This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]The political class as a whole (not just Dems) are absolutely more of a threat to Americans than Kim Jong UnRhazakna
I've been saying that for 5 pages. -.-
Yeah, but you're an openly admitted fascist, so who cares?i'm not quite a fascist, but i see you still use the term like it's a dirty word.
Yeah, but you're an openly admitted fascist, so who cares?[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
I've been saying that for 5 pages. -.-
frannkzappa
i'm not quite a fascist, but i see you still use the term like it's a dirty word.
What is clean about using violence to control people?[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Yes on average an intelligent man will be more competent ruling than an idiot. What is your point? No one is advocating having the mentally disabled become authoritarian dictators. Someone being knowledgeable within a specific discipline is no reason for him to rule the lives of others. There is no logical connection between that. You argument exists on the assumption that there has to be a ruler, that people cannot be allowed to be free to live their own lives without coercion (or the threat of it). Technocracy is just another excuse to hold a gun to someone's head.Laihendi
Well in the system i support the federal government while being several magnitudes larger and more powerful will lack a point of centralized power, thus removing most of the possibility of a tyrant (i do not advocate tyrants). legislative decisions will be made by small groups of trained professionals who only have power in their own field. this system would completely remove the idea of popular elections. For example only economists have any say in matters of the economy, only medical professionals will have any say on medical legislation and only experienced and proven military officials will be able to vote on military matters.
This system aims to remove both the common man and the politician (as well as politics) from government.
So if you have a better understanding of economics then your neighbor, you have a right to control his finances? If you have a better understanding of medicine, then you have a right to determine what drugs/vaccines he is forced to take? There is no logical connection between knowledge within a discipline and authority to control someone's life. Those are two completely different things that are not relevant to each other at all. Again, this is just another excuse to control someone at the point of a gun.How is that any worse then a system in which alot of idiots vote for a few bigger richer idiots who then go on to make laws and legislation (which affect everyone) about things that they don't even understand?
Yeah, but you're an openly admitted fascist, so who cares?[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
I've been saying that for 5 pages. -.-
frannkzappa
i'm not quite a fascist, but i see you still use the term like it's a dirty word.
No,I don't think of fascism as something special in any sense, good or bad. I've had a lot of experience interacting with people on the "alternative right" (as they call it), many of whom are essentially neo-fascists (though, like you, they don't like that term). Most of their ideas are pretty mundane, though they're still radicals considering the narrow range of the modern political lexicon.[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Yeah, but you're an openly admitted fascist, so who cares?Laihendi
i'm not quite a fascist, but i see you still use the term like it's a dirty word.
What is clean about using violence to control people?You act as if violence is a given. I don't think it is.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Yeah, but you're an openly admitted fascist, so who cares?Rhazakna
i'm not quite a fascist, but i see you still use the term like it's a dirty word.
No,I don't think of fascism as something special in any sense, good or bad. I've had a lot of experience interacting with people on the "alternative right" (as they call it), many of whom are essentially neo-fascists (though, like you, they don't like that term). Most of their ideas are pretty mundane, though they're still radicals considering the narrow range of the modern political lexicon.i'm actualy a moderate with leftist tendencies.
So if you have a better understanding of economics then your neighbor, you have a right to control his finances? If you have a better understanding of medicine, then you have a right to determine what drugs/vaccines he is forced to take? There is no logical connection between knowledge within a discipline and authority to control someone's life. Those are two completely different things that are not relevant to each other at all. Again, this is just another excuse to control someone at the point of a gun.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Well in the system i support the federal government while being several magnitudes larger and more powerful will lack a point of centralized power, thus removing most of the possibility of a tyrant (i do not advocate tyrants). legislative decisions will be made by small groups of trained professionals who only have power in their own field. this system would completely remove the idea of popular elections. For example only economists have any say in matters of the economy, only medical professionals will have any say on medical legislation and only experienced and proven military officials will be able to vote on military matters.
This system aims to remove both the common man and the politician (as well as politics) from government.
frannkzappa
How is that any worse then a system in which alot of idiots vote for a few bigger richer idiots who then go on to make laws and legislation (which affect everyone) about things that they don't even understand?
