[Comrade Ogilvy]

Please hurry. You folks would be interesting to debate.

[Mr. Anderson]

Well, we can debate it as to whether or not it will work. Happens all the time in science. It has not been implemented, hence it could be a valid debate. Like debating whether an airplane design would work or not.

[Mark]

But not in the sense the PoFo debates are about. There is no Technocratic stance on almost any 'issue'.

[Mr. Anderson]

If these people wish to disprove technocracy, they will need to learn more about it. Teaching people about technocracy,

I could envision a potential debate actually occurring. Not necessarily on issues, but whether technocracy could actually work. Technocracy could even be compared to other systems. Which would work better: Capitalism or technocracy? I could see it happening. Some points argument is possible on:

1. Is there enough motivation to work?
2. Would the government become corrupt?
3. Is it feasible to provide for everyone?

The person debating does not necessarily need to be an expert. Technocracy does not need to be proved or disproved on "this level" as you put it. Do not forget, other resources could be brought in. Articles, expert interviews, statistics, and all of that. The debates will not be extremely in-depth, but they can be done to some extent.

Going back to the airplane example. People could try to prove or disprove a design by consulting articles on airplane design, getting expert interviews, doing research on the subject of aviation design. It would not serve much purpose, granted, but in this case it would serve a purpose.

As I said earlier, it would be spreading information on technocracy. These people may occassionally look at the forums, but I doubt the majority of them have taken the time to seriously research technocracy. Taking part in these debates would force them to seriously research it. You and the other technocrats in these forums may not know enough about technocracy to accurately represent every portion of it, but it could be debated to some extent. The primary purpose would not be to prove or disprove technocracy, but to spread the word.

Kolzene, please consider it.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Does technocracy subscribe to behavioralist theories of psychology, such as those of B.F. Skinner? Otherwise, I don't see how technocracy can maintain a position that human action can be scientifically determined by studying it. Humans do follow a predictable pattern, but nothing nearly so precise as to allow science to measure it. The way I see it, only a rejection of the idea of free will could allow technocracy to not be inherently contradictory.

[Mr. Anderson]

There's an example of an argument right there, Kolzene. Just drag in some external resources.

[Mr. Anderson]

Would technocracy work better RIGHT NOW or capitalism? That's a possible argument.

[The Nathan]

I'd join the team, as you can see I have a pretty good understanding of technocracy. And while I'm not really a pure "technocrat" I do believe that the goals of technocracy are essentially the future of societal infrastructure.

[Mr. Anderson]

I will volunteer to assist as well.

[Mr. Anderson]

Alright I am bumping this topic, but with good reason. With the special debates going on, I think it might be a good idea to put together a team and argue whether a North American technate could function.

[Omnist Priest]

The debate may be that technocracy's "goals" are not exactly those shared by the people who would be governed by it.

One being private property, technocracy sees it as an obstruction to efficiency,but (many)people see it as the only thing that defines a man.

Another is representative government, although it is less efficient people are more comfortable with peers in power.

-Another is income, people see income, based only on the fact that a person is a citizen, as heresy.

-Science cannot have goals, only people can have goals.
-Science is a tool of man's mind.
-Capitalism is a tool of science, powered by man's natural competetive spirit.
-A republic is a tool of capitalism, to maintain the freedom of man.
-Technocracy is man's mind's findings trying to rule man.

If technocracy claims to not need a government, like those demanded by men, then technocracy claims that all men can agree.