What are your thoughts on technocracy? Is this a good system

Yes

>inb4 luddites

>>1707095
Most political issues are ethical questions, not technical ones, so no.

>>1707095
Yes.
Why not?

>>1707095
the most autistic government form I've ever heard of

File: technocracy.png (39KB, 882x702px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 882x702px

>Let me tell you about The Technocracy

>>1707095
Wasn't the Confucian imperial Chinese system kind of technocratic? Although there wan an imperial family and nobles, most of the power was in the hand of the bureaucratic class, and you had to complete a series of exams to become part of it. Anyways, this system was proven to be stable for a while.

>>1707095
>I have an idea, let's invite our best scientists, engineers, and scientists to stop they're doing and make them manage a bureaucracy full-time instead

File: 616.jpg (240KB, 1276x820px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1276x820px

>>1707115
>implying autists aren't the most fit to rule

Filthy neurotypical scum

>>1707095

normie tier:
democracy/republic
monarchy


edgy teen tier:
facism
libertarianism
socialism

fedora tier:
anarchism
communism
/pol/ style facism
maximum sperglord tier:
theocracy
technocracy
monarchy in the 21st century

>Technocracy is an organizational structure or system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge.
Who gets to pick them?

chech mate

>>1707136
More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination

it would quickly beecome incredibly corrupt and wouldn't resemble what you had imagined

The end result of technocracy is a bunch of psychologists and economists attempting to centrally plan and social engineer everything but end up fucking everything up

Politics and governance are not scientific questions. Sometimes the wrong decision has more evidence in its favor. It would be a shitty form of government that would just devolve into dictatorship

>>1707103

Ethics are a spook anyways

>Soviet leaders like Leonid Brezhnev often had a technical background in education; in 1986, 89% of Politburo members were engineers

Communism? More like Autism lmao

Generally speaking yes.

The problem with technocracy, i.e. governing positions filled with people competent in their fields, is that they won't necessarily coordinate with one another. A person super competent in managing hospitals, with an understanding of what it's like as a doctor, recognizing trends in medicine and all that might make a great minister of health in theory, but he'd have to stick to his budget, follow government policy, etc. - and most importantly, someone who's from the field might be biased. Like a former general or admiral might be a good minister of defense in theory, but put the well-being of the military over the well-being of the rest of the state.

However, I think that such positions need to be filled from somebody with some experience in the field. If you're the health minister, you need to have an understanding of medicine and how hospitals operate. The defense minister needs to have served in the army, etc.

>>1707161

>The end result of [_______] is a bunch of [_____] and [______] attempting to centrally plan and social engineer everything but end up fucking everything up

human history in a nutshell

File: Tyson.gif (289KB, 576x2992px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 576x2992px

>>1707095
>is this a good system of government?
no.

Knowing a lot about physics or engineering or what have you has fairly little use in ruling or administering a nation. That requires interpersonal skills, an understanding of geopolitics and bureaucracy, and how to juggle competing interests in that sweet spot of unsatisfying but acceptable compromises.

Scientists and the like best serve as advisers, providing accurate data and tools to be chosen from. Putting them in charge is a straight shot to ineffective leadership.

Turns out making a better car or discovering a particle requires a different skillset than being a leader of men.

>>1707237
But what if sometime in the future the rise of hyper-efficient computers which can calculate massive numbers of variables turn economics into a true science, and society becomes governed by an economic algorithm maintained by economic engineers and software engineers?

>>1707137
This is a shitpost

>>1707147
>fedora tier
>theocracy

*stimulates cognition*

>>1707166
>devolve
>into dictatorship

>>1707166
>Sometimes the wrong decision has more evidence in its favor.

How is is this any different from the way our current democracy functions - what looks best/most practical in consultation with experts? At least it's better than gut instinct or industry lobbying.

>>1707261
that sounds like an extreme hypothetical behind which all our ideas about society and government become meaningless.

>>1707166
>Sometimes the wrong decision has more evidence in its favor.

How would democracy fix that?

>>1707237
idiot

technocracy is a least bad possible form of government

physics and engineers provide something called "proof of work" which in a complex system is used to prevent predation and rent seeking. for the same reason you have to pay to use a public facility to prevent tragedy of the commons, there needs to be an extremely high cost for entering into politics. note, it needs to be a high NON MONETARY cost, because political involvement reaps high returns. the cost must be in terms of IQ, WASTED TIME, and service. expected returns can be high still, but someone who just wants to leech or make money can find better ways of doing so.

THAT is the purpose of requiring stem people in government.

further, it's GOOD that they don't have experience administering. it means they have less ability to be corrupt and warp the rules.

people like you are idiots. lawyers are fucking evil and we should not let them run the country. kill yourself.

>>1707237
The only place you'd need scientists in a modern technocracy is at the head of the ministry of science.

Today a technocracy would refer to a system where experts in x or y field are put in charge of organizing and administrating their field. For example, a law expert would be justice minister, an economist would be economy minister etc, all of which is not taken for granted any longer. The French were outraged when their last appointed finance minister was an ex banker rather than an elected politician.

In Saint Simonisme though, there would be an academy of scientists ruling the country, alongside an academy of industrials and an academy of the fine arts, which is closer to what you describe, and would be a fine waste of brain power. One could argue that with modern communication systems saint simonisme is more possible now than it was in the XIXth century, if one considers the academics would be able to maintain both their political and technical activites.

>>1707237
that comic is funny and true to some extent, but physicists are better than other experts at their own fields. the problem seems to mostly come down to an iq shortage. the smartest people almost always go into physics.

one of the absurdities of the comic the first language bit. physicists and genomicists are literally reconstruting the first languages as we speak.

>>1707095
It devolves to credentialism and testism. It's as easily corruptable as anything else except it's orders of magnitude harder to get off the ground.

File: 11193407_819897144754820_7921317493861639855_n.jpg (29KB, 574x377px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 574x377px

>>1707095

I think governments should have technocratic participation in the form of ministries lead by people competent in the ministry's department.
However I fucking hate how fags from places like r/futurology fetishise technocracy like the ultimate from of government because they think "le epic black science man" they saw on TV and other scientists are some form of supermen immune to corruption,greed or other bad human traits.

>>1707538
as opposed to cartelism in the west where 90% of politicians are lawyers?

technocracy imposes a hard iq limit, as well as imposing time costs as well as earnings costs on the majority of participants. obviously the people who win don't have hte costs, but the majority of entrants will experience costs as the result of failure.

there are literally zero costs imposed upon people getting into politics via becoming a lawyer

>>1707597
>90% of politicians are lawyers?
Why is it so implausible that the people who dedicate their careers to interpreting the law would also pursue careers writing them?

File: 150806212843-07-fox-debate-trump-0806-super-169.jpg (101KB, 1100x619px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1100x619px

Listen up dummies.

Technocracy is certainly one of the better forms of government on paper, but has it ever worked in reality? I'd rather have a full-fledged meritocracy where a person who has proved himself capable of governing a state does his shtick and takes into consideration the opinions of his advisers, who should be the brightest minds in the country in their respective field of expertise.

Just get the best people to work for you and you're set.

>>1707095

Sounds great in theory, but is invariably nightmarish in execution. No planned economy can outperform free markets and however well they seem to work for a while they always crash and cause massive suffering.

>>1707166
>Sometimes the wrong decision has more evidence in its favor

what do define in this situation as wrong?
morally,
ethically,
economically,
as beneficial for the people living in the country
benceficial for the industry
for the environment perhaps?
for your wallet?
for your ideology maybe?

these things can be taken into account

you research this and question the population what they want.

Can technocracy be a layer on top of democracy?

File: auymubbrwtfl9n7xvkaz.jpg (263KB, 970x608px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 970x608px

>>1707627
>but has it ever worked in reality?
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Imagine how powerful computers will be in 100 years. Or 10,000. Or when genetic manipulation becomes a commonplace thing and people engineer themselves into better behavior?

>>1707634
>Can technocracy be a layer on top of democracy?

This is basically representative democracy. The populace decides what it wants, expresses that my electing politicians who hold those views, who then consult the experts as to how best achieve these goals. Doesn't always work like that in practice (what system of government does?) but it's still pretty good, despite what the edgelords of 4chan may believe

>>1707630
planned economy and technocracy are two different things
you can have a experts in decision making of governmental ministries but still leave the market somewhat more or less free

>>1707604
why is it that retards like you are incapable of realizing that putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is a bad idea?

we don't need law experts. we don't want a system that encourages people to skirt around the law, and a system that empowers the people who are best at skirting around the law

this is literally the problem technocracy intends to solve. and you people are idiots.

