[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.

[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="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="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="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="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.

[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="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="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"]

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.