What is the one thing that shapes your whole political philosophy?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

What if the medical peeps get into an argument with the econ peeps?

frannkzappa

at least the two parties would know what they are talking about.

i never said this system would remove conflict, just incompetence.

mmmmm

a bad weighting on the decision of one vs. the other could definitely be construed as incompetence.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Cool.

So, they are trained how to swim in bureaucratic oceans, and the system lacks external feedback mechanisms.

Tyranny in two decades.

coolbeans90

why would any external party be of any relevance?

Operating under the assumption that what is good for the external party is what we can both agree is desirable, there would be a bias for the system inherent to favor the external party should they have a weigh in the matters. Additionally, it can act as an external mechanism to prevent corruption, as preventing it internally is a pretty silly idea.

you underestimate social engineering. proper platocrats are possible and needed.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Actually, right-libertarianism is pretty much an extension of (her take on) the non-aggression principle. The fact that she tried to distance herself from libertarians was cute, but utterly inconsistent.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]Actually, right-libertarianism is pretty much an extension of (her take on) the non-aggression principle. The fact that she tried to distance herself from libertarians was cute, but utterly inconsistent.foxhound_fox

No, most libertarians in the U.S. are in favor of small government.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

What if the medical peeps get into an argument with the econ peeps?

coolbeans90

at least the two parties would know what they are talking about.

i never said this system would remove conflict, just incompetence.

mmmmm

a bad weighting on the decision of one vs. the other could definitely be construed as incompetence.

no proper technocrats would debate till the best ruling is at hand.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

why would any external party be of any relevance?

frannkzappa

Operating under the assumption that what is good for the external party is what we can both agree is desirable, there would be a bias for the system inherent to favor the external party should they have a weigh in the matters. Additionally, it can act as an external mechanism to prevent corruption, as preventing it internally is a pretty silly idea.

you underestimate social engineering. proper platocrats are possible and needed.

Internal degradation can really only grow in that system.

A pretty constant external social pressure seems quite difficult to replace in that regard.

can a man be the best at two things? that is a contradiction.frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Operating under the assumption that what is good for the external party is what we can both agree is desirable, there would be a bias for the system inherent to favor the external party should they have a weigh in the matters. Additionally, it can act as an external mechanism to prevent corruption, as preventing it internally is a pretty silly idea.

coolbeans90

you underestimate social engineering. proper platocrats are possible and needed.

Internal degradation can really only grow in that system.

A pretty constant external social pressure seems quite difficult to replace in that regard.

corruption requires incentive, their is no incentive for corruption in this system.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]can a man be the best at two things? that is a contradiction.foxhound_fox

a man will always be more useful when he devotes all his time on one thing, not many. it is a waste of energy and potential to waste time on your lesser traits.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

 

at least the two parties would know what they are talking about.

 

i never said this system would remove conflict, just incompetence.

frannkzappa

mmmmm

a bad weighting on the decision of one vs. the other could definitely be construed as incompetence.

no proper technocrats would debate till the best ruling is at hand.

the point being that what a technocrat in one field considers the best ruling differs from that of another field. basically, compartmentalization is limited, and there will be blood. factions will form. the bureacracy turns into a chess board. bad decisions will be made. people will grow powerful. every man who attempts to sit on the iron throne wins or dies.

Wouldn't that just be anarchists?chessmaster1989

No, most libertarians in the U.S. are in favor of small government.coolbeans90

Oh, American Libertarians. I thought we were talking about libertarian as a broad category.foxhound_fox

Eh, I see the confusion. Anyway, American libertarians p. much take Rand as an ideological prophet.

corruption requires incentive, their is no incentive for corruption in this system.frannkzappa

a man will always be more useful when he devotes all his time on one thing, not many. it is a waste of energy and potential to waste time on your lesser traits.frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

mmmmm

a bad weighting on the decision of one vs. the other could definitely be construed as incompetence.

coolbeans90

no proper technocrats would debate till the best ruling is at hand.

the point being that what a technocrat in one field considers the best ruling differs from that of another field. basically, compartmentalization is limited, and there will be blood. factions will form. the bureacracy turns into a chess board. bad decisions will be made. people will grow powerful. every man who attempts to sit on the iron throne wins or dies.

Eh, I see the confusion. Anyway, American libertarians p. much take Rand as an ideological prophet.coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

you underestimate social engineering. proper platocrats are possible and needed.

frannkzappa

Internal degradation can really only grow in that system.

A pretty constant external social pressure seems quite difficult to replace in that regard.

corruption requires incentive, their is no incentive for corruption in this system.

in a closed bureaucracy with virtually unlimited power, it is ripe by design

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]corruption requires incentive, their is no incentive for corruption in this system.foxhound_fox

a man will always be more useful when he devotes all his time on one thing, not many. it is a waste of energy and potential to waste time on your lesser traits.frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Internal degradation can really only grow in that system.

