5 foot 7, 400lbs............ makes $156,000 a year as union president

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]No it doesn't... If you are not productive you can't receive any goods our services not required to live and you will eventually be ejected from the technate entirely.m0zart

And yet it's controlled by the Government. Is there some reason to believe that every possible form of special interest and the groups that would form to represent them would just disappear because the Government managed a technate?

First of all if aren't in the government, you have no say in the government. so outside interest groups can't form.

If you are suggesting these groups form within the government itself, then i would say that due to the massive size and decentralized power structure of a technocratic government that these groups would have trouble forming and gaining power.

It is also worth noting that the true supporters of technocracy will constantly be looking for and rooting out these groups.

First of all if aren't in the government, you have no say in the government. so outside interest groups can't form.frannkzappa

So it's a group dictatorship of sorts? Do individuals have the option to redress grievances or petition?

If you are suggesting these groups form within the government itself, then i would say that due to the massive size and decentralized power structure of a technocratic government that these groups would have trouble forming and gaining power.frannkzappa

Hmm I don't see it. Decentralization only opens the doors to influence, not the other way around. There is no perfect balance in any Government like this. Either it's more decentralized and smaller groups gain influence, or it's more structured and higher level individuals gain more influence. Either way, you are still subject to the same inherent issues.

It is also worth noting that the true supporters of technocracy will constantly be looking for and rooting out these groups.frannkzappa

Unless they are part of the Government, how would they do that, espeically if no outside interest groups can form to make such demands?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

So it's a group dictatorship of sorts? Do individuals have the option to redress grievances or petition?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]If you are suggesting these groups form within the government itself, then i would say that due to the massive size and decentralized power structure of a technocratic government that these groups would have trouble forming and gaining power.m0zart

Hmm I don't see it. Decentralization only opens the doors to influence, not the other way around. There is no perfect balance in any Government like this. Either it's more decentralized and smaller groups gain influence, or it's more structured and higher level individuals gain more influence. Either way, you are still subject to the same inherent issues.

It is also worth noting that the true supporters of technocracy will constantly be looking for and rooting out these groups.frannkzappa

Unless they are part of the Government, how would they do that,espeically if no outside interest groups can form to make such demands?

No, they shouldn't need to... groups of experts will determine what is best.

No in a system like this where each field of government has such a narrow field of operation these groups would have little to gain. could you suggest what they might be trying to get out of being corrupt( i assume you are talking about corruption)?

Even if these groups exist i stipulate that they would be less harmful and abundant.

This only applies to those in government.

Sorry i have to reply like this, the GameSpot quote system doesn't agree with my phone.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

No it doesn't... If you are not productive you can't receive any goods our services not required to live and you will eventually be ejected from the technate entirely.

The productivity is merely shifted from manual labour to intellectual pursuits (R&D, the arts, the maths and sciences), which can be implemented by automation and foreign labour.

 

I've made this very clear that the point of technocracy is to increase productivity.

frannkzappa

The thing is many people simply aren't suited to intellectual persuits. If there's no place for them to be productive, because you've taken away any opportunities for them to be productive, then they're going to be idle. This is what you've encouraged. Idleness leads to all sorts of shit - crime, vandalism, overpopulation, etc. I'm sure you think your pet philosophy is the greatest thing since the invention of agriculture, but I'm not sure that you're really thought it out to its logical ends.

Sure, the point may be to increase productivity. That does not mean that will be the result. Lots of things have been done that ended up far from what the point was suppose to be. This is because humans are prone to f*cking things up. It's an old cliche, but there's truth to it - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

as for those unsuited for intellectual pursuits: All natural born citizens must pass through the educational system to remain in the technate. People that fail are ejected from the technate.

However intelligence and technical competence are not mandatory for all citizens, there would still be a large need for unskilled workers in the service industry. If they can't be part of the intellectual pursuits they can at least support them. And again if they fail to be productive or prove to be a problem they will be ejected from the technate.

And even if perfect technocracy is not achieved i still assert that even an imperfect technocracy is better than the democracies and tyrannies of today.

- Decries tyranny.

- Proposes the biggest goddamed tyranny I've ever heard of.

:LOL:

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Which is what separates you from the innovators of history.

 

Determine perfection and then work towards it. Anything less is a disservice to the human race.

 

Technocracy is not a pipe dream, it is the ultimate goal of humanity.

frannkzappa

Your technocracy would create a populace of idle hands. How exactly is that a good thing?

No it doesn't... If you are not productive you can't receive any goods our services not required to live and you will eventually be ejected from the technate entirely.

The productivity is merely shifted from manual labour to intellectual pursuits (R&D, the arts, the maths and sciences), which can be implemented by automation and foreign labour.

I've made this very clear that the point of technocracy is to increase productivity.

