[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

coolbeans90

If you want specifics i need specific questions. I can explain the system much better when given specific situations.

You have used the term yourself, dude. Moreover, highly concentrated power and the outright elimination of democracy is rather specific. I don't understand why you are at all surprised by the use of the term.

Well, where do you suppose we take the conversation then?

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]That is absurd. The US constitution is one of the greatest political triumphs in human history. It was, up to that point, the most successful attempt at freeing man from violent oppression by recognizing his fundamental right to his life and establishing legal rights necessary to preserve that fundamental right to life. How can you have protection against government corruption without a constitution?Laihendi

1. It is an ad hominem attack and in no way discredits the principle of individual freedom that serves as the foundation and motive of the constitution. It in no way discredits the constitution itself.

2. America was not a business, and such a claim is absurd. It is true that many government officials are corrupt and work to make money, but they do not work to produce and trade wealth - they work to loot it from those who make it. His quote implies that he is a sympathizer of socialism, and yet he condemns America for its socialist actions while mistakenly identifying it as a business. Brad Pitt is a fool.

@ Frank Zappa - The constitution contains many checks against democratic authoritarianism. If elected officials did not hold so much power today then the stupidity of the masses electing them would not be so dangerous. Also, a political system is not in the best interest of those who must be forced at gunpoint to obey it. I agree that the masses are scum and that they are destroying life for great individuals, but there is no reason to use violence against them. All we need to is end the application of force against productive individuals for the purpose of preserving the lives of the anti-productive masses.

which is why i support placating the masses with free consumer goods and services (you can recall my citizenship package, correct?) and the opportunity to get more through work and contribution.

Doing anything at gunpoint( on your own citizens at least) is not an option in a technocracy.

lol

what a great thread.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Good to hear.

The fact that we live in a world where authoritarian governments are, essentially by design, imperfect, your specific implementation of technocracy is by extension also imperfect and several rungs below the staus quo, for that matter.

coolbeans90

Authoritarian=/= Technocracy

you seem to attach a whole lot of connotations to that word.

If you want specifics i need specific questions. I can explain the system much better when given specific situations.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Just a question, zappa, one that I ask myself every now and again: Have you ever pondered on whether or not your entire worldview, or simply the entirety of your political views for that matter, are wrong?

coolbeans90

yes, i have.

i arrived at technocracy only after years of thinking and study.

I admit that technocracy is a long way off. I admit that democracy (while it lasts) is favorable to outright tyranny. I admit that other other forms of government are valid, just not ideal.

If you you do not work for perfection (technocracy) you are a defeatist.

in the meantime i am a social leftist and economic moderate (when it comes to voting at least).

Good to hear.

The fact that we live in a world where authoritarian governments are, essentially by design, imperfect, your specific implementation of technocracy is by extension also imperfect and several rungs below the staus quo, for that matter.

Authoritarian=/= Technocracy

you seem to attach a whole lot of connotations to that word.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Was referring to hierarchical, authoritarian governments. There were a lot of those. Of those, none technocracies, however. Plenty of them became more corrupt, of course, considering the nature of the structure.

coolbeans90

how can a government not be hierarchical in some way?

Either way what sets technocracy apart is a strong educational system and trained and qualified officials.

China isn't closer to ideal than the U.S., however.

they have an even larger and more powerful oligarchy then the US and they seem to openly admit it. However in my opinion they are closer to technocracy then the US.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="ThisIsTwoFace"]

You have no choice though. You can't go abroad so whatever you say is invalid.

Funny, the country where most people haven't been abroad is the same country where people judge OTHER countries the most. Hmm

airshocker

Yeah, I'm not sure what he meant by this. I can travel abroad, since I do indeed have a passport.

I'm pretty sure he's just dumb.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] FDR acted beyond his legal authority, as many new deal programs were unconstitutional. For example the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act were both ruled unconstitutional. He responded to this by attempting to pack the supreme court with his own goons. That is not the best democracy can hope for, but is instead an example of how dangerous democracy is and how important constitutional restraints are.Laihendi

the US constitution was a joke, written by idiots,oligarchs and agrarians.

A constitution would only serve to hinder a technocratic government.

It is a terrible document because it doomed us to a tyranny of the masses in which we are enslaved by our own stupidity and sensationalism.

Technocracy is in the best interest of the people, they don't need protection from it.

Just a question, zappa, one that I ask myself every now and again: Have you ever pondered on whether or not your entire worldview, or simply the entirety of your political views for that matter, are wrong?

coolbeans90

yes, i have.

i arrived at technocracy only after years of thinking and study.

I admit that technocracy is a long way off. I admit that democracy (while it lasts) is favorable to outright tyranny. I admit that other other forms of government are valid, just not ideal.

If you you do not work for perfection (technocracy) you are a defeatist.

in the meantime i am a social leftist and economic moderate (when it comes to voting at least).

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Resources are more limited. Consequently, scarcity is a thing. Resources are not merely the materials under your feet, but the ability to harness them within a given amount of time. That is quite limited, and types of governments that you have a fetish for do not at all lend themselves well for efficient and fair distributions of said resources. In fact, they, historically, have done far worse WRT human and scientific advancement, and I really don't see any semblance of a valid argument that resolves the problems that have existed with those sorts of power structures. The technate would rapidly descend into the continuation of past trends. Of course, the change isn't going to happen in the first place, fortunately.

coolbeans90

Give me one historical example of technocracy.

Was referring to hierarchical, authoritarian governments. There were a lot of those. Of those, none technocracies, however. Plenty of them became more corrupt, of course, considering the nature of the structure.

how can a government not be hierarchical in some way?

Either way what sets technocracy apart is a strong educational system and trained and qualified officials.