[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

What you've described would really do nothing of the sort.

coolbeans90

I think we are using different definitions of the word politician.

I was using it as a slur against a certain kind of statesmen (common in freemason and technocratic circles), not to describe policy makers in general.

My fault really.

What i am talking about are the officials elected (with any involvement of the general public) by the democratic republic system.

Even still, I stand by my previous statement in that the process would be highly political. Corporations, government bureaucracies, large organizations in general are prone to it - throw in full-scale governance, you've the same sh!t, but orders of the magnitude greater. Really, the only inherent change the influence of the public - which is simply replaced by an inevitably hierarchical beauracratic game.

This can all be solved if those in the government simply adhered to their own technocratic ideals as opposed to openly defying them like you suggest they would.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]ran by "experts" in their respective fields MrPraline

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

but we can remove politicians.

coolbeans90

What you've described would really do nothing of the sort.

I think we are using different definitions of the word politician.

I was using it as a slur against a certain kind of statesmen (common in freemason and technocratic circles), not to describe policy makers in general.

My fault really.

What i am talking about are the officials elected (with any involvement of the general public) by the democratic republic system.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It sounds potentially more political, in all honesty.

worlock77

i'm going to have to disagree.

I'm curious as to how you think a massive government (much larger than ever our current government, going by what you've said) ran by "experts" in their respective fields (btw: who selectes these experts) won't be political.

We do not live in an ideal world so i realise it is impossible to completely remove "politics" from government but we can remove politicians.

An uncorrupt meritocracy should sort out the selecting of officials.

Why do people complain about military spending again?

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Cute proposal, but conflicting concerns/interests exist due to overlap (e.g., what might be good for economy might be bad for health, etc.). One might say that the whole thing sounds quite political taking that into consideration.

coolbeans90

It's still far less political than our (the USA) current system.

Plus at least the "politics" wouldn't be done by politicians.

It sounds potentially more political, in all honesty.

i'm going to have to disagree.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Well in the system i support the federal government while being several magnitudes larger and more powerful will lack a point of centralized power, thus removing most of the possibility of a tyrant (i do not advocate tyrants). legislative decisions will be made by small groups of trained professionals who only have power in their own field. this system would completely remove the idea of popular elections. For example only economists have any say in matters of the economy, only medical professionals will have any say on medical legislation and only experienced and proven military officials will be able to vote on military matters.

This system aims to remove both the common man and the politician (as well as politics) from government.coolbeans90

Cute proposal, but conflicting concerns/interests exist due to overlap (e.g., what might be good for economy might be bad for health, etc.). One might say that the whole thing sounds quite political taking that into consideration.

It's still far less political than our (the USA) current system.

Plus at least the "politics" wouldn't be done by politicians.

This is what happens when you allow public officials to smother the bureaucracy.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] There are numerous economic schools with mutually exclusive methodologies and prescriptions. For example, Keynesian will never agree with an Austrian prescription for a recession, regardless of how much debate happens. If they compromise, any solution is doomed to fail because economic solutions have to be applied purely to see if they actually work. Giving complete control one school control over economic policy, then another if the results aren't satisfactory would have catastrophic effects on investment. Any thoroughly technocratic economy seems like it would be in shambles, and that's not some small problem.Rhazakna

I fail to see how it will be any worse then the current system. these mutually exclusive methodolgies are already banging heads with each other except they do it with politicians instead of basing it off prior success (keep in mind this is also a meritocracy so the economists with the most history of success will also have the most pull) .

I'm very open to economic ideals/theories/aproaches, what, if i may as is your economc system of preference?

i've seen worse.