I can see where you're coming from, wanting an educated populace that utilizes technology and thought over manual labor, but the structure of society and the utilization of local goods would require a massive shift to accommodate such a setup well enough to justify its superiority over the current system. Though a technocracy makes sense for the pure pursuit of scientific and intellectual advancement, there is much more to consider when partaking in social engineering of this scale.

One aspect in particular that needs to be considered is the value of socialization which, though can be taught in schools outside of classes, will cause a wall of immaturity past the high school level, resulting in common attitudes developing no farther than the age of 18. The reason for this happening is the largest concern of people against pure technocracy: reduction of interaction past intellectual pursuits and the use of a technological channel. Though rich communication (face-to-face) has been suffering over the years, the technocracy would further trivialize communication without some kind of technological channel, resulting in a more socially distant population. Furthermore, exclusively foreign manual labor could create a macro effect which paints foreigners as general underlings, culminating in a culturally-acceptable xenophobia that other semi-technocratic nations (ex: Japan) exercise at times.

In short, it would create an isolationist society purely dedicated to technological development, leaving no benefits for people who want to climb the social ladder by physical work. Of course, this is all speculation as no pure technocratic society has existed, but communication theory is something that you should consider when advocating for technocracy, mainly finding a way to remain technocratic while maintaining the value of rich communication.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

The thing is many people simply aren't suited to intellectual persuits. If there's no place for them to be productive, because you've taken away any opportunities for them to be productive, then they're going to be idle. This is what you've encouraged. Idleness leads to all sorts of shit - crime, vandalism, overpopulation, etc. I'm sure you think your pet philosophy is the greatest thing since the invention of agriculture, but I'm not sure that you're really thought it out to its logical ends.

Sure, the point may be to increase productivity. That does not mean that will be the result. Lots of things have been done that ended up far from what the point was suppose to be. This is because humans are prone to f*cking things up. It's an old cliche, but there's truth to it - the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

worlock77

as for those unsuited for intellectual pursuits: All natural born citizens must pass through the educational system to remain in the technate. People that fail are ejected from the technate.

However intelligence and technical competence are not mandatory for all citizens, there would still be a large need for unskilled workers in the service industry. If they can't be part of the intellectual pursuits they can at least support them. And again if they fail to be productive or prove to be a problem they will be ejected from the technate.

And even if perfect technocracy is not achieved i still assert that even an imperfect technocracy is better than the democracies and tyrannies of today.

- Decries tyranny.

- Proposes the biggest goddamed tyranny I've ever heard of.

:LOL:

A competent government is not a tyranny. Tyranny implies a negative effect on the state and it's people.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]He looks so peaceful. :)mAArdman

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Your technocracy would create a populace of idle hands. How exactly is that a good thing?

THE_DRUGGIE

No it doesn't... If you are not productive you can't receive any goods our services not required to live and you will eventually be ejected from the technate entirely.

The productivity is merely shifted from manual labour to intellectual pursuits (R&D, the arts, the maths and sciences), which can be implemented by automation and foreign labour.

I've made this very clear that the point of technocracy is to increase productivity.

I can see where you're coming from, wanting an educated populace that utilizes technology and thought over manual labor, but the structure of society and the utilization of local goods would require a massive shift to accommodate such a setup well enough to justify its superiority over the current system. Though a technocracy makes sense for the pure pursuit of scientific and intellectual advancement, there is much more to consider when partaking in social engineering of this scale.

One aspect in particular that needs to be considered is the value of socialization which, though can be taught in schools outside of classes, will cause a wall of immaturity past the high school level, resulting in common attitudes developing no farther than the age of 18. The reason for this happening is the largest concern of people against pure technocracy: reduction of interaction past intellectual pursuits and the use of a technological channel. Though rich communication (face-to-face) has been suffering over the years, the technocracy would further trivialize communication without some kind of technological channel, resulting in a more socially distant population. Furthermore, exclusively foreign manual labor could create a macro effect which paints foreigners as general underlings, culminating in a culturally-acceptable xenophobia that other semi-technocratic nations (ex: Japan) exercise at times.

In short, it would create an isolationist society purely dedicated to technological development, leaving no benefits for people who want to climb the social ladder by physical work. Of course, this is all speculation as no pure technocratic society has existed, but communication theory is something that you should consider when advocating for technocracy, mainly finding a way to remain technocratic while maintaining the value of rich communication.

If man follows the platonic ideals not only will he be a healthy,mature and logical human being he will also be the ideal technocrat, this should solve the social problems you addressed.

I'm very tempted to call my proposed system a platonic technocracy or even a platocracy.

*The Sum Total of His Replies*frannkzappa

I thought there had to be more to it than what I saw on the surface. So I thought I'd ask. Now I know better.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

as for those unsuited for intellectual pursuits: All natural born citizens must pass through the educational system to remain in the technate. People that fail are ejected from the technate.