>>1707627
meritocracy only exists in market systems. technocracy is the attempt to try and institutionalize merit

japan, worst korea, singapore, taiwan, hk, and china are the only technocracies on the planet. 5/6 isn't a bad track record.

>>1707630
free markets don't exist in reality. they are an unstable equilibrium that can only be kept in place by a disinterested government, which never lasts, because a disinterested governor is one who doesn't govern for long

technocracy is more concerned with stability of governance than outright profit. I am a big fan of markets, but we need a way of addressing human needs without resorting to outright retard socialism. technocracy does this adequately.

File: 20130828_stl.jpg (206KB, 1291x611px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1291x611px

>>1707630
>No planned economy can outperform free markets
But when left to their own devices free markets suffer crippling market swings and have a way of coagulating into conspiratorial oligarchies, so it's important to make the distinction that all modern economies are mixed systems striving for efficiency, and a completely computerized economy might be the most efficient system imaginable, completely removing human error from the equation.

>>1707670
technocracy is not a layer on top of democracy

if you were to examine the way china, japan, korea, taiwan, and singapore operate, you'd realize that 90% of all legislators and judges are taken from pools of elite STEM professions, sometimes earlier, and sometimes later in their careers. they're promoted b rotating boards, and rotating boards meet via plenums in order to decide national policy.

promotions are decided exclusively according to performance reports (which can be flawed but are openly reformable) and in the absence of plenums separate boards meet individually with each other round robin style. it's endless board meetings.

distinctly different.

this is one of the key features for why you can reliably say that singapore, korea, and japan are not democracies. nothing is actually decided on the voting floor. it is decided n the round robin board meetings and the plenums.

>>1707684
what we have right now is a computerized economy. the first step in computerization was a tenser equation for CDOs invented by david x li which was an attempt to codify stochastically incomplete information.

our computerized economy is the weakest in industrial history

the problem with "removing" inefficiencies is that inefficiencies are the result of poor allocation. it means you need to reallocate.

there's no way you can allocate money to black schools to improve them. you'll fail for 60 years straight. there's no way you can allocate money to certan sectors of the economy to improve efficiency either. the more you try, you're just wasting money.

>>1707675
>why is it that retards like you are incapable of realizing that putting the fox in charge of the henhouse is a bad idea?
Ok, first of all, STFU with the salty language. Maybe I'm scrutinizing your views in an impartial manner because I'm actually interested to see what you have to say in response?

All I'm saying is that these are people who devote most of their lives to studying the law, reading about the law, and using the law to defend a client, be it a powerful corporation or an individual property owner, so why wouldn't they know what separates effective legislation from ineffective (or worse) legislation. You trust licensed doctors to write you prescriptions, right? So why is it such a tyranny to trust lawyers to write new legislation?

>we don't need law experts. we don't want a system that encourages people to skirt around the law, and a system that empowers the people who are best at skirting around the law

But when you take the experts away and put lay people in charge, all those problems amplify because they write shitty, poorly thought out laws which can be more easily manipulated and exploited.

Look at what happened in Iraq when they fired all the baathists? The government was taken over by morons and all those experienced bureaucrats took new jobs working for ISIS, which lets face it, would have curb-stomped Iraq and Syria by now were it not for western and Russian meddling.

>this is literally the problem technocracy intends to solve. and you people are idiots.
Again with the fucking language. But a better question might be to wonder when a pure technocracy becomes feasible. 50 years? 500? When we master artificial intelligence?

>>1707713
>90% of all legislators and judges are taken from pools of elite STEM professions

Hahahaha no. In Japan, Korea, and Singapore, a huge proportion of them come from political families.

central plannen suck a dic. Maybe they would come to the conclusion that leaving the economy as a free market is the most logical conclusion after several failed attempts at managing it tho.

>>1707765
sorry, this board just makes me angry

>good vs bad legislation
it's not the WORDING of legislation that makes it good or bad. it's the type of programs it tries to institute, and the pollution it recieves from special interest.

obamacare is a good example. if you understand basic statistics, you'll understand that expanding the risk pool leads to higher premiums. period. it's a matter of mathematical means.

could specific wording in the law make it less or more bad? yeah, probably. but pelosi herself said that, and the entire court case around it revolved around, trying to change the very language itself to make it less broken. lawyers being in charge didn't fix the language from being broken.

but having someone with a basic background in math could have made sure the entire concept itself wasn't broken.

>exploiting the word of the law
rule by law is a sort of legal fiction. in the end, individuals rule, or people with power rule. do you think that ginsberg looks at the actual wording of the second amendment and decides that gun bans are legal? no, she is an extension of power of an ideology. the ideology is all that matters. a left court will rule one way on the 2nd amendment 100% of the time, and a right court wil rule the other way 100% of thet ime. wording doesn't matter AT ALL

>iraq
iraqis are retards with 70 iq points. this highlights even more that words and laws don't matter. their entire legal structure was set up the same way as ours, the same as liberia's. PEOPLE matter, not words.

>rude
sorry. it's hard to tell who is actually willing to talk, and who is just a shitposter.

we more or less have technocracy operational right now. all of northeast asia except for north korea nd mongolia rae technocracies.

they deliver worse overall market outcomes, and in exchange deliver higher growth, better human capital outcomes, more stability, less war, less violence, mroe infrastructure, etc.

>>1707095
>not supporting the Technocracy
[HITMark chaingun noises]

>>1707784
the majority of the current chinese plenum are first generation millionaires. they peacefully phased out legacies over the last 2 decades, though many of them still have a strangelhold on the western provinces and are making them impoverished as a result

the political families became prominent in the first place because they were valuable to the state in establishing technology firms.

compare that to america, that nearly elected three bushes in a row, or two clintons, variously, despite the fact that they've destroyed out country from within

you need to stop throwing out stupid fucking one liners as if it makes a coherent point

>>1707103
I think the claim is that these would go away under a technocracy, but that would require a highly educated populace, willing to put aside their moral concerns.
It's more reasonable to dictate moral issues to localized democratic votes imo.

It's useful for some things. The Supreme Court is technocratic. The Federal Reserve is technocratic. Both have mild checks from the Presiden/congress (not enough to make the positions political, but because there's no better way to pick the members. Plus, its worked pretty well so far--generally the most qualified/intelligent people have been nominated for those jobs. IMO both work pretty well. I would potentially support making more technocratic institutions. It doesn't make sense to make the whole government technocratic though, because how do you choose the members? We need to stay a democratic republic, because elected representatives are the only ones who could properly choose the technocratic officials.

>>1707903
why are ethical questions even a matter of politics in the first place, unless people are trying to enforce morality on one another? aren't leftists the ones who claim that ethics/morality are subjective? that should exclude it entirely from the political sphere.

the fact is that we frame technical issues as moral issues. obamacare is a good example, we have to make smething unworkable, somehow work, because it's the "moral" thing to do.

this is what communism did and millions of people died as a result.

>>1707930
I actually support technocracy but your argument here is flawed

sotomayor writes at an 11th grade level and bernanke/yellen are just playing a shell game on us. american institutions are very far from technocratic. technocracy does't just mean "ge the guy with the qualifications to do it," it's a very specific form of bureaucracy

>>1707326
>>1707331
heres your (you)

know how I know?

>What are your thoughts on technocracy?
It's a stupid idea. The intellectual class spends the vast majority of their time surrounded by their fellow fairly well off intellectuals. Go drop by the MIT campus and ask for some political options. Chances are that the vast majority of them live in their own little bubble and have no idea what life is like for regular people.

At least in a straight democracy you have a small chance of electing a regular guy, even though that isn't how things go 99% of the time.

>>1707993
what makes you think cleetus or trayvon knows what's best for normal people?

File: 815163730279.png (7KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 501x585px

Yes goy- I mean free citizenry. Back anything but social egalitarianism, you don't want to be a filthy commie.

>>1707903
It is impossible to "put aside their moral concerns". All political decisions are inevitably based on morality

Singapore is one.


Being a technocrat and being ethical are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the more educated you are, the more likely you're ethically leaning.