Neither system is good. You are making the assumption that there needs to be someone making large amounts of legislation to control all aspects of life. Each individual should manage his own finances, and only his. Each individual should choose his healthcare strategy, and only his. When each individual is responsible for himself and only himself, the stupidity and failures of others are of no consequence to him.[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] So if you have a better understanding of economics then your neighbor, you have a right to control his finances? If you have a better understanding of medicine, then you have a right to determine what drugs/vaccines he is forced to take? There is no logical connection between knowledge within a discipline and authority to control someone's life. Those are two completely different things that are not relevant to each other at all. Again, this is just another excuse to control someone at the point of a gun.Laihendi
How is that any worse then a system in which alot of idiots vote for a few bigger richer idiots who then go on to make laws and legislation (which affect everyone) about things that they don't even understand?
Neither system is good. You are making the assumption that there needs to be someone making large amounts of legislation to control all aspects of life. Each individual should manage his own finances, and only his. Each individual should choose his healthcare strategy, and only his. When each individual is responsible for himself and only himself, the stupidity and failures of others are of no consequence to him.Sorry but i like the infrastucture and technology that only a large federal government could provide. Humans are social animals and do not operate efficiently as individuals (not that i don't value individuality, but at the extreeme you want it it would only serve to hurt humanity as a whole) we can only get things done as a large group governed by a strong and supportive government.
What you have described sounds like an agrarian hell, as wanted by that idiot Jefferson (thank god he didn't practice what he preached).
Neither system is good. You are making the assumption that there needs to be someone making large amounts of legislation to control all aspects of life. Each individual should manage his own finances, and only his. Each individual should choose his healthcare strategy, and only his. When each individual is responsible for himself and only himself, the stupidity and failures of others are of no consequence to him.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
How is that any worse then a system in which alot of idiots vote for a few bigger richer idiots who then go on to make laws and legislation (which affect everyone) about things that they don't even understand?
frannkzappa
Sorry but i like the infrastucture and technology that only a large federal government could provide. Humans are social animals and do not operate efficiently as individuals (not that i don't value individuality, but at the extreeme you want it it would only serve to hurt humanity as a whole) we can only get things done as a large group governed by a strong and supportive government.
What you have described sounds like an agrarian hell, as wanted by that idiot Jefferson (thank god he didn't practice what he preached).
So you think healthy social interaction involves the threat of physical force? Social interaction and cooperation is entirely possible without people having a gun held to their heads. Also you are ignoring the countless technologies and innovations invented by private individuals and produced by privately operated organizations. The idea that you have a right to control me at gunpoint because we are "social animals" is hilarious.[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Neither system is good. You are making the assumption that there needs to be someone making large amounts of legislation to control all aspects of life. Each individual should manage his own finances, and only his. Each individual should choose his healthcare strategy, and only his. When each individual is responsible for himself and only himself, the stupidity and failures of others are of no consequence to him.Laihendi
Sorry but i like the infrastucture and technology that only a large federal government could provide. Humans are social animals and do not operate efficiently as individuals (not that i don't value individuality, but at the extreeme you want it it would only serve to hurt humanity as a whole) we can only get things done as a large group governed by a strong and supportive government.
What you have described sounds like an agrarian hell, as wanted by that idiot Jefferson (thank god he didn't practice what he preached).
So you think healthy social interaction involves the threat of physical force? Social interaction and cooperation is entirely possible without people having a gun held to their heads. Also you are ignoring the countless technologies and innovations invented by private individuals and produced by privately operated organizations. The idea that you have a right to control me at gunpoint because we are "social animals" is hilarious.I never said anything about guns nor violence, though i did mention that the governing body must also be supportive of those governed.
Also you seem to be ignoring all the things that can't be produced by private individuals. besides i never once said i had any problem with private orginizations, I just don't value them as much as you.
come on lai let's try be civil about this.