However intelligence and technical competence are not mandatory for all citizens, there would still be a large need for unskilled workers in the service industry. If they can't be part of the intellectual pursuits they can at least support them. And again if they fail to be productive or prove to be a problem they will be ejected from the technate.

 

And even if perfect technocracy is not achieved i still assert that even an imperfect technocracy is better than the democracies and tyrannies of today.

frannkzappa

- Decries tyranny.

- Proposes the biggest goddamed tyranny I've ever heard of.

:LOL:

A competent government is not a tyranny. Tyranny implies a negative effect on the state and it's people.

Casting people out of society who don't meet a certain arbitrary criteria. If that isn't tyranny then I don't know what is.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]*The Sum Total of His Replies*m0zart

I thought there had to be more to it than what I saw on the surface. So I thought I'd ask. Now I know better.

Ask general questions, get general answers.

If you want to get into specifics i'm more than willing to oblige.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

- Decries tyranny.

- Proposes the biggest goddamed tyranny I've ever heard of.

:LOL:

worlock77

A competent government is not a tyranny. Tyranny implies a negative effect on the state and it's people.

Casting people out of society who don't meet a certain arbitrary criteria. If that isn't tyranny then I don't know what is.

You want incompetents, leeches and criminals in your society?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

A competent government is not a tyranny. Tyranny implies a negative effect on the state and it's people.

frannkzappa

Casting people out of society who don't meet a certain arbitrary criteria. If that isn't tyranny then I don't know what is.

You want incompetents, leeches and criminals in your society?

Not necessarily, but no society will ever be free of such people. Your dream society rather encourages them however.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Casting people out of society who don't meet a certain arbitrary criteria. If that isn't tyranny then I don't know what is.

worlock77

You want incompetents, leeches and criminals in your society?

Not necessarily, but no society will ever be free of such people. Your dream society rather encourages them however.

How so?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

You want incompetents, leeches and criminals in your society?

frannkzappa

Not necessarily, but no society will ever be free of such people. Your dream society rather encourages them however.

How so?

Firstly you concentrate power into the hands of a few, those who aren't part of that few have no voice, no say-so. How you seriously believe this won't breed sloth, indifference and incompetence is beyond me. Second you want to remove as much labor as possible, putting everything possible up to machines, thus leaving little for much of society to do. Third everyone's needs will be provided for, regardless of if they contribute or not. At least for a time, but once they're unproductive they they're cast out, despite that anything productive they could do has been removed from the equation. What then is left for these people to do except to turn to destructive actions?

Like I said before, I don't think you've thought all this through very well. Or else you're so blindly enamoured of it that your mind cannot possibly conceive that there could be flaws with it.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]*The Sum Total of His Replies*frannkzappa

I thought there had to be more to it than what I saw on the surface. So I thought I'd ask. Now I know better.

Ask general questions, get general answers.

If you want to get into specifics i'm more than willing to oblige.

Every now and then some assh*le comes in here during a political debate and says "wouldn't things be better if we had a dictator?" That person usually imagines a world with no debates, no special interest groups, just lots of fine decisions in their place, coming down from someone or many someones who, from his perspective, knows what he's/they're doing, instead of 300 million people who, from his perspective, don't. These are political systems dreamed up by folks who think that we have some chance to change human nature into something other than what it is, or who simply don't really have a grasp on human nature in the first place. They build their theories on the idea that a perfectly benevelent human ruler or set of rulers can exist who will never abuse their positions and will only have the good of their accepted category of folks at heart, which of course allows them to conveniently exclude any checks on such power whatsoever. I've come to realize that any political system that completely ignores human nature and dreams of utopia built on that ignorance isn't worth any form of investment, including time.

All I needed to determine if this was another one of those pipe dreams was to ask a few general questions and have them answered without much evasion. You did that (and I sincerenly thank you). I have no doubt that your technocracy is just another version of that same techno-drama I described in the previous paragraph.

I can't wish you good luck, as I would never welcome such a terrible system. I'll just say bon voyage and leave it at that. It's easy to be nice when you know that the chances of such a nightmare of a system becoming a reality are wedged tightly somewhere between slim and none.

i argue that in a technocratic government the need for Manuel labour in production will be near zero

frannkzappa

Insofar by "production" you mean "factories" (which is a mere portion of production), sure, and that is true regardless of whether or not a technocratic gov't comes into existence b/c of long-term trends in the industry.

Why are people taking frannkyzappa seriously? DroidPhysX

we dont

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i argue that in a technocratic government the need for Manuel labour in production will be near zero

dude_brahmski

Insofar by "production" you mean "factories" (which is a mere portion of production), sure, and that is true regardless of whether or not a technocratic gov't comes into existence b/c of long-term trends in the industry.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i argue that in a technocratic government the need for Manuel labour in production will be near zero

dude_brahmski

Insofar by "production" you mean "factories" (which is a mere portion of production), sure, and that is true regardless of whether or not a technocratic gov't comes into existence b/c of long-term trends in the industry.

