the market isn't rigged in some way either by the government or by collusion of firms. Don't really know what you mean by waste inherent capitalist production to bottom up efficiency in industry. As for trade secrets, patenting medicines etc they aren't really capitalist features they are corporatists features that I don't generally support. Finally market suitability if you mean licenses and government/regulator criteria then i'm against those if you mean something else I don't know what that is, the only suitability is what people want and can buy or what the government says is legal.
I was going to avoid the monarch discussion with you as far as possible at least, but I couldn't let you get away with that attack on state run industry. If you disagree with the above though, I'd be happy to discuss the inherent problems of capitalist production further if you want, and the benefits of industry owned and controlled by the workers in a planned economy and why it's traditionally had problems.
|
Singapore is an example of a technocracy.
As to state owned businesses, China's State Owned Enterprices (SOE) are doing particularily well in terms of business, though it may simply be a side effect of the China's rise.
The problem with democracies is that it relies on a well educated well informed population, with an interest in electing the "right" kinds of people to lead.
The opening post is just banal though, as if there are any power structures remaining in the western world where royalty and aristocrats have great priveleges. He says it baffles him why they still exist, when aristocrats simply exist because they reproduce. You might as well ask, why does a family line continue to exist.
|
On April 19 2013 06:48 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:42 Prog455 wrote:
I support status quo. I like how things work in Denmark and my worst nightmare is that one day our democracy would turn into an abomination such as American "democracy".
I believe that the best way to run a country is by having a large state where wealth is evenly distributed and where it is easy to claim power. In Denmark our minister of foreign affairs is cringeworthy to say the least*, but it somewhat soothes me to know that literally everyone can get political influence, unlike USA where a degree from Harvard or Yale is borderline mandatory if you want to be president. If you watch the video it will become evident that some Danish politicans are, well... Watch the video. But atleast i know that we do not have a political elite.
*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW9hq9QKSM Having highly qualified people in positions of power is bad? From what I see in american politics, it's saturated with people who would fail an elementary school exam in science or biology, but if having a good education makes you more likely to be president, surely that is a good thing.
Obviously it is preferable to have bright minds to run the country, but having a good education does not make you smart, and you don't need an education to have insight in a certain field. Denmarks former prime minster (Anders Fogh Rasmussen) said at one point during his time as PM (2001-2009) that every book on economical theory should be rewritten, given that we was never going to experience a financial crisis again. I guess it goes without saying that he was not entirely right on that matter. He had a Masters Degree in economics.
|
On April 19 2013 06:47 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 06:39 Iyerbeth wrote:
I'm pretty certain that having a million brands of cola, waste inherent in capitalist production and the cost to the individual workers, and lack of bottom up efficiency in industry are bigger stiflers of creativity. Trade secrets, patenting medicines, keeping the best in a field divided and without full knowledge of what's coming up are bigger. Making everything require market suitability before it's considered probably doesn't help either.
The idea that people neither cn be or will be productive without proffit is obviously absurd, and is only ever accepted because of how often it is repeated. Then why were communist* economies so weak? Planning certainly wasn't the only problem, if the USSR not only suffered shortages but also a poor productivity. Well, in fact planning is a problem, because... who is fit to plan the whole economy of a large country? *or "popular" or "marxists-leninist" if such a use of "communism" offends anyone
I'd point the finger at corruption, which,admittedly, is inevitable in any governmental system. USSR and China had a history of corruption before their communist governments came into being, and in those places allegiance to the party was (and is) oftentimes more important than true merit. They both also put a ton of resources into military spending which isn't too productive to begin with, because then there is even more corruption and waste. Their top level leaders, too, were also pretty damn psycho.
First there isn't a million brand of cola, and even if their were that is not a bad thing if people want those million brand of cola, if they don't want them some or lots or all will go bust until there is what people want assuming the market isn't rigged in some way either by the government or by collusion of firms.
The point is that the colas are effectively the same and there is waste in their separation. Also, what the people want is not always for the best (illegal drugs which cause heavier crime) , and resources are wasted by "startups" that are ultimately unsuccessful. It would be more efficient if existing companies adopted new ideas. Heavy industry with high cost of entry like steel, coal, gas, lumber, etc. would also benefit greatly because there is very little difference between the products.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the 'technocrats are no better at their own politics even if they have the best studies possible on the politics at large that they are experts in' argument is important. it is not completely knockdown against technocracy though, because technocrats can be aware of this problem and have motivational, procedural and ideological safeguards.
for example, a term limit is important, removal of professional politicians who need to pander to get votes, respect for open data and accurate data.
the problem of the top level of a political system becoming unchecked is also not unique to technocracy in all its possible form. i think the very idea of technocracy is born otu of criticisms against existing popular politics and some of the stuff going on with our politicians and how they win votes etc. don't have to go full technocrat to recognize these criticisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