[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]on average they're going to be better rulers. Yes on average an intelligent man will be more competent ruling than an idiot. What is your point? No one is advocating having the mentally disabled become authoritarian dictators. Someone being knowledgeable within a specific discipline is no reason for him to rule the lives of others. There is no logical connection between that. You argument exists on the assumption that there has to be a ruler, that people cannot be allowed to be free to live their own lives without coercion (or the threat of it). Technocracy is just another excuse to hold a gun to someone's head.dude you're stupid.[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that many of the most vicious and violent dictators/rulers in human history have also been exceptionally intelligent? Great intelligence does not make someone fit to rule if they use that intelligence for evil and destructive purposes.Laihendi
Yes on average an intelligent man will be more competent ruling than an idiot. What is your point? No one is advocating having the mentally disabled become authoritarian dictators. Someone being knowledgeable within a specific discipline is no reason for him to rule the lives of others. There is no logical connection between that. You argument exists on the assumption that there has to be a ruler, that people cannot be allowed to be free to live their own lives without coercion (or the threat of it). Technocracy is just another excuse to hold a gun to someone's head.dude you're stupid.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]on average they're going to be better rulers.
MakeMeaSammitch
Lai is a lot of things, stupid is not one of them.
He can articulate his arguments better then most on OT, certainly better than you.
So you think healthy social interaction involves the threat of physical force? Social interaction and cooperation is entirely possible without people having a gun held to their heads. Also you are ignoring the countless technologies and innovations invented by private individuals and produced by privately operated organizations. The idea that you have a right to control me at gunpoint because we are "social animals" is hilarious.[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Sorry but i like the infrastucture and technology that only a large federal government could provide. Humans are social animals and do not operate efficiently as individuals (not that i don't value individuality, but at the extreeme you want it it would only serve to hurt humanity as a whole) we can only get things done as a large group governed by a strong and supportive government.
What you have described sounds like an agrarian hell, as wanted by that idiot Jefferson (thank god he didn't practice what he preached).
frannkzappa
I never said anything about guns nor violence, though i did mention that the governing body must also be supportive of those governed.
Also you seem to be ignoring all the things that can't be produced by private individuals. besides i never once said i had any problem with private orginizations, I just don't value them as much as you.
come on lai let's try be civil about this.
Controlling people by force is controlling them with the threat of a gun, that is - the threat of violence. You can reword your ideas to make them seem less abhorrent, but that does nothing to change the implications and necessities of their implementation. What cannot be produced by private individuals, or privately operated organizations?dude you're stupid.[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Yes on average an intelligent man will be more competent ruling than an idiot. What is your point? No one is advocating having the mentally disabled become authoritarian dictators. Someone being knowledgeable within a specific discipline is no reason for him to rule the lives of others. There is no logical connection between that. You argument exists on the assumption that there has to be a ruler, that people cannot be allowed to be free to live their own lives without coercion (or the threat of it). Technocracy is just another excuse to hold a gun to someone's head.frannkzappa
Lai is a lot of things, stupid is not one of them.
He can articulate his arguments better then most on OT, certainly better than you.
I will agree with this.No,I don't think of fascism as something special in any sense, good or bad. I've had a lot of experience interacting with people on the "alternative right" (as they call it), many of whom are essentially neo-fascists (though, like you, they don't like that term). Most of their ideas are pretty mundane, though they're still radicals considering the narrow range of the modern political lexicon.[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
i'm not quite a fascist, but i see you still use the term like it's a dirty word.
frannkzappa
i'm actualy a moderate with leftist tendencies.
What do you mean by "leftist tendencies"? If you want to spread the idea of an authoritarian technocratic meritocracy, the alt-right is the place to go, not the left or the center.[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] So you think healthy social interaction involves the threat of physical force? Social interaction and cooperation is entirely possible without people having a gun held to their heads. Also you are ignoring the countless technologies and innovations invented by private individuals and produced by privately operated organizations. The idea that you have a right to control me at gunpoint because we are "social animals" is hilarious.Laihendi
I never said anything about guns nor violence, though i did mention that the governing body must also be supportive of those governed.
Also you seem to be ignoring all the things that can't be produced by private individuals. besides i never once said i had any problem with private orginizations, I just don't value them as much as you.
come on lai let's try be civil about this.
Controlling people by force is controlling them with the threat of a gun, that is - the threat of violence. You can reword your ideas to make them seem less abhorrent, but that does nothing to change the implications and necessities of their implementation. What cannot be produced by private individuals, or privately operated organizations?Don't recall mentioning force either.
Well for individuals i imagine you know just how much they can't make on their own.
