Coming back around to our Constitution Article VI, again. Our National Citizens Council was just such a forum- not an elected body at all, but a hierarchically nested set of open councils that anyone could attend, if they were willing to commit to the time demands.
"...I think it less important that we rotate them and more important to be able to accurately measure performance and continually make performance analysis more accurate."
I would agree, in terms of how best to measure outcomes that society has already agreed are important. But deciding what outcomes get measured is inherently a political question.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."I think that this discussion is kind of going in circles. I'm still not sure how some of these proposed ideas would be significantly different than what we have now. I do agree that public officials should consult experts before making decisions, but realistically if they are subject to regular elections, they're most likely going to do what's popular, not what's necessarily the best thing. Which is, again, what we already have.
I'm just of the opinion that in an actual Technocracy, those best qualified to make decisions are the ones who make the decisions. They wouldn't be accountable to the masses, except to the extent that they'd want to avoid riots and revolt.
I don't see how we could have it both ways. Ultimately if the decision-makers must stand for popular election, then they will pander to the whims of the unwashed, mouth-breathing mob.
edited 8th Mar '12 1:30:08 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.I think part of your problem, Lawyerdude, is that you're referring to the people as the "unwashed". As if we're all uneducated idiots, when on average we're a lot more educated than we were a hundred years ago.
It's hard enough to deal with the problems of an oligarchy when you have to elect them in; making the leaders accountable to no one but themselves just helps create a completely corrupt leadership that's almost totally divorced from the will of the people. Also, being scientifically knowleagable, thanks to things like confirmation bias and emotional investments in one's beliefs, does not guarantee that the best policies always get pushed in a technocratic leadership.
I was being deliberately hyperbolic with the whole "unwashed mouth-breathers" thing. But your post highlights exactly the problem. The ideals of Technocracy are based on the assumption that people with high levels of technological expertise are, by that fact, "better" at governing than people who are not. We all know that morality does not necessarily correlate with a high level of education. Would Dr. Doom be a better leader than Forrest Gump? Who can really say?
And a Technocratic society is, by its very nature, oligarchic. As I pointed out a few pages earlier: If I'm not one of the people with the technical "expertise" to have a say in how things are run, then why should I strive to uphold that government? And if experts and non-experts alike are allowed to participate in the political process, then how is that any different than most Western democracies are already?
edited 8th Mar '12 3:09:35 PM by Lawyerdude
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.Well, in the constitution we designed, the technocratic bureaus worked like the Supreme Court, they were appointed and funded by elected officials, but once in place, they didn't answer to anyone. On the other hand, they could only design regulations when instructed to by the legislature (who could also rescind regulations). I didn't post this part, but they were given one 10 year term. These guys worked with the panels of scientists, who were appointed by their own, independent science association, which funded itself.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."What if the technocratic bureaus were treated like another legislative chamber? In other words, in order to make a law, both the elective assembly and the relevant bureau would have to agree? Laws relating to the practice of medicine, for example, would have to be agreed on by the politicians (as representatives of the people), and the medical council, composed of physicians.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.Physician arent in the Bureaus (well they could be, but that isnt necessary). Think of three different sets of core competencies: The legislators best know how to respond to public opinion and decide what gets regulated, the professionals know best what sort of regulations will do the job, and the bureaucrats know who to implement the regulations.
Specific example: the legislature responds to public opinion and decides the banking industry needs tighter regulations, a panel of professional economics writes the regulations and a bureau of government employees (accountants probably) actually enter banks, conduct audits and ensure compliance.
Otherwise yeah: the regulators essentially get veto power over legislation.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."My main issue with giving carte blanche legislative power to technocrats is that we become China. While China isn't run by bloodthirsty monsters, the lack of accountability has created a large corrupt political class that sits above the power of the people they rule over.
Generally speaking, politicians are elected to decide upon choices provided by the experts. The idea is to shift the political culture of a society to listen to technocrats give choices, rather than unskilled politicians. All politicians are, in this sense, are literally a public servant. They hand the choice of the people to the expert bureaus on how "best" to move ahead.
But, you don't have the uneducated making the decisions and while politicians may pander to the "popular" policies, the only policies to choose from are made by experts rather than politicians. That's the major evolutionary difference.
The education of voters will vary but everyone will be skilled in something.
I get what you are saying, but it's not quite that simple. Generally, technical specialists do best when they are given relatively narrow, objective problems to solve. Tell them what outcome you want to achieve, and most often they can find the most effective approach. This means that they need broad policy guidance before they can come up with reasonable recommendations. That direction best comes from the elected representatives, who primarily act to filter the preferences of conflicting constituencies. This means in practice that decision-makers and technical specialists must work together in a complex series of steps, much of which occurs behind the scenes. What I'm proposing is to empower experts like another activist Supreme Court, with leverage but not control over the policies of the nation.
"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."
Well as I'm not suggesting the most radical of changes, rather an evolution from our current proceedings: