Is it worth keeping democracy?

[Germanic Nordland]

The effects of indirect demorcracy are in some cases forgiving, as a nation can replace the government in the next elections.
HOWEVER.
Democracy is slow built. The politicians argue over small issues for long periods of time. We can get parties (Like in USA), where the Government are being blocked out by the opposition. How can this be considered superior to a technocracy? For the ones who have little or no experience with a technocracy, I will add a link at the bottom of the post.

In my younger days I were a big admirer of our "modern" politics, but it turns out that it's not so effective after all. The difference between left and right side politics are decreasing, and in the end the difference is minor. The political elite is in most cases good at convincing, but do they actually do anything? Do they try? They're busy finding compremises, where they should be focused on the sollution.

It's a fact that it's ineffective, and I personally regard the advances in technology the only reasons for our improvements in terms of living. Modern politcians are fighting about symbolic causes, giving false promises. We're bashing parties for being populist, but most parties are in fact elitist which is far from ideal as well, is it not? they're not caring about the common opinions, but about what's
a) politically correct, which is a problem when it gets in the way of the state's affairs
b)when symbolic acts gets in the way of the state's interests
c) If there is compromise to be made to "buy" politcians. In some countries, we have more than 2-3 parties. Then the small parties (around 5% of the population), and who's clearly not capable of running the country, gets to chose a few symbolic acts that the government must agree on for support. Is this ideal? No. Having more than 2 parties is ineffective and is, if anything, worse than having no elections at all. You never get what you're promised, because there is 2-5 parties to negotiate with and your party will never come on top in most cases; compromises will be made at every aspect.
d) Politicians care more about their own reputation, be it national or international. This is a big problem as they are running for office, and trying to stay popular is easily more attractive than running your country against the media's will, even if it is better for the country.

In a technocracy, we would not be afraid of politicans trying to betray us, stabbing us in the back. Science would decide what's better, and it would never be lies, not be mistaken. The politcians would have no place in our world, as we would calculate the outcomes, we would reflect upon essential questions instead of discussing it.
And, it's a fact that the common man in the street spends most of his time off work to enjoy himself, not about learning. Why would it be ideal for everyone to have an equal say in how the government should run things? Yes their needs must be fullfilled, but who said that a common man should have the same voice as a man who'd dedicated his life to serving and ruling?

It would in this face be two blocks of politicians, well-educated men and women who would discuss subjects that they know well, and who would be chosen from the viewpoint of the nation and it's people.
It would be the end of communism, capitalism, liberalism.
From now on, men of knowledge would drag the world forwards, and never again would propaganda be the key.

And the people should never again exist for the purpose of the state,
but the state should exist for the purpose of the people.
In some western countries, you get a higher prison sentence for not paying taxes than for commiting a rape (Norway, hello?)
If that doesn't mean that the state is in charge and the common man is worthless, then I don't know what does.

Thoughts, comments?


**Added in longer texts further down, I'll add it here in a short note
Technocrats would be chosen democratically, every 4th year
Propaganda would be illegal, and media would be forced to show all sides in each article.
Persons would be forced to tell their own opinion when adressing problems, and still be able to look at the facts. Facts would be the major factor in every sollution, not personal bias.
Personally I'd not like the techocracy to be too democratic, but the lack of good examples for anything but it forces me into supressing my own desires and make it a democractic process. The key to the techocracy is just that; people accepting their own flaws and therefore looking at the numbers, the facts instead of their own opinions.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy
*I did not read this article and make up my mind in a heartbeat, it is something I've been reflecting upon as I have tried to figure out what ways could replace the modern politics. This article is purely here for people that have no or little experience with a techocracy, so that they could get up to date*

[Kanaria]

The effects of indirect demorcracy are in some cases forgiving, as a nation can replace the government in the next elections.
HOWEVER.
Democracy is slow built. The politicians argue over small issues for long periods of time. We can get parties (Like in USA), where the Government are being blocked out by the opposition. How can this be considered superior to a technocracy? For the ones who have little or no experience with a technocracy, I will add a link at the bottom of the post.