How would these private organizations even come about without the support and protection of a strong governing body? Whats to stop a foreign force from just taking your private assets?
r
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] No,I don't think of fascism as something special in any sense, good or bad. I've had a lot of experience interacting with people on the "alternative right" (as they call it), many of whom are essentially neo-fascists (though, like you, they don't like that term). Most of their ideas are pretty mundane, though they're still radicals considering the narrow range of the modern political lexicon. Rhazakna
i'm actualy a moderate with leftist tendencies.
What do you mean by "leftist tendencies"? If you want to spread the idea of an authoritarian technocratic meritocracy, the alt-right is the place to go, not the left or the center.The left or right has nothing to do with Authoritarianism.
By leftist tendencies i mean that when i do lean one way or the other it's usualy to the left (no where near socialism mind you).
either way in the system i support my economic opinion wouldn't matter (me not being an economist).
What do you mean by "leftist tendencies"? If you want to spread the idea of an authoritarian technocratic meritocracy, the alt-right is the place to go, not the left or the center.[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
i'm actualy a moderate with leftist tendencies.
frannkzappa
The left or right has nothing to do with Authoritarianism.
By leftist tendencies i mean that when i do lean one way or the other it's usualy to the left (no where near socialism mind you).
either way in the system i support my economic opinion wouldn't matter (me not being an economist).
I never said the left or right had anything to do with authoritarianism in themselves. There are libertarian and authoritarian strains of rightism and leftism. My point was that if you want to spread the kind of ideas you profess, the people who will be the most receptive are those who identify with the alt-right.[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] What do you mean by "leftist tendencies"? If you want to spread the idea of an authoritarian technocratic meritocracy, the alt-right is the place to go, not the left or the center.Rhazakna
The left or right has nothing to do with Authoritarianism.
By leftist tendencies i mean that when i do lean one way or the other it's usualy to the left (no where near socialism mind you).
either way in the system i support my economic opinion wouldn't matter (me not being an economist).
I never said the left or right had anything to do with authoritarianism in themselves. There are libertarian and authoritarian strains of rightism and leftism. My point was that if you want to spread the kind of ideas you profess, the people who will be the most receptive are those who identify with the alt-right.fair enough... i guess.
But the alt-right hasn't been in favor of technocracy all that much.
I never said the left or right had anything to do with authoritarianism in themselves. There are libertarian and authoritarian strains of rightism and leftism. My point was that if you want to spread the kind of ideas you profess, the people who will be the most receptive are those who identify with the alt-right.[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
The left or right has nothing to do with Authoritarianism.
By leftist tendencies i mean that when i do lean one way or the other it's usualy to the left (no where near socialism mind you).
either way in the system i support my economic opinion wouldn't matter (me not being an economist).
frannkzappa
fair enough... i guess.
But the alt-right hasn't been in favor of technocracy all that much.
The alt-right is a pretty broad movement. Lots of them seem to have sympathy for a meritocratic ruling elite. Those are the people to try and sell technocracy to, not people in the center, and certainly not the left.[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] I never said the left or right had anything to do with authoritarianism in themselves. There are libertarian and authoritarian strains of rightism and leftism. My point was that if you want to spread the kind of ideas you profess, the people who will be the most receptive are those who identify with the alt-right.Rhazakna
fair enough... i guess.
But the alt-right hasn't been in favor of technocracy all that much.
The alt-right is a pretty broad movement. Lots of them seem to have sympathy for a meritocratic ruling elite. Those are the people to try and sell technocracy to, not people in the center, and certainly not the left.Who says i was trying to?
besides my economic prefs are based off biases and circumstance not my ideals. i generally don't mention economics because it has little to do with my agenda. the economy is something to be decided only after the technocratic government is in power and thus the proper experts can determine what is best for the country. i wouldn't support anyone who still affiliates with a party after coming to power, and i don't think many partied officials will be willing to give up their support network and delegate their jobs to experts.
The alt-right is a pretty broad movement. Lots of them seem to have sympathy for a meritocratic ruling elite. Those are the people to try and sell technocracy to, not people in the center, and certainly not the left.[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
fair enough... i guess.
But the alt-right hasn't been in favor of technocracy all that much.
frannkzappa
Who says i was trying to?
besides my economic prefs are based off biases and circumstance not my ideals. i generally don't mention economics because it has little to do with my agenda. the economy is something to be decided only after the technocratic government is in power and thus the proper experts can determine what is best for the country. i wouldn't support anyone who still affiliates with a party after coming to power, and i don't think many partied officials will be willing to give up their support network and delegate their jobs to experts.
