Technocrats and Technocracy, glorious perfect system or peril to us all?

[Theodarzna]

Not in the slightest. They're principally calls for the most qualified individuals to be managing tasks they are most suited for, including government.

Literally all it is, is an application of meritocratic principle to the public sphere.

A technocracy would be comprised of the most talented and skilled members of society, but this is arrived at solely through bureaucratic selection methods. It has meritocratic elements but is not a meritocracy.

A pure meritocracy (if such a thing exists) would be inherently *fair* and therefore preclude bureaucratic systems, opting perhaps for a democratic solution. So which do you favor?

Your point being?

So your ideal model is without Democracy, a Society to be managed? Not a society of active citizens governing themselves.

No? People are shitty by nature but we as a society are capable of creating institutions to curtail those impulses.

And I disagree over the structure and nature of such institutions.

[Garnier Fructis]

The calls for Technocracy are principally ambition, naked power seeking and ambition.

Or alternatively, people are mad that some people are in charge of things that they have no fucking clue about.

[Theodarzna]

The claim is not that today's intellectuals are above that. The claim is that focusing on the past is a gigantic red herring because what should really be focused on are current issues, and that this type of thinking has taken us dangerously close to the deep end on the other side of the spectrum: the only thing really standing between Lamar Smith's many attempts to allow congressional oversight of NSF grants is really just presidential veto's.

I don't want this country to turn into fucking Italy, where the people and the courts think that they're smarter than air safety investigators (for example) and disregard their irrefutable physical evidence that a bomb brought down an airliner because the collective idiocy of the people already decided that it had to have been a missile.

Trust should be earned, I don't turn to a man and say "Hey you've raped 2 times before, but that is the past, we need to focus on current issues. Here guard me teenage daughter." Just because he also happens to be an ex-military commando with a black belt in karate.

The point I am deriving from history is that we should be skeptical, and indeed take any power seeking intellectual to task, be critical and make sure the worst abuses of that class are not executed yet again.

Perhaps that class would do well to acknowledge these past errors instead of trying always to obfuscate blame or claim "Oh that was the past!"

[Dezerte]

I am for the record in favor of bringing more technocratic elements into democracy. Educated people should be in a position of power because they are better at a specific task than the populace or other government officials are. Democracy as it is today already operates like this, it's just a question of putting more scrutiny and requirements of your government officials so that it can function better.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

This is what the Soviet Union was (or rather, became after WWII). Interpret from that what you will.

[Theodarzna]

I am for the record in favor of bringing more technocratic elements into democracy. Educated people should be in a position of power because they are better at a specific task than the populace or other government officials are. Democracy as it is today already operates like this, it's just a question of putting more scrutiny and requirements of your government officials so that it can function better.

If we are cursed to have technocrats I would insist they be chained, constrained and held by rigid mandates. I fundamentally do not believe in a model of government that makes the people into just masses to be managed. Me and Didactic are fundamentally in opposition on this front.

- - - Updated - - -

This is what the Soviet Union was (or rather, became after WWII). Interpret from that what you will.

Technocracy is popular with Communists and Capitalists alike.

Though it bares mentioning that unfettered Technocracy has in many examples been a road to human tragedy.

[Tijuana]

Technocracy is defined as "the government or control of society or industry by an elite of technical experts."

In short the idea of technical experts managing or running society seems on its face theoretically good. But would technocrats make good decisions? Decisions good for people? Good for themselves? Good for their friends? Would technocrats be less corrupt?

It reminds me a tad of the people who claim Heinlen's vision of a world ruled by military veterans and service people would somehow be a wonderfully functional world, when its likely it would succumb to the same sort of corruption, political parties and power plays all human orders have.



Source

In my own commentary I am much more critical and skeptical of Technocracy and Technocrats. A technocrat is assured to give no concern to the lives he or she might ruin, only to account sheets and balances on ledgers. A technocrat is a deluded person because they pretend to be unbiased, just recommending the best answers. The Technocrat tries to create an illusion of a disinterested, professional management of affairs of state. However, that is just that - an illusion. Technocrats are as subject to personal bias, self-glorification and pursuit of self-interest as are politicians, Kings, tyrants, bankers and other disreputable people.

The problem of Technocrats and Technocracy is there exists a deluded hope that people exist somewhere whose nature is pure and they are above the petty evils of politics and will rule well, or perhaps its a factor that Technocracy is very popular with people whom fancy themselves experts and thus would make up such a ruling class and have a vested interest in promoting themselves as not tyrants in the making but merely disinterested professional managers, just technical experts giving the best optimized solutions. Ignore them stuffing their own pockets, or other rank corruption, they are in short a utopian fevered dream.

BUT that is just my opinion.

So, this is just Communism then? Am I reading this right? It's Communism but now we call ourselves experts?

[nextormento]

I think giving an architect or an engineer input is fine

Input? over the building code?.

