Is it possible to have a technocracy?

[Erizium]

There. As there was never any significant movement for this untested government form, was there ever a chance that a country could become technocratic? Not just in name, but in practice

 

[jahenders]

There. As there was never any significant movement for this untested government form, was there ever a chance that a country could become technocratic? Not just in name, but in practice

Unless you had a situation where certain people held clear monopolies on key technologies, you'd likely really just wind up with a plutocracy. That is, you might have rule by Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc, but it would be because the're technology companies that have won in the marketplace, have deep pockets, and have political influence, not necessarily because they have the best tech or 'control' tech.

Even if it was somehow rule by technocrats, you'd still have those who are politically savvy and those who aren't, so you'd have lots of "men behind the thrones" pulling the strings.

 

[Sasalele]

It can be argued that East Germany was sort of a Technocracy since most of its politicians were engineers by trade. I can see North Korea encouraging technocracy since the country is so under developed and to find a way to stop their famines.

 

[Steve Brinson]

Well, I suppose it depends on one's definition. Had Project Cybersyn gotten off the ground, we could certainly see one, I think.

 

[asnys]

Could you define what you mean by that? I mean, there was Howard Scott's Technocracy, Inc., in the US, but I'm not sure if that's what you have in mind.

 

[Bulldoggus]

I was under the impression that Portugal came pretty close under Salazar. As did Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew.

 

[Lateknight]

Yes it's possiable but it's probably not a great idea. Better then allowing social science majors to be in charge though.

 

[NolanFoster]

The state is the manager of the common affairs of the ruling class anyway. It's not really that meaningful of a concept - sort of like meritocracy.

 

[greenbay2014]

Well, in the modern era you could have an 'electronic direct democracy' where massive nations are actually able to exert democracy via voting through the internet.

Societies have long been deemed too large to allow democracy function but ironically, with more humans than ever, alas it is possible.

 

[jahenders]

Well, in the modern era you could have an 'electronic direct democracy' where massive nations are actually able to exert democracy via voting through the internet.

Societies have long been deemed too large to allow democracy function but ironically, with more humans than ever, alas it is possible.

Even with electronic direct democracy, most proposals are focused on key elections, NOT on 'the masses' crafting and voting on all legislation. That could be done, but could easily devolve to mobocracy. Imagine stars telling people they should vote for the execution of their enemies ....

 

[Flocculencio]

There. As there was never any significant movement for this untested government form, was there ever a chance that a country could become technocratic? Not just in name, but in practice

Singapore is one. The system isn't sustainable because it turns into a self satisfied aristocracy.

 

[RousseauX]

Well, in the modern era you could have an 'electronic direct democracy' where massive nations are actually able to exert democracy via voting through the internet.

Societies have long been deemed too large to allow democracy function but ironically, with more humans than ever, alas it is possible.

this is the worst idea ever because the average voter is a retard who can't balance a checkbook knows nothing about policy and is now gonna vote on the level of carbon emissions allowed in a car plant based on what cable news tell them.

 

[Niko Malaka]

Even with electronic direct democracy, most proposals are focused on key elections, NOT on 'the masses' crafting and voting on all legislation. That could be done, but could easily devolve to mobocracy. Imagine stars telling people they should vote for the execution of their enemies ....

There are participative techniques to make the decissionmaking more plural long ago and well researched and sometimes tested in smaller scaler. Another key to promote participative socoeties is in the pedagogical field. In most societies children are not encouragee to take part in this lind of proccess (and take the responsability that comes with it) but rather to follow the decissions made by others. It has not be a mobocracy, which at the end of the day would be anything but a participative/participated society.

 

[jahenders]

There are participative techniques to make the decissionmaking more plural long ago and well researched and sometimes tested in smaller scaler. Another key to promote participative socoeties is in the pedagogical field. In most societies children are not encouragee to take part in this lind of proccess (and take the responsability that comes with it) but rather to follow the decissions made by others. It has not be a mobocracy, which at the end of the day would be anything but a participative/participated society.

I'll grant that such participative decision making is technically possible -- I question how long it would be before various power groups eventually took control of the process.

Actually, a mobocracy IS a participative model -- it's just one where there's little restriction on what the participative model can do (i.e. few checks and balances) and where the general mindset of the participative group becomes, "Hey, we have the power here, so we can vote ourselves other peoples' stuff." Pure democracy, without constraints, becomes mobocracy as soon as the mood gets hateful.