Yes, but under our system automation hurts the worker, raises unemployment and gives more power to the business elite.

Unions might have problems, but they are needed to drive up wages.

Look at the poorest states in the U.S.

They destroyed their unions now only have themselves to blame for their poverty.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

No it doesn't... If you are not productive you can't receive any goods our services not required to live and you will eventually be ejected from the technate entirely.

The productivity is merely shifted from manual labour to intellectual pursuits (R&D, the arts, the maths and sciences), which can be implemented by automation and foreign labour.

 

I've made this very clear that the point of technocracy is to increase productivity.

frannkzappa

I can see where you're coming from, wanting an educated populace that utilizes technology and thought over manual labor, but the structure of society and the utilization of local goods would require a massive shift to accommodate such a setup well enough to justify its superiority over the current system. Though a technocracy makes sense for the pure pursuit of scientific and intellectual advancement, there is much more to consider when partaking in social engineering of this scale.

One aspect in particular that needs to be considered is the value of socialization which, though can be taught in schools outside of classes, will cause a wall of immaturity past the high school level, resulting in common attitudes developing no farther than the age of 18. The reason for this happening is the largest concern of people against pure technocracy: reduction of interaction past intellectual pursuits and the use of a technological channel. Though rich communication (face-to-face) has been suffering over the years, the technocracy would further trivialize communication without some kind of technological channel, resulting in a more socially distant population. Furthermore, exclusively foreign manual labor could create a macro effect which paints foreigners as general underlings, culminating in a culturally-acceptable xenophobia that other semi-technocratic nations (ex: Japan) exercise at times.

In short, it would create an isolationist society purely dedicated to technological development, leaving no benefits for people who want to climb the social ladder by physical work. Of course, this is all speculation as no pure technocratic society has existed, but communication theory is something that you should consider when advocating for technocracy, mainly finding a way to remain technocratic while maintaining the value of rich communication.

If man follows the platonic ideals not only will he be a healthy,mature and logical human being he will also be the ideal technocrat, this should solve the social problems you addressed.

I'm very tempted to call my proposed system a platonic technocracy or even a platocracy.

Eh, I've read Republic before. I appreciate how Plato weighs the pursuit of knowledge but there needs to be a more modernized way of looking at the responsibilities of government. A philosopher king does sound like a good idea, but a representative democracy requires the representative to be a true extension of their constituents, thus electing purely intellectual people would do such structure a disservice.

Though I do value intellect highly, there needs to be areas of speciality for those who represent: intellectuals who exceed in writing taut, rational legislation; socialites who specialize in swaying differing opinions (particularly of their peers) more toward their liking; and everypeople who are able to communicate and connect with the public at large so a dialogue between government and society can be opened, thus lending the government more legitimacy through a welcomed, intellectually unstratified path of communication.

If the government is entirely made up of one of the above types of people, it will crumble in some form.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

I thought there had to be more to it than what I saw on the surface. So I thought I'd ask. Now I know better.

m0zart

Ask general questions, get general answers.

If you want to get into specifics i'm more than willing to oblige.

Every now and then some assh*le comes in here during a political debate and says "wouldn't things be better if we had a dictator?" That person usually imagines a world with no debates, no special interest groups, just lots of fine decisions in their place, coming down from someone or many someones who, from his perspective, knows what he's/they're doing, instead of 300 million people who, from his perspective, don't. These are political systems dreamed up by folks who think that we have some chance to change human nature into something other than what it is, or who simply don't really have a grasp on human nature in the first place. They build their theories on the idea that a perfectly benevelent human ruler or set of rulers can exist who will never abuse their positions and will only have the good of their accepted category of folks at heart, which of course allows them to conveniently exclude any checks on such power whatsoever. I've come to realize that any political system that completely ignores human nature and dreams of utopia built on that ignorance isn't worth any form of investment, including time.

All I needed to determine if this was another one of those pipe dreams was to ask a few general questions and have them answered without much evasion. You did that (and I sincerenly thank you). I have no doubt that your technocracy is just another version of that same techno-drama I described in the previous paragraph.

I can't wish you good luck, as I would never welcome such a terrible system. I'll just say bon voyage and leave it at that. It's easy to be nice when you know that the chances of such a nightmare of a system becoming a reality are wedged tightly somewhere between slim and none.

You seem to misunderstand me, these kind of things you claim i find possible within technocracy, are only possible in a PERFECT technocracy. While perfection is something to be work toward, Plato's theory of forms tells us that actually achieving the perfect archetype (in this case government) is nigh impossible.

