Mine is the kind where you get decent healthcare and cheap college tuition. I am fine with having to pay higher taxes for those things.

I would also like to live in the city where they actually bothered to pave the damn roads once in a while instead of wasting a bunch of money on a stupid streetcar that we don't even need and that isn't even solar powered.

CausalityStar wrote:

I would also like to live in the city where they actually bothered to pave the damn roads once in a while instead of wasting a bunch of money on a stupid streetcar that we don't even need and that isn't even solar powered.

Urban planners get stuck in a catch 22 on that. The predominant thinking is that the more road infrastructure, the more people are encouraged to transit by car. Which is a distinct disadvantage from an urban planning perspective. The more people can be talked into taking streetcars, the better.

I don't think there is an ideal form of government. As any Civ player can tell you, each has its uses. I guess you first have to ask what you're expecting government to accomplish.

A technocracy could be dangerous if the elite become possessive of knowledge. In a technocracy, the inclination to rule by deliberately under-educating the masses would be hard to resist over time, to an even larger degree than the inclination to keep the average American voter stupid and voting from the gut. That said, it'd be nice for the people deciding policy on, say, internet privacy, actually had some idea of the technology they're deciding on.

@Giovanna

Yes, but the problem with the streetcar is that it only goes on one street in the entire city: fourth avenue. And if they would rather invest in public transportation with the money instead of fixing the potholes, they would get more out of their money if they had just expanded the existing bus service. (For example, making it so that the buses come more often on the busier routes.) While the streetcar looks cool, it's basically a vanity project.

Oh well, at least I've gotten good at avoiding the potholes when I'm driving. I live in Tucson right now since it's summer time and actually the traffic here it's too bad compared to other cities like Phoenix. It can get bad during rush hour, but other than that it's not to horrible.

I agree with you about the possible problems with a technocracy, but I do wish that our politicians weren't completely ignorant when it comes to science and technology.

Technocratic government will ultimately always come to the same ends as plutocratic, aristocratic, etc. Putting the power into the hands of any sort of elite will ultimately lead to corruption. Just because people are smart doesn't mean they're not self-serving, which is probably an even bigger problem in government in the first place. At the very least, it's based on intelligence and mastery of technology. There's a huge swath of the population right now that can't afford a computer. The people at the top in a technocratic system would have absolutely no incentive to help them get access to technology to learn, since that would make them able to compete for the jobs of themselves and their children.

I envision there being a very powerful popular feedback element, one based on decentralized auditing of technocratic institutions and quality of life, kind of like Yelp, but more sophisticated. You don't have to be particularly well-trained to judge results in any field. That's why "what do you do" is such an uncomfortable question for Mensa.

Okay, so let's go with just straight intelligence as the basis. How are we going to measure that? Through intelligence tests? The controversies surrounding them is miles long, whether through cultural differences, intelligent people who are bad test takers, etc.

Defining intelligence in terms of being able to learn quickly and do complex tasks instead of word puzzles, IOW more sophisticated, indisputable tests, would probably solve this problem. But I agree that the current crop of tests is pretty terrible.

That, and if you're only taking the best of the best, I can tell you right now that this leaves any child with a learning disability right out in the cold. Even assuming a child with, say, dyslexia gets the best treatment ever, they're still naturally going to be playing catch-up from a very long distance. I remember a story a while back about a City Council Member taking one of the high-stakes skills tests that would normally determine whether a child passes or fails...and failing miserably. Not to mention that anyone working with gifted students can tell you that a huge majority of them were simply taught from such a young age that they've got a leg-up on everyone else--it's why Pre-K is becoming mandatory more and more, and why the parents of gifted children have such a reputation as being overbearing assholes. If you can read when you're three years old, you've basically got all of Kindergarten and first grade to figure out things even farther. That advantage carries over to THE REST OF THEIR LIVES. Practically anyone would be smarter with a two year head start.

