[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="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="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.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

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

RushKing

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.

That video doesn't actually apply... i am not advocating a blind carrot on a stick policy. It is up to the individual to pick their rewards and workload (to a certain extent...they can't just do nothing).

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

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

worlock77

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.

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.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Realist son. I'm a realist. I don't waste my energy dwelling on pipe dreams.

worlock77

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.

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.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Which is, face it, an impossibility.

worlock77

defeatist.

Realist son. I'm a realist. I don't waste my energy dwelling on pipe dreams.

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.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="wellbigd"] almost exactly what I would have said Unions are not a function of the true free market. Plus why on earth would you want government production of goods an services, I believe that has been tried before.worlock77

Not services, just goods.

And while it has been tried before (and failed) it has not been tried by a competent technocratic government, which is a different matter entirely.

Which is, face it, an impossibility.

defeatist.

almost exactly what I would have said Unions are not a function of the true free market. Plus why on earth would you want government production of goods an services, I believe that has been tried before.wellbigd

Not services, just goods.

And while it has been tried before (and failed) it has not been tried by a competent technocratic government, which is a different matter entirely.

Only through dedication and adherence to platonic ideals can the people who would populate a technocratic government be made.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

I think unions are the result of policy implimented by the government that may or may not include professions and services wholly or partially endorsed, as well as or excluding a service provided by one or more governing bodies within the local, state, and/or federal level(s), thus making them a conclusion of a government function as well as a possible function of a government due to regulatory policies that regularly define as well as oversee and/or take punitive action against violation(s) of established law.

THE_DRUGGIE

yes. unions as originally conceived were fine...However in practice they have strayed far from their origins.

Either way this is not the same as direct government control of production.

You can expand upon the functions of government and define control in many, many ways. I think control, in governing terms, has the minimum requirement of passive regulation, explicit or implied, to change the definitions and terms of what a body can or cannot do, not necessarily directly control every aspect of the profession itself, regardless of status of being outside of the public service sphere.

Direct government control of production is a more literal take on control that has a much more narrow definition due to the rejection of passive regulation in favor of complete dominance. Personally, I see direct government control as a negative since it would lack the tailored element that unions provide; that is, unions being made of people who know the profession inside and out, able to clearly and thoroughly define how their profession impacts the specific sphere, both geographical and social, in which they live. Taking out this personalization does a disservice to people within the same profession who deal with incredibly different situations because of their location.

In short, letting unions oversee local production and conditions puts less pressure on the federal government and lets consideration for specific situations flourish. The most notable downside is the possibility of people like in the OP. However, there are the exact opposite kind of people heading local unions. After all, a union is only as good as the people running it...kind of like our government as a whole, when you think about it.

You are by far the best poster on OT.

either way... i argue that in a technocratic government the need for Manuel labour in production will be near zero, with automation picking up the slack.

In this way a quasi socialist system can be put in place where each individual is given a set "package" ( food, water, middle class level housing, health care).

however unlike pure socialism this system encourages productivity by allowing the citizen to gain "more" by making what they want known and then working for it. In this system factory workers are replaced by workers and repairmen and money is replaced with consumer goods and services.