[QUOTE="IdioticIcarus"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Sure , but it's kinda hard to claim NO ONE has ever chosen to be gay.

Even if it is a choice how does that make homosexuality any less legitimate?

whipassmt

Why force? It could just be an objective decision.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Mostly implications about the person making the claim. It always seemed apparent to myself that I was straight. I never sat down and said "Do I want to **** men or girls?". The idea that it is a choice for a person to be sexual in one way and not the other could well mean that the person making the statement is bi or gay them self. Obviously nothing wrong with either but I think the number of people who support gay rights who believe it is a choice are...minimal at best and there's nothing healthy about lying to yourself. A lot of the people making the claim will also say that gays are just acting gay for attention which is a pretty shitty thing to say.Ace6301

It's all a matter of situation. For all you know you just haven't met a man you are attracted to yet.

so physical looks are all that comes into play?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

What's wrong with homosexuality being a choice?

Ace6301

It's all a matter of situation. For all you know you just haven't met a man you are attracted to yet.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

What's wrong with homosexuality being a choice?

konvikt_17

can you go gay, right now. just on a whim?

can you just choose to be attracted to the same sex? choose what gives you a boner?

sure, why not? if i felt it would benefit me, or if i met a man i feel strongly about and was attracted to, sure.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

What's wrong with homosexuality being a choice?

IdioticIcarus

Sure , but it's kinda hard to claim NO ONE has ever chosen to be gay.

Even if it is a choice how does that make homosexuality any less legitimate?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The entire problem with your proposal is that it is fundamentally not dissimilar to power structures that enable oligarchies. The fact of the matter is that, in practice, liberal democracies are considerably more technocratic than what would become of your little dream kingdom.

coolbeans90

Structurally they are similar, however instead of the incompatents, the old money, the "self interested" and the tyrants associated with modern oligarchs, technocracy would replace those people competent and qualified professionals as relates to a particular field of government.

If you needed brain surgery would you want to be operated on by a lawyer or a surgeon?

Do you want a football player to be responsible for food production or a farmer?

Would you want to be on a ship captained by a sailor or a etymologist.

Would you want to be governed by a politician or by someone who trained specifically in government?

Politicians have a tendency to have backgrounds in law and political science - not to mention a fair bit of experience actually acting in government as a profession, and furthermore, they will rely on experts. That said, with what you've proposed, nothing changes WRT preventing establishments of interests. I hope you understand why it is very difficult to take what you are saying very seriously.

establishment of interest is dealt with by money-less nature of the system. work and services are "paid" for directly with goods and services. Goods and services are MUCH harder to convert to power without a unit of exchange.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Governments have done a pretty bad job at allocating resources in entire economies efficiently, even when delegated to experts. Are you familiar at all with how price systems work, or am I going to have to disregard your entire theory as just another dream with no concrete basis in reality? I've argued with enough Lai's to not care to waste my time on 'em.

coolbeans90

Governments up to this point have been run by tyrants, oligarchs and incompetents, not technocracies (i mean the literal definition, hit up wikipedia if you don't know what that is)

There have been numerous attempts to manage resources, and that has typically fallen to experts (technocrats). Due to the lack of feedback mechanisms like the price system, shortages and surpluses occur. While inequities occur under market systems, governments can deal with that. Now, because unrestrained centralized power holders don't have inherent incentives to not fvck sh!t up, the path to oligarchy is pretty straightforward. This is all pretty simple.

That is an assumption, non price based economics (outside of communism) has not been attempted.

Competence is rewarded in this system, not fVking things up is the fastest and easiest way to get what you want. I suggest you read Platos "The Republic" if you want to know what kind of man is the ideal for government.

What's wrong with homosexuality being a choice?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It hinges on the term I was looking for. Corrupt oligarchism, the usual path of highly centralized power structures in this case would have sufficed.

coolbeans90

The entire point of technocracy is to get rid of oligarchies and replace them with competent professionals. I fail to see how they could even come about in the system i've talked about. The only way to be rich and powerful in that system is to be competent, contributing and hard working, and if you are those three things then you are hardly an oligarch.

The entire problem with your proposal is that it is fundamentally not dissimilar to power structures that enable oligarchies. The fact of the matter is that, in practice, liberal democracies are considerably more technocratic than what would become of your little dream kingdom.

Structurally they are similar, however instead of the incompatents, the old money, the "self interested" and the tyrants associated with modern oligarchs, technocracy would replace those people competent and qualified professionals as relates to a particular field of government.

If you needed brain surgery would you want to be operated on by a lawyer or a surgeon?

Do you want a football player to be responsible for food production or a farmer?

Would you want to be on a ship captained by a sailor or a etymologist.

Would you want to be governed by a politician or by someone who trained specifically in government?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

The elimination of scarcity requires a hell of a lot more than automation, as automated processes still have bottlenecks, so this is all rather lulzy.

coolbeans90

automation is not the be all end all. it also comes down efficient management and allocation of resources (which are more than abundant enough for a population of 300 million) which can only be done by a technocratic government.

Governments have done a pretty bad job at allocating resources in entire economies efficiently, even when delegated to experts. Are you familiar at all with how price systems work, or am I going to have to disregard your entire theory as just another dream with no concrete basis in reality? I've argued with enough Lai's to not care to waste my time on 'em.

Governments up to this point have been run by tyrants, oligarchs and incompetents, not technocracies (i mean the literal definition, hit up wikipedia if you don't know what that is)