[Omnist Priest]

Alright, we have said that when several energy efficient choices exist, the choice will be made by the sequences. But if this is true than what is to say that they will choose one that is not liked by the people?

I mean not all people want a modern-style city. Many like Victorian.
When will the sequences ask the people?
What will push them to consult the people's opinion at all.

The sequences control the military, and therefore cannot be stopped if the people do not like their choices. Coruption does not come from money, it comes from power, and those in power will have plenty of it, and no checks and balances.

I see another communist life style, in technocracy. I say this because even though you say you can choose where you want to live, you cannot choose what kind of house or how big.

You say that the government will be all ready to help the individual, but again I have heard of no mention of a constitution to protect the rights of the citizens and definately not a House of Representatives to make sure that the sequences follow the constituition.

The people want say, but they do not want to vote on every issue. Representative government is necessary in matters of public opinion, meaning that this Republic would consist of representatives with full access to the sequences research and development, so that they can choose the plans that will best suit the masses.

There is nothing stopping the sequences from lying and never offering choices, and you cannot say that there is no reason for them to do so.
(The communsit rulers were supposed to have the same powers and responsibilities, they were supposed to be minimal in their actions, but look at how communism became.)

[Mr. Anderson]

First of all, the beginning of what you said starts on a flawed assumption. The sequences only make choices which require technical knowledge to make. There is no reason that the people should make choices such as what airplane design would be better for the military, which is the most efficient way to transport goods, and issues like that. To be blunt, they simply lack the knowledge to do so. Would you want people deciding what tools a surgeon should use to operate on you? No. It is better if the expert in the field decides because they are more informed.

Now then, regarding opinions. In a technocracy, there would be a democratic process. Every issue which requires no technical expertise, like how the flag should be designed, is put to a direct vote of the people. A pure democracy. So people would have a say in how their city looks. Simply put it to a vote. Once the people decided what style they wanted their city in, it is then the goal of the sequence to actually design and build the city in this style. Do you want people with no technical experience in architecture building a city for you?

Second, regarding the house. People actually would have a choice. So that point is moot.

Third, a constitution protecting citizen's rights. Technocracy does not expressly forbid a constitution at all. A technate could easily have a constitution if they wanted one. Does the notion of democracy, whether direct or representative, automatically mean there is a constitution? No. It is the same with technocracy. A technate could have a constitution, but it could also not have a constitution. Technocracy is flexible on a lot of issues, as you will see. It realizes that different times may call for different measures, and hasn't laid out too much in stone.

Fourth, the elected representatives. I don't see why they should be in any way in charge of technical issues. To be blunt, they would know nothing about what they are controlling. Furthermore, I feel citizen's rights are already fairly well-protected. Through direct democracy, citizens are able to decide on what rights they should and should not have. A constitution may have a few checks and balances to protect the minority from the majority, but otherwise the only tyranny there would be would be tyranny of the majority.

This may bring up an idea that people can choose to give their votes to someone else, effectively creating a representative government that can deal with issues for the people. I have been debating this myself. On one side, it lets people "elect" representatives who can deal with issues the average person would rather not tackle. On the other side, it could lead to some very powerful people getting into a position where they would actually have the power to usurp rights and begin actually oppressing the people. This cannot be compared to the sequences, because as I stated earlier it is the citizens who determine their own rights.

Fifth, the toughest one to tackle. What is to prevent corruption? You state that "you cannot say there is no reason for them to do so." I say that I can. Why would they? They already have a lot of consuming power, more than they could ever use. It would be like assuming people would try to hoard air from each other. There would be so much that it simply would not happen. The burden of proof is on you to prove that the sequences would have a reason for lying and never offering choices.

I woudl also like to say that the comparison with the "communist rulers" is a very poor one. In those days, there was a scarcity. One of the components necessary for a technate to function is an abundance, like one we have today. If consuming power was so plentiful, why would the leaders of a technate try to exploit citizens in order to get more? It would be like me beating you up to steal your air. There is so much of it that the notion itself is fairly laughable.