In my younger days I were a big admirer of our "modern" politics, but it turns out that it's not so effective after all. The difference between left and right side politics are decreasing, and in the end the difference is minor. The political elite is in most cases good at convincing, but do they actually do anything? Do they try? They're busy finding compremises, where they should be focused on the sollution.

It's a fact that it's ineffective, and I personally regard the advances in technology the only reasons for our improvements in terms of living. Modern politcians are fighting about symbolic causes, giving false promises. We're bashing parties for being populist, but most parties are in fact elitist which is far from ideal as well, is it not? they're not caring about the common opinions, but about what's
a) politically correct, which is a problem when it gets in the way of the state's affairs
b)when symbolic acts gets in the way of the state's interests
c) If there is compromise to be made to "buy" politcians. In some countries, we have more than 2-3 parties. Then the small parties (around 5% of the population), and who's clearly not capable of running the country, gets to chose a few symbolic acts that the government must agree on for support. Is this ideal? No. Having more than 2 parties is ineffective and is, if anything, worse than having no elections at all. You never get what you're promised, because there is 2-5 parties to negotiate with and your party will never come on top in most cases; compromises will be made at every aspect.
d) Politicians care more about their own reputation, be it national or international. This is a big problem as they are running for office, and trying to stay popular is easily more attractive than running your country against the media's will, even if it is better for the country.

In a technocracy, we would not be afraid of politicans trying to betray us, stabbing us in the back. Science would decide what's better, and it would never be lies, not be mistaken. The politcians would have no place in our world, as we would calculate the outcomes, we would reflect upon essential questions instead of discussing it.
And, it's a fact that the common man in the street spends most of his time off work to enjoy himself, not about learning. Why would it be ideal for everyone to have an equal say in how the government should run things? Yes their needs must be fullfilled, but who said that a common man should have the same voice as a man who'd dedicated his life to serving and ruling?

It would in this face be two blocks of politicians, well-educated men and women who would discuss subjects that they know well, and who would be chosen from the viewpoint of the nation and it's people.
It would be the end of communism, capitalism, liberalism.
From now on, men of knowledge would drag the world forwards, and never again would propaganda be the key.

And the people should never again exist for the purpose of the state,
but the state should exist for the purpose of the people.
In some western countries, you get a higher prison sentence for not paying taxes than for commiting a rape (Norway, hello?)
If that doesn't mean that the state is in charge and the common man is worthless, then I don't know what does.

Thoughts, comments?


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

I've been interested in technocracy, but I also value keeping corruption out.
Generally I don't have much disagreement with your statements. Though, technological advancement was spurred by governments taking the time to fund them, mainly as offshoots of some effort to gain the advantage over their enemies, or as partnerships with business. Science can give us some answers, but not all; it won't tell you what effect homosexuality has on a country, when less than a tenth of the population is, other than "no effect detected". It isn't inherently ethical, either. After all, there's a philosophical branch that does that for everyone, called, well, ethics.

[Germanic Nordland]

The effects of indirect demorcracy are in some cases forgiving, as a nation can replace the government in the next elections.
HOWEVER.
Democracy is slow built. The politicians argue over small issues for long periods of time. We can get parties (Like in USA), where the Government are being blocked out by the opposition. How can this be considered superior to a technocracy? For the ones who have little or no experience with a technocracy, I will add a link at the bottom of the post.

In my younger days I were a big admirer of our "modern" politics, but it turns out that it's not so effective after all. The difference between left and right side politics are decreasing, and in the end the difference is minor. The political elite is in most cases good at convincing, but do they actually do anything? Do they try? They're busy finding compremises, where they should be focused on the sollution.

It's a fact that it's ineffective, and I personally regard the advances in technology the only reasons for our improvements in terms of living. Modern politcians are fighting about symbolic causes, giving false promises. We're bashing parties for being populist, but most parties are in fact elitist which is far from ideal as well, is it not? they're not caring about the common opinions, but about what's
a) politically correct, which is a problem when it gets in the way of the state's affairs
b)when symbolic acts gets in the way of the state's interests
c) If there is compromise to be made to "buy" politcians. In some countries, we have more than 2-3 parties. Then the small parties (around 5% of the population), and who's clearly not capable of running the country, gets to chose a few symbolic acts that the government must agree on for support. Is this ideal? No. Having more than 2 parties is ineffective and is, if anything, worse than having no elections at all. You never get what you're promised, because there is 2-5 parties to negotiate with and your party will never come on top in most cases; compromises will be made at every aspect.
d) Politicians care more about their own reputation, be it national or international. This is a big problem as they are running for office, and trying to stay popular is easily more attractive than running your country against the media's will, even if it is better for the country.

