A Conservative view of Government.

[Calfredd]

Third, what guarantee is there for impartiality. A big selling point of Technocratic governance is its alleged impartial optimal solutions, but why would one class of humans no be as biased as any other. Especially since our current IRL examples of Technocracy reveal it to be as ideological bias as any other.

I've not argued for such a thing. My point is that the Technocrat would be no different than anyone else.

Care to list some?

[NED funded]

In this conception EVERY decision is simple maximizing utility. I'm sure you could make a case that suicide would be maximizing utility. This is of course completely unscientific since it cannot be falsified.

That's the definition of bounded rationality its on BE theory. There are hundres of model that are utility maximising, making other assumptions that are not necessarily homo economicus. People generalizing falls on bounded rationality.

[Glorious Leader]

With the culling of governmental influence comes the culling of social norms which might prevent such riots. Not the least of which being that there are fewer police and those police are more permissive.

The pinkertons were a thing.

[Macaquerie]

Perhaps, but its a lot harder to co-opt 50 different semi/totally autonomous units versus co-opting one emperor.

I'm sure that when the British went into Africa they were downright distraught at the prospect of having to face so many impotent petty chiefs at every turn and would have much preferred to be fighting against a unified and organized native empire instead...

[Nadiru]

The pinkertons were a thing.

Sure, but the Pinkertons also got shot at a lot and ultimately had the backing of Federal power because coal, steel, and rails were vital national interests.

[Glorious Leader]

Sure, but the Pinkertons also got shot at a lot and ultimately had the backing of Federal power because coal, steel, and rails were vital national interests.

Fair enough. The state did eventually have to come in to massacre ludlow. YOU WIN SIR. I CONCEDE.

[Theodarzna]

Fair enough. The state did eventually have to come in to massacre ludlow. YOU WIN SIR. I CONCEDE.

All three of us are suggesting similar ways to defeat Corporate power. The big approach and the small approach all have their reasons for appeal. I go with what Nadiru suggests and go for the small approach.

Though @Yvaelle is very insistent that the big approach can work. And is fairly persuasive.

- - - Updated - - -

Care to list some?

Technocracy is just a smokescreen. It is a political ploy used to implement unpopular policies using alleged "skill and knowledge" as a justification as opposed to "will of the people" that traditional political activists use to back theirs. The technocrats are usually put in power as a face to a specific policy platform - not as independent experts given political influence to solve a problem the best way possible.

When a technocrat is nominated it means that the special interest backing such person is already winning the political battle. This is born out by history, in which technocrats are rarely ever brought in to harm to the powerful. That means they represent a very clear and specific political interest and very often an already agreed-upon (behind the closed doors) plan of action. Similarly when popular politicians get elected they don't start wondering what to do with the issues facing the country. They were elected on a specific platform already.

When Mario Monti - the so called "independent" technocrat - was put in power in Italy it was because the consensus of the elite was that some control was needed to put Italian economy and budget on a proper (EU/EBC approved) road. When Syriza won in Greece it was because the people knew what they wanted very specifically (their campaign promises and pledges).

The main reason for the lack of popularity of technocrats is that in most cases technocrats are being introduced to maintain a status quo which has grown unpopular and faces popular unrest or opposition. This is done to implement unpopular policy which faces the same (for example the economic policy in post-soviet countries in 1989-) I have never heard of a "technocrat" being implemented to radically overhaul the economy or the government in a fashion which was popular. Do you know why? Because the second they suggest a professional, logical, smart reform that aligns with the views of the majority (or sufficiently large plurality) of voters they are being pained as "populists" while the people defending the status quo are being painted as "technocrats". And it doesn't matter if the "populist" is a dumb farmer or a scientific genius with three doctorates just as it doesn't matter that the "technocrat" made the career thanks to friends and political connections. A technocrat is near universally a defender of both the status quo and powerful interests, not "optimal solutions."

Therefor I see no reason why that would change.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure that when the British went into Africa they were downright distraught at the prospect of having to face so many impotent petty chiefs at every turn and would have much preferred to be fighting against a unified and organized native empire instead...

Britain is itself a powerful large state using an army. The chiefs should have just lured them into the jungle to fight in the malaria infested tropics die in droves.

[minteK917]

OP you are not a conservative. Even old monarchies and empire of the past arent up to what you want. Conservative implies you want to keep a standard from the past. What you purpose is something that never existed in a society in a full form.

Anarcho-liberalist is the title you are looking for.

[Torto]

It wouldn't matter, it would still be an issue of public vs private, would just go from corporations to bankers guilds or some such.

Putin vs Mikhail Khodorkovsky shows us where the true power is. Corporations can influence and manipulate governments but when push comes to shove the government always wins. If an organisation is public, it's run by the government. If it's private, it's regulated by the government. So in essence, Theodarzna is right.

[Theodarzna]

OP you are not a conservative. Even old monarchies and empire of the past arent up to what you want. Conservative implies you want to keep a standard from the past. What you purpose is something that never existed in a society in a full form.

Anarcho-liberalist is the title you are looking for.

That would be mistaken. My view is that elements of the past are suppressed by big powerful states that see themselves as a force for socializing people to behave a certain way.