A pretty constant external social pressure seems quite difficult to replace in that regard.

coolbeans90

corruption requires incentive, their is no incentive for corruption in this system.

in a closed bureaucracy with virtually unlimited power, it is ripe by design

what would a technocrat gain in corruption other than the risk of getting caught?

even with that attitude it would only apply to the workplace, the citizen of a technate has numerous free and state sponsored entertainment opportunities.frannkzappa

what would a technocrat gain in corruption other than the risk of getting caught?frannkzappa

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

no proper technocrats would debate till the best ruling is at hand.

frannkzappa

the point being that what a technocrat in one field considers the best ruling differs from that of another field. basically, compartmentalization is limited, and there will be blood. factions will form. the bureacracy turns into a chess board. bad decisions will be made. people will grow powerful. every man who attempts to sit on the iron throne wins or dies.

By weighing the expected consequences of various mutually exclusive alternatives (with information provided by experts) and considering which would be more likely to satisfy their respective constituencies.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]what would a technocrat gain in corruption other than the risk of getting caught?foxhound_fox

technocracy is far too uncentralized for that.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]even with that attitude it would only apply to the workplace, the citizen of a technate has numerous free and state sponsored entertainment opportunities.foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

corruption requires incentive, their is no incentive for corruption in this system.

frannkzappa

in a closed bureaucracy with virtually unlimited power, it is ripe by design

what would a technocrat gain in corruption other than the risk of getting caught?

political favors (quid pro quos), power that comes from them, money, cars, b1tches, drugs, etc.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

the point being that what a technocrat in one field considers the best ruling differs from that of another field. basically, compartmentalization is limited, and there will be blood. factions will form. the bureacracy turns into a chess board. bad decisions will be made. people will grow powerful. every man who attempts to sit on the iron throne wins or dies.

coolbeans90

By weighing the expected consequences of various mutually exclusive alternatives (with information provided by experts) and considering which would be more likely to satisfy their respective constituencies.

no that leads to tyranny of the masses. people are tools, and tools should be kept happy and working.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

in a closed bureaucracy with virtually unlimited power, it is ripe by design

coolbeans90

what would a technocrat gain in corruption other than the risk of getting caught?

political favors (quid pro quos), power that comes from them, money, cars, b1tches, drugs, etc.

all that can be gained in technocracy with ridiculous ease if you do the bare minimum of your job.

many people do that no problem, i'm willing to sacrifice the happiness of a few for the whole of mankind.frannkzappa

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]what would a technocrat gain in corruption other than the risk of getting caught?frannkzappa

technocracy is far too uncentralized for that.

idk

there doesn't seem to be too many real "experts" (I'm not talking about your average joe with a B.S., but someone who regularly publishes) in most fields

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]many people do that no problem, i'm willing to sacrifice the happiness of a few for the whole of mankind.foxhound_fox

also not everyone follows your idea of happiness.

happiness of the general population is one of the major goals of technocracy.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"] and you suppose politicians alleviate this hypothetical problem?

frannkzappa

By weighing the expected consequences of various mutually exclusive alternatives (with information provided by experts) and considering which would be more likely to satisfy their respective constituencies.

no that leads to tyranny of the masses. people are tools, and tools should be kept happy and working.

the tools want to be kept happy and employed

which is in many respects there entire point

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Gaining control of the system a la any tyranny in the history of humanity?coolbeans90

technocracy is far too uncentralized for that.

idk

there doesn't seem to be too many real "experts" (I'm not talking about your average joe with a B.S., but someone who regularly publishes) in most fields

thus the educational system overhaul.

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]can a man be the best at two things? that is a contradiction.frannkzappa

a man will always be more useful when he devotes all his time on one thing, not many. it is a waste of energy and potential to waste time on your lesser traits.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

what would a technocrat gain in corruption other than the risk of getting caught?

frannkzappa

political favors (quid pro quos), power that comes from them, money, cars, b1tches, drugs, etc.

all that can be gained in technocracy with ridiculous ease if you do the bare minimum of your job.

because resources are most certainly quite scarce, they could always get more

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

By weighing the expected consequences of various mutually exclusive alternatives (with information provided by experts) and considering which would be more likely to satisfy their respective constituencies.

coolbeans90

no that leads to tyranny of the masses. people are tools, and tools should be kept happy and working.

the tools want to be kept happy and employed

which is in many respects there entire point

yes but employed for the sake of a higher goal, a goal derived from the technocrats.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] Semantics. There are people who are experts in many fields, and use their knowledge in conjunction with all their experience to create fascinating new methods of thought. And there are people who are not an expert in any field, but extremely intelligent nonetheless. It's a generalization to think an "elite" person is an expert in only one, single field. And astronomer is a physicist, a chemist and a biologist all rolled into one.BranKetra

a man will always be more useful when he devotes all his time on one thing, not many. it is a waste of energy and potential to waste time on your lesser traits.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

technocracy is far too uncentralized for that.

