[QUOTE="comp_atkins"] obviously it's old news if it's been sitting there for 4 decades... cesarexec22why dont you jump in there and see what happens?? Im sure that will be exciting to know the end result ;] mmm toasty.
40-year old burning crater
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
I don't think feudalism is the word you are looking for.
frannkzappa
Eh, not exactly. Regardless, the point stands.
I don't seem to see you're point, that statement hinges on the feudalism part. Otherwise it is just an agreement.
It hinges on the term I was looking for. Corrupt oligarchism, the usual path of highly centralized power structures in this case would have sufficed.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Eh, not exactly. Regardless, the point stands.
coolbeans90
I don't seem to see you're point, that statement hinges on the feudalism part. Otherwise it is just an agreement.
It hinges on the term I was looking for. Corrupt oligarchism, the usual path of highly centralized power structures in this case would have sufficed.
The entire point of technocracy is to get rid of oligarchies and replace them with competent professionals. I fail to see how they could even come about in the system i've talked about. The only way to be rich and powerful in that system is to be competent, contributing and hard working, and if you are those three things then you are hardly an oligarch.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
I don't seem to see you're point, that statement hinges on the feudalism part. Otherwise it is just an agreement.
frannkzappa
It hinges on the term I was looking for. Corrupt oligarchism, the usual path of highly centralized power structures in this case would have sufficed.
The entire point of technocracy is to get rid of oligarchies and replace them with competent professionals. I fail to see how they could even come about in the system i've talked about. The only way to be rich and powerful in that system is to be competent, contributing and hard working, and if you are those three things then you are hardly an oligarch.
The entire problem with your proposal is that it is fundamentally not dissimilar to power structures that enable oligarchies. The fact of the matter is that, in practice, liberal democracies are considerably more technocratic than what would become of your little dream kingdom.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
It hinges on the term I was looking for. Corrupt oligarchism, the usual path of highly centralized power structures in this case would have sufficed.
coolbeans90
The entire point of technocracy is to get rid of oligarchies and replace them with competent professionals. I fail to see how they could even come about in the system i've talked about. The only way to be rich and powerful in that system is to be competent, contributing and hard working, and if you are those three things then you are hardly an oligarch.
The entire problem with your proposal is that it is fundamentally not dissimilar to power structures that enable oligarchies. The fact of the matter is that, in practice, liberal democracies are considerably more technocratic than what would become of your little dream kingdom.
Structurally they are similar, however instead of the incompatents, the old money, the "self interested" and the tyrants associated with modern oligarchs, technocracy would replace those people competent and qualified professionals as relates to a particular field of government.
If you needed brain surgery would you want to be operated on by a lawyer or a surgeon?
Do you want a football player to be responsible for food production or a farmer?
Would you want to be on a ship captained by a sailor or a etymologist.
Would you want to be governed by a politician or by someone who trained specifically in government?
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
The entire point of technocracy is to get rid of oligarchies and replace them with competent professionals. I fail to see how they could even come about in the system i've talked about. The only way to be rich and powerful in that system is to be competent, contributing and hard working, and if you are those three things then you are hardly an oligarch.
frannkzappa
The entire problem with your proposal is that it is fundamentally not dissimilar to power structures that enable oligarchies. The fact of the matter is that, in practice, liberal democracies are considerably more technocratic than what would become of your little dream kingdom.
Structurally they are similar, however instead of the incompatents, the old money, the "self interested" and the tyrants associated with modern oligarchs, technocracy would replace those people competent and qualified professionals as relates to a particular field of government.
If you needed brain surgery would you want to be operated on by a lawyer or a surgeon?
Do you want a football player to be responsible for food production or a farmer?
Would you want to be on a ship captained by a sailor or a etymologist.
Would you want to be governed by a politician or by someone who trained specifically in government?
Politicians have a tendency to have backgrounds in law and political science - not to mention a fair bit of experience actually acting in government as a profession, and furthermore, they will rely on experts. That said, with what you've proposed, nothing changes WRT preventing establishments of interests. I hope you understand why it is very difficult to take what you are saying very seriously.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
The entire problem with your proposal is that it is fundamentally not dissimilar to power structures that enable oligarchies. The fact of the matter is that, in practice, liberal democracies are considerably more technocratic than what would become of your little dream kingdom.
coolbeans90
Structurally they are similar, however instead of the incompatents, the old money, the "self interested" and the tyrants associated with modern oligarchs, technocracy would replace those people competent and qualified professionals as relates to a particular field of government.
If you needed brain surgery would you want to be operated on by a lawyer or a surgeon?
Do you want a football player to be responsible for food production or a farmer?
Would you want to be on a ship captained by a sailor or a etymologist.
Would you want to be governed by a politician or by someone who trained specifically in government?