[minteK917]

Putin vs Mikhail Khodorkovsky shows us where the true power is. Corporations can influence and manipulate governments but when push comes to shove the government always wins. If an organisation is public, it's run by the government. If it's private, it's regulated by the government. So in essence, Theodarzna is right.

Because its directly what a government is supposed to be in essence. A representation of the people, thought its not the case everywhere. If the government try to regulate a private industry, it is via the legitimacy of representing everyone that pay taxes.

[NED funded]

No human is sufficiently rational on every subject to make a compelling case that decisionmaking isn't best left to the individual. Ironically, this is the classical liberal stance which may or may not be contemporary conservatism.

The fed does that, albeit indirectly through monetary policy.

[minteK917]

That would be mistaken. My view is that elements of the past are suppressed by big powerful states that see themselves as a force for socializing people to behave a certain way.

Yeah so Anarcho-liberalist.

[NED funded]

Taxes on things like sugar, etc ironically enough are the goverment "guiding" you for making a decision.

[Theodarzna]

Yeah so Anarcho-liberalist.

Not really, but okay. I do believe in A government just one much more local. That isn't exactly anarchy, but actually everything I laid out in the OP comes from the works of a noted Paleo-Conservative Paul Gottfried.

[Nadiru]

The fed does that, albeit indirectly through monetary policy.

Bad argument against me, the Fed is a bad institution developed to replace JP Morgan after his death.

[NED funded]

Why would those humans be magically different than the other humans? Because they have a piece of paper?

I have a masters degree and most on this forum have openly voiced their rather "Kind," opinions about my knowledge of things. If you are sure I am a kook, how have I come to be so educated and yet not your ideal form of technocrat whose will should be law?

The issue is first, why should they have such power to manage peoples lives? People only get one life, why should someone else be controlling it?

Second issue, what guarantee is there that this person would be rational? If humans fundamentally aren't I have no idea why having a credential would change that simple underlying fact.

Third, what guarantee is there for impartiality. A big selling point of Technocratic governance is its alleged impartial optimal solutions, but why would one class of humans no be as biased as any other. Especially since our current IRL examples of Technocracy reveal it to be as ideological bias as any other.

I've not argued for such a thing. My point is that the Technocrat would be no different than anyone else.

- - - Updated - - -



Perhaps, but its a lot harder to co-opt 50 different semi/totally autonomous units versus co-opting one emperor.

Becuase you are not expert in all fields. It depends on what you've got a masters degree. I used as an example the FED, through monetary policy it basically "guides" the economy.

[I Push Buttons]

Theodarzna you should write a book...

"Everyone I don't like is a Technocrat and they should all be exterminated! - A child's guide to being a pseudo-intellectual on the internet."

[minteK917]

Not really, but okay. I do believe in A government just one much more local. That isn't exactly anarchy, but actually everything I laid out in the OP comes from the works of a noted Paleo-Conservative Paul Gottfried.

Anarchy is not only what people are raving and crying about. Its a branch of autonomy along with liberalism. Conservatism is on the side of the scale of authoritarian. Hence you arent one of them. The problem here is you are adding someone on the actual scale using only the definition of the United states, which only has Republicans and democrats, two party that once united as a whole are barely different. Both are on the right. Both favor capitalism and big government.

What you and Paul Gottfried advocate is known as Anarcho-Liberalism. It is a fine line between the two, an hybrid if you will. One where people have greater autonomy, but not all the way toward social anarchy where everyone takes what they want. And not completely on the libertarian side where every corporation take what it wants.

You are Anarcho-Liberalist. You want the government to have as little power as it can, but to maintain a balance of the proletariat and corporation.

[Theodarzna]

Becuase you are not expert in all fields. It depends on what you've got a masters degree. I used as an example the FED, through monetary policy it basically "guides" the economy.

Guides it to what ends? To what purpose? Are these credential holders even experts on anything? Economics is about as political as any other social science field. Why should they be trusted over others? Can these men, or women, accurately know the desires of all people in a country? What right do they have to have such sway over the lives of millions they've never even met?

I double majored in History and Linguistics.

- - - Updated - - -

Anarchy is not only what people are raving and crying about. Its a branch of autonomy along with liberalism. Conservatism is on the side of the scale of authoritarian. Hence you arent one of them. The problem here is you are adding someone on the actual scale using only the definition of the United states, which only has Republican and democrats, two party that once united as a whole are barely different. Both are on the right. Both favor capitalism and big government.

What you and Paul Gottfried advocate is know as Anarcho-Liberalism. It is a fine line between the two, an hybrid if you will. One where people have greater autonomy, but not all the way toward social anarchy where everyone takes what they want. And not completely on the libertarian side where every corporation take what it wants.

You are Anarcho-Liberalist.

Conservatism is not in any intrinsic sense pro-Authoritarian any more than the Left is inherently communistic. I trust Paul Gorrfriend to know what he is more than I trust you.

- - - Updated - - -

Theodarzna you should write a book...

"Everyone I don't like is a Technocrat and they should all be exterminated! - A child's guide to being a pseudo-intellectual on the internet."

Exterminated? That is a bit harsh, maybe given a nice cup of tea and told to know their limits.