I didn't say anything about economics, though your idea that the experts can just decide what to do betrays a vast ignorance of what economics even is.dude you're stupid.[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Yes on average an intelligent man will be more competent ruling than an idiot. What is your point? No one is advocating having the mentally disabled become authoritarian dictators. Someone being knowledgeable within a specific discipline is no reason for him to rule the lives of others. There is no logical connection between that. You argument exists on the assumption that there has to be a ruler, that people cannot be allowed to be free to live their own lives without coercion (or the threat of it). Technocracy is just another excuse to hold a gun to someone's head.frannkzappa
Lai is a lot of things, stupid is not one of them.
He can articulate his arguments better then most on OT, certainly better than you.
His English is proficient if a bit boring as it always reads the same. His critical thinking skills however are questionable at best, I don't think I've ever seen him reach a conclusion that hasn't already been reached for him which leads to a lot of unfortunate implications he isn't aware of being brought up. His articulation is fine, no doubt, it's just that you could articulately explain what sh*tting your pants in front of hundreds of people feels like competently but in the end you've still sh*t your pants in front of hundreds of people.[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]dude you're stupid.
Ace6301
Lai is a lot of things, stupid is not one of them.
He can articulate his arguments better then most on OT, certainly better than you.
His English is proficient if a bit boring as it always reads the same. His critical thinking skills however are questionable at best, I don't think I've ever seen him reach a conclusion that hasn't already been reached for him which leads to a lot of unfortunate implications he isn't aware of being brought up. His articulation is fine, no doubt, it's just that you could articulately explain what sh*tting your pants in front of hundreds of people feels like competently but in the end you've still sh*t your pants in front of hundreds of people.You seem to be twisting my words a tad.
I didn't say anything about economics, though your idea that the experts can just decide what to do betrays a vast ignorance of what economics even is.[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Who says i was trying to?
besides my economic prefs are based off biases and circumstance not my ideals. i generally don't mention economics because it has little to do with my agenda. the economy is something to be decided only after the technocratic government is in power and thus the proper experts can determine what is best for the country. i wouldn't support anyone who still affiliates with a party after coming to power, and i don't think many partied officials will be willing to give up their support network and delegate their jobs to experts.
frannkzappa
i never meant that "experts" (bad term i know) would be able to solve all are problems, i simply meant that it would be much more efficient to have a fluid system which could be altered based on what people who have been in the economic field (of many different studies and opinions) feel might work given an economic situation. Of cource even among professionals there will be disagreements and debates and a certain amount of trial and error.
essentialy what i'm saying is cut out the middle man (parties and politicians) and let the people with knowledge in the field figure out the solution (much as they already are).
however i do concede that economic policy is easily the weakest link in the technocratic system.
There are numerous economic schools with mutually exclusive methodologies and prescriptions. For example, Keynesian will never agree with an Austrian prescription for a recession, regardless of how much debate happens. If they compromise, any solution is doomed to fail because economic solutions have to be applied purely to see if they actually work. Giving complete control one school control over economic policy, then another if the results aren't satisfactory would have catastrophic effects on investment. Any thoroughly technocratic economy seems like it would be in shambles, and that's not some small problem.[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] I didn't say anything about economics, though your idea that the experts can just decide what to do betrays a vast ignorance of what economics even is.Rhazakna
i never meant that "experts" (bad term i know) would be able to solve all are problems, i simply meant that it would be much more efficient to have a fluid system which could be altered based on what people who have been in the economic field (of many different studies and opinions) feel might work given an economic situation. Of cource even among professionals there will be disagreements and debates and a certain amount of trial and error.
essentialy what i'm saying is cut out the middle man (parties and politicians) and let the people with knowledge in the field figure out the solution (much as they already are).
however i do concede that economic policy is easily the weakest link in the technocratic system.