I do not assert that a practical technocracy will eliminate corruption, special interest groups, poverty(in theory it should do this one, i'm sure poverty will find a way)and injustice. I claim that this system will do a better job of handling these things, in theory. Of course i can't claim it will work as it has never been fully tested(though china seems hell bent on trying). But as the write brothers put faith in the airplane, as Tesla put faith in AC and as Newton put faith into calculus and physics, i will put faith into technocracy.

Please do not group me with blind idealists like Lai, i acknowledge the practical faults of a realistically achievable technocracy. I simply way those faults against potential benefits and the known failings of democracy and republics, and to me, technocracy comes out favorably.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

i argue that in a technocratic government the need for Manuel labour in production will be near zero

frannkzappa

Insofar by "production" you mean "factories" (which is a mere portion of production), sure, and that is true regardless of whether or not a technocratic gov't comes into existence b/c of long-term trends in the industry.

Yes, but under our system automation hurts the worker, raises unemployment and gives more power to the business elite.

it hurts some workers, helps others and increases average purchasing power

the effect on employment is a little complex, but other things have happened that have negated a great deal of that (as the labor market evolved)

and as far as increasing the power of the business elite, maybe. increasing barriers (cost) to entry does tend to lend itself to less competitive markets.

"Fat cat" lmao I like their choice of words. Anyways, I'm sure he worked hard when he was younger to get to where he is. Though it is a little discouraging to see he hardly works.

Please do not group me with blind idealists like Lai, i acknowledge the practical faults of a realistically achievable technocracy.frannkzappa

That is a start.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

I can see where you're coming from, wanting an educated populace that utilizes technology and thought over manual labor, but the structure of society and the utilization of local goods would require a massive shift to accommodate such a setup well enough to justify its superiority over the current system. Though a technocracy makes sense for the pure pursuit of scientific and intellectual advancement, there is much more to consider when partaking in social engineering of this scale.

One aspect in particular that needs to be considered is the value of socialization which, though can be taught in schools outside of classes, will cause a wall of immaturity past the high school level, resulting in common attitudes developing no farther than the age of 18. The reason for this happening is the largest concern of people against pure technocracy: reduction of interaction past intellectual pursuits and the use of a technological channel. Though rich communication (face-to-face) has been suffering over the years, the technocracy would further trivialize communication without some kind of technological channel, resulting in a more socially distant population. Furthermore, exclusively foreign manual labor could create a macro effect which paints foreigners as general underlings, culminating in a culturally-acceptable xenophobia that other semi-technocratic nations (ex: Japan) exercise at times.

In short, it would create an isolationist society purely dedicated to technological development, leaving no benefits for people who want to climb the social ladder by physical work. Of course, this is all speculation as no pure technocratic society has existed, but communication theory is something that you should consider when advocating for technocracy, mainly finding a way to remain technocratic while maintaining the value of rich communication.

THE_DRUGGIE

If man follows the platonic ideals not only will he be a healthy,mature and logical human being he will also be the ideal technocrat, this should solve the social problems you addressed.

I'm very tempted to call my proposed system a platonic technocracy or even a platocracy.

Eh, I've read Republic before. I appreciate how Plato weighs the pursuit of knowledge but there needs to be a more modernized way of looking at the responsibilities of government. A philosopher king does sound like a good idea, but a representative democracy requires the representative to be a true extension of their constituents, thus electing purely intellectual people would do such structure a disservice.

Though I do value intellect highly, there needs to be areas of speciality for those who represent: intellectuals who exceed in writing taut, rational legislation; socialites who specialize in swaying differing opinions (particularly of their peers) more toward their liking; and everypeople who are able to communicate and connect with the public at large so a dialogue between government and society can be opened, thus lending the government more legitimacy through a welcomed, intellectually unstratified path of communication.

If the government is entirely made up of one of the above types of people, it will crumble in some form.

What makes you think that sort of thing won't happen in technocracy.

Realistically it's impossible for a population to exist consisting of nothing but those kind of people, However i do feel that a cultural background and a few strong adherents to platonic ideals will do society a world of good.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

Insofar by "production" you mean "factories" (which is a mere portion of production), sure, and that is true regardless of whether or not a technocratic gov't comes into existence b/c of long-term trends in the industry.

dude_brahmski

Yes, but under our system automation hurts the worker, raises unemployment and gives more power to the business elite.

it hurts some workers, helps others and increases average purchasing power

the effect on employment is a little complex, but other things have happened that have negated a great deal of that (as the labor market evolved)

and as far as increasing the power of the business elite, maybe. increasing barriers (cost) to entry does tend to lend itself to less competitive markets.

Could you specify?

I assume you mean by reducing prices, however there is a risk that factory owners would keep their prices constant(in order to achieve greater immediate profits)instead of adjusting to the reduced production cost.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]This is where Plato comes in. Now i can't go into detail so i will suggest you read " The Republic","Apology", "Symposium" and "Phaedrus".

