Explain to me what is wrong with technocracy

It may be a very efficient system to achieve certain goals. But who defines these goals in a technocracy ?

It lacks any vision and values.
What is a goal of a techocracy ?
Who decides on the values the technocracy needs to defend ?

Should it try to maximize economical prosperity at all cost, or should it maximize the average the average happiness of the citizen ? How does it balance freedom and equality.

In a democracy these questions are elaborated in the elections and in theory imposed by the people.

Who makes these decisions in a technocracy ?

First of all:
>biological determinism argument
>ever
Second:
technocracy has the ultimate probleme of legitimization. Politicians, charismatic and military figures have