Politicians have a tendency to have backgrounds in law and political science - not to mention a fair bit of experience actually acting in government as a profession, and furthermore, they will rely on experts. That said, with what you've proposed, nothing changes WRT preventing establishments of interests. I hope you understand why it is very difficult to take what you are saying very seriously.
establishment of interest is dealt with by money-less nature of the system. work and services are "paid" for directly with goods and services. Goods and services are MUCH harder to convert to power without a unit of exchange.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Structurally they are similar, however instead of the incompatents, the old money, the "self interested" and the tyrants associated with modern oligarchs, technocracy would replace those people competent and qualified professionals as relates to a particular field of government.
If you needed brain surgery would you want to be operated on by a lawyer or a surgeon?
Do you want a football player to be responsible for food production or a farmer?
Would you want to be on a ship captained by a sailor or a etymologist.
Would you want to be governed by a politician or by someone who trained specifically in government?
frannkzappa
Politicians have a tendency to have backgrounds in law and political science - not to mention a fair bit of experience actually acting in government as a profession, and furthermore, they will rely on experts. That said, with what you've proposed, nothing changes WRT preventing establishments of interests. I hope you understand why it is very difficult to take what you are saying very seriously.
establishment of interest is dealt with by money-less nature of the system. work and services are "paid" for directly with goods and services. Goods and services are MUCH harder to convert to power without a unit of exchange.
People on top controls who gets power. There are no fundamental changes to this problematic aspect of centralized power structures which necessarily causes devolution into oligarchies. Because resources are in fact still, beyond the shadow of a doubt, limited, there will be means of distribution and people who control them. They would be able to redirect them and/or use them to favor themselves. It has happened in the past. Currency wasn't always what it is today. Barter is a thing. So, what we are left with is an inefficient, moneyless, barter-based economy and a corrupt authoritarian regime that is nothing like an ideal technocracy and, in all likilihood, horrendously fails to approach, let alone match or surpass, the staus quo WRT scientific advancement and human well-being. Your dream world really sucks, dude and you don't really even seem to be considering even the most simple problems with it.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Politicians have a tendency to have backgrounds in law and political science - not to mention a fair bit of experience actually acting in government as a profession, and furthermore, they will rely on experts. That said, with what you've proposed, nothing changes WRT preventing establishments of interests. I hope you understand why it is very difficult to take what you are saying very seriously.
coolbeans90
establishment of interest is dealt with by money-less nature of the system. work and services are "paid" for directly with goods and services. Goods and services are MUCH harder to convert to power without a unit of exchange.
People on top controls who gets power. There are no fundamental changes to this problematic aspect of centralized power structures which necessarily causes devolution into oligarchies. Because resources are in fact still, beyond the shadow of a doubt, limited, there will be means of distribution and people who control them. They would be able to redirect them and/or use them to favor themselves. It has happened in the past. Currency wasn't always what it is today. Barter is a thing. So, what we are left with is an inefficient, moneyless, barter-based economy and a corrupt authoritarian regime that is nothing like an ideal technocracy and, in all likilihood, horrendously fails to approach, let alone match or surpass, the staus quo WRT scientific advancement and human well-being. Your dream world really sucks, dude and you don't really even seem to be considering even the most simple problems with it.
The structure of a technocratic government is not pyramid shaped as you seem to think it is. The in individual bureaucrat has very little power, and to allocate additional resources for himself would require him to gain the approval of his peers (who would be quite numerous) and possibly other separate groups of bureaucrats from other fields of government.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
establishment of interest is dealt with by money-less nature of the system. work and services are "paid" for directly with goods and services. Goods and services are MUCH harder to convert to power without a unit of exchange.
frannkzappa
People on top controls who gets power. There are no fundamental changes to this problematic aspect of centralized power structures which necessarily causes devolution into oligarchies. Because resources are in fact still, beyond the shadow of a doubt, limited, there will be means of distribution and people who control them. They would be able to redirect them and/or use them to favor themselves. It has happened in the past. Currency wasn't always what it is today. Barter is a thing. So, what we are left with is an inefficient, moneyless, barter-based economy and a corrupt authoritarian regime that is nothing like an ideal technocracy and, in all likelihood, horrendously fails to approach, let alone match or surpass, the staus quo WRT scientific advancement and human well-being. Your dream world really sucks, dude and you don't really even seem to be considering even the most simple problems with it.
The structure of a technocratic government is not pyramid shaped as you seem to think it is. The in individual bureaucrat has very little power, and to allocate additional resources for himself would require him to gain the approval of his peers (who would be quite numerous) and possibly other separate groups of bureaucrats from other fields of government.
Corrupt bureaucrats don't have anything against working with each other, or developing influence behind closed doors. Compound this over the course of a few centuries and see what remains won't be recognizeable.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
People on top controls who gets power. There are no fundamental changes to this problematic aspect of centralized power structures which necessarily causes devolution into oligarchies. Because resources are in fact still, beyond the shadow of a doubt, limited, there will be means of distribution and people who control them. They would be able to redirect them and/or use them to favor themselves. It has happened in the past. Currency wasn't always what it is today. Barter is a thing. So, what we are left with is an inefficient, moneyless, barter-based economy and a corrupt authoritarian regime that is nothing like an ideal technocracy and, in all likelihood, horrendously fails to approach, let alone match or surpass, the staus quo WRT scientific advancement and human well-being. Your dream world really sucks, dude and you don't really even seem to be considering even the most simple problems with it.
coolbeans90
The structure of a technocratic government is not pyramid shaped as you seem to think it is. The in individual bureaucrat has very little power, and to allocate additional resources for himself would require him to gain the approval of his peers (who would be quite numerous) and possibly other separate groups of bureaucrats from other fields of government.
