Technochratic meritocracy with elements of other systems.

[jverne]

Ok, i've said to my self i would not argue in such pointless and endless debates. But my god damn ideals are bugging me out.


What do you guys feel of a system with a Technocratic meritocracy with elements of socialism and liberalism and.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism



As in leaders would never be elected on popularity but by their competence.

socialism as in giving everyone a chance to do something about themselves.
If the citizens doesn't want to participate, then screw him, we don't need beer jugs in our society. So basically it would be like "look, you had your chance"
Liberalism as in people are allowed to do everything that doesn't hurt others. And complies with some rationality standards. So no religion. But guns would be allowed but you need to prove why do you need it and if you are reliable to have one. Voting,...

Basically what you do, gives or restricts your ability to do things.

I haven't really thought about the economic system yet.


Yes this system would fail tremendously nowadays, where 99% of people decide freely to have hamster brains.

Oh and another almost critical component. Robots would need do those dirty jobs now people do. Actually even if you do have a shitty job, if the social structure gives you the ability to educate, all you need is the willpower.

Yes, i don't see this system even being though about for at least 100 years of civilized time.




If you want a bit of controversy...yes even child "ownership" would have to go trough rules at first (until the population becomes self aware and educated enough). As in you wouldn't be allowed a child if you cant even proof that you would be a good parent.

Not as in genetic determination, but by record of your life. As in criminal record, bad parenting, self decided ignorance. Yes the child could be the next Einstein, but i guess in 90% of all cases the child ends up even worse than the parent.


Uff...that was tiering and i didn't even presented 20% of my ideas.


Thing is that i'm a tech and science "nut" as in i deeply believe in them.
So much i would gladly give some of my rights away.
I'd rather live by "nature's" rules than by some guys opinion. (nature not as in lion eats gazelle rule).


I got this idea, mainly to the self proud and promoted stupidity by some people. Where basically the only means of communicating is by beating their head into pulp with the biggest chunk of material found.

Another important factor is the decisions politicians do in our country. They consult experts of the field (for certain issues), only to do whatever they ****ing want. Which...no shit...ends up a total disaster. Lot's of good professors at my uni (structural engineering) quit from government jobs because thy had no word, and took the blame if the politicians screwed it up. I really hate that.

Now take a shot everyone. I'd like to hear what you think.


Oh for the record...this is just my sketchy ideal i don't necessarily abide to it in real life, unless the situation allows it.

As a precaution, it would be wise not to link too much my ideas with existing countries that emulate some elements.

 

[delusional]

I like it. the one different thing i would implement though is a democracy at the local level. And then you would have all the local governments vote on who is most capable to do the federal jobs. But, there would have to be strict requirements for each position, local and federal. I would also give a lot of rights to the local governments as well.

I personally like the idea of urbanates where cities are very well planned, energy efficient, and healthier. And have these urbanates connected by monorails and such so it doesn't drastically hurt wildlife, or cut them off from everything.

 

[jverne]

I like it. the one different thing i would implement though is a democracy at the local level. And then you would have all the local governments vote on who is most capable to do the federal jobs. But, there would have to be strict requirements for each position, local and federal. I would also give a lot of rights to the local governments as well.

I personally like the idea of urbanates where cities are very well planned, energy efficient, and healthier. And have these urbanates connected by monorails and such so it doesn't drastically hurt wildlife, or cut them off from everything.

i'm a bit skeptical that only local governments would have the right to vote for federal. it might work, but i'm leaning more to the "let the people that deserve, vote"

but decentralized government is sometimes good. yes i support monorails and mass transport.

edit: i've been reading about this urbanates, and i really like the idea!


edit #2: wow...interesting reading

edit #3: nice, i like it!


edit #4: funny, i joined the NET community

 

[15357]

I like the technocracy part, but feel that there must be lesser control on economy, as well as tighter restrictions for citizens lest they get any ideas about "resistance" against the best, most competent and efficient goverment there is.

 

[jverne]

I like the technocracy part, but feel that there must be lesser control on economy, as well as tighter restrictions for citizens lest they get any ideas about "resistance" against the best, most competent and efficient goverment there is.

actually, economy wouldn't be controlled by governments but by interactive participation.

people would have energy credits that they are allowed to spend.
there would be no money.

i don't know that much currently to debate but i'm learning.


the best thing for such a socioeconomic system is democracy or libertine, where people decide what is right or wrong in compliance with natural limitations.

so basically rioters without a rational reason would be expelled from the society.
you can riot if your arguments hold water.

 

[15357]

actually, economy wouldn't be controlled by governments but by interactive participation.

people would have energy credits that they are allowed to spend.
there would be no money.

...... Why does that remind me of clothing coupons in 1984 (And North Korea?)

the best thing for such a socioeconomic system is democracy or libertine, where people decide what is right or wrong in compliance with natural limitations.

People can be fulled, much too easily.

so basically rioters without a rational reason would be expelled from the society.
you can riot if your arguments hold water.

Oh goo-

Wait, what? No, no terrible idea. Why the hell would you legalize rioting? A guy comes up with a good argument, and then it's ok for him to burn down cities? What?

 

[HunterSeeker]

...... Why does that remind me of clothing coupons in 1984 (And North Korea?)





People can be fulled, much too easily.


Oh goo-

Wait, what? No, no terrible idea. Why the hell would you legalize rioting? A guy comes up with a good argument, and then it's ok for him to burn down cities? What?

I dont think its so much legalizing rioting as reducing the punishment for those that have a legitimate reason for it, instead of expulsion you get jail for example.

Personally, I dont trust people enough to think this is a good idea. It lacks protection against corruption.

 

[Solaris]

Just pure 100% socialism imo

 

[Nemesis6]

I feel the need to post a big picture of Lenin, but I won't.

 

[Solaris]

I feel the need to post a big picture of Lenin, but I won't.

Allow me

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labour...I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.

• Albert Einstein, "Why Socialism?" (essay originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review, May 1949)

 

[jverne]

Just pure 100% socialism imo

let's say about 20% shall we.

socialism is also a scarcity based monetary system.

technocratic systems have the abundance system in place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_(economics)


yes i mentioned that this world order isn't yet achievable.

corruption...in a truly working system that wouldn't be much of a problem, because science would determine how efficient someone is.

keep in mind that robotics and computer automatism have a major role in such a society.

thing is that material goods wouldn't be so important.

every citizen would get enough energy units to fulfill his needs.

read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Accounting

Under the Energy Accounting system, a car, for example, would be valued by the energy it takes to create the product (energy to run and supply the factory plus the energy to transport all materials and the final product). In this way, ecological costs are accounted for since energy is the main non-renewable resource consumed by humans. Any manufacturing system which produces a car using less energy would be cheaper in price and cost fewer energy-credits. In this way, quality and efficiency are maximized through careful review of their toll on the total reserve of energy available to the population.

Another example of why technocrats support the energy accounting system is that they say it eliminates social problems which are caused by the current Price system. Since the productive capacity of the technate is equally available, technocrats state that things such as theft, gender inequality, and even racial hierarchies would be greatly discouraged.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Like Numbers, I like Technocracy without losing our capitalistic urges. Scientists in power is a good thing. Making money makes life interesting.

Technocracy is inherantly anti-democratic, though, as the common man is exempt from being able to have power. Still, with the whole backwardness that's rife across the West ("Stem cell research is evil! MMR jabs cause autism! The world was made 6000 years ago! We don't need medicine because we have homeopathy!" I'm not sure that's such a bad thing.

-Angry Lawyer