If man follows the platonic ideals not only will he be a healthy,mature and logical human being he will also be the ideal technocrat, this should solve the social problems you addressed.

 

I'm very tempted to call my proposed system a platonic technocracy or even a platocracy.

frannkzappa

Eh, I've read Republic before. I appreciate how Plato weighs the pursuit of knowledge but there needs to be a more modernized way of looking at the responsibilities of government. A philosopher king does sound like a good idea, but a representative democracy requires the representative to be a true extension of their constituents, thus electing purely intellectual people would do such structure a disservice.

Though I do value intellect highly, there needs to be areas of speciality for those who represent: intellectuals who exceed in writing taut, rational legislation; socialites who specialize in swaying differing opinions (particularly of their peers) more toward their liking; and everypeople who are able to communicate and connect with the public at large so a dialogue between government and society can be opened, thus lending the government more legitimacy through a welcomed, intellectually unstratified path of communication.

If the government is entirely made up of one of the above types of people, it will crumble in some form.

What makes you think that sort of thing won't happen in technocracy.

Realistically it's impossible for a population to exist consisting of nothing but those kind of people, However i do feel that a cultural background and a few strong adherents to platonic ideals will do society a world of good.

The thing is that you seem to think we can go with the first two, but don't see the importance of the third due to your previous statement of getting rid of people unable to contribute to the technocracy which, given your standards, includes people who are unable to excel or even be proficient in mathematics, science, arts, and so on. If you refuse to acknowledge those people as legitimate members of society, there will be upheaval that will require squelching through violent means, lessening the emphasis on non-manual areas (thus trivializing technocracy), or mass deportation that will result in international resentment of your country via shifting a heavy burden to neighbors.

Manual labor is an important social tool that gives disadvantaged and lesser-abled people some means to find importance and identity in their country. Also, the ability to become more down-to-earth is a valuable tool for those who can find a way out of manual labor and into white collar pursuits.

Unions are a great example of why production should be government controlled.

frannkzappa

government controlled production

government controlled production

government controlled production

government controlled production

government controlled production

government controlled production

government controlled production

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Yes, but under our system automation hurts the worker, raises unemployment and gives more power to the business elite.

frannkzappa

it hurts some workers, helps others and increases average purchasing power

the effect on employment is a little complex, but other things have happened that have negated a great deal of that (as the labor market evolved)

and as far as increasing the power of the business elite, maybe. increasing barriers (cost) to entry does tend to lend itself to less competitive markets.

Could you specify?

I assume you mean by reducing prices, however there is a risk that factory owners would keep their prices constant(in order to achieve greater immediate profits)instead of adjusting to the reduced production cost.

More specialized workers are required to do higher level operate/maintain/design more advanced machinary, design, etc.

There is that risk, but that doesn't happen. Ideally, anti-trust regulation is supposed to prevent that, but it might be in need of bigger balls.

Please do not group me with blind idealists like Lai.frannkzappa

Kinda hard not to at this point.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

it hurts some workers, helps others and increases average purchasing power

the effect on employment is a little complex, but other things have happened that have negated a great deal of that (as the labor market evolved)

and as far as increasing the power of the business elite, maybe. increasing barriers (cost) to entry does tend to lend itself to less competitive markets.

dude_brahmski

Could you specify?

I assume you mean by reducing prices, however there is a risk that factory owners would keep their prices constant(in order to achieve greater immediate profits)instead of adjusting to the reduced production cost.

More specialized workers are required to do higher level operate/maintain/design more advanced machinary, design, etc.

There is that risk, but that doesn't happen. Ideally, anti-trust regulation is supposed to prevent that, but it might be in need of bigger balls.

Well i'm here to tell you that technocracy has a pretty big set of balls.

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Could you specify?

 

I assume you mean by reducing prices, however there is a risk that factory owners would keep their prices constant(in order to achieve greater immediate profits)instead of adjusting to the reduced production cost.

frannkzappa

More specialized workers are required to do higher level operate/maintain/design more advanced machinary, design, etc.

There is that risk, but that doesn't happen. Ideally, anti-trust regulation is supposed to prevent that, but it might be in need of bigger balls.

Well i'm here to tell you that technocracy has a pretty big set of balls.

maybe too big for its own good

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Eh, I've read Republic before. I appreciate how Plato weighs the pursuit of knowledge but there needs to be a more modernized way of looking at the responsibilities of government. A philosopher king does sound like a good idea, but a representative democracy requires the representative to be a true extension of their constituents, thus electing purely intellectual people would do such structure a disservice.