>>1708020
Moral was always a bitch for politics.

>>1707103
>implying moral realism

File: political-bell-curve.jpg (46KB, 690x491px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 690x491px

>>1707835
>sorry, this board just makes me angry
>sorry. it's hard to tell who is actually willing to talk, and who is just a shitposter.
no worries, bruh, I just figured if we all started enforcing civility maybe this board wouldn't make us angry any more. Shit irritates me, too.

> it's the type of programs it tries to institute,
My biggest issue, though, is that the alternative to lawyers writing laws is that lobbyists write laws, and these laws tend to exhibit blatant favoritism for whichever corporation or union wrote them.

> lawyers being in charge didn't fix the language from being broken.
The bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. I for one will welcome our new machine overlords.

>obamacare is a good example.
of why state-sanctioned monopolies suck

>rule by law is a sort of legal fiction.
So is all of society, but it's a persistent one. Don't underestimate the power of stories that humans tell each other.
> the second amendment
> a left court will rule one way on the 2nd amendment 100% of the time, and a right court wil rule the other way 100% of thet ime
The fact that the supreme court is currently polarized has nothing to do with the presence of lawyers in congress, as the president appoints those justices.

>iraqis
>70 iq points
But that doesn't change the fact that they are still human, and subject to the same natural laws that all humans are subjected to. Mixing politics with religion was an unmitigated disaster for white Europeans in the early modern era, so why should it be any different when the first amendment of the Iraqi constitution enshrines Islam as its state religion and then Shias and Sunnis start fighting over what exactly constitutes "Islam"? Because of shittily written law

>we more or less have technocracy operational right now.
Agreed, but will it ever be good enough that we become a race of machine tenders?

>>1708034
Everything is a bitch for politics.

Even life.

>>1708005
I don't.
I don't think a bunch of silver spoon toting STEM students do either though. Cleetus doesn't dictate policy in a democracy. He can only vote for a candidate that he agrees with.

>>1708065
>lobbyists write laws
the east asian approach is to recognize that law is a fiction, and tha power is actually held by bureaucrats. they punish bureaucrats who ignore the spirit of the law even if they haven't technically broken any. this is framed as "corruption" but at the same time, it's "legal" in america for our top politicians to recieve millions of dollars from funders of terrorism

>bureaucracy expands to meet needs of bureaucracy
indeed

>state sanctioned monopolies suck
indeed. it also highlights one of the strengths of the technocratic approach.

they set PRIORITIES in 10 and 5 year increments, or so. the priorities are the thing that becomes enshrined, and legislation is a temporary measure to achieve that goal. legislation is always, ALWAYS secondary.

>supreme court
I'm just showing, or trying to, how thin the legal fiction is. what matters is power. we can pretend that the wording of laws is what accords power, but it's really a combination of economics, bureaucratic influence, and force, and always will be. flooding the government with lawyers strengthens the fiction of rule by words, but doesn't actually strengthen the power of words. lawyers just become another bureaucracy in operation, separate from the mechanisms of economics, but another bureaucracy competing for institutions of force.

the competition over force detracts from rule by economics, and destroys the economy slowly

>machine tenders
do you read nick land at all? it seems likely. capitalism wil continue to reward the intelligent, even if it lets the majority of intelligent people get killed by niggers. in the end, A intelligent clan, somewhere, will be the ones to transcend.

who exactly it is depends on how effectively a clan can eliminate subhumans. the chinese seem well suited to execute this, atm.

https://youtu.be/eKl6WjfDqYA

File: 1462145644167.gif (872KB, 404x402px) Image search: [Google]

872KB, 404x402px

>>1708111
>capitalism wil continue to reward the intelligent

>>1708116
why didn't we listen

>>1708118
extremely obese americans is probably a really good example of capitalism rewarding intelligence. under a socialist system profits get continually redistributed downward. the capitalist counterstrategy to this is to literally turn low iq people into hogs to be fattened and harvested for labor to the benefit of shareholders and technology producing firms. this is why so many people can end up in destitution despite the fact that everything they have is more than adequately paid for. they willingly become hogs, waiting for the next feed.

it also explains the primacy of american capital markets. our hogs feed more regularly and reliably than any other set of hogs. this encourages nvestment into our feeding mechanisms.

you'l note that technocratic states actively avoid all of this. capital markets are defacto shot in the foot in japan, china, and korea. they engage in human capital markets by which the best commodity is genetic and social class.

File: 1459720678999.jpg (65KB, 500x374px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 500x374px

>>1708111
>the east asian approach
Has its strengths but it is not without it's share of problems, either. It is descended from historical bureaucracies which were nakedly autocratic and rewarded rote regurgitation of prose over kinesthetic understanding. Their economy is an unholy abomination of state owned enterprises which shits all over its labor force and rewards mass migration of dirt poor rural folk for use as disposable labor and is on the verge of financial meltdown. There are currently about 2 million Chinese men about as old as you and I who will never know the touch of a woman thanks to Mao Zedong pursuing a policy of population control psuedoscience and now there's waaay more Chinese men in our generation than women.

The fact that the communists fancied themselves technocrats and that every single party member was some kind of engineer by trade mattered very little for the long term enfeeblement of their economy.

>but it's really a combination of economics, bureaucratic influence, and force, and always will be
But isn't that a consequence of currently existing laws? And haven't we been able to mitigate the worst of these effects thanks to increasing accountability and checks and balances on power?

>the competition over force detracts from rule by economics, and destroys the economy slowly
I wouldn't say destroyed, I would say that it experiences sclerosis, and that eventually other economies unencumbered by an onerous status quo supersede the culture refusing to adapt with the times.

> nick land
Never heard of him.

>capitalism wil continue to reward the intelligent, even if it lets the majority of intelligent people get killed by niggers.
das racis

But ultimately the growth of Africa will not be limited, it will peter out once Africa finishes developing. Industrialization resulted in an explosion of growth for America in the late 19th century and Soviet Russia in the 1920's and 30's

>intelligent clan
Ashkenazi Jews?

>>1708249
>But ultimately the growth of Africa will not be limited
limitless*

>>1708249
>east asian
you're discounting, I think, the fact that china, aside from military and propaganda matters, functions more similarly to a federation of states. the gains of the coastal areas are greater than a flat number would show, and are the result of technocratic policy copied from japan and singapore. the western territories have made far less progress than the numbers would indicate.

also, your plea about the population imbalance is emotional. 2 million out of 1.4 billion is a drop in the bucket. the population control reforms were needed and we need them, in fact, in the west as well.

the impoverished western territories have rotating members from the party governing them, but it's mostly provincial level communists who are holding back their territories. the further inland you go, the more power communism still holds over regional governments.

>haven't we been able to mitigate the worst?
I'd argue that the balance of power makes things worse, because the number one job of a politician becomes to try and seize, constantly, more power, to maximize their profit. if someone is secure in their power, they are able to administer plans for long term gain.

I'd say accountability is near zero in western systems. the "migrant" crisis, with 70 iq illiterate sand niggers going around and raping thousands of women and beheading hundreds of people is a good example of accountability for VERY BASIC problems.

accountability in japan, korea, taiwan, and singapore is very high in fact. china needs time as well.

>other economies adapt
but what does america do when other ecnomies begin to outperform it? we wage economic war on china and japan because they are a threat to us

>nick land
I reccomend abstract horror.

>africa
they won't industrialize because genetics b rayciss n shiet

>nteligent clan
I'm betting on the chinese. they're the only ones with the ability to defend themselves, and the inherent recognition that genetics are supreme.

>>1707095

Considering that most modern governments are technocratic in fact if not in name, and that dissatisfaction with their efforts is generally pretty high, no, I don't think it's a particularly good method of governance.

>>1708279
>functions more similarly to a federation of states.
But one that is far more centralized than the American model, which is still very much a laboratory of democracy
>, your plea about the population imbalance is emotional.
It's putting a human face on the real consequences of written laws
> the population control reforms were needed and we need them,
no, they were completely unnecessary and they would be unnecessary for us. Population growth in developed areas is flat-lining or even experiencing mild decline.
>I'd argue that the balance of power makes things worse, because the number one job of a politician becomes to try and seize, constantly, more power, to maximize their profit. if someone is secure in their power, they are able to administer plans for long term gain.
I would argue the inverse, that without the balance of power things fly wildly out of control and unscrupulous power brokers seize control. And autocracies can utterly strangle their economies and make violent revolution inevitable.

