Technocracy and democracy

[Western-Ukraine]

Countries like the PRC have plenty of public representatives with a background in academia or industry. The PRC has also taken a dangerous lead in multiple technologies. Meanwhile in the West we elect our leaders: We've seen our Trumps, Corbyns, Obamas and others; Men of marginal ability aside from sharing ignorant drivel and scheming. The results from our leaders seem lacking, considering the great potential there is in our wealth. Is it the right time to follow the way of technocracy and meritocracy, instead of democracy, to make our leadership more competitive in a world with increased antagonism against Western ideals? I say yes, as might be obvious from this post. A transition to technocracy via democracy is the ideal way I see. Perhaps some day, in a different time democracy will function better, but not in this time.

[Omega State]

Yes. You will have many benefits embracing this type of government.

[Thermodolia]

The reason why China is super competitive is because they aren’t a democracy. We should be an authoritarian state with sham democracy

[Western-Ukraine]

The reason why China is super competitive is because they aren’t a democracy. We should be an authoritarian state with sham democracy

That has a lot to do with the technocracy aspect. Authoritarianism and technocracy go hand in hand when the authorities so wish, because it's not up to the common man to decide on the leaders and officials.

[North Cross]

As a slight aside, how do you pronounce "technocracy"?

I always say "techno-cracy". However, should it follow "dem-ocracy" and meri-tocracy", and so be "tech-nocracy"?

[Cyrisnia]

As a slight aside, how do you pronounce "technocracy"?

I always say "techno-cracy". However, should it follow "dem-ocracy" and meri-tocracy", and so be "tech-nocracy"?

"Tech-nocracy" is how I've always heard it said. I think "techno-cracy" is the correct term for it, though.

[Internationalist Bastard]

I’m a fan of the concept of decisions being made by the most qualified to make them the problem is establishing who those are

[Page]

We need more highly educated experts, and less of the types of people appointed by the likes of Trump. It's gotten worse than usual since the horror of the 2016 election. Look at Betsy DeVos being in charge of education; she has no background in education at all and had likely never seen a public school before she got her job, a job she got only because of her wealthy family (some of that wealth from her brother Erik Prince's professional terrorist organization Blackwater). Ben Carson is in charge of HUD. He's a good brain surgeon but she shouldn't be anywhere near the government anymore than Bernie Sanders should be performing brain surgery. Climate change deniers in the EPA, a war criminal in charge of the CIA, and I could write a novel about all the reasons Jeff Sessions isn't even 1% fit to be AG.

There should be something similar to a bar association in charge of each department, and have it so getting nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate isn't enough - every department head should also have to pass a rigorous exam and be approved by a board of experts.

Unfortunately, having idiots in charge is not going to change until we root out the disease of anti-intellectualism in our culture.

[Internationalist Bastard]

We need more highly educated experts, and less of the types of people appointed by the likes of Trump. It's gotten worse than usual since the horror of the 2016 election. Look at Betsy DeVos being in charge of education; she has no background in education at all and had likely never seen a public school before she got her job, a job she got only because of her wealthy family (some of that wealth from her brother Erik Prince's professional terrorist organization Blackwater). Ben Carson is in charge of HUD. He's a good brain surgeon but she shouldn't be anywhere near the government anymore than Bernie Sanders should be performing brain surgery. Climate change deniers in the EPA, a war criminal in charge of the CIA, and I could write a novel about all the reasons Jeff Sessions isn't even 1% fit to be AG.

There should be something similar to a bar association in charge of each department, and have it so getting nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate isn't enough - every department head should also have to pass a rigorous exam and be approved by a board of experts.

Unfortunately, having idiots in charge is not going to change until we root out the disease of anti-intellectualism in our culture.

Don’t forget the frat boy Supreme Justice

[The Tomerlands]

The reason why China is super competitive is because they aren’t a democracy. We should be an authoritarian state with sham democracy

That makes no sense. The reason China is growing is because it was forced to industrialize by the dictatorship, not just because it was a dictatorship itself. US and UK industrized without authoirianism.

[Internationalist Bastard]

The reason why China is super competitive is because they aren’t a democracy. We should be an authoritarian state with sham democracy

That makes no sense. The reason China is growing is because it was forced to industrialize by the dictatorship, not just because it was a dictatorship itself. US and UK industrized without authoirianism.

Indeed people seem to forget the differences between industrialization and rapid industrialization

[Page]

The reason why China is super competitive is because they aren’t a democracy. We should be an authoritarian state with sham democracy

We're basically already there.