In a technocracy, we would not be afraid of politicans trying to betray us, stabbing us in the back. Science would decide what's better, and it would never be lies, not be mistaken. The politcians would have no place in our world, as we would calculate the outcomes, we would reflect upon essential questions instead of discussing it.
And, it's a fact that the common man in the street spends most of his time off work to enjoy himself, not about learning. Why would it be ideal for everyone to have an equal say in how the government should run things? Yes their needs must be fullfilled, but who said that a common man should have the same voice as a man who'd dedicated his life to serving and ruling?

It would in this face be two blocks of politicians, well-educated men and women who would discuss subjects that they know well, and who would be chosen from the viewpoint of the nation and it's people.
It would be the end of communism, capitalism, liberalism.
From now on, men of knowledge would drag the world forwards, and never again would propaganda be the key.

And the people should never again exist for the purpose of the state,
but the state should exist for the purpose of the people.
In some western countries, you get a higher prison sentence for not paying taxes than for commiting a rape (Norway, hello?)
If that doesn't mean that the state is in charge and the common man is worthless, then I don't know what does.

Thoughts, comments?


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

I've been interested in technocracy, but I also value keeping corruption out.
Generally I don't have much disagreement with your statements. Though, technological advancement was spurred by governments taking the time to fund them, mainly as offshoots of some effort to gain the advantage over their enemies, or as partnerships with business. Science can give us some answers, but not all; it won't tell you what effect homosexuality has on a country, when less than a tenth of the population is, other than "no effect detected". It isn't inherently ethical, either. After all, there's a philosophical branch that does that for everyone, called, well, ethics.

True, but what is ethical and what's not? It's a hard thing to discribe. I'm however for freedom for the people to live their lives to a degree, and "moral" things life homosexuality, sex outside of marrages etc are things that I want to be kept outside of government control.
Coprruption is a problem in all types of countries. I would prefer a free-press in a technocracy as well, to point out evildoers and so on. Science can give us most answers, but we would need free-elections for things as well, in some cases. Like;
a) Elections for joining in unions with other countries, that would change people's life in a huge way. (Like, EU membership)
b) Big events such as Olympics, as these cost the country a lot of money and everyone in the country can not be part of it/does not want to.
There's obviously more cases, but I am not a politician.

Philosophical and politcial branches of government should exist, but they are not the ones that should decide. How many wars haven't been lost because of a leader taking a wrong turn because he "knows better"? Or how countries face economical crisis because of politicians not keeping bankers at a tight leash.
It would at least be interesting to see. Personally I hope that it could replace democracy, as least partly.

[Apparatchikstan]

Be careful how much faith you put in science during a day and age when pure research almost doesn't exist. Particularly in the US, almost every endeavor is politically motivated and funded to tailored results. Historically, regimes governed by intellectual elitists of any school of thought have not been ideal. Any style of representative government is better served by citizen statesmen who have first served their communities through industry, and come later in life to politics with a wealth of practical experience that allows better empathy towards the citizenry and their plights.

[Cyrisnia]

I say we abandon democracy and establish a Jesuslandian Theocracy.

[Pandeeria]

The alternatives aren't as good.

Generally a Technocracy will start to fester with corruption, and who do we determine is the smartest one's to rule a country?

[Lenciland]

Nope, democracy is actually pretty fuckin' great. Much better than theocracy or dictatorship. Plus technocracies, while pretty cool aren't really measurable. Take for example a guy who has a dozen liberal arts degrees might be more educated than the economics major, but who would you want in charge of a country. Also, technocracies get pretty corrupt pretty fast.

[Ifreann]

The alternatives aren't as good.

Generally a Technocracy will start to fester with corruption, and who do we determine is the smartest one's to rule a country?

We could have a vote?

