Technocracy

[Mr.Noßody]

Idiocracy :3

Don't force your ways on us please..

[Ad Bot]

[BubbaGum]

Don't force your ways on us please..

It's a movie! Havent you seen it? It's hilarious, basically a satirical movie about how dumb we are all getting, so dumb that everyone in the future is practically braindead :P I'd suggest watching it

[Sunny]

It's a movie! Havent you seen it? It's hilarious, basically a satirical movie about how dumb we are all getting, so dumb that everyone in the future is practically braindead :P I'd suggest watching it

It's a funny movie, I liked it xD

[Bisjac]

That's not how life works.
You can't just have a "degree in science" and be at the top of your field as a result of it.

well this entire topic is in some strange theory.
no one explained that you climb political power by publishing studies or inventing things...

i guess you are saying that its about power in business all over again, the system we are currently already in.

[Tokthree]

Technocracy sounds like the kind of government that would allow Umbrella to exist

[SWAT One]

Excellent point, well then, we'll have to include theocracy in the system. I'm sure there will be a big faith-based opposition to it at first, but if all is successful, it will die down fast.

No.  The opposite of that.

The conditions needed for a successful and non-controversial government system excluding Theocracy include, but are not limited to:

• Religion must be neither affirmed nor denied by the governing body, but it shall be acknowledged by the government as a right entitled to every citizen to believe to themselves or exercise in daily life, so long as the rights or well-being of other citizens are not sacrificed.
• Likewise, any scientific theories involving the origin of life and the universe must be neither affirmed nor denied by the governing body, but they shall be acknowledged by the government as a right entitled to every citizen to believe to themselves or exercise in daily life, so long as the rights or well-being of other citizens are not sacrificed.

Also a reason why I think evolution should not be taught in public schools.

[Mr.Noßody]

It's a movie! Havent you seen it? It's hilarious, basically a satirical movie about how dumb we are all getting, so dumb that everyone in the future is practically braindead :P I'd suggest watching it

It was a joke and it obviously went over your head.
But most things go, so don't worry about it.

[Sunny]

No.  The opposite of that.

The conditions needed for a successful and non-controversial government system excluding Theocracy include, but are not limited to:

• Religion must be neither affirmed nor denied by the governing body, but it shall be acknowledged by the government as a right entitled to every citizen to believe to themselves or exercise in daily life, so long as the rights or well-being of other citizens are not sacrificed.
• Likewise, any scientific theories involving the origin of life and the universe must be neither affirmed nor denied by the governing body, but they shall be acknowledged by the government as a right entitled to every citizen to believe to themselves or exercise in daily life, so long as the rights or well-being of other citizens are not sacrificed.

Also a reason why I think evolution should not be taught in public schools.

Haha, this is a non-issue. The scientific method calls for doubt. Nothing is set in stone. Only idiotic scientific advocates use the large amount of evidence we have to say it's undeniable. If you follow the scientific method truly you are agnostic and inherently accept all religions while still maintaining proof. It's up to each religion to edit their doctrine based on the new information we find out, but that doesn't mean God, or something else, can still exist.

I do believe sir, that I obliterated your argument ;)

[Shadowed999]

Can anyone sa-

Technocracy sounds like the kind of government that would allow Umbrella to exist

come on, tok :c

[SWAT One]

but that doesn't mean God, or something else, can still exist.

It also doesn't conclude that any such entity is nonexistent, which is why those conditions need to be implemented.  If a ruling party tried to implement that a certain religion or theory was true, when there was equal or inconclusive evidence for and against it, then you wouldn't want that party to take over and implement a theocracy.

You would want- and yes, I sound pretty Socialist, but patriotic at the same time when I say this, a regulation that allows the government to neither confirm nor deny any belief, for the sake of being nonpartisan.

I do believe sir, that I obliterated your argument ;)

This isn't about being right or wrong.  It's about allowing equal rights to every belief system and to bar the government from infringing upon a particular group's or groups' rights.

[Sunny]

It also doesn't conclude that any such entity is nonexistent, which is why those conditions need to be implemented.  If a ruling party tried to implement that a certain religion or theory was true, when there was equal or inconclusive evidence for and against it, then you wouldn't want that party to take over and implement a theocracy.

You would want- and yes, I sound pretty Socialist when I say this, a regulation that allows the government to neither confirm nor deny any belief, for the sake of being nonpartisan.

You seem to have skipped the part where I implied a scientist is only meritable if they don't make absolute conclusions. Nothing we know on this earth is undeniable. I don't really know if I'm in a dream. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support that I'm not, but still some doubt. You can only make conclusions based on the information you have at the time, and only a meritable scientist will never say anything with absolute certainty, and we will always seek to improve our understanding. Seriously, this is a non-issue.

[SWAT One]

Seriously, this is a non-issue.

This is a problem.

By implementing what I suggested, a loophole would be closed.  If not implemented, subjectivity in a ruling party could leave the possibility open to force their beliefs onto a part or the entirety of the populous.

[Sunny]

This is a problem.

By implementing what I suggested, a loophole would be closed.  If not implemented, subjectivity in a ruling party could leave the possibility open to force their beliefs onto a part or the entirety of a populous.

What I'm saying is that if an oligarchy is full of credentialed scientists, none of them would have that problem. Your implementation is inherent within the process of determining if an individual is meritable. Sure, you can put more emphasis on it if you're afraid people will ignore it, but it's there.

[SWAT One]

What I'm saying is that if an oligarchy is full of credentialed scientists, none of them would have that problem.
So if everyone is entitled to an opinion, and no one is perfect, then we can expect to see subjectivity acting upon the populous.  Look, it's a good concept, but even highly-credentialed scientists will conclude on a bias.  You're concluding right now that they won't because you hold that opinion to yourself, and that is why this is flawed- subjectivity is a part of everyone, and to leave no room for it in the system sets checks on the government officials that would institute it, therefore allowing everyone to live under the same law.  That's the whole point behind the Rule of Law, am I correct?

You implementation is inherent withing the process of determining if an individual is meritable. Sure, you can put more emphasis on it if you're afraid people will ignore it, but it's there.
That's not the issue.  The issue is to avoid granting any one group or cult favor among the rest of the populous by way of a loophole in the law itself.  By expecting an individual by their beliefs in the subjective field, we compromise the conditions by which we consider them meritable.

[Trinick]

That's an outrageous idea. The most efficient way to run a country would technically be to enslave its citizens into working-- look at America during WWI. Its production jumped, and it became a leading world power. People were also imprisoned for disagreeing with the war at all, or insulting the government. You need a perfect balance, which is constantly in flux. You can't have a non sentient judge in power of politics.