There are numerous economic schools with mutually exclusive methodologies and prescriptions. For example, Keynesian will never agree with an Austrian prescription for a recession, regardless of how much debate happens. If they compromise, any solution is doomed to fail because economic solutions have to be applied purely to see if they actually work. Giving complete control one school control over economic policy, then another if the results aren't satisfactory would have catastrophic effects on investment. Any thoroughly technocratic economy seems like it would be in shambles, and that's not some small problem.I fail to see how it will be any worse then the current system. these mutually exclusive methodolgies are already banging heads with each other except they do it with politicians instead of basing it off prior success (keep in mind this is also a meritocracy so the economists with the most history of success will also have the most pull) .
His English is proficient if a bit boring as it always reads the same. His critical thinking skills however are questionable at best, I don't think I've ever seen him reach a conclusion that hasn't already been reached for him which leads to a lot of unfortunate implications he isn't aware of being brought up. His articulation is fine, no doubt, it's just that you could articulately explain what sh*tting your pants in front of hundreds of people feels like competently but in the end you've still sh*t your pants in front of hundreds of people.[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Lai is a lot of things, stupid is not one of them.
He can articulate his arguments better then most on OT, certainly better than you.
frannkzappa
You seem to be twisting my words a tad.
I really just wanted to compare his posts to the effect of browning ones boxers in front of people.There are numerous economic schools with mutually exclusive methodologies and prescriptions. For example, Keynesian will never agree with an Austrian prescription for a recession, regardless of how much debate happens. If they compromise, any solution is doomed to fail because economic solutions have to be applied purely to see if they actually work. Giving complete control one school control over economic policy, then another if the results aren't satisfactory would have catastrophic effects on investment. Any thoroughly technocratic economy seems like it would be in shambles, and that's not some small problem.[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
i never meant that "experts" (bad term i know) would be able to solve all are problems, i simply meant that it would be much more efficient to have a fluid system which could be altered based on what people who have been in the economic field (of many different studies and opinions) feel might work given an economic situation. Of cource even among professionals there will be disagreements and debates and a certain amount of trial and error.
essentialy what i'm saying is cut out the middle man (parties and politicians) and let the people with knowledge in the field figure out the solution (much as they already are).
however i do concede that economic policy is easily the weakest link in the technocratic system.
frannkzappa
I fail to see how it will be any worse then the current system. these mutually exclusive methodolgies are already banging heads with each other except they do it with politicians instead of basing it off prior success (keep in mind this is also a meritocracy so the economists with the most history of success will also have the most pull) .
I never said it would be worse than the current system necessarily, though it would be worse for investment if you have different schools having complete control over a state's economy at different times. Most economic prescriptions made by politicians have to do with rent seeking special interests, not competing ideologies. What would stop rent seeking if policy was determined by economists? It would be almost impossible to gauge a "history of success" when you consider the fact that a short-term good in the economy can lead to a long term bad and vice versa. What's more, it's far more likely that intellectual dogmas and orthodoxies would form instead of an actual meritocratic system. Considering that's what happens today, why wouldn't it if intellectuals are given power? In fact, it would seem that technocracy would compound such a problem. A technocratic approach to the economy sounds- at best- vacuous.[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] His English is proficient if a bit boring as it always reads the same. His critical thinking skills however are questionable at best, I don't think I've ever seen him reach a conclusion that hasn't already been reached for him which leads to a lot of unfortunate implications he isn't aware of being brought up. His articulation is fine, no doubt, it's just that you could articulately explain what sh*tting your pants in front of hundreds of people feels like competently but in the end you've still sh*t your pants in front of hundreds of people. Ace6301
You seem to be twisting my words a tad.
I really just wanted to compare his posts to the effect of browning ones boxers in front of people.oh, thats ok then.:P
dude you're stupid.[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Yes on average an intelligent man will be more competent ruling than an idiot. What is your point? No one is advocating having the mentally disabled become authoritarian dictators. Someone being knowledgeable within a specific discipline is no reason for him to rule the lives of others. There is no logical connection between that. You argument exists on the assumption that there has to be a ruler, that people cannot be allowed to be free to live their own lives without coercion (or the threat of it). Technocracy is just another excuse to hold a gun to someone's head.frannkzappa
Lai is a lot of things, stupid is not one of them.
Â
He can articulate his arguments better then most on OT, certainly better than you.