The ancient Greek Republics were direct democracies which fell victim to demagogues before declining into naked tyranny, and ancient Rome was able to build a far larger and more successful model by learning from the mistakes of the Greeks and structuring their republic to prevent one single person from monopolizing power.

>I'd say accountability is near zero in western systems. the "migrant" crisis,
The single largest mass movement of people in human history has been the migration of rural southern asians into the industrializing regions.

>but what does america do when other ecnomies begin to outperform it?
Reports of America's demise have been greatly exaggerated. Structurally the American economy is still far stronger than anywhere else in the developed world

>I'm betting on the chinese.
My money is still with the United States.

>>1708569
well we obviously think very differently. I encourage you to read book revolving around how the competition for power changes the incentives away from stewardship of a country, and to pillaging it for short-term gain

I highly question your sense in terms of thinking that exponential population growth in a third world country isn't a problem

>america stronk
I'd also heavily question how much you actually know about finance, if you think this is the case. strength is a word that lumps purchasing power and fragility into the same category. which they are not.

File: f3868c1ad4074df35053efef15e57423.jpg (81KB, 564x617px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 564x617px

>>1708642
> I encourage you to read book revolving around how the competition for power changes the incentives away from stewardship of a country, and to pillaging it for short-term gain
There are problems inherent in a democratic system, but alternative systems have problems that are even worse. Systems structured around property inheritence like monarchies suffer from massive succession problems.
>that exponential population growth in a third world country isn't a problem
It's a function of industrialization. People who live in suburbs and commute to factories/offices are better off than subsistence farmers. The far east, Africa, and India is still in the process of developing, so their growth is naturally faster than that of developed economies, but if history is any guide eventually you've paved over your country and there's no more space for new infrastructure, you have to spend more money for diminishing returns, and growth slows as a result. This was as true for paleoconservative America in the late 19th century as it was for Communist Russia in the 1950's

>I'd also heavily question how much you actually know about finance, if you think this is the case. strength is a word that lumps purchasing power and fragility into the same category. which they are not.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. The reason why China is doing so well is because they have the greatest customer to buy all their cheap manufactured bullshit

>>1708279
>they won't industrialize because genetics b rayciss n shiet

But they are developing and industrializing. If you bother to read African news and business sites/ mags and international media pertaining to business in the developing world you'd see it.

>>1708737
>succession
primogeniture isn't the only scheme of succession

singapore currently uses a strange mix of defacto succession based off of majority shareholder status for LKY's son. if ownership of a country is dictated in terms of equity ownership, I don't see a problem.

again, taiwan, japan, and korea all provide examples of functional non-democratic schema. if you speak one of the languages, a wealth more information opens up that isn't available to english speakers. anglos are blinded twofold, once by the fact that they don't speak other languages, and second by the fact that they think they don't NEED to actively seek out and translate foreign works, or that anything worthy has already been translated

>slowing growth
I think it's a canard to link the speed of growth directly to being first world or not, and linking growth directly to population growth.

cina doesn't necessarily need more pop. growth.

and you can't assume that no that industrialization has been accomplished, that it could have been accomplished without the populatin controls, therefore, the population controls were evil.

>fragility
Im not arguing china is more robust than america because of it's manufacturing economy. I'm arguing that china is robust precisely because prices are still extremely low, this makes transitions easier witout causing a collapse.

any decline in american pricing precipitates a collapse, whic is why the fed won't change the funds rate. it literally can't do it.

we are ore efficient, and we do produce more. we have much more purchasing power as a result. but smaller deviations will derail profitability because of tight margins.

think of it as being overbuilt economically.

china still has lots of wiggle room, but america is paving over old "rail lines" so to speak.

>>1708792
das rite dawg. das rite.

dey be ceos in shiet

File: Elon_Musk_2015.jpg (282KB, 1011x1484px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1011x1484px

Bow to your new god luddites.

>>1708111
>they set PRIORITIES in 10 and 5 year increments, or so. the priorities are the thing that becomes enshrined, and legislation is a temporary measure to achieve that goal. legislation is always, ALWAYS secondary.

Lol In South Korea everyone liteally leives jsut to work in a Chaebol. There is no point in trying to strike out on your own because of the sheer dominance of the chaebols on top of the governments sheer lack of support for these entrepreneurs.

>>1708816
I never said their corporate structure was perfect. but their government model is superior.

would it be possible to integrate an east asian style government with a western style cororate structure? maybe. singapore and hk are promising examples

>>1707456
>lawyers are fucking evil

What a child.

>>1707147
What's the difference between regular fascism and /pol/ style?

>>1707095
What do you think the EU is?

>>1707136
Meritocracy?

>>1707456
That's bad though, because able people will go do other profitable shit instead of being a technocrat. What you want is a reward system that rewards them for doing good service. In fact, this reward rate should be higher than the market rate so you get the best minds, but only if they actually serve the government and society.

>>1707630
How do corporations work?

>>1709506
Not a technocracy lol

>>1707136
Nah, it was a meritocracy.

Though the Confucian Scholar-Bureaucrat did tackle practical projects such as the building of roads, canals, and coming up with wacky military inventions, half of which were unused.

>>1707095
>power to the skilled

It's a fairly ambiguous definition, but it is basically what "technocracy" means. How you define who is skilled, and who isn't is another matter, as is how to differentiate between skill sets (do woodworkers, machinists, clock makers, etc belong to the same "technical" group, or are the subclasses, or what?)

Sure, we can make some obvious generalizations:

> Labor Group
those that work with their hands/physical labor;
>Service
techinically a labor, but different?
>Medical
deals with the health of humans/pets/those helpless wild animals that we can't let suffer
>Administration
come on, secretaries have skills guys
>Economic
or is this needed?
>Techno/Networks/Info/communication
basically the industries that provide avenues of information exchange and communication

>Waste Disposal
>Energy Producers
>Military?????

How far do you go? How does one pick and choose, and deal with the aftermath of leaving out a large number people who feel misrepresented. Do you end up with a cluster fuck UN type thing, where nothing is accomplished because to many different interests?

File: 1353808579233.png (13KB, 438x499px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 438x499px

>What are your thoughts on technocracy?
Better than representative democracy, because representative democracy is complete bullshit.

Personally, I think it's ridiculous that we keep trying to find a single, perfect system of governance. Some things should be chosen by the masses, like priorities in industry, education, etc. But some things should be exempt from choice, like the rights and freedoms for the individual.

The third category of things should be decided upon, but that decision should not be by the masses, and this is where technocracy has its role. You can't expect the general population to be able to make rational decisions on things that they don't understand, this is the domain of experts.

Basically, the spectrum of things that can't justifiably be decided upon by the general population, but can't simply be legislated as freedoms or rights should be handled by a variety of other appropriate decision-making techniques, one of which could be technocracy.

So, maybe. Or something. Fuck if I know, what ya want from me, sheesh!

>>1707147
>monarchy
Get this faggotyy limp wrist "bow to the queen" guy out of here.

>>1707150
I had the same thought. Possibly a designation would be given too each voter based on their prior tax work, and then the majority vote among each group picks the elected leader. But then it requires a definition of the groups and a system in place to select the elected nominations. It becomes a big and diverse process, with potentially a stupid amount of groups claiming they are different enough to have their own leader.

>>1707161
>end up fucking everything up
Relative.

Under such a regime, where it becomes normal established systems, like what we already have, people become use to a certain way of doing things. They'd obviously object to such a drastic change now, but if a technocracy was ruling for a long period than people would say similar things as your saying: "How can Democracy work when Corporations are allowed dictate the playing field and the side they get to play on"

>>1709520
if smart people go into the private sector, that's good for the economy. the private sector is better at sniffing out predators.

you need to impose costs on people seeking to enter government. there are still rewards, but predators are deterred by costs, whereas virtue is less so

in sngapore people runnng for public office are paid the same wage as their previous profession. so they sacrifice career advancement of various sorts without completely losing out.

>>1707634
I think he meant "Wrong" as in after the fact, you know it was wrong. All the evidence may point to a choice, and so they choose it, but later better evidence comes to light and turns out it was a bad choice. The problem with a Scientific approach to this is that how do we do objective decision making when current thoughts on important issues are divided and do not necessarily have a right or wrong answer. Sometimes it is a grey area that is hard to define, but good governments find ways to flip them to look good, find ways to supress the info, or utilize media as a distraction tool. All these things would fail in a Technocracy, because Science isn't a method that solves human problems by itself.