[Garnier Fructis]

Trust should be earned, I don't turn to a man and say "Hey you've raped 2 times before, but that is the past, we need to focus on current issues. Here guard me teenage daughter." Just because he also happens to be an ex-military commando with a black belt in karate.

The point I am deriving from history is that we should be skeptical, and indeed take any power seeking intellectual to task, be critical and make sure the worst abuses of that class are not executed yet again.

Perhaps that class would do well to acknowledge these past errors instead of trying always to obfuscate blame or claim "Oh that was the past!"

We should be skeptical of anyone seeking power. You've got this axe to grind against intellectuals and you've done nothing but ignore the reality that non-experts are worse at managing certain topics than experts. You say trust should be earned but you seem more happy to let people who have done absolutely nothing to be trustworthy over people who should be more trustworthy by virtue of having actually studied the subject matter.

And the irony to top this all off is that the closest we're coming to eugenics is Trump's 'kill the families of terrorists' routine, which has been spawned from the pits of anti-intellectualism.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Though it bares mentioning that unfettered Technocracy has in many examples been a road to human tragedy.

Was my point, yes.

[Theodarzna]

So, this is just Communism then? Am I reading this right? It's Communism but now we call ourselves experts?

No, Technocracy is popular with Communists and Capitalists.

[Tijuana]

No, Technocracy is popular with Communists and Capitalists.

Says who? I'm a Capitalist and I despise Communism. How can you say something is popular when nobody ever heard of it, and it's just a fancy name for Communism/Dictatorships?

[Macaquerie]

No, Technocracy is popular with Communists and Capitalists.

Have you ever thought about why that's the case? Communists and capitalists don't agree on much, but one thing they do both believe is that if you want your country to develop economically, then you need people in charge who actually know what they're doing. Why would the alternative be any better? Are dumb people any less corruptible or power hungry?

[Garnier Fructis]

Says who? I'm a Capitalist and I despise Communism. How can you say something is popular when nobody ever heard of it, and it's just a fancy name for Communism/Dictatorships?

The underlying core principle is 'don't let people handle things that they have no idea how to handle.' That's hardly communistic thinking, and that's why its found support from both camps.

[Dezerte]

If we are cursed to have technocrats I would insist they be chained, constrained and held by rigid mandates. I fundamentally do not believe in a model of government that makes the people into just masses to be managed. Me and Didactic are fundamentally in opposition on this front.

Do you want full direct democracy? Then populism will rule, bringing with it the full effects of the tyranny of the majority-issue. People will vote/decide what they want to be true, not what objectively is true.

Or no government at all? Then someone else will seize power.

Or something else?

[Tijuana]

The underlying core principle is 'don't let people handle things that they have no idea how to handle.' That's hardly communistic thinking, and that's why its found support from both camps.

You guys know the elected officials have a staffers and stuff right? They also have various committees where expert advisers are brought in to explain things. I think part of the appeal of this "new idea" is founded in ignorance of what is actually going on. Just sayin...

[Garnier Fructis]

You guys know the elected officials have a staffers and stuff right? They also have various committees where expert advisers are brought in to explain things. I think part of the appeal of this "new idea" is founded in ignorance of what is actually going on. Just sayin...

Monckton testifies before House committees quite often. So, yeah. Monckton is the kind of person who doesn't even understand the equation he pasted onto a slide in his presentation but he's considered an expert by the people in Congress who are supposed to be bringing in expert advisers.

And that's the issue. People who have no idea what they're doing aren't going to get expert advisers, they're going to get 'expert' advisers who also don't know what they're doing.

[Tijuana]

Monckton testifies before House committees quite often. So, yeah. Monckton is the kind of person who doesn't even understand the equation he pasted onto a slide in his presentation but he's considered an expert by the people in Congress who are supposed to be bringing in expert advisers.

And that's the issue. People who have no idea what they're doing aren't going to get expert advisers, they're going to get 'expert' advisers who also don't know what they're doing.

I have no idea who this person is. I assure you, he is not the only person who testifies and advises congressional committees, however.

The point is moot, however. No matter who you bring in, there will be some other person that thinks they know more. That's just human nature. The problem with all these bright ideas, is they assume "if we just listened to me, all would be grand." Well, people disagree. That will never change.

[Dezerte]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy maybe will help

[Garnier Fructis]

I have no idea who this person is. I assure you, he is not the only person who testifies and advises congressional committees, however.

The point is moot, however. No matter who you bring in, there will be some other person that thinks they know more. That's just human nature. The problem with all these bright ideas, is they assume "if we just listened to me, all would be grand." Well, people disagree. That will never change.

Monckton is some doofus who thinks he knows science. And when we've got literally thousands of qualified scientists, Congress has absolutely no justification for picking out the charlatans. He should not have a say, because he isn't even close to being qualified.

Yes, there's always someone who thinks they know more. But we've got a more basic problem. We have people who don't know shit being invited, at which point there really are thousands more who do know more.