[NS Miami Shores]

We need more highly educated experts, and less of the types of people appointed by the likes of Trump. It's gotten worse than usual since the horror of the 2016 election. Look at Betsy DeVos being in charge of education; she has no background in education at all and had likely never seen a public school before she got her job, a job she got only because of her wealthy family (some of that wealth from her brother Erik Prince's professional terrorist organization Blackwater). Ben Carson is in charge of HUD. He's a good brain surgeon but she shouldn't be anywhere near the government anymore than Bernie Sanders should be performing brain surgery. Climate change deniers in the EPA, a war criminal in charge of the CIA, and I could write a novel about all the reasons Jeff Sessions isn't even 1% fit to be AG.

There should be something similar to a bar association in charge of each department, and have it so getting nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate isn't enough - every department head should also have to pass a rigorous exam and be approved by a board of experts.

Unfortunately, having idiots in charge is not going to change until we root out the disease of anti-intellectualism in our culture.

Don’t forget the frat boy Supreme Justice

lol, who happens to be qualified before these unproven charges against him ever came up, lol.

[Page]

Don’t forget the frat boy Supreme Justice

lol, who happens to be qualified before these unproven charges against him ever came up, lol.

If Kavanaugh were proven 100% innocent of every allegations I still would have been against him solely on the basis that he will be a far-right judicial activist legislating from the bench, especially so with destroying what little remains of our 4th Amendment liberties.

[The Great-German Empire]

No. It is always risky to give unchecked power to some kind of elite, even a nominally meritocratic elite. And even very educated people can make huge mistakes; quantum chemist Merkel's handling of the migrant crisis being proof of that. You should also never forget that even though we've had our Obamas, we've also had our Eisenhowers and Adenauers, while authoritarian technocrats have had their Brezhnevs. I believe that we are at a turning point of democracy where voters are becoming educated and informed enough to vote according to their conscience and not their talk show host. While both ultrapopulists (Yes, this is me, a populist, saying that) and Big Media are threatening this enlightenment, I believe we will pull through, and enter something you could call a noodemocracy - Rule of the Wise People. When We the People are all capable of choosing good leaders, then no authoritarian professor-picking system will be able to compare.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Don’t forget the frat boy Supreme Justice

lol, who happens to be qualified before these unproven charges against him ever came up, lol.

I’m not saying shit about allegations
His response to “do you drink heavily” was
“I like beer”
He’s not giving me an impression of intelligence

[Holy Tedalonia]

lol, who happens to be qualified before these unproven charges against him ever came up, lol.

If Kavanaugh were proven 100% innocent of every allegations I still would have been against him solely on the basis that he will be a far-right judicial activist legislating from the bench, especially so with destroying what little remains of our 4th Amendment liberties.

I don’t recall good ol Brett advocating for the removal of the 4th.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The reason why China is super competitive is because they aren’t a democracy. We should be an authoritarian state with sham democracy

That makes no sense. The reason China is growing is because it was forced to industrialize by the dictatorship, not just because it was a dictatorship itself. US and UK industrized without authoirianism.

Agreed.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I say no to embracing technocracy, as all it will be is a totalitarian dictatorship under a new cloak. I like the rights that democracy gives me too much, such as freedom of speech and press. Also, China has more than its fair share of schemers, including people who harvested organs from political prisoners, and massacred pro-democracy activists.

[NS Miami Shores]

lol, who happens to be qualified before these unproven charges against him ever came up, lol.

If Kavanaugh were proven 100% innocent of every allegations I still would have been against him solely on the basis that he will be a far-right judicial activist legislating from the bench, especially so with destroying what little remains of our 4th Amendment liberties.

That happens to be your personal view point and your supporters, not mine and my supporters, and we both have a right to our different, economic, political and social views and a right to post them, and I think we can both agree that Kavanaugh is qualified, just because you don't agree with Kavanaugh politically doesn't make him unqualified.

I don't agree with the Far Left RBG judicial activist politically, legislating from the bench, but the Lady is qualified.

[Western-Ukraine]

We need more highly educated experts, and less of the types of people appointed by the likes of Trump. It's gotten worse than usual since the horror of the 2016 election. Look at Betsy DeVos being in charge of education; she has no background in education at all and had likely never seen a public school before she got her job, a job she got only because of her wealthy family (some of that wealth from her brother Erik Prince's professional terrorist organization Blackwater). Ben Carson is in charge of HUD. He's a good brain surgeon but she shouldn't be anywhere near the government anymore than Bernie Sanders should be performing brain surgery. Climate change deniers in the EPA, a war criminal in charge of the CIA, and I could write a novel about all the reasons Jeff Sessions isn't even 1% fit to be AG.

There should be something similar to a bar association in charge of each department, and have it so getting nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate isn't enough - every department head should also have to pass a rigorous exam and be approved by a board of experts.

Unfortunately, having idiots in charge is not going to change until we root out the disease of anti-intellectualism in our culture.