>>1707261
>hyper-efficient computers which can calculate massive numbers of variables turn economics into a true science
It would be far easier to utilize simpler math to proportion our resources based on scientific methods. Find the most efficient way to move resources and still provide everyone with what they need to live, and use scientific methods to keep them in check. Economics, as the industry currently exists, has no place in such a scientific system. Economy of resources, sure, but money is not a resource, though it is made of them. It is a very good illusion of wealth.

>>1709635
the goal of technocracy is not to treat government like a science, but instead to remove competition for power by setting up a very clear line of authority and responsibility. when this is done, and governance awarded to those most generally competent, the task can be set solely to ruling rather than to attempting to gaint he power to rule. next, is to collect enough data so that informed decisions can be made.

ta-da. that's it. not everything is dogmatic and ideological like democracy.

>>1708854
I think what he means is that the Law system in place is inherently evil. That is, it is in place to protect the people/corporations with wealth from the lower layer of people from contesting their wealth/power. It ensnares the people at the bottom and makes it near impossible to reach a level that could garner even half the influence of the "elite" (potentially one of the many reasons famous comedians commit suicide; they tend to joke to hide the truth of the world, or use those truths to make jokes). The Law evolved side by side and is directly related to the evolution of business/trade/ownership.

>>1707627
>Just get the best people to work for you and you're set
So your friends and most important investors? That system is corrupt unless people also elect the advisors.

>>1707630
>No planned economy can outperform free markets
>free markets
Define free? Are these markets not manipulated to create "big wins" by the sellers? Do people trading in billions worth of Oil tankers play it safe? Or do they use any means necessary to ensure they make their money?

>>1707670
Only works well if the people have well established ways of voicing their opinions directly to their elected official. But there are usually abstraction layers there to keep the elected party safe from making "hard choices". The President of the USA for instance: how do the American citizens hold him/her accountable for anything, and how do they know if he/her is aware of the majorities opinions? And is the majority even worth listening too?

>Technocracy is an organizational structure or system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge.
Sounds better than Elections in the current system. Just give the Presidency to Musk.

>>1707930
Would you not call almost all of big business a technocracy? All of them are run utilizing all the data they think relevant to a successful (monetary driven though) business. The really powerful ones have lobbyists that use certain tools to influence politicians/lawyers/judges. They don't always agree, the lobbyists, that is, so it kind of works like a technocracy, but with a democratic element to it (politicians don't have to take the bribe...nudge,nudge,wink,wink), but the democratic elements are very hazy now. Elected leaders barely do what they promise and barely promise anything that is worth keeping a promise for. It is just another illusion of choice that keeps the masses controlled, believing they still have apart in how things are run in "their country". Countries are an archaic concept anon. We are all subjects of Multi-National Corporations now.

>>1708249
> There are currently about 2 million Chinese men about as old as you and I who will never know the touch of a woman
>implying the muh technocracy anon ever will

>>1707993
Why do you assume a technocracy wouldn't have a group elect that represents the "regular guy"? All technical demographics should be covered, even if it means a fairly ambiguous group that lumps in the unemployed, currently being educated, training, or basically non-full time working "professionals", with professionals being anyone in another group. Now this allows trades people and service industry people to be given professional designations, which may seem odd. But the important thing is that every demographic is represented and it keeps them made up of like-minded individuals who benefit from similar policies.

>>1709646
But the data isn't always there to back decisions one way or the other. How does a technocracy resolve such an issue, which makes up many political issues?

>>1708847
>tiny countries that are glorified ports
>the basis of running large landmasses with huge numbers of population.

>>1709719
This. If we took the economy of major urban cities, they would look different from the rest of the country. And that's basically what HK and Singapore are to China and Malaysia respectively.

File: singapore-1440x564_c.jpg (138KB, 1440x564px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1440x564px

>>1707147
god tier:
meritocracy

>>1707147
Ok what I don't understand is why Monarchies are considered normie tier and a Technocracy is considered Fedora tier?

One of them your leader is literally fucking decided by whether they fall out of the right vagina and in the other you're leader is decided by qualification and expertise...

>>1709744
Normie as in "generally accepted."

Historically there were a lot of monarchies.

Not that he put "monarchy in the 21st century" as fedora tier."

>>1709744
Normies believe in inheritance and family.

>>1707095
Nope

t. my daddy has two doctorates from theoretical physics

>>1707350
Sounds like typical political ideology then.

>>1709712
it uses the best judgemnt it can, which is easier for people making long term vested interests without regard for popularity, than it is for 4 year elction cycle idiots.

>>1709744
>>1709746
but what would the 21st century equivalent be to monarchy? Dictatorships? One-Party Democracies?

>>1707194

The people who manage hospitals and other large complex organizations often aren't technical experts in their field, they're merely good managers.

>>1707095
ive never heard of it before, but it sounds like a good idea

>remove president
>replace with a computer

a problem is presented

>run some numbers
>consider outcomes generated by the all knowing computer president

and a computer with a database on everyone and everything will know more and whats better for everyone than a normal government if you ask me.

>>1710221
>whats better for everyone
How are we determining this? Because the computer certainly won't know on its own. Neither will """experts"""

File: NEW MOTIVE POWER.jpg (60KB, 421x434px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 421x434px

>>1707674
>planned economy and technocracy are two different things

No they aren't.

>you can have a experts in decision making of governmental ministries but still leave the market somewhat more or less free

In theory, maybe, in practise this is never how it works.

>>1707675
>free markets don't exist in reality.

True but neither do 100% controlled markets. I was talking about preponderances and degrees.

>technocracy is more concerned with stability of governance than outright profit.
Which is way technocratic economies are always left in the dust by capitalistic ones.

>>1707684
>But when left to their own devices

I didn't say lassie faire, that has problems of it's own but still outcompetes planned economies.

>so it's important to make the distinction that all modern economies are mixed systems striving for efficiency

Agreed, but this is not the model technocratic regimes have used because it doesn't offer enough control.

>>1709521

In a tecnocracy? They're massive state run behemoths that warp the economy in various ways.

>>1709669
>Define free? Are these markets not manipulated to create "big wins" by the sellers?

"Free" in modern sense of "mixed capitalism" and also in the historic sense of a more lassie faire approach, both types outcompete technocracies.

>Do people trading in billions worth of Oil tankers play it safe? Or do they use any means necessary to ensure they make their money?

If you're asking if corruption is a thing then yes, but it's far worse when that big oil company is a state owned part of a technocratic economy, because then it doesn't have to use bribery and manipulation to distort the economy, it does that simply by existing.

>>1710221
>ive never heard of it before, but it sounds like a good idea

This is the real problem with technocracy. Everyone loves technology, right? Everyone thinks scientists and engineers are smart, right? So what could possibly go wrong if you put the scientists and engineers in charge of the economy? Turns out, economies are too complex to plan, and any attempt to do so runs in a myriad of unforeseen problems and systematic inefficiencies. Every state that has tried a technocratic arrangement has eventually abandoned it in favor of capitalism, or has completely collapsed as an economy (Venezuela, Argentina, the USSR)

>>1707095
I wouldn't have a problem with technocratic functions in a democratic system.

E.g, that the Minister of Agriculture, actually is educated in agriculture, or the Minister of Health actually is a doctor. As opposed to now, where everyone is a fucking lawyer.

>>1710267

This isn't uncommon in Europe. It's not a great idea because it makes your minister partisan. He's supposed to be looking for ways to implement the Party's agenda, not siding with the class he's meant to govern.

>>1707627
Singapore.

China 1978-present.

Korea 1961-1995.

>>1707630
Planned market != Technocratic market

>>1710272
>He's supposed to be looking for ways to implement the Party's agenda

This is true regardless of whether or not a politician is actually educated in a technical topic, so what you're essentially saying is that it doesn't matter either way.

>>1707670
>who then consult the experts as to how best achieve these goals.

What??
This doesn't happen in America.

>>1707784
Correct.
And a huge amount are meritocratic.

>>1710291

Show me a technocratic government that doesn't use a planned economic model.