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

Who elects the Technocrats

[Genivaria]

Despite what many claim autocracies are in fact tend to be LESS efficient then democracies do and far less equitable.
Democracy is likely the best system of government so far.

[Farnhamia]

The alternatives aren't as good.

Generally a Technocracy will start to fester with corruption, and who do we determine is the smartest one's to rule a country?

We could have a vote?

Sure. Well, you and I will, maybe Nanatsu and Riso. Gallo, I'm not so sure.

[The Liberated Territories]

Is it worth keeping modern, cronyist democracy? No.

But I have a feeling that replacing it with an oligarchic collection of engineers and scientists would make it worse.

[Utilitarian Garibaldi]

I doubt you would be able to create a society organized by scientists and engineers. There are only so many to go around, and people would likely just study engineering just to become a bueracrat and gain power. Also from what I've read 80% of the Soviet Union's politburo members were engineers, and they didn't really manage to sustain their own country.

[Inzijard]

Put it to a vote!

In all seriousness, OP is well-worded and thought-out. Interesting arguments there. I am a strong proponent of idealistic meritocracy, though it isn't without its vulnerabilities. In a perfect world it could have tons of promise, but pragmatically I'm not convinced. The issue with any ruling elite, be it on account of their own merit, bribery, propaganda, or genuine popular opinion, is that there is very little historical evidence to suggest that they will not manipulate the system to their own ends. Or, to take a different perspective, there is little evidence to suggest that they will go out of their way to the benefit of the people and not themselves. In the case of technocracy, what safeguards exist to defeat bias in the selection of the elite? More to the point, who decides who is worthy of what, and to what extent?

I'm of the belief that the people should decide exactly who and what they want, directly. No representatives, and no silver-tongued frauds looking to fatten their wallets (in many cases the two are intrinsic). The people should not be reserved to a secondary or tertiary role in the democratic system, and the abolition of parties entirely could be a good start. Of course, some campaigning is necessary to win the peoples' trust, and to give them a specific range of candidates for whom election may follow in a formal manner. If someone doesn't stick to their word, the people will have them replaced, though some degree of freedom on behalf of the incumbent may be necessary to prevent constant indecisiveness. The constitution can take care of that.

Cumbersome? Perhaps. It's by no means intended to be a swift and efficient system, but the very comprehensiveness that slows it down will also ensure that the peoples' needs are addressed directly and inclusively.

Note for others who seem to be missing the point: technocracy does not mean scientists and engineers. It means accredited specialists in a relevant field, whatever that may be, using a logical feedback system to validate decisions.

[The Sotoan Union]

This is really just another aristocracy. The idea that the country should be lead by the best and brightest, and they can decide what's best for the common man? Not a new idea. It's just about deciding who the best and brightest are.

Say we take all the current people who would meet these requirements. An obvious problem is deciding who gets to be part of the government. Ignoring that though, we now have our aristocracy, which is what this is regardless of what its specific name is.

But you've turned these people into politicians, the people you ranted so much about in the OP. Their job is not to do what they had been doing, the job that gave them power in the first place. Their job is now to rule. How is that any different from a politician? More specifically it resembles the nobles from feudal society. Moving on though.

Now they care about things they didn't use to. They care about popularity. Even dictators still wanted to be loved, so it doesn't matter that they aren't elected. They get special privileges of course, so greed seeps in. The premise of this idea is that they would make the most rational decisions, based on their previous profession. But who's going to make them? They are in charge, they make the decisions they want. Say an arms dealing corporation asks them to supply the whole military with their supplies, in return for a bribe of course. This wouldn't work in peacetime. You need a war. So they lie and say it would be good for global stability to take out a dictatorship the country didn't like anyways. It's not good for global stability, but who will stop them? A vote? Morals? The other politicians who have become just like them?

And finally we have the succession of power. Eventually these people will get old. You will need new politicians. Who picks them? The old politicians? Do you see the problem with that. You could just end up with a political dynasty. And let's say you find a better engineer, or economist, or scientist or whatever to take the place of the one in power. Will they go willingly? They'll do something to stay in office. They could discredit the competitors. After all they are a politician and a scientist, people will believe them. Since you are basically creating a ruling elite, they will control who can be in power. Suddenly prestigious universities are very exclusive on who they let in.