That's an excellent point. While I'm supportive of the general ideology of the Republicans and of Trump's to an extent, I disagree with his nominations and way of governing. Even with him on his own. Americans need qualified leaders, especially in Washington D.C. I'm generally supportive of nominating engineers in public posts, because engineers have strong quantitative logic skills and experience in the industry alike. Mandated standards like exams would already be a good start.

No. It is always risky to give unchecked power to some kind of elite, even a nominally meritocratic elite. And even very educated people can make huge mistakes; quantum chemist Merkel's handling of the migrant crisis being proof of that. You should also never forget that even though we've had our Obamas, we've also had our Eisenhowers and Adenauers, while authoritarian technocrats have had their Brezhnevs. I believe that we are at a turning point of democracy where voters are becoming educated and informed enough to vote according to their conscience and not their talk show host. While both ultrapopulists (Yes, this is me, a populist, saying that) and Big Media are threatening this enlightenment, I believe we will pull through, and enter something you could call a noodemocracy - Rule of the Wise People. When We the People are all capable of choosing good leaders, then no authoritarian professor-picking system will be able to compare.

It's a sensible viewpoint. However, we're talking about leaders in the greater scope. If we have whole administrations of educated and qualified technocrats in power, the effects would be more pronounced. Educated individuals like Merkel can make mistakes too, so it doesn't destroy the whole concept of technocracy. Not to mention that Germany isn't technocratic as a whole. It's true that everything would be better if we did reach the said turning point, but I have strong doubts. It seems more like we're descending into a new dark age, with automation, economic problems and a general lack of respect for knowledge chewing on everything we've managed to reach since the advances of the renaissance and enlightenment eras. Hence technocracy, a necessary sacrifice of freedom for the good of everyone in the long run.

[The Great-German Empire]

It's a sensible viewpoint. However, we're talking about leaders in the greater scope. If we have whole administrations of educated and qualified technocrats in power, the effects would be more pronounced. Educated individuals like Merkel can make mistakes too, so it doesn't destroy the whole concept of technocracy. Not to mention that Germany isn't technocratic as a whole. It's true that everything would be better if we did reach the said turning point, but I have strong doubts. It seems more like we're descending into a new dark age, with automation, economic problems and a general lack of respect for knowledge chewing on everything we've managed to reach since the advances of the renaissance and enlightenment eras. Hence technocracy, a necessary sacrifice of freedom for the good of everyone in the long run.

Do you know the effects would be more pronounced, or do you just think so? China isn't a good example of a successful technocracy, because its rise is the result of a mistaken Western lenience. The West allowed its own greedy companies to invest massive amounts of capital into China - an attractive pool of cheap workforce - to the point where actual industry in Western countries was unnecessarily weakened. The West did not punish China for manipulating the exchange rates of its currency contrary to the monetary standards of the rest of the world, or for blatantly ripping off Western technology. The West gave away Hong Kong when they were in the best position not to. And no, you cannot really blame the West's short-sightedness on Democracy either, rather on the fact that those democracies, especially that of the United States, are heavily influenced by a politico-ideological establishment propped up by megacorporations. And to get rid of that influence, I'd resort even to the most pure and brutal of populistic notions.

I do not believe that there will be a democratic 'Dark Age'. You are ignoring how bad a shape democracy was in a century ago, with huge political machines, much more rampant gerrymandering, intimidation tactics even. The reason it seems worse today than it 'seemed' fifty years ago is because it's now harder than ever to hide the truth. The agency of the individual has increased greatly, and will continue to do so. Technocracy might be able to give us a short-term boost, but in the long term it would just breed overcompliance and authority overrespect again, like in the 1890s. Hence democracy, even at the price of temporary polarization and anti-intellectualism during realigning political periods, must be preserved to preserve INDIVIDUAL agency, INDIVIDUAL intelligence, INDIVIDUAL freedom and INDIVIDUAL happiness. Rights and Liberties trump Bread and Peace.

[NS Miami Shores]

I agree we need qualified experts in charge of all government departments, like Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the far right, and RBG on the far left, we need a qualified secretary of education and a qualified doctor as secretary of health, and so on, but the problem is they can be from the right and from the left, back to the same problem, back to first base.

[Firaxin]

I'd be okay with a technocracy so long as the new leaders are ethical. Being an expert doesnt make one good.

[Teachian]

I’d be up for more technocratic elements incorporated into government. That mostly means voters pushing for qualified candidates with real ideas (a trend that seems both increasingly likely and unlikely), and ensuring they have proper experts and advisors on critical topics and issues.

I don’t need our politicians to be scientists, but less stupid people surrounding themselves with stupid people would help the government, or at least start dragging public debate back into objective reality.