>>1710294

If you're an ex-doctor and you're put in charge of the dept of health, the temptation will be to side with your former colleagues and the institutions you studied or worked with, taking their side in disputes with the govt and absorbing their propaganda. Cabinet ministers often have to make unpopular choices or stand up to the vested interests in their brief, effective ones can't be too "friendly" with their charges.

>>1708249
>There are currently about 2 million Chinese men about as old as you and I who will never touch a woman

And in Japan 70% of men under 35 are virgins.

>>1710296

Not as an official required step but if you think politicians don;t consult experts when planning legislation then you're mistaken. Of course if said advice is not what they want, they look for another expert, but the same problem plagues non-democratic regimes too.

File: image.jpg (15KB, 277x271px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 277x271px

>>1708305
>Considering that most modern governments are technocratic in fac

>>1709728
this

>>1710296

It does happen, but it tends to get fucked up by legislators who want special favors amended to the core legislation.

>>1710316

At least in the U.S., you have enormously more quasi-legislation coming out from those various three letter agencies than you do actual legislation from Congress, and they have quasi-judicial proceedings as well, like if you violate an EPA regulation, you first go to a hearing before an EPA board, not a judge or jury.

And those agencies are very technocratic, almost always staffed with field experts.

>>1710259
>No they aren't.

Technocracy does not necessarily = planned economy.

Singapore is a capitalist system with a free market in trade, but a state-dominated financial system.

>>1710259
>Which is way technocratic economies are always left in the dust by capitalistic ones.
>both types outcompete technocracies.
[citation needed]

>>1710266
Muh laissez-faire: The Post

>anon, how do we fix the Great Depression
>just let the free market fix it!

>>1710272
Why is being an expert in your field going to lead to you being less partisan with your party?

>>1710327

Singapore's economy is heavily technocratic internally, it's in foreign trade alone that Singapore is a "free market", this is obviously not a model a territorial state could follow.

Technocracy is an economic model more than it is a political one, what's the point of appointing scientists and engineers to run the country if they aren't allowed to play with the economy, the single largest part of a state's apparatus? If you want a free market economy then technocracy makes no sense, just appoint economists to run the bank and elect lawyers to keep things running smoothly.

>>1710305
>Show me a technocratic government that doesn't use a planned economic model.

This "argument" doesn't logically follow.

Also,
>What is Singapore for 500.

>>1710305
>the temptation will be to side with facts proven by your former colleagues
Ftfy

>>1710331

Seriously? Take literally any example of a technocratic regime and look at it's economic history.

>>1710305
>the temptation will be to side with your former colleagues

As opposed to in democracy?

>>1710348

It wouldn't, but we're talking about technocracy, where you're appointing actual former doctors to the health ministery, not "secular" experts in the field of healthcare. It's only natural that someone who spent the first half of his career as a doctor will be more sympathetic to doctors than to patients if a dispute emerges, and this sympathy can lead to poor decisions being made, or even a rift between the minister and the rest of the government.

How would we test individuals for competence and measure their skills?

There would have to be an objective test and set of standards to determine who is most rightfully fit for a position. Then there would have to be an overseer of testing and epistemology. How would you check the power of the "Autarch of Testing" to make sure he's not making subjective tests to get his bros in?

And like
>>1709609
Said. We're going to need a lot of domain Autarchs. And even mediators in between the domains. It'll end up being a shitfest of various domain types each with their own leaders - can be very disorganized if the structure isn't right.

Encapsulation might be a solution.
Or having like ~200 chairs for every possible domain and mediators in between, but that gives rise to disorder unless a supercool AI tells the nerds to shut up.

>>1710322
>it does happen

Intention != results

>>1710323
Not really. The EPA has only changed its rules 3 times under Obama.
This is despite fracking/solar/wind/pipelines all being huge issues.

The agencies report to political leaders. They barely change the status quo unless they want to get ripped apart by the legislators.

>>1710351

Yeah, let's define words with no regard to reality, that's obviously better than using actual facts.

>Singapore

*BZZT* no prize for you kiddo! SIngapore is one of the least free internal economies on Earth, it'sonly in foreign trade that they are even close to free (and even there, they're at best a mixed economy, not a fully capitalistic one)

File: image.jpg (30KB, 960x848px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 960x848px

>>1710349
>this is obviously not a model a territorial state could follow.

>>1710357

>>1710366
>It's only natural that someone who spent the first half of his career as a doctor will be more sympathetic to doctors than to patients if a dispute emerges,
?????????

Also, why the fuck do you think the government must put a doctor and only a doctor in the position of Health minister?

>>1710354

Sure you can look at it like that but if you think working as an advocate for doctors is the appropriate role for a minister of health then enjoy your spiralling costs and declining patient outcomes.

File: image.jpg (36KB, 640x656px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x656px

>>1710380
>SIngapore is one of the least free internal economies on Earth,

>>1710362

A minister of health under a democracy is probably a lawyer or a professional politician with an interest in healthcare, not a former doctor. Their only loyalty is to the party and it's leader, and ultimately to the people who elected him.

>>1710386
>but if you think working as an advocate for doctors is the appropriate role for a minister of health
I don't. Why the hell do you think you have to be a doctor to get the role of minister of Health?

Technocracy is simply using science-based decisions to establish a meritocratic form of government.

>>1710375

The EPA was an example, not the sum total of administrative agencies. There are over 400 of them, each with their quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial powers, each with their boards that can't easily be dispensed with, and each of which Congress relies upon heavily to inform it about facts in their field by which they make their own legislation. And that's before you get to the quasi-judicial powers, which Chevron doctrine ensures means they can do basically whatever the hell they want.

The U.S. has an enormous technocratic apparatus, pretending it doesn't just because it in theory answers to a legislative or an executive (who often can't discipline agency employees anyway) is absurd.

File: image.jpg (92KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 533x800px

>>1710394
>A minister of health under a democracy is probably a lawyer

You are seriously going full retard.

>>1710385

Are you autistic? Do you not understand how humans work or something? Do you not think that someone who has worked as a doctor might not have a skewed perspective on healthcare, and that these biases might not lead him to back ill-conceived legislation?

>>1710399
>The U.S. has an enormous technocratic apparatus,
[citation needed]
>pretending it doesn't just because it in theory answers to a legislative or an executive (who often can't discipline agency employees anyway) is absurd.

The majority of rules and regulations in the US are established by Congress.
You grossly overestimate the power of the Departments.
Furthermore, the method to punish Departments is far easier than you let on.

You seem to think the Congress must use the legal method to control the Departments. That, is what is Absurd.

>>1710400

Well gee, the ministers of Health in Britain, Germany, Canada and the USA are all lawyers, so I guess you proved me wrong!

>>1710402
>o you not think that someone who has worked as a doctor might not have a skewed perspective on healthcare,

While a lawyer and career politician will somehow be better?

>>1710419
[Citation needed]

>>1710395
>Why the hell do you think you have to be a doctor to get the role of minister of Health?
>>1710385
>Also, why the fuck do you think the government must put a doctor and only a doctor in the position of Health minister?

Because you fucking monkey I was replying to this:

>>1710267
>E.g, that the Minister of Agriculture, actually is educated in agriculture, or the Minister of Health actually is a doctor. As opposed to now, where everyone is a fucking lawyer.

Learn how to follow a conversation and kys.

>>1710419
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Mathews_Burwell
>Mathews received a bachelor’s degree in government, cum laude, from Harvard University in 1987 and a bachelor's degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University, where she was a Rhodes Scholar. She later worked on the Clinton/Gore campaign.

>>1710424

Why do you think I'm interested in education you? Look it up yourself you lazy stupid ugly faggot.

>>1710433
I don't care what a stupid nigger above says. He obviously doesn't understand what a technocracy is.

File: Kathleen_Sebelius_official_portrait.jpg (3MB, 2400x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2400x3000px

>>1710434
>Sylvia_Mathews_Burwell
>who?
>appointed 2014

Huh, I thought this cunt was still in place. My point still stands, in a democracy, chances are your minister of health is a lawyer.

>>1710443

Except in most technocracies you DO find doctors in the role of minister of health. This is why they tend to have fancy modern hospitals in the capital and terrible run-down death pits in the provinces, because their "expert" ministers always take the side of doctors and healthcare professionals over the plebs.

>>1710449
>My point still stands, in a democracy, chances are your minister of health is a lawyer.
[citation needed]

>>1710395
>Technocracy is simply using science-based decisions to establish a meritocratic form of government

Meaningless buzzwords. Basically saying "technocracy is a form of government where the government makes good decisions, therefore it's good". Tautological tripe.