Though I do value intellect highly, there needs to be areas of speciality for those who represent: intellectuals who exceed in writing taut, rational legislation; socialites who specialize in swaying differing opinions (particularly of their peers) more toward their liking; and everypeople who are able to communicate and connect with the public at large so a dialogue between government and society can be opened, thus lending the government more legitimacy through a welcomed, intellectually unstratified path of communication.

If the government is entirely made up of one of the above types of people, it will crumble in some form.

THE_DRUGGIE

What makes you think that sort of thing won't happen in technocracy.

Realistically it's impossible for a population to exist consisting of nothing but those kind of people, However i do feel that a cultural background and a few strong adherents to platonic ideals will do society a world of good.

The thing is that you seem to think we can go with the first two, but don't see the importance of the third due to your previous statement of getting rid of people unable to contribute to the technocracy which, given your standards, includes people who are unable to excel or even be proficient in mathematics, science, arts, and so on. If you refuse to acknowledge those people as legitimate members of society, there will be upheaval that will require squelching through violent means, lessening the emphasis on non-manual areas (thus trivializing technocracy), or mass deportation that will result in international resentment of your country via shifting a heavy burden to neighbors.

Manual labor is an important social tool that gives disadvantaged and lesser-abled people some means to find importance and identity in their country. Also, the ability to become more down-to-earth is a valuable tool for those who can find a way out of manual labor and into white collar pursuits.

No, even those without technical aptitude can find work in the service industry, which has plenty of low skilled jobs.

All the resentment in the world means very little if they can't practically act on it.

Manual labour isn't limited to production, it would still exist in technocracy.

*raises hell about union president making $156,000/year*

*ignores corporate president who award themselves multi-million dollar bonuses despite taking bailout money, and firing loads of workers* (job creator after all)

well done mingmao, well done.

Serraph105

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

What makes you think that sort of thing won't happen in technocracy.

 

Realistically it's impossible for a population to exist consisting of nothing but those kind of people, However i do feel that a cultural background and a few strong adherents to platonic ideals will do society a world of good.

 

frannkzappa

The thing is that you seem to think we can go with the first two, but don't see the importance of the third due to your previous statement of getting rid of people unable to contribute to the technocracy which, given your standards, includes people who are unable to excel or even be proficient in mathematics, science, arts, and so on. If you refuse to acknowledge those people as legitimate members of society, there will be upheaval that will require squelching through violent means, lessening the emphasis on non-manual areas (thus trivializing technocracy), or mass deportation that will result in international resentment of your country via shifting a heavy burden to neighbors.

Manual labor is an important social tool that gives disadvantaged and lesser-abled people some means to find importance and identity in their country. Also, the ability to become more down-to-earth is a valuable tool for those who can find a way out of manual labor and into white collar pursuits.

No, even those without technical aptitude can find work in the service industry, which has plenty of low skilled jobs.

All the resentment in the world means very little if they can't practically act on it.

Manual labour isn't limited to production, it would still exist in technocracy.

But it wouldn't be as prevalent, meaning far fewer opportunities for those suited for manual labor and less employment. In the end, it becomes more competitive and creates further resentment.

As far as "practical action" goes, riots would be more common. Though not practical by any means, the lessened sense of security would deplete the quality of life for all members of society, creating and bolstering violent tendencies in the working class as well as instilling negative feelings of technocratic participants toward anyone partaking in manual labor.

Furthermore, your insistence on purely using immigrants for production would give said workers such a tattered image in all areas of society that nobody would want to immigrate, aside from the truly desperate and dispondent. Even then, they will attempt to accumulate wealth and steadily gain influence, utilizing their resentment in future generations to eliminate what they view as the more oppresive aspects of society that are, in fact, pillars of your technocracy.

I guess that's practical action, albeit it would take a generation or two if you're unwilling to actively oppress them.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

The thing is that you seem to think we can go with the first two, but don't see the importance of the third due to your previous statement of getting rid of people unable to contribute to the technocracy which, given your standards, includes people who are unable to excel or even be proficient in mathematics, science, arts, and so on. If you refuse to acknowledge those people as legitimate members of society, there will be upheaval that will require squelching through violent means, lessening the emphasis on non-manual areas (thus trivializing technocracy), or mass deportation that will result in international resentment of your country via shifting a heavy burden to neighbors.

Manual labor is an important social tool that gives disadvantaged and lesser-abled people some means to find importance and identity in their country. Also, the ability to become more down-to-earth is a valuable tool for those who can find a way out of manual labor and into white collar pursuits.

THE_DRUGGIE

No, even those without technical aptitude can find work in the service industry, which has plenty of low skilled jobs.

All the resentment in the world means very little if they can't practically act on it.

Manual labour isn't limited to production, it would still exist in technocracy.

But it wouldn't be as prevalent, meaning far fewer opportunities for those suited for manual labor and less employment. In the end, it becomes more competitive and creates further resentment.