I don't see too much of a problem with this. The disorders you mention, dyslexia and learning disabilities, are debilitating and would rightfully disqualify people from government. I mean, shouldn't anyone with some sort of authority have to be able to READ?

This reminds me of "The Know-It-All" where the author A. J. Jacobs manages to get into MENSA. He goes to a meeting and quickly learns that the worst question you can ask there is, "So what do you do?" Because a large amount of members didn't have jobs and didn't do much of anything. Intellect =/= Good at anything, able to give back to society, mentally-stable, responsible, etc. t proves you're really awesome at taking tests.

IQ alone wouldn't be enough to qualify for 95% of jobs, a lot of it is based on just having the right expertise. No corporate/legalistic word salad, all your terminology has to be well defined. If people were encouraged to use precise terminology and well defined concepts, almost all of our political controversies would evaporate overnight.

I think that a defining feature of technocracy would be an increased focus on principle and logical rigor, and less of one on people. There's an Eleanor Roosevelt quote about how great people talk about ideas and small people talk about people. Administration of things overcoming the administration of people.

Last edited by Overlord Morgus (07-26-2012 07:55:03 AM)

I was going with Frau Eva's conception of dyslexia and learning disabilities as things that keep someone from being the "best of the best," and I don't see a problem with only selecting for the "best of the best." But obviously dyslexia didn't keep your sister from being amongst them, and I really jumped the gun by calling those problems "debilitating."

Last edited by Overlord Morgus (07-26-2012 08:26:45 AM)

I guess it's better if the technocracy focuses more on creation and less on control. The parent's groups and old industries are controlling forces rather than creative forces, so maybe they should be excluded in most matters. This is perhaps a principle that can be generalized. Control, social or otherwise, should only be implemented in cases where behavior threatens survival, which is MUCH more rare than all the alarmists think.

This would still probably exclude a lot of people, most people are more control oriented. This is true even of "anarchic" elements like gangs. Not too much of a loss, IMO.

This is a really good principle of governance, I find this discussion to be quite useful.

Last edited by Overlord Morgus (07-26-2012 09:08:23 AM)

Hmmm... it's definitely best to start small, with a city or a town or a corporation or something.

It does also rather rely on solving the problem of working out what threatens "survival", and who this survival concept applies to. Society as this invisible force / concept we usually refer to it as?

This is where encouraging people to have well-defined concepts and terminology comes in.

Last edited by Overlord Morgus (07-26-2012 10:02:02 AM)

That's an interesting take on the question, I kind of didn't read it that way. I'd pretty much agree though, Aine, it's one of these cases were to meet one person's ideal, you'd really end up at some point having to tread on someone else's ideals, and probably far worse. There's not really an "everyone wins" solution there, because lets face it, governance of 300 million people in the US case is just hard, man. You're like, 50 different countries all glued together really, with 300 million different opinions and sets of needs there.

I read it more as a "Hey everyone, what's your ideal form of Government" kind of opinion thread, myself.

Overlord Morgus wrote:

Frau Eva wrote:

Technocratic government will ultimately always come to the same ends as plutocratic, aristocratic, etc. Putting the power into the hands of any sort of elite will ultimately lead to corruption. Just because people are smart doesn't mean they're not self-serving, which is probably an even bigger problem in government in the first place. At the very least, it's based on intelligence and mastery of technology. There's a huge swath of the population right now that can't afford a computer. The people at the top in a technocratic system would have absolutely no incentive to help them get access to technology to learn, since that would make them able to compete for the jobs of themselves and their children.

I envision there being a very powerful popular feedback element, one based on decentralized auditing of technocratic institutions and quality of life, kind of like Yelp, but more sophisticated. You don't have to be particularly well-trained to judge results in any field. That's why "what do you do" is such an uncomfortable question for Mensa.

Hang on.  So officials in your technocracy can be ejected based on public feedback that institutions are crappy and quality of life is poor -- "kind of like Yelp, but more sophisticated."  Question 1: isn't this what we do already?  We have a mechanism like that in America, called an election.