frannkzappa

idk

there doesn't seem to be too many real "experts" (I'm not talking about your average joe with a B.S., but someone who regularly publishes) in most fields

thus the educational system overhaul.

there are really not many people who can become an (actual) expert in any field let alone a theoretical physicist or mathematician

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

political favors (quid pro quos), power that comes from them, money, cars, b1tches, drugs, etc.

coolbeans90

all that can be gained in technocracy with ridiculous ease if you do the bare minimum of your job.

because resources are most certainly quite scarce, they could always get more

abundant resources is theoretically quite achievable, technocracy can wait till technology catches up.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

no that leads to tyranny of the masses. people are tools, and tools should be kept happy and working.

frannkzappa

the tools want to be kept happy and employed

which is in many respects there entire point

yes but employed for the sake of a higher goal, a goal derived from the technocrats.

working is a means to an end wrt happiness

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

idk

there doesn't seem to be too many real "experts" (I'm not talking about your average joe with a B.S., but someone who regularly publishes) in most fields

coolbeans90

thus the educational system overhaul.

there are really not many people who can become an (actual) expert in any field let alone a theoretical physicist or mathematician

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

the tools want to be kept happy and employed

which is in many respects there entire point

coolbeans90

yes but employed for the sake of a higher goal, a goal derived from the technocrats.

working is a means to an end wrt happiness

i don't know what you are saying.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

a man will always be more useful when he devotes all his time on one thing, not many. it is a waste of energy and potential to waste time on your lesser traits.

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

all that can be gained in technocracy with ridiculous ease if you do the bare minimum of your job.

frannkzappa

because resources are most certainly quite scarce, they could always get more

abundant resources is theoretically quite achievable, technocracy can wait till technology catches up.

at the current growth rate of ~ 2-3% GDP per year for the distant future . . . yeah, it'll be a good, long while.

meanwhile, we can just let congress continue to delegate to the experts increasingly, as the trend has been, until transitioning to 'technocracy' is an exercise in futility well before getting everything everyone wants is an issue

'cos that's how it'll go down

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

thus the educational system overhaul.

frannkzappa

there are really not many people who can become an (actual) expert in any field let alone a theoretical physicist or mathematician

my point with the 'not many experts' deal is that there would be few people with power

very few people with power in their respective fields

making decentralization inherently problematic

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] A balanced skillset is important to know because it is how one thinks and not what which seperates the successful from the unsuccessful. Modern culture requires individuals to be capable of numerous practices in order to maintain a stable lifestyle like for example you need financial wisdom to balance a budget, social skills for a personal network, and job skills for a profession. Those are only a few of the needed skills most most individuals need and could not survive without. What I am mention does not even address the advanced schools of thought and the professions they can make individuals qualified for.BranKetra

because one would be either a better mathematician or a better pilot,

which is why the technocrats will be in charge.

also not everyone follows your idea of happiness.

happiness of the general population is one of the major goals of technocracy.

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

there are really not many people who can become an (actual) expert in any field let alone a theoretical physicist or mathematician

coolbeans90

my point with the 'not many experts' deal is that there would be few people with power

very few people with power in their respective fields

making decentralization inherently problematic

sounds like a poor man's division of labor

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

because resources are most certainly quite scarce, they could always get more

coolbeans90

abundant resources is theoretically quite achievable, technocracy can wait till technology catches up.

at the current growth rate of ~ 2-3% GDP per year for the distant future . . . yeah, it'll be a good, long while.

meanwhile, we can just let congress continue to delegate to the experts increasingly, as the trend has been, until transitioning to 'technocracy' is an exercise in futility well before getting everything everyone wants is an issue

'cos that's how it'll go down

you do realize this is how technocracy starts, right? it depends on how much and how soon they relinquish their power.

Democracy either descends into tyranny or elevates to technocracy.

America is in a pretty good position at this point in time.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]those people don't need to be in government then...somebody has to be a citizen.

frannkzappa

my point with the 'not many experts' deal is that there would be few people with power

very few people with power in their respective fields

making decentralization inherently problematic

yes, but when holding a large amount of sway over a field, you then have a high chance of corruption within any single field

which means you have tons of corrupt fields that will either ally, oppose, or manipulate each other for gain and these will conglomerate into factions that invariably result in the centralization of power which lends itself handily to what we refer to in the common man's tongue as tyranny

GG technocracy

you failed at even being technocratic

anyway, i am done for now

my face is now a pillow

Democracy either descends into tyranny or elevates to technocracy.frannkzappa