OpinionA technocratic/noocratic government would be better than any other form of government.
      – Melchior, 2009-09-12 at 13:19:21   (23 comments)

On 2009-09-12 at 13:20:36, Melchior wrote...
In theory at least. Not sure how it would turn out in practice, since as far as I know it has never been done.
On 2009-09-12 at 13:45:30, Lee J Haywood wrote...
There are similar forms of governing, in a minor sense. If you look at the Chinese leaders (click on names), they're engineers/scientists and so technocrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_China#Current_leadership In the UK, we do have a fairly impressive-looking petition system where issues can be raised - although it's hard to say how successful this is, and is open to all rather than just the most knowledgeable. http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ An example of the opposite of a noocratic style, is of course, the US - where being intelligent is being 'elite' and foolishly frowned upon. (Unlike in other fields, where being an elite - e.g. an elite navy SEAL - quite rightly means you're the best).
On 2009-09-12 at 14:42:08, DigitalBoss wrote...
The LEAST amount of government possible is the best government.
On 2009-09-12 at 14:50:48, Melchior wrote...
I really don't understand the American attitude which seems to be so prevalent. Who aspires to be an average-joe moron, and who would prefer to be governed by one rather than, say, someone who actually knows what the hell they're talking about? With regard to the Chinese I was about to say that their current track record isn't very good and that their limited technocracy isn't working. But then I realised: it is working. Technocracy is just a tool to find the best solution to a goal. You can find the best solution, but if the goal is flawed... Still, I'd rather government adopted the logical approach. Do some tests, review the data, see what works. Not just "I think this is best" or pulling ideas out your ass because it sounds right. If a technocratic approach had been taken to the war on drugs, it would have been rapidly abandoned and various drugs legalised.
On 2009-09-12 at 15:52:27, Thelevellers wrote...
Reason (should) rules! Ahem, ignoring the questionable grammar there, and moving on, what's with the noocratic?! gone straight over my head and I'm feeling foolish now... :(
On 2009-09-12 at 18:33:03, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Thelevellers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noocracy
On 2009-09-12 at 18:45:21, BorgClown wrote...
Don't read the article, Noocracy is the ruling of the noobs.
On 2009-09-12 at 18:51:21, BorgClown wrote...
OK, so if we had wise leaders making decisions aided by technologically-gifted people, that would only work if they were robots. Technocrats are humans, they can be selfish, envious, greedy, or in a word, assholes. Even wise leaders are just human, and hence potential assholes. Could it be be better than our current forms of government? I think so, but that can't possibly be the best government form ever.
On 2009-09-12 at 18:57:15, Lee J Haywood wrote...
Not necessarily - you can have a government ruled by equal peers (i.e. not a single president nor a single prime minister). They'd work as a committee, bound by a charter to approach all situations rationally and for the public good, then it could work. Obviously new members of the ruling group would have to be selected carefully, and corruption should be dealt with in all cases.
On 2009-09-12 at 20:38:32, BorgClown wrote...
You had me until committee.
On 2009-09-12 at 20:41:40, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: Oh, yes - I had meant to qualify that bit in some way. Nevermind...
On 2009-09-12 at 22:12:58, Thelevellers wrote...
I did try wiki-ing it, but got stuck on the right word to use... :) Borg has a point about committees, but if you hold back on the free biscuits it has a chance... ;)
On 2009-09-12 at 22:31:08, Lee J Haywood wrote...
There's been plenty of research into optimal group sizes, so a committee doesn't have to be a bad thing. Bradley's Bromide: If computers get too powerful, we can organise them into a committee - that will do them in. Oh, also it'd be good if the government were honest. In the Tariana language (Amazonian) it is a grammatical error to report something without saying how you found it out. Imagine if politicians had to provide facts instead of spin.
On 2009-09-12 at 23:18:26, Thelevellers wrote...
Wow. We need to update the English language in line with Tariana! :O It would be weird to see politicians try to survive without spin... :)
On 2009-09-13 at 00:57:20, BorgClown wrote...
I'm sure you can lie in Tariana too, even if that wasn't your intention. I say it because John said it. John said it because Paul said it. Paul said it because he heard it at the bar. From me.
On 2009-09-13 at 01:31:01, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Melchior:"Do some tests, review the data, see what works". That is exactly what the US founding fathers had in mind with state's rights. The federal government would remain small and weak, and the states would be powerful. Each state would be a political experiment and the citizens could move from state to state proving which were the more successful, by voting with their feet, so to speak.
On 2009-09-13 at 09:22:43, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@BorgClown: It's not so much about lying as stating why you believe something to be true. It's only when you don't say how you got your information that you're considered a liar. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18124326.200-for-want-of-a-word.html?page=2 In English I can tell my son: "Today I talked to Adrian", and he won't ask: "How do you know you talked to Adrian?" But in some languages, including Tariana, you always have to put a little suffix onto your verb saying how you know something - we call it "evidentiality". I would have to say: "I talked to Adrian, non-visual," if we had talked on the 'phone. And if my son told someone else, he would say: "She talked to Adrian, visual, reported." In that language, if you don't say how you know things, they think you are a liar. This is a very nice and useful tool. Imagine if, in the argument about weapons of mass destruction, people had had to say how they knew about whatever they said. That would have saved us quite a lot of breath.
On 2009-09-13 at 17:00:01, Melchior wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I didn't know that, will try to read a bit more about it. Sounds like a good idea - I'm not an American but I still find federal meddling annoying, so I can see where you're coming from. How did things get to be they way they are now?
On 2009-09-13 at 20:34:31, DigitalBoss wrote...
It started with so called Progressives that think that this county is great because of government, and dumb citizens that think that the government should give them a warm and fuzzy all their life. The US is a great country because of its free citizens, free to innovate and do business as they will, and yes, free to fail also. Its is getting so that now, there is just too much government regulation to do much of anything. Right now, the movers and shakers, the people who take risks and build factories and buildings, and expand their businesses are in a holding pattern waiting to see what kind of tax situation Obama is going to cause. Every time a business does anything, they have to examine the tax consequences of their actions. Businesses should be able to expand as they see fit without paying taxes. Taxes are punitive to growth and expansion. When the government does see a need to step in, they should do so in a free market kind of a way and not a big-government manner.
On 2009-09-13 at 20:36:02, DigitalBoss wrote...
Study the origins of our government school systems also. Kids are indoctrinated into believing in the type of government that the progressive libs want them to know, not the one that the founding fathers envisioned.
On 2009-09-13 at 23:12:32, BorgClown wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: I've looked up the linguist, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald. She has an very interesting biography, and an impressive resume. All her research made possible with government funded education.
On 2009-09-13 at 23:14:03, BorgClown wrote...
http://www.aikhenvaldlinguistics.com/
On 2009-09-14 at 04:25:22, DigitalBoss wrote...
I hope it wasn't US government funded, as it all seems to be now.