[Omnist Priest]

Is the idea widespread, are the world leaders aware of technocracy? If not, then how will it ever manifest?

[The Nathan]

Kolzene, you make an excellent point about the inherent instabilities of a globalized economy. The nature of globalization is inherently volatile, and when profit margins increase you decrease based on the sum economic wealth of entire nations, then the system is setting itself up for failure.

One aspect of technocracy that I admire is a reliance on internal industry rather than external, this of course makes it extremely stable in terms of the longevity of a system as a whole.

Also, the fact that the state is the people rather than a sort of external class that evolves seperate of the people, and corporate control would have inevitably given way to a sort of statist economy also leads me to believe that technocracy can easily be a winning system.


Granted, in the world prediction you give, kolzene, the system may be heavily opposed by some in this continent, and maybe other entire nation states. But because of the inherent high production capacity and efficiency associated with a technocracy, opposing nation states would see the benefit in not opposing such a nation with cheapened exports from the technate itself due to hyper efficient manufacturing. Likewise, opposing north americans would see the inherent benefits in a system that gives them their needs, and some of what they want, in return for a little of their time to give back to the system.

Now, not to strike a militaristic chord on the concept of technate... but those nations that feel the need to aggressively attack a technocratic nation can be easily pacified through a defensive war, again... due to the inherent benefits of a technocracy. Through superior production and engineering, one would not have to resort to the kind of bloody wars that have dominated the past. A technate could easily throw large amounts of munitions at an aggressive invading power with minimal manpower on it's own part. The invading country, if sane, would probably lose their taste for war quickly, and sue for peace after only a short while.

Once again, not to make a technocracy a militaristic idea, but the concept of aggressive action has to be taken into account just as readily as peace.

[Josh]

I am quite frankly surprised that there has not been at least one political leader who has at least shown a liking for Technocracy. While I do concede the fact that it would be a great economical stress, (among other things) it is still somewhat of a wonder that not one leader has (as far as I know) at least laid the groundwork for an attempt at installing a technocracy.

Also, the aforementioned bad connotations associated with Technocracy also astound me. More than once I've shown somebody http://technocracy.ca/simp/begin.htm (I believe that's the address), only to be denounced as a communist, terrorist, and, on one very awkward occasion... Somebody interpreted technocracy as an attempt to criminalize Christianity, and proclaimed me a "satanist".

Does anyone know of any instances in which a political figure has shown an interest in the creation of a technocracy?

(EDIT: I hate it when people do this- http://www.clarkson.edu/~griffitk/honor ... ottech.gif )

[immortallove]

This technocracy idea is truly incredible, and I would love to see it implemented. The major problem I see, besides the opposition of existing governments (the government in a democracy acts on behalf of the people, but when was the last time a democracy did what its citizens asked all of the time? Think about it...) and business;

PEOPLE ARE LAZY!

When the public sees this whole new government, well, they already believe that a government is a huge impregnable immovable entity, infinitely powerful, which is bullshit of course, but a natural conclusion when your life has always been controlled by the government.

My God! Replace the Government? Are you mad?

Simply due to that fact that it will appear quite complicated (even though it wont take much from the average individual to make it happen) and make the public use their imagination they will reject it as being far-fetched, and the media will make it look like a stupid, evil, monstrous system in order to give the public the impression that they are broad-minded and that they have not been brainwashed initially by the government.

"I am an individual." No you are not, Mr Bloggs, you are the citizenry. Get over yourself, man.

[Mr. Anderson]

This is the biggest problem facing technocracy, implementation. At the moment, education efforts are a main priority. The reasoning? When the system fails, people can be aware of an alternative and implement it.

[Mr. Anderson]

Speaking of education, we better get a debate team to help educate the others. o_O

[Omnist Priest]

I believe that we have many more steps to go, before technocracy will be acceptable to the average person.

One such step is the implementation of technocratic solutions using capitalist restrictions....Techno-capitalism.

What I mean is technocracy will be more obvious once some of its solutions are used in reality. Such as job splitting, an idea that can save capitalism. The only thing that keeps businesses from splitting all jobs is that they would have to handle more employees and their benefits.

We need to shift to corporate democracy using techno-capitalist ideas, this shift will be the ramp to soften the big step to technocracy.

Today people are used to avoiding work, but corporate democracy can lead to a capitalist system where the average life-style will begin to mimic that of the imagined lifestyle of technocracy.

It may just save the price system, and perhaps technocracy will never need to be immplemented.

A good constitution in a corporate democracy can allow low work, but decent income jobs. This will occur because automation will become the friend of business and employee, just as technocracy would see it.

The next step in technocratic advancement is electing an independent or a candidate who supports big business, but will work to protect the employee. This will lead the country to corporate democracy.

Most see big business as an evil thing, but I see it as a disorganized system that can be brought together by democratic means to benefit consumer, employee, and business owners.

This way the system will gain the economic aid of automation, without unempoyment, and also without the abolishment of private property.

This kind of system would not be as widely opposed as technocracy is today. The best thing is, we could actually get a techno-capitalist party together and enter politics.

I know that technocracy is non-political, but in order to win, you must first play by their rules.