Technocracy as an institutional form of government typically refers to a system where by the government is run by "experts" in particular fields ie. the Minister of Finance is a banker or an economist, the Minister of Health is a doctor, the Minister of Agriculture is a farmer, etc. etc.

File: image.jpg (223KB, 870x722px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 870x722px

>>1710452
>Except in most technocracies you DO find doctors in the role of minister of health.

>China is the only example of a technocracy
>in a developing country, rural hospitals should be as good as urban hospitals

>>1710521
Who even cares? The point is, should the Minister of Health be an "expert" in that field like a doctor (technocracy) or not? Whether the alternative is a lawyer, a career politician, or whatever, isn't germane to the discussion

>>1707095
>test tube/seeker daily
If you unironically watch that poorly researched, shilling, piece of shit youtube channel, you need to reevaluate your IQ.

>>1710521
I dunno about your country senpai, but here (Sweden) the ministers are appointed from the prime ministers' allies, rather than the people who know their shit.

>>1710522
>Meaningless buzzwords.
None of the words I used were buzzwords.

>Basically saying "technocracy is a form of government where the government makes good decisions,
Nope.
>therefore it's good
More likely to be better than the alternative
>Tautological tripe.
Maybe in your brain that can't conceive of levels of good.

>>1710528

China isn't the only technocracy, and it isn't the only one with a doctor as minister of health.

>>1710541
>science-based decisions
>meritocratic

These are buzzwords senpai. They don't mean anything until you define them further

>>1710532
>The point is, should the Minister of Health be an "expert" in that field like a doctor (technocracy) or not?

Generally, yes. A lawyer is less likely to be competent in the position of Health Minisiter than an expert in the field of health.
But, this is still the meme intepretation of technocracy. If the lawyer is scientifically shown to be more competent than the expert, he or she should be chosen in a technocracy.

In a democracy, the main reason the person is chosen is because they are willing to toe the designator's political line.

>>1710539
http://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-health-and-social-affairs/gabriel-wikstrom/cv-gabriel-wikstrom/
Studies in political science and economics at Uppsala University

2007–2009
French studies, Mälardalen University and in France. Spanish studies in Spain

2001–2004
Upper secondary school education, social sciences programme, language orientation

>>1710541

All governments claim to use science-based decision making. The problem is, humans are fallible, and you can always find an "expert" who agrees with your point of view, then use his evidence to prove how scientific you're being. Likewise, every regime claims to be meritocratic, it doesn't mean anything without a context.

>>1710545
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Bin_(politician)

>>1710555
"competence" doesn't have a single objective definition

File: Hahaha I am Using the Shaving Creams.jpg (151KB, 537x700px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 537x700px

>>1707095
Why are East Asians prone to technocracies?

Are lawyers and charismatic politicians in those countries pussies and the STEMlords are the real alpha jocks or what?

>>1710554
>Science-based decisions
>meritocratic
>These are buzzwords senpai. They don't mean anything until you define them further
.

No.
They are not buzzwords.
They are clearly defined in the Oxford Dictionary.
They are not meaningless.

Do I also need to define "Buzzword" for you?

>>1710563
>All governments claim to use science-based decision making.
[Citation needed]

>>1710568
Maybe if you are autistic.
To the vast majority of people on the planet it means "capable of handling the job properly".

In the sense that an incompetent person will fuck it up.

>>1710569

They're 50 to 100 years behind the west in political development, China is going thru it's industrial boom now while America had it's in the 19th century and Britain in the 18th.

>>1710581
>[Citation needed]

Find me one that doesn't what part of "all" didn't you understand?

File: 1473216338626.png (322KB, 724x720px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 724x720px

Meme as fuck. People who support this probably have never even googled a historical event and/or subscribe to the great man theory and/or are highschooler fedoras who think they're special for researching astronomy.

Let's drop some facts:

>everybody supported housing market deregulation until it was too late except for economic doomsayers, aka the ones that doomsay everything and are wrong 85% of the time.

>vlad putin predicted the u.s. dollar would shit the bed around February due to the gold standard in Chinese currency, rofl.

>the entire failed counter offensive in normandy, which was conducted by people 40 times better than you or anybody you have ever voted for.

>>1707237
Oh look its authority bias in patronizing comic form.

Also OP>>1707095 what would prevent the technocracy from becoming overrun by authority bias and devolving into a state where the government decides what is and isn't true, regardless of reality?

Though I definitely see the appeal of a overhaul of social sciences to better merit the name of a science, and get rid of all these specious quacks.

>>1710584
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia

>>1710571
>dictionary definitions apply to complex political concepts
top kek

Let's look at them, shall we?
>Meritocracy: Government or the holding of power by people selected according to merit
Who decides what is "merit"? Let's look at that definition too
>Merit: The quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.
"good", "worthy" things aren't getting any more clear
>Good: To be desired or approved of
By whom?

None of it has sufficient clarity that we could very say one government is meritocratic but another isn't

>>1710591

http://www.kacst.edu.sa/arb/pages/default.aspx

>>1710585
Shitpost

>>1710587
>what would prevent the technocracy from becoming overrun by authority bias and devolving into a state where the government decides what is and isn't true, regardless of reality?

What would prevent this in a democracy?

As for your question
1. The Bureacracy full of scientists and qualified personnel. Do you really think they'll support the leader claiming he is God?
2. The businesses invested in the country, and that fund the government.
3. Jews

>>1710581
>capable of handling the job properly
What constitutes "handling the job properly"?

>>1707147
>/pol/ style facism
What's that supposed to be?

>>1710603
>read arabic anon!

The government literally stones atheists.

>>1710602
>top kek
Define "democracy".
I am going to bet your definition and the dictionary's will be similar.

File: Taiwanese Parliament.jpg (168KB, 580x390px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 580x390px

>>1710569
Outside of Taiwan/South Korea (which adopted American institutions), Charisma is literally a non-factor in Chinese/Japanese politics.

Those two system are unabashed at what they are: a closed government of elites.

>>1710604
>What would prevent this in a democracy?

The election cycle exists explicitly for this reason.

>>1707456
you have to be 18 to post on this site

>>1710608
Someone has never heard of an essentially contested concept

>>1710604
>cops out with a literal meme reply
"Technocrats" everybody

>>1710582
Tss,

A hundred years ago in the west, the same type of animals were in the government: lawyers and politicians. Except there were more soldiers in western governments then compared to nowadays.

>>1710608

There's an English language version
http://www.kacst.edu.sa/eng/pages/default.aspx

>The government literally stones atheists.
So? Our government literally imprisons people for smoking plants. China literally executes people for saying the wrong thing.

>>1710602
Now you are dragging us into philosophy and objectivity in morality.

There is objectivally no such thing as good or bad.

But, to 99% of humans, good = conducive to human flourishing.
Bad = not conducive to human flourishing.

Most people attempt to live their lives based upon something similar to these definitions.

>>1710605
What the majority of people say is proper.

I'm of the opinion that there is no such thing as an objective adjective.

But, 99.9% of people live under the impression there is and therefore properly = handling the position in a manner conducive of human flourishing.

>>1710608
Tons of people have different definitions of democracy is. Same thing with "merit", "good", "worthy". So simply saying you want any of these things is meaningless until you further define them

>>1710604
>What would prevent this in a democracy
Elections.
Free Speech.

>The Bureacracy full of scientists and qualified personnel. Do you really think they'll support the leader claiming he is God?
I'm suggesting they'll rewrite the tests so only the people willing to hail the leader's worldview will pass.

>>1710621

Yes but Britain and America took a radically different path to modernity, and during their boom time the state was virtually absent and consequently a natural meritocracy and technocracy took control, with private companies building elaborate infrastructure under expert guidance. I guess they make a poor analogy on second thoughts. 50 to 100 years behind Russia and Germany, perhaps?

File: 9fa.jpg (13KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 275x183px

>>1710571
no, he's right.
You can't just say "Ill use science(TM) to make decisions". It's means nothing on it's own.
So is "evidence" and "computers".
It turns into a weasel word.

>>1710615
And explicitly fails for the same reason.

>>1710618
Not an argument.

>>1710619
Shitposts don't deserve proper answers.

>>1710623
Okay? Mind citing this "science-based decision making"?