As far as "practical action" goes, riots would be more common. Though not practical by any means, the lessened sense of security would deplete the quality of life for all members of society, creating and bolstering violent tendencies in the working class as well as instilling negative feelings of technocratic participants toward anyone partaking in manual labor.

Furthermore, your insistence on purely using immigrants for production would give said workers such a tattered image in all areas of society that nobody would want to immigrate, aside from the truly desperate and dispondent. Even then, they will attempt to accumulate wealth and steadily gain influence, utilizing their resentment in future generations to eliminate what they view as the more oppresive aspects of society that are, in fact, pillars of your technocracy.

I guess that's practical action, albeit it would take a generation or two if you're unwilling to actively oppress them.

1. you greatly underestimate the size of the service industry.

2. there is plenty for the unskilled labourer to do beside act as a means of production...think public works.

3. use of a foreign workforce would take a back seat to automated production.

4. I doubt many in the working class would object to technocracy as it theoretically eliminates poverty and unemployment.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

No, even those without technical aptitude can find work in the service industry, which has plenty of low skilled jobs.

 

All the resentment in the world means very little if they can't practically act on it.

 

Manual labour isn't limited to production, it would still exist in technocracy.

 

 

frannkzappa

But it wouldn't be as prevalent, meaning far fewer opportunities for those suited for manual labor and less employment. In the end, it becomes more competitive and creates further resentment.

As far as "practical action" goes, riots would be more common. Though not practical by any means, the lessened sense of security would deplete the quality of life for all members of society, creating and bolstering violent tendencies in the working class as well as instilling negative feelings of technocratic participants toward anyone partaking in manual labor.

Furthermore, your insistence on purely using immigrants for production would give said workers such a tattered image in all areas of society that nobody would want to immigrate, aside from the truly desperate and dispondent. Even then, they will attempt to accumulate wealth and steadily gain influence, utilizing their resentment in future generations to eliminate what they view as the more oppresive aspects of society that are, in fact, pillars of your technocracy.

I guess that's practical action, albeit it would take a generation or two if you're unwilling to actively oppress them.

1. you greatly underestimate the size of the service industry.

2. there is plenty for the unskilled labourer to do beside act as a means of production...think public works.

3. use of a foreign workforce would take a back seat to automated production.

4. I doubt many in the working class would object to technocracy as it theoretically eliminates poverty and unemployment.

1. It's not just size, it's hiring practices and standards. The service industry would look at production's practices and standards, advocating for automization on par with production (completely eliminating the clerk for an auto-checkout for example).

2. See 1.

3. Then fewer opportunities for immigrants exist, thus increasing the chance new immigrants will be unemployed.

4. When I analyze this theory, I'm finding plenty of chances to increase poverty and unemployment. Of course, I'm thinking past the theory itself and imagining it in action.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

But it wouldn't be as prevalent, meaning far fewer opportunities for those suited for manual labor and less employment. In the end, it becomes more competitive and creates further resentment.

As far as "practical action" goes, riots would be more common. Though not practical by any means, the lessened sense of security would deplete the quality of life for all members of society, creating and bolstering violent tendencies in the working class as well as instilling negative feelings of technocratic participants toward anyone partaking in manual labor.

Furthermore, your insistence on purely using immigrants for production would give said workers such a tattered image in all areas of society that nobody would want to immigrate, aside from the truly desperate and dispondent. Even then, they will attempt to accumulate wealth and steadily gain influence, utilizing their resentment in future generations to eliminate what they view as the more oppresive aspects of society that are, in fact, pillars of your technocracy.

I guess that's practical action, albeit it would take a generation or two if you're unwilling to actively oppress them.

THE_DRUGGIE

1. you greatly underestimate the size of the service industry.

2. there is plenty for the unskilled labourer to do beside act as a means of production...think public works.

3. use of a foreign workforce would take a back seat to automated production.

4. I doubt many in the working class would object to technocracy as it theoretically eliminates poverty and unemployment.

1. It's not just size, it's hiring practices and standards. The service industry would look at production's practices and standards, advocating for automization on par with production (completely eliminating the clerk for an auto-checkout for example).

2. See 1.

3. Then fewer opportunities for immigrants exist, thus increasing the chance new immigrants will be unemployed.

4. When I analyze this theory, I'm finding plenty of chances to increase poverty and unemployment. Of course, I'm thinking past the theory itself and imagining it in action.

1&2 I don't see the service industry being automated any time soon. But this is hard to debate and is little more than theory crafting.

3 immigrants are not allowed in the state period unless they have something to offer, if they prove to be of worth they gain the full citizenship and all it's benefits.

4. It doesn't need to actually do those things. history has shown that rhetoric alone is enough to manipulate the working class, it's been shown that even under the failure of said rhetoric they will still cling to it.