Basically you are not getting rid of politicians, you are just creating new ones. The people who would have been politicians will now try to become scientists, and mathematicians, and economists just to be in power. The number of people who actually want those jobs because they like science, or math, or economics will decrease. The new ruling elite in this system won't necessarily be immune to the corrupting influence of bribes, or wealth, or personal gain. They are still humans. Finally these people aren't necessarily dedicated to running a government. An economist would know about economics for example, but a scientist won't know about politics because that's pretty far from their field. A lot of modern politicians studied political science, so believe it or not we already have a technocracy of sorts. Many of the politicians in power did specifically study on politics. If they lie or cheat, it's because of them as an individual, and no human is immune to those influences. The same potential of corruption and inefficiency exists in this government as it does for any democracy or any other aristocracy or oligarchy.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

Considering the alternatives, yes.

[Lavan Tiri]

Yes.

[Avenio]

In my experience, the the people who complain about democracy 'not working' or whatever and opine for some authoritarian system or another are almost uniformly people who have precisely zero experience living under anything other than a liberal democratic state.

[Right-Wing Anarchy of Egoism]

Technocracy is just as idealistic as enlightened absolutism. Enjoy freedom while you still have it, Nordland, with the safe and stable regime that is democracy. Every form of rule has corruption, be it the rule of the people or rule of one person or a select few.

[Vazdaria]

The effects of indirect demorcracy are in some cases forgiving, as a nation can replace the government in the next elections.
HOWEVER.
Democracy is slow built. The politicians argue over small issues for long periods of time. We can get parties (Like in USA), where the Government are being blocked out by the opposition. How can this be considered superior to a technocracy? For the ones who have little or no experience with a technocracy, I will add a link at the bottom of the post.

In my younger days I were a big admirer of our "modern" politics, but it turns out that it's not so effective after all. The difference between left and right side politics are decreasing, and in the end the difference is minor. The political elite is in most cases good at convincing, but do they actually do anything? Do they try? They're busy finding compremises, where they should be focused on the sollution.

It's a fact that it's ineffective, and I personally regard the advances in technology the only reasons for our improvements in terms of living. Modern politcians are fighting about symbolic causes, giving false promises. We're bashing parties for being populist, but most parties are in fact elitist which is far from ideal as well, is it not? they're not caring about the common opinions, but about what's
a) politically correct, which is a problem when it gets in the way of the state's affairs
b)when symbolic acts gets in the way of the state's interests
c) If there is compromise to be made to "buy" politcians. In some countries, we have more than 2-3 parties. Then the small parties (around 5% of the population), and who's clearly not capable of running the country, gets to chose a few symbolic acts that the government must agree on for support. Is this ideal? No. Having more than 2 parties is ineffective and is, if anything, worse than having no elections at all. You never get what you're promised, because there is 2-5 parties to negotiate with and your party will never come on top in most cases; compromises will be made at every aspect.
d) Politicians care more about their own reputation, be it national or international. This is a big problem as they are running for office, and trying to stay popular is easily more attractive than running your country against the media's will, even if it is better for the country.

In a technocracy, we would not be afraid of politicans trying to betray us, stabbing us in the back. Science would decide what's better, and it would never be lies, not be mistaken. The politcians would have no place in our world, as we would calculate the outcomes, we would reflect upon essential questions instead of discussing it.
And, it's a fact that the common man in the street spends most of his time off work to enjoy himself, not about learning. Why would it be ideal for everyone to have an equal say in how the government should run things? Yes their needs must be fullfilled, but who said that a common man should have the same voice as a man who'd dedicated his life to serving and ruling?

It would in this face be two blocks of politicians, well-educated men and women who would discuss subjects that they know well, and who would be chosen from the viewpoint of the nation and it's people.
It would be the end of communism, capitalism, liberalism.
From now on, men of knowledge would drag the world forwards, and never again would propaganda be the key.

And the people should never again exist for the purpose of the state,
but the state should exist for the purpose of the people.
In some western countries, you get a higher prison sentence for not paying taxes than for commiting a rape (Norway, hello?)
If that doesn't mean that the state is in charge and the common man is worthless, then I don't know what does.