Corrupt bureaucrats don't have anything against working with each other, or developing influence behind closed doors. Compound this over the course of a few centuries and see what remains won't be recognizeable.
Aside from that being one big assumption, what would these corrupt bureaucrats even be working together towards? what could they gain.
Aside from that being one big assumption, what would these corrupt bureaucrats even be working together towards? what could they gain.
frannkzappa
Institutions tend to evolve over the course of time. While an assumption, perhaps your could be an exception? Anyway, what have they to gain: Riches and power. Guys at the top control who gets promoted; when policy-making people create webs of owed favors; they slowly acquire incriminating information on fellow technocrats that may influence policy and/or get them stuff; they may get certain personally or professionally advantageous policies enacted, etc. Do that for a few hundred years. Now, for some institutions, the ultimate purpose is money. For others, it is to win votes. These have fairly consistent incentives and somewhat predictable outcomes WRT behavior because people are self-interested bastards. Your system seems to lack a fundamental, constant incentive of a similar sort. That really seems to leave it to simply the fact that people are self-interested bastards without. Yours has merely, for lack better term, constitutional structure encouraging technocracy. An inertial framework. As I mentioned earlier, institutions tend to evolve over the course of time. This and thoughts expressed earlier relating to how centralized power tends to act leads me to think that its ultimate path probably does not lie too far from oligarchy.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Aside from that being one big assumption, what would these corrupt bureaucrats even be working together towards? what could they gain.
coolbeans90
Institutions tend to evolve over the course of time. While an assumption, perhaps your could be an exception? Anyway, what have they to gain: Riches and power. Guys at the top control who gets promoted; when policy-making people create webs of owed favors; they slowly acquire incriminating information on fellow technocrats that may influence policy and/or get them stuff; they may get certain personally or professionally advantageous policies enacted, etc. Do that for a few hundred years. Now, for some institutions, the ultimate purpose is money. For others, it is to win votes. These have fairly consistent incentives and somewhat predictable outcomes WRT behavior because people are self-interested bastards. Your system seems to lack a fundamental, constant incentive of a similar sort. That really seems to leave it to simply the fact that people are self-interested bastards without. Yours has merely, for lack better term, constitutional structure encouraging technocracy. An inertial framework. As I mentioned earlier, institutions tend to evolve over the course of time. This and thoughts expressed earlier relating to how centralized power tends to act leads me to think that its ultimate path probably does not lie too far from oligarchy.
Would not the logical man see that is both easier and safer to earn "riches and power" by not being corrupt. As you can infer corruption would be quite the offense in a technocracy and it would only take one or a few proper technocrats to ruin the lives of the corrupt ones (after an investigation of course). Like i have said before a Technate citizen can have whatever good or service he likes if he makes it known and works for it.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Aside from that being one big assumption, what would these corrupt bureaucrats even be working together towards? what could they gain.
frannkzappa
Institutions tend to evolve over the course of time. While an assumption, perhaps your could be an exception? Anyway, what have they to gain: Riches and power. Guys at the top control who gets promoted; when policy-making people create webs of owed favors; they slowly acquire incriminating information on fellow technocrats that may influence policy and/or get them stuff; they may get certain personally or professionally advantageous policies enacted, etc. Do that for a few hundred years. Now, for some institutions, the ultimate purpose is money. For others, it is to win votes. These have fairly consistent incentives and somewhat predictable outcomes WRT behavior because people are self-interested bastards. Your system seems to lack a fundamental, constant incentive of a similar sort. That really seems to leave it to simply the fact that people are self-interested bastards without. Yours has merely, for lack better term, constitutional structure encouraging technocracy. An inertial framework. As I mentioned earlier, institutions tend to evolve over the course of time. This and thoughts expressed earlier relating to how centralized power tends to act leads me to think that its ultimate path probably does not lie too far from oligarchy.
Would not the logical man see that is both easier and safer to earn "riches and power" by not being corrupt. As you can infer corruption would be quite the offense in a technocracy and it would only take one or a few proper technocrats to ruin the lives of the corrupt ones (after an investigation of course). Like i have said before a Technate citizen can have whatever good or service he likes if he makes it known and works for it.
One could say the same applies today, that it is unsafe to be corrupt, not follow the rules, etc. It's not as if people still don't ever get nailed today for corruption. It's just rewarding, and people will gamble, albeit somewhat carefully. Investigations don't catch everything, and the line between what is okay according to the rules and outright corrupt in reality can be blurred. As for working for goods: because they are still limited, ultimately people will not have their hearts content, and will play games for more.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment