Author Topic: Technocracy  (Read 4110 times)


WWI was intentional. I'm pretty sure people had more rights during WWII after learning from WWI.

Well, there was a rations system that limited people's dietary habits, productions was almost entirely set to war.

Also, America emerged vastly more powerful from WWII than from WWI.

I personally think that technocracy is an excellent idea, but instead of having meritable individuals in positions of responsibility, we have a functional document.

SWAT One, I'm surprised you haven't commented on this. Do you think this is the solution to the problem you brought up?

A country run by nerds? I'm in.

This is a terrible idea, why wouldn't we want economists? Does this get rid of the constitution because I'm pretty sure that if the person is an expert in technology they aren't an expert on constitutional law.

Richard Dawkins for president

SWAT One, I'm surprised you haven't commented on this. Do you think this is the solution to the problem you brought up?
No.  That's not a solution in any situation, because there will need to be authority figures that execute the law and make sure that these laws are being obeyed.

There will always need to be an absolute authority.  When the constitution claims that it is "The Supreme Law of the Land," there are still authorities that are required to execute it.

So by what you're saying is that organized anarchy is the solution?

No.  That's not a solution in any situation, because there will need to be authority figures that execute the law and make sure that these laws are being obeyed.

There will always need to be an absolute authority.  When the constitution claims that it is "The Supreme Law of the Land," there are still authorities that are required to execute it.

So by what you're saying is that organized anarchy is the solution?

Well naturally we'll have people carrying out the policies in the functional document. Anarchy has a condescending connotation, you seem to be reacting quickly to my musings. Please approach the Socratic method a little more civilly, unless I'm mistaken.

There are many people who are brilliant with computers that I'd never want running a country.

Now, if the technology itself ran the country, that would be better.

so because they know how to code a program they are fit to run a country?

this is stupid, politics is for politicians, tech people tend to exist outside of any one government anyway.
Things are better the way they are, I don't want a bunch of nonassertive nerds telling us what to do, nothing would ever be done.


people should stay in there own stations, scientists do science, politicians do politics, bus drivers drive buses, etc.
Now, if the technology itself ran the country, that would be better.
that's far too terrifying to consider
« Last Edit: October 18, 2012, 07:47:38 AM by Littledude »

im guessing this would still work a lot like a democratic republic and the popular vote would get a seat in the important positions so we dont have mass corruption

Now, if the technology itself ran the country, that would be better.
Skynet 2012

I'm pretty much an anarchist, no machine is going to tell me what to do.

bus drivers drive buses
But I want a country ran by bus drivers!
imagine how easy you could get to anywhere by bus!