[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]
Information is harder to manipulate than it once was, and not all of your examples demonstrate your point, as I'm sure you are already aware (war and typhoid in Athens, military takeover in Rome). Additionally, democracies in their infancy have issues, as demonstrated by others (and even the U.S. initially). North America and Europe are examples of modern, mature democracies that have improved over the course of time. And, it is pretty apparent that educated voters care a bit, given the condition of modern western civilization.
One word: Collusion.
A futile attempt to achieve something without giving due regard to constraints will invariably result in falling short of maximizing within the context of constraints.
There's a serious problem when a hypothetical government is worse than one that has had all of its faults played out in reality. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance.
dude_brahmski
Most failed democracies seemed healthy at one point. There are far far more examples of failed democracies then successful ones. Even the successful ones have only been around for 100 years (excluding usa) they have plenty of time to fail. And the democracies of Europe are hardly as sturdy as you may think, just look at how they are handling themselves.
that doesn't apply to technocracy any more than democracy, in fact probably less so. You have yet to name a problem that isn't already happening in democracy. you also assume that a technocracy will do nothing to stop corruption.
iIsee, so you are a defeatist. thankfully your attitude was not shared by the innovators of history.
I don't see how you could possibly say that given your attempt at argument. The best you have done so far is to attempt to project democracies problems onto technocracy assuming that a technocratic government would be unaware of and unable to deal with those problems, which is ludicrous.
I feel more confident in technocracy then ever, as you like everyone else has failed to argue against it.
There is more success in democracy than all other forms combined, and the reasons for failures of numerous democracies you've posed were not due to the nature of democracy itself. Moreover, they continue to improve. The problems in Europe lie namely in its attempted semi-unification, and certainly at this time doesn't pose a threat to the developed nations there, though there may be difficulties for the developing ones (a recurring theme with developing nations, apparently).
Perhaps technocracy will magically be the first bureaucracy that manages to avoid corruption when left independent of external influences, but at this point you've really idealism on your side, because you've proposed brings nothing new with it in practice. Either propose something substantial, systematic and addresses problems in a realistic fashion taking into account considerable problems you've to this point ignored, or expect to (rightly) be disregarded for what your posts are: a joke.
The innovators of history dealt with constraints, while those that didn't simply dreamed.
You haven't defended technocracy as a viable system of governance. You have brought absolutely nothing new to the table WRT functionality, and are somehow confused as to how problems that plague other governments would consequently recur here? In all frankness, I'm pretty sure you picked up Plato last week and are going through that high-school-kid-that-just-discovered-philosophy phase. You'll get past it.
You've got quite a nasty way of saying nothing.
Log in to comment