He can articulate his arguments alright, but he seems completely incapable of thinking them through.
i've seen worse.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] There are numerous economic schools with mutually exclusive methodologies and prescriptions. For example, Keynesian will never agree with an Austrian prescription for a recession, regardless of how much debate happens. If they compromise, any solution is doomed to fail because economic solutions have to be applied purely to see if they actually work. Giving complete control one school control over economic policy, then another if the results aren't satisfactory would have catastrophic effects on investment. Any thoroughly technocratic economy seems like it would be in shambles, and that's not some small problem.Rhazakna
I fail to see how it will be any worse then the current system. these mutually exclusive methodolgies are already banging heads with each other except they do it with politicians instead of basing it off prior success (keep in mind this is also a meritocracy so the economists with the most history of success will also have the most pull) .
I never said it would be worse than the current system necessarily, though it would be worse for investment if you have different schools having complete control over a state's economy at different times. Most economic prescriptions made by politicians have to do with rent seeking special interests, not competing ideologies. What would stop rent seeking if policy was determined by economists? It would be almost impossible to gauge a "history of success" when you consider the fact that a short-term good in the economy can lead to a long term bad and vice versa. What's more, it's far more likely that intellectual dogmas and orthodoxies would form instead of an actual meritocratic system. Considering that's what happens today, why wouldn't it if intellectuals are given power? In fact, it would seem that technocracy would compound such a problem. A technocratic approach to the economy sounds- at best- vacuous.I'm very open to economic ideals/theories/aproaches, what, if i may as is your economc system of preference?
Well in the system i support the federal government while being several magnitudes larger and more powerful will lack a point of centralized power, thus removing most of the possibility of a tyrant (i do not advocate tyrants). legislative decisions will be made by small groups of trained professionals who only have power in their own field. this system would completely remove the idea of popular elections. For example only economists have any say in matters of the economy, only medical professionals will have any say on medical legislation and only experienced and proven military officials will be able to vote on military matters.
This system aims to remove both the common man and the politician (as well as politics) from government.frannkzappa
Cute proposal, but conflicting concerns/interests exist due to overlap (e.g., what might be good for economy might be bad for health, etc.). One might say that the whole thing sounds quite political taking that into consideration.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
but we can remove politicians.
frannkzappa
What you've described would really do nothing of the sort.
I think we are using different definitions of the word politician.
I was using it as a slur against a certain kind of statesmen (common in freemason and technocratic circles), not to describe policy makers in general.
My fault really.
What i am talking about are the officials elected (with any involvement of the general public) by the democratic republic system.
Â
Even still, I stand by my previous statement in that the process would be highly political. Corporations, government bureaucracies, large organizations in general are prone to it - throw in full-scale governance, you've the same sh!t, but orders of the magnitude greater. Really, the only inherent change the influence of the public - which is simply replaced by an inevitably hierarchical beauracratic game.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
I think we are using different definitions of the word politician.
I was using it as a slur against a certain kind of statesmen (common in freemason and technocratic circles), not to describe policy makers in general.
My fault really.
What i am talking about are the officials elected (with any involvement of the general public) by the democratic republic system.
Â
frannkzappa
Even still, I stand by my previous statement in that the process would be highly political. Corporations, government bureaucracies, large organizations in general are prone to it - throw in full-scale governance, you've the same sh!t, but orders of the magnitude greater. Really, the only inherent change the influence of the public - which is simply replaced by an inevitably hierarchical beauracratic game.
This can all be solved if those in the government simply adhered to their own technocratic ideals as opposed to openly defying them like you suggest they would.
I actually mentioned earlier a number of ways that technocracy within given fields, even discounting quite serious conflicts within said fields, will invariably have conflicts of interests with other fields. That is before we throw real people in the mix. Moreover, there is a definite potential that the public in the loss of its power would ultimately suffer a la China.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]dude you're stupid.
worlock77
Lai is a lot of things, stupid is not one of them.
Â
He can articulate his arguments better then most on OT, certainly better than you.
He can articulate his arguments alright, but he seems completely incapable of thinking them through.
because other people make his positions for him
Even though parroting, Lai's English is fairly good. That said, there are probably better metrics for intelligence.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Well in the system i support the federal government while being several magnitudes larger and more powerful will lack a point of centralized power, thus removing most of the possibility of a tyrant (i do not advocate tyrants). legislative decisions will be made by small groups of trained professionals who only have power in their own field. this system would completely remove the idea of popular elections. For example only economists have any say in matters of the economy, only medical professionals will have any say on medical legislation and only experienced and proven military officials will be able to vote on military matters.