Thoughts, comments?


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

Monarchy is superior.

[Benuty]

In my experience, the the people who complain about democracy 'not working' or whatever and opine for some authoritarian system or another are almost uniformly people who have precisely zero experience living under anything other than a liberal democratic state.

Nonsense .

It is the fantasy they have of being in power rather than "rightfully" being crushed under a boot.

[Bezkoshtovnya]

The effects of indirect demorcracy are in some cases forgiving, as a nation can replace the government in the next elections.
HOWEVER.
Democracy is slow built. The politicians argue over small issues for long periods of time. We can get parties (Like in USA), where the Government are being blocked out by the opposition. How can this be considered superior to a technocracy? For the ones who have little or no experience with a technocracy, I will add a link at the bottom of the post.

In my younger days I were a big admirer of our "modern" politics, but it turns out that it's not so effective after all. The difference between left and right side politics are decreasing, and in the end the difference is minor. The political elite is in most cases good at convincing, but do they actually do anything? Do they try? They're busy finding compremises, where they should be focused on the sollution.

It's a fact that it's ineffective, and I personally regard the advances in technology the only reasons for our improvements in terms of living. Modern politcians are fighting about symbolic causes, giving false promises. We're bashing parties for being populist, but most parties are in fact elitist which is far from ideal as well, is it not? they're not caring about the common opinions, but about what's
a) politically correct, which is a problem when it gets in the way of the state's affairs
b)when symbolic acts gets in the way of the state's interests
c) If there is compromise to be made to "buy" politcians. In some countries, we have more than 2-3 parties. Then the small parties (around 5% of the population), and who's clearly not capable of running the country, gets to chose a few symbolic acts that the government must agree on for support. Is this ideal? No. Having more than 2 parties is ineffective and is, if anything, worse than having no elections at all. You never get what you're promised, because there is 2-5 parties to negotiate with and your party will never come on top in most cases; compromises will be made at every aspect.
d) Politicians care more about their own reputation, be it national or international. This is a big problem as they are running for office, and trying to stay popular is easily more attractive than running your country against the media's will, even if it is better for the country.

In a technocracy, we would not be afraid of politicans trying to betray us, stabbing us in the back. Science would decide what's better, and it would never be lies, not be mistaken. The politcians would have no place in our world, as we would calculate the outcomes, we would reflect upon essential questions instead of discussing it.
And, it's a fact that the common man in the street spends most of his time off work to enjoy himself, not about learning. Why would it be ideal for everyone to have an equal say in how the government should run things? Yes their needs must be fullfilled, but who said that a common man should have the same voice as a man who'd dedicated his life to serving and ruling?

It would in this face be two blocks of politicians, well-educated men and women who would discuss subjects that they know well, and who would be chosen from the viewpoint of the nation and it's people.
It would be the end of communism, capitalism, liberalism.
From now on, men of knowledge would drag the world forwards, and never again would propaganda be the key.

And the people should never again exist for the purpose of the state,
but the state should exist for the purpose of the people.
In some western countries, you get a higher prison sentence for not paying taxes than for commiting a rape (Norway, hello?)
If that doesn't mean that the state is in charge and the common man is worthless, then I don't know what does.

Thoughts, comments?


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy

Monarchy is superior.

Hell no.

[Avenio]

In my experience, the the people who complain about democracy 'not working' or whatever and opine for some authoritarian system or another are almost uniformly people who have precisely zero experience living under anything other than a liberal democratic state.

Nonsense .

It is the fantasy they have of being in power rather than "rightfully" being crushed under a boot.

Yep. Power fantasies. Authoritarians never envision themselves in their new system as just lowly peons, do they? They're the Reichskommissars or Grand Dukes of Somethingshire or head of the Grand High Council of Scienticians, and everyone would just love how the world would be better if they were in charge.

[The Sotoan Union]

Nonsense .

It is the fantasy they have of being in power rather than "rightfully" being crushed under a boot.

Yep. Power fantasies. Authoritarians never envision themselves in their new system as just lowly peons, do they?

They are enlightened. Everyone else is just fodder who need saving. Wake up sheeple!

[Vazdaria]

Monarchy is superior.

Hell no.

Hell yes.