As for the rest: you know, I wrote a big long post about it, but eventually decided that you haven't yet explained your idea completely enough for me to sensibly evaluate it.  Instead, let me ask you about this:

Overlord Morgus wrote:

I think that a defining feature of technocracy would be an increased focus on principle and logical rigor, and less of one on people. There's an Eleanor Roosevelt quote about how great people talk about ideas and small people talk about people. Administration of things overcoming the administration of people.

Question 2: Don't you think that running a government requires a great deal of skill at "the administration of people?"

Question 3: Do you believe that most of the important questions facing our government can be solved using "principle and logical rigor" alone?

*Takes a deep breath*
My ideal government is...complicated. It would be based on an ideal society... well one that I think is ideal. In my daydreams it would consist of a council, one that I wouldn't be apart of (I'd be a soldier of sorts, but let's not dive into the churning pit that is my mind)






  I'd like to live in a country that didn't use gold to back up  money. I know it's not traditional, but there's got to be another way. Not bartering services for services though, because how exactly would I expect a farmer to have a house built for his/her family without having to be indebted to that person for quite some time? Yet in lieu of that, I'd also want some serious attention payed to the welfare of living. By that I mean clean and efficient energy to power everything. Of course that would mean years of research, studies, and plans. That would extend to weapons logistics as well. Education is definitely key, but how to pay for it all? I'm not sure... I just think gold is more valuable as a material that is actually used.

I'd like to live in a country that didn't use gold to back up  money. I know it's not traditional, but there's got to be another way.

Maybe one backed up by energy? Send in one certificate, get a kilowatt-hr? Or you could make a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin, you don't have to mine anything, and it's actually more dependable than a paper currency backed up by gold or any other resource, since our fiat currencies are actually derived from goldsmiths giving out claim checks on gold they didn't have.

Not bartering services for services though, because how exactly would I expect a farmer to have a house built for his/her family without having to be indebted to that person for quite some time? Yet in lieu of that, I'd also want some serious attention payed to the welfare of living. By that I mean clean and efficient energy to power everything. Of course that would mean years of research, studies, and plans. That would extend to weapons logistics as well. Education is definitely key, but how to pay for it all? I'm not sure... I just think gold is more valuable as a material that is actually used.

Thorium energy will solve all our problems within 10-15 years.

your "logical rigor" led you to say that people with LD's are basically illiterate. So your logic was flawed. And if your logic is flawed, how do you chose someone whose logic will be ~flawless~ to others?

I don't have much experience with LD's. Given the new information about the people you know, I have changed my views.

no one has the "right" logic or principles. my principles are not the same as yours, but that doesn't make them any less valid. if you, as my ruling body, make a decision that's in line with your "logic and principles" but not with mine, then who is at fault? the problem with your little ideal solution is the requirement of a homogeneous society -one that thinks and acts in the same proscribed manner.

I don't believe in a homogeneous society, any technologically advanced society needs a very specialized populace. That said, no one believes in a fundamental equality of different value systems, to hint at one is kind of disingenuous

industry is meant to serve the people, not the other way around.

Human bodies have very basic needs, it's true that many people do not have these needs met, but to turn all of industry towards servicing these needs rather than, say, space travel or the pursuit of artificial intelligence is a bit excessive. That's why our consumer economy is so overbuilt, because so much effort is put into fulfilling needs and even desires that do not exist.

Last edited by Overlord Morgus (07-26-2012 01:19:41 PM)

Stephen wrote:

Do you give in to the popular feedback in those cases and try to legislate for things your own technocratic institutions feel are not problems at all? Or do you ignore the popular feedback on the grounds the technocratic institution feels it knows better about how significant these issues are, or the futility of solving through legislation?

My guess is that in an idealized government run this way, the general populace would be educated to the same set of ethics and so wouldn't commonly disagree on that kind of legislative issue.