[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

Votes, voters not liking corruption, and its various implications for politicians publicly exposed for corruption in addition to measures to fight it b/c that's what the public likes.

Because a relatively small number of people can make things happen pretty quickly.

Because it can result in being further away from it.

dude_brahmski

This assumes that voters can notice corruption where it counts, not be corrupted themselves and care enough to vote against it. Rome, Athens, Mesoptamia, India, Sparta, as well as most of modern middle east, Africa and South America all show that the voters are not enough to stop corruption or tyranny.Instead they are inevitably manipulated into bringing it upon themselves.

This is not true,technocracy sports a MASSIVE bureaucracy, where each individual portion has very little power. The major change is that these bureaucrats are experts and not constrained by democratically elected officials or tyrants.

That's not a very convincing argument.

Information is harder to manipulate than it once was, and not all of your examples demonstrate your point, as I'm sure you are already aware (war and typhoid in Athens, military takeover in Rome). Additionally, democracies in their infancy have issues, as demonstrated by others (and even the U.S. initially). North America and Europe are examples of modern, mature democracies that have improved over the course of time. And, it is pretty apparent that educated voters care a bit, given the condition of modern western civilization.

One word: Collusion.

A futile attempt to achieve something without giving due regard to constraints will invariably result in falling short of maximizing within the context of constraints.

There's a serious problem when a hypothetical government is worse than one that has had all of its faults played out in reality. Perhaps you should reconsider your stance.

Most failed democracies seemed healthy at one point. There are far far more examples of failed democracies then successful ones. Even the successful ones have only been around for 100 years (excluding usa) they have plenty of time to fail. And the democracies of Europe are hardly as sturdy as you may think, just look at how they are handling themselves.

that doesn't apply to technocracy any more than democracy, in fact probably less so. You have yet to name a problem that isn't already happening in democracy. you also assume that a technocracy will do nothing to stop corruption.

iIsee, so you are a defeatist. thankfully your attitude was not shared by the innovators of history.

I don't see how you could possibly say that given your attempt at argument. The best you have done so far is to attempt to project democracies problems onto technocracy assuming that a technocratic government would be unaware of and unable to deal with those problems, which is ludicrous.

I feel more confident in technocracy then ever, as you like everyone else has failed to argue against it.

[QUOTE="Blue-Sky"]

[QUOTE="Gaming-Planet"]

Once you go bad you never go back to being good.

gamerguru100

Are they bad though?

particularly when majority of convicts are so because they smoked a harmless plant in the privacy of their home.

This amendment only applies to violent and sexual offenders.

The only way China will surpass the US is if it continues to operate technocratic and quasi-technocratic principles.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

Historically, they've proven to be comparably, by far, the system of governance most averse to degrading into tyrannies. Corruption has, if anything, become harder to accomplish, but that has more to do with how readily available information is than anything else. Nonetheless, democracy has inherent incentives to fight corruption.Technocracy could pretty easily change overnight.

If, by "a true technocracy" you mean "God," sure. The best is the enemy of the good. Reality has constraints, and ignoring such is fatal.

dude_brahmski

why is that?

In a purely philosophical context why is it wrong to try and achieve "god"?

Votes, voters not liking corruption, and its various implications for politicians publicly exposed for corruption in addition to measures to fight it b/c that's what the public likes.

Because a relatively small number of people can make things happen pretty quickly.

Because it can result in being further away from it.

This assumes that voters can notice corruption where it counts, not be corrupted themselves and care enough to vote against it. Rome, Athens, Mesoptamia, India, Sparta, as well as most of modern middle east, Africa and South America all show that the voters are not enough to stop corruption or tyranny.Instead they are inevitably manipulated into bringing it upon themselves.

This is not true,technocracy sports a MASSIVE bureaucracy, where each individual portion has very little power. The major change is that these bureaucrats are experts and not constrained by democratically elected officials or tyrants.