This system aims to remove both the common man and the politician (as well as politics) from government.coolbeans90
Cute proposal, but conflicting concerns/interests exist due to overlap (e.g., what might be good for economy might be bad for health, etc.). One might say that the whole thing sounds quite political taking that into consideration.
It's still far less political than our (the USA) current system.
Plus at least the "politics" wouldn't be done by politicians.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
Well in the system i support the federal government while being several magnitudes larger and more powerful will lack a point of centralized power, thus removing most of the possibility of a tyrant (i do not advocate tyrants). legislative decisions will be made by small groups of trained professionals who only have power in their own field. this system would completely remove the idea of popular elections. For example only economists have any say in matters of the economy, only medical professionals will have any say on medical legislation and only experienced and proven military officials will be able to vote on military matters.
This system aims to remove both the common man and the politician (as well as politics) from government.frannkzappa
Cute proposal, but conflicting concerns/interests exist due to overlap (e.g., what might be good for economy might be bad for health, etc.). One might say that the whole thing sounds quite political taking that into consideration.
It's still far less political than our (the USA) current system.
Plus at least the "politics" wouldn't be done by politicians.
It sounds potentially more political, in all honesty.
Even though parroting, Lai's English is fairly good. That said, there are probably better metrics for intelligence.
coolbeans90
Yes. He's well written enough, but there isn't much original idea in his posts. And zero critical thinking.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Cute proposal, but conflicting concerns/interests exist due to overlap (e.g., what might be good for economy might be bad for health, etc.). One might say that the whole thing sounds quite political taking that into consideration.
coolbeans90
It's still far less political than our (the USA) current system.
Plus at least the "politics" wouldn't be done by politicians.
It sounds potentially more political, in all honesty.
i'm going to have to disagree.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
It's still far less political than our (the USA) current system.
Plus at least the "politics" wouldn't be done by politicians.
frannkzappa
It sounds potentially more political, in all honesty.
i'm going to have to disagree.
I'm curious as to how you think a massive government (much larger than ever our current government, going by what you've said) ran by "experts" in their respective fields (btw: who selectes these experts) won't be political.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
This can all be solved if those in the government simply adhered to their own technocratic ideals as opposed to openly defying them like you suggest they would.
frannkzappa
I actually mentioned earlier a number of ways that technocracy within given fields, even discounting quite serious conflicts within said fields, will invariably have conflicts of interests with other fields. That is before we throw real people in the mix. Moreover, there is a definite potential that the public in the loss of its power would ultimately suffer a la China.
These contradictions already exist in the current system except they are handled by anything but experts and we have been dealing with their mediocre results since washington. I hardly see how my system can be any less efficient than the current one.
Experts' opinions are certainly taken into consideration on most things, even if they at times are taken lightly when conflicts of interest arise. What you suggest, however, would (likely) devolve into yet another plutocracy - not that the U.S. isn't close to being one already (but nowhere near what you describe) - which doesn't necessarily lend itself to meritocracy nearly so much as it acts upon the behalf of vested interests, and much more expediently so than the current system.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
It sounds potentially more political, in all honesty.
worlock77
i'm going to have to disagree.
I'm curious as to how you think a massive government (much larger than ever our current government, going by what you've said) ran by "experts" in their respective fields (btw: who selectes these experts) won't be political.
We do not live in an ideal world so i realise it is impossible to completely remove "politics" from government but we can remove politicians.
An uncorrupt meritocracy should sort out the selecting of officials.
but we can remove politicians.
frannkzappa
What you've described would really do nothing of the sort.
[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]
but we can remove politicians.
coolbeans90
What you've described would really do nothing of the sort.
I think we are using different definitions of the word politician.
I was using it as a slur against a certain kind of statesmen (common in freemason and technocratic circles), not to describe policy makers in general.
My fault really.
What i am talking about are the officials elected (with any involvement of the general public) by the democratic republic system.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]ran by "experts" in their respective fields MrPralineEU did this and we ended up with a bunch of Goldman Sachs cronies running the economy. I'll pass.Europe is a very different situation from the US.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment