Comment on What's wrong with a technocracy?
DomeGuy@lemmy.world 1 day agoThe American political system occasionally having a terrible choice is one of the tradeoffs for having power be changeable without bloodshed.
Because of lifetime appointments the US legal system is nearly a technocracy as you describe. It arrived at a decision in 1971 that a wide swath of the body politic was so opposed to that they essentially lost all faith the status quo. What followed was a decades long campaign to shift that pseudo-technocracy. Not a bloody insurrection.
You and I may disagree with their position, and we both dislike some of the results of their movement, but the worth of a government form is how well it responds to such discontent.
I don’t think you’ll get any disagreement that the current administration is exposing some flaws in the American political system. But the potential fixes for those flaws are numerous, while a brand new system as you propose would have its own expected and unexpected flaws.
Let’s talk about those goldbugs, since anything else urges trolls to show up. If they’re in power what stops them from declaring that their opponents are “fake” economists? How would we remove them from power?
EnthusiasticNature94@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 hours ago
There’s multiple ways to achieve the goals of a technocracy.
I agree with your criticism, but you’re criticizing a more extreme, centralized form of technocracy. I have criticisms of direct democracy, but I wouldn’t conclude all democratic systems are bad because of the most extreme version.
And democracy and technocracy aren’t mutually exclusive, either.
For the legal example, some states hold elections for their judges, and most require a law degree. This sets some minimum to be a judge in those areas, which is technocratic.
What if a judge claims other judges are fake? Well, the people can evaluate those claims and vote accordingly.
But at least you don’t have some unhinged individual with no understanding of the law abusing their judicial powers.
I can’t really speak to the bloodshed since I don’t know which electoral process you’re criticizing, but technocracies don’t need bloodshed, no.
For your goldbug criticism, here’s one potential example (out of many, many possible systems) that could resolve it: Academic and think tank organizations stake their reputation by nominating economists, and then the people vote on them.
Let’s say the Mises Institute nominates a goldbug economist. I highly doubt enough people would vote for them vs all the other candidates by organizations like the American Economic Association, etc. And if they do get elected, whatever chaos that ensues would harm not only the candidate’s reputation, but the Mises Institute’s reputation. People would vote them out and ignore candidates from the Mises Institute.
DomeGuy@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
It sounds like you’re not proposing a technocracy, and are instead proposing a direct democracy with a bureaucratic civil service chosen by popular vote.
Which is a fancy way to have an inefficient and easily gamed democracy. As is done in Iran and Russia.
If “people vote” is a core and meaningful part of any system, that system is democratic. And inefficiencies in democracy are always and only ways to prevent the people from getting what they want.
If you don’t see how avoiding bloodshed for power changing is a fundamental advantage of democracies I think you may want to re-read your histories. The ONLY way power ever changed hands from one group to another prior to the American election of 1796 was through violence or the threat of violence.
EnthusiasticNature94@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 hours ago
I’m not proposing anything specific, no. I said it was an example (and I even bolded it).