That's not a very convincing argument.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

The idea has its pros and cons, but ultimately is simply an idea. Democracy as is tends to delegate to experts, though, and tends to ensure (to an imperfect extent) the gov't doesn't fvck the people over too much and is a tried-and-true method for progress.

edit: a moneyless system, however, is pretty laughable

dude_brahmski

You don't seem to understand i find democracy quite livable, as did plato. The problem is that they are prone to corruption and degrading into tyranies (as they have many times before).

And yes a moneyless system is laughable. It is only possible if a true technocracy filled with practitioners of the platonic ideal is acheived.

Historically, they've proven to be comparably, by far, the system of governance most averse to degrading into tyrannies. Corruption has, if anything, become harder to accomplish, but that has more to do with how readily available information is than anything else. Nonetheless, democracy has inherent incentives to fight corruption.Technocracy could pretty easily change overnight.

If, by "a true technocracy" you mean "God," sure. The best is the enemy of the good. Reality has constraints, and ignoring such is fatal.

why is that?

In a purely philosophical context why is it wrong to try and achieve "god"?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

We could, hypothetically, afford to keep tens of millions of people in prison, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Right, you would choose the worst option right of the bat WRT econ, too. I suppose that you've decided to roll with "technocracy" for the sake of irony: a complete failure of a state run by experts. I like it.

dude_brahmski

The idea has its pros and cons, but ultimately is simply an idea. Democracy as is tends to delegate to experts, though, and tends to ensure (to an imperfect extent) the gov't doesn't fvck the people over too much and is a tried-and-true method for progress.

edit: a moneyless system, however, is pretty laughable

You don't seem to understand i find democracy quite livable, as did plato. The problem is that they are prone to corruption and degrading into tyranies (as they have many times before).

And yes a moneyless system is laughable. It is only possible if a true technocracy filled with practitioners of the platonic ideal is acheived.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"]

That still wouldn't be cheaper than having some of the released felons (not all of whom are violent, mind you) on food stamps, so no.

Please, insert coin(s) to continue.

Protip: If you're shooting for the ideal, pie in the sky society, don't pick the worst option.

dude_brahmski

Yes, but this amendment pertains to violent felons and sexual offenders. These two groups are in the minority(when it comes to felons), i imagine we can afford to keep them in prison.

Technocracy has nothing to do with this, as it wouldn't even operate on a monetary system.

We could, hypothetically, afford to keep tens of millions of people in prison, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

Right, you would choose the worst option right of the bat WRT econ, too. I suppose that you've decided to roll with "technocracy" for the sake of irony: a complete failure of a state run by experts. I like it.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lamprey263"] the average cost per year per inmate costs states like $20K+, whereas an individual might get $2K most in a year in food stamp benefits, from a financial standpoint this is money well invested to protect the taxpayer who might otherwise be a victim when the ex-felon goes back to a life of crime to feed themselvesdude_brahmski

That still wouldn't be cheaper than having some of the released felons (not all of whom are violent, mind you) on food stamps, so no.

Please, insert coin(s) to continue.

Protip: If you're shooting for the ideal, pie in the sky society, don't pick the worst option.

Yes, but this amendment pertains to violent felons and sexual offenders. These two groups are in the minority(when it comes to felons), i imagine we can afford to keep them in prison.

Technocracy has nothing to do with this, as it wouldn't even operate on a monetary system.

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I am assuming that violent criminals are being cut off from receiving food stamps because they are (rightfully) seen as not being worth the cost of feeding.lamprey263

Again, if that's the case, then they are just not thinking this through. If an individual who is convicted of a violent felonious crime is deemed ready to come back into society, either by completing his sentence or parole or some other means, then there has to be some understanding and desire that he is able to exit a life of crime and move into respectable and responsible living. The value here then is in the prevention of dropping him smack-dab into a poverty level that will only act as a motivation to return to criminal ways for mere survival.

Even someone who disagrees with the food stamp program or welfare in general has to see why this is a very stupid move that can't help the situation. It can only make the entire situation much much worse.