>Technocracy
Why was it never tried?
Technocracy
It was to some degree in Soviet Union
Contemporary China could also be classified as technocratic
Because (non-social) scientists are about as competent in statecraft as politicians are in science.
Politics is not a science
Technocracy doesn't mean that you assign astrophysicists to run the government, it simply means that higher ups must be comprised of academic and intellectual elite as opposed to elected cocksuckers
That's what the European Union is.
EU is just endless waves of pointless bureaucracy
The higher ups are usually smart enough to be functional, but not too smart to render them autistic
Never heard of the progressive era of politics, OP?
Hell, given the number of administrative agencies in the current U.S. government, and the considerable amount of quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative power they wield, you can make a pretty solid claim that you have technocratically influenced governments right now.
So technocracy
engineers are managed by business majors
university professors are managed by administrators
there's no inherent positives in a person with a background in statistics being placed in a position to run the bureau of statistics
PRC makes a big deal about being run by engineers and scientists but really a government should be run by lawyers if anything
so in that sense, technocracy can be considered flawed
we're living it.
Except for all the times it has been, you mean? The problem with technocracy is simple: the free market will always distribute goods more efficiently than "experts" can. Technocracy can be useful for countries that want to industrialise, as in Russia and China, but a developed economy will always do better without interference, whether that interference comes from "experts" or politicians.
>implying the free market exists
>implying global trade isn't just a framework of agreements that governments push on other countries
Like the IEEE, ISO etc
>the free market will always distribute goods more efficiently than "experts" can
>except in all those cases where coordination is required
wow, such deep insight
>except in all those cases where coordination is required
and those coordination efforts result in a bloated, expensive disaster with no accountability or transparency
That's not dogmatic at all.
Technocracy is meme. Smart men seize power without any laws about "government of smart men".
>It was to some degree in Soviet Union
where they banned research in genetics?
So according to you, everything is and should be managed by parasites.
Get out.
>Technocracy is an organizational structure or system of governance where decision-makers are selected on the basis of technological knowledge.
Considering how all EU and USA politicians are retarded about the internet I'd go with a "no".
no what I'm saying is a very good mechanic won't necessarily do a very good job at managing a body shop.
it's a different skill set.
That's not in any way the definition of technocracy.
Technocracy isn't rule by scientists. It's a time of central planning controlled by technical experts and technology.
>The problem with technocracy is simple: the free market will always distribute goods more efficiently than "experts" can.
Change a few words and this user's a preacher.
Nowhere is this the definition of technocracy.
This is the meme understanding of what the word "technocracy" means. Not the actual definition.
No, in fact ESPECIALLY in areas where coordination is required, the price mechanism is the most efficient way to distribute goods.
Who says it hasn't?
[Veeky Forums shitposting intensifies]
>great man theory
>thinking intelligence exists
Fucking please.
free markets are an abstract concept or ideal.. they don't really exist in reality, especially over big areas (like a country) due to difficulty in instant communication.
Free-market-drones will ramble on as if humans were solely logical machines when that's simply not the case.
besides... "efficient" to whome?
>Why was it never tried?
>what is post-PRI Mexico
It was tried and it failed spectacularly.
While it does have some admirable elements,
I think it would become something of an aristocracy over time, or at least corrupt due to a certain strata being given reigns.
If cocksucking was a true determining factor then it should be in the Olympics.