>So? Our government literally imprisons people for smoking plants. China literally executes people for saying the wrong thing.
Not even close to the same thing. Don't make retarded analogies, it just makes you look desperate.

>China executes people for saying the wrong thing
[Citation needed]

>>1710628
>conducive to human flourishing
It's memes all the way down. No body agrees what this means either

>>1710628
>human flourishing
A fucking weasel word.

>>1710633
>Tons of people have different definitions of democracy is.
And tons of people have different definitions of what "definition" means.
BUT, 99.999999% of people have a definition that is similar.

Stop being a pedantic faggot.

>Same thing with "merit", "good", "worthy".
No such thing as objectivity in morality. But 99.9% of people have similar definitions of what these things entail.

>So simply saying you want any of these things is meaningless until you further define them
If I need to define every fucking word, I'll have to define the words I use to define with.

You are being a pendatic faggot who can't accept the commonly agreed upon definition used in the major dicitionaries.

>>1710636
>Elections.
[Citation needed]

>Free Speech.
Democracy does not require Free speech. Find another argument.

>I'm suggesting they'll rewrite the tests so only the people willing to hail the leader's worldview will pass.
As opposed to in a democracy? JFK was near universally adored even though he was a shitty president.

All the congressmen deepthroated him on a daily basis.

File: 13406974_1018925704821877_103182546385252472_n.jpg (51KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 598x792px

>>1710644
>Anything that disagrees with me is a shitpost
Wew lad

>>1710644
It doesn't fail at preventing it.

>>1710639
I never said that.

>>1710638
Britain and America were neither democracies, free, nor laissez-faire 1750-1950.

>>1710668
>99.9% of people have similar definitions of what these things entail
They really don't

>>1710645
>>1710653
Nobody agrees on what objective morality is.
That doesn't change the fact that people in North Korea die 30 years earlier than people in South Korea.

Yeah. Who knows which is objectively better.
But I can guarantee that 99% of people would say South Koreans are flourishing more than North Koreans.

Stop being pendantic faggots.

>>1710676
Your post didn't even disagree with me.

>>1710677
[Citation needed]

>>1710682
[Citation needed]

>>1710668
>But 99.9% of people have similar definitions of what these things entail.
No.
A right-winger's dream will be a conservative small gov, with growing, low social services economy, pro-life, pro-guns, etc.
A left-winger will be the opposite.
A guy from Africa wants a strong family.
A saudi probably likes a pro-islamic, even if authoritarian gov.
A russian will like a strong state, even if he needs to go through some hardship for it.
A chinese probably doesn't care too much about gov transparecy, as long as the good stuff trickles down to him.
While in other parts of the world, freedom and rights are sacrosanct, even if disadvantageous sometimes.
A guy in some part of Africa probably wants a fat wife, lots of kids, and a leisurely life.
Some other wants success and fame above all else, to the willful detriment of his family life.
etc.

>>1710676
Well to be fair you did just say 'meme argument'. I'd qualify that as a shit post.

>>1710673
Why don't you actually answer questions? Why do you just straw-man democracy as a response?

I don't give a shit about JFK.

>hur dur how does democracy get rid of it
>free speech
>free speech isn't a requirement!!!!!

I'm not expecting your solution to your pet system's raging flaw to be a 'requirement' either. Otherwise it wouldn't need to be fucking said.

>>1710644
>Okay? Mind citing this "science-based decision making"?

It's a research and development institute dedicated to science-based solutions to the various problems of the Kingdom. Saudi Arabia, contrary to your claims, DOES claim to use science-based descisionmaking.

No. I'm perfectly fine we've stayed out of the EU because it's shit.

>>1710689
>But I can guarantee that 99% of people would say South Koreans are flourishing more than North Koreans
There are tankies who would say the opposite. They're not numerous but they exist.

Which is more "flourishing", the United States or Sweden? Do 99% of people agree on this?

>>1710644
>Not even close to the same thing. Don't make retarded analogies, it just makes you look desperate

Really? They seem pretty identical to me. In China, if you denounce the system, they put you in a cell and then they kill you. Your "crime"? Exercising your god-given freedom of speech. In America, if you smoke a certain kind of plant, they will put you in prison, possibly for a really long time, and confiscate your property. Your "crime"? Partaking of an herbal remedy. In Saudi Arabia, if you denounce Islam and claim that there is no god, they will put you in a cell and possibly ill you. Your "crime"? Same as the Chink, nothing but words. None of these things should be illegal and yet there isn't a government on Earth that doesn't criminalise one of more of them, so either no state uses "science-based decisions" or it's possible to use "science-based decision-making and still have stupid or immoral laws. Either way, it's a meaningless term, same as "meritocracy".

>>1710673
>>Elections.
>[Citation needed]

You want a citation that elections prevent a regime from entrenching itself indefinitely? Are you mentally retarded? Like, do you have a certificate stating that you're not allowed to drive or to operate heavy machinery?

>>1710679
>Britain and America were neither democracies, free, nor laissez-faire 1750-1950.

Then you don't know what any of those words means, or you have a comically exclusive set of definitions by which no state can ever be said to have been those things. Probably both.

>>1710726
>In America, if you smoke a certain kind of plant, they will put you in prison, possibly for a really long time, and confiscate your property.
Note that North Korea doesn't at all.
And most people would agree north korean law allows for more "human flourishing" in that regard.

Which is why that fag is a tautological dumbass.
"Good is that which is good"(insert weasel word of "99% of people agree")

>>1710676
/thread, op isn't replying to half the posts because he's getting blown the fuck out.

>>1710742
Next he's going to say that Britain still isn't a democracy because we have a monarch.

The best part of this is that we have a guy saying morality is subjective, and the people should decide what is good, but can't seem to follow that through to the obvious logical consequence: democracy.

>>1710628
If there's one thing that people can't agree on, then it's what "the good" constitutes, and the way you use the word "human flourishing" is just like that of a buzzword. It doesn't tell one anything new.

>>1710708
Butthurt.

>>1710759
but, but... decions! science! Human flourishing!

File: kim bong un.jpg (134KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 700x500px

>>1710747
>t.nook

>>1710755

And that the existence of taxes means America's Gilded Age wasn't lessaize-faire.

If there's one thing that 99% of people can agree on, it's that this faggot doesn't know what the hell he's talking about

>>1709728
>georgism

>>1707095
Unfortunately I'm a "reality deviant", so...

>>1707103
>implying government should have anything to do with ethics

File: image.jpg (77KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 600x450px

>>1709728
>thinking Singapore is a proper example of meritocracy

>>1707146
This

File: technocracymovement.png (325KB, 632x377px) Image search: [Google]

325KB, 632x377px

>>1707095
Does Technocracy have to be rule by the person(s) that are 'smart'?
I don't believe it does, despite its detractors straw-manning the idea.

It was my understanding that it was 'rule by technique' not some Platonic 'Meritocracy' or rule by the wise.

It could mean simply approaching political and social problems as amoral rather than immoral ones. As objectively environmental phenomena; We stop trying to change people and start changing the environment to suit their needs and desires as a first response.

See propaganda pic attached.

People want to ride the bus and will hang onto it even if they can't safely fit because the perfectly sensible citizen sees that the reward is worth the risk.

Problem: the other bus riders, driver, and bus owner may not agree as the bus is slowed and or damaged by the superfluous and unsecured load. It may even pose a risk to other drivers or the rider himself.

The owner cannot stop all citizens from disobedience with a simple sign and the government cannot levy fines with perfect enforcement. In either case the expense of full enforcement of the law is prohibitive and the effectiveness never reaches 100%. This encourages 'criminality' rather than squashes it as the law does not apply equally to all; the criminal always escapes and is enriched unduly in the instant of the transgression. Considering equal justice under the law is the purpose and essential nature of the law on which its survival depends, it would appear to be a critical concern.

Solution: Don't try to change the man who is thinking perfectly adequately and thus threaten his sovereign liberty. Instead alter the environment so that the unwanted solution is impossible to achieve. A sealed bus prevents hangers on. The bus might cost more in material, but it is a known cost contemplated at the time of its creation and it completely disallows injuries due to hangers on.

>>1707146
If you are special it doens't mean you are right.
Say it you would like to be Neurotypical.

>>1715455
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Train_surfing

>>1707095
Isn't that what China's doing? And they're crashing? So maybe not so good.