I would also like to say that Kolzene is far more knowledgeable in the subject of technocracy, so I would wait for him to speak before you make up your mind.

[Omnist Priest]

That is not what I meant, the problem I see is how this democracy is maintained.

What will make the rulers ask the people?

The rulers control the military and can do what they want.

Not all issues have a clear technological path, if such were the case, there would never be a need for dispute today.

Each member on the board below the Continental Director would want to be the Continental Director, you think that there will be a peaceful vote amonst them?

[Mr. Anderson]

What reason would people have for becoming corrupt and power-hungry? Power itself is simply a means to an end. What would people use this power for?

[Omnist Priest]

A means to an end?

People will do whatever they can to stay at the top, even if they have no specific "evil" goals. They will do whatever necessary to make it so that people do not see his weaknesses and shape his followers to believe that without him they cannot survive.

Also I see no restrictions on years in office, this is just another tool for the use of the power-hungry. If there was a limit to the years of service it would provide a greater goal to those who strive to reach higher positions.

(Everyone on welfare votes Democratic and the Democrats usually want to spread welfare, the more welfare the more votes for them).

[Mr. Anderson]

A means to an end?

People will do whatever they can to stay at the top, even if they have no specific "evil" goals. They will do whatever necessary to make it so that people do not see his weaknesses and shape his followers to believe that without him they cannot survive.

I strongly disagree. Power is always used as a means to an end, generally money. Name one real-life example of power not being used as a means to an end, and I will listen to you. Support your statements.

Also I see no restrictions on years in office, this is just another tool for the use of the power-hungry. If there was a limit to the years of service it would provide a greater goal to those who strive to reach higher positions.

Think of the position like being a CEO. If there is trouble, usually the CEO is the first to go. That's what happens when things are bad in a technate. If things are good, however, why should the current leader who is doing so well have to be forced to retire?

And again, this is based on the assumption that power is NOT a mean toward an end. This assumption has yet to be proven.

(Everyone on welfare votes Democratic and the Democrats usually want to spread welfare, the more welfare the more votes for them).

...and no one votes for people in a technate. They vote on non-technological issues. What is your point?

[Omnist Priest]

My point is that voting does occur, in the sequences.

Everyone wants to be at the top position, if they do not, they are a humble person and are in the minority.

A person can use his power to stay in power by granting "technological" favors. Will the continental director place himself in a mansion or will he be forced to live in a generic home like everyone else? And if so, who will force him to do so?

Also:

Abundance is relavitive, if we have a lot of air, people then want clean air.

You believe that people in a technate will appreciate that they are living better than in other countries?

People are going to be spoiled to death in a technate, with ever rising expectations and ever increasing consumption. Resources will not hold out forever just because we have the energy to continue to extract them.

[Omnist Priest]

If there is a clear scientific path, and no need for opinion, than why do the sequences need people? It seems that they too can be automated.

I think a board of designers and an executive board would be all that is needed in this case. A much smaller and limited government.

[Mr. Anderson]

"Worst" case scenario is that humans are completely replaced by machines and not needed at all to work. I could imagine that. "Oh no! I'm being forced to enjoy a life of leisure! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

If everything is automated, there really is no reason why humans would get screwed over. After all, automation is for the good of the humans. People just wouldn't have to work. Simple.

Now then, let me state this again. Sequences are composed of experts in their various fields. Let us say we have a sequence dedicated to aviation design. Instead of the populace voting on what airplane design the technate uses, the aviation experts decide. Reasoning? Because someone with no technological knowledge is not qualified to decide.

The decisions that are purely opinion-based, such as how an urbanate should be painted, how the flag should be designed, whether abortion should be legal, et al. The biggest problem would be "mob rule" if anything, although I would think a technate would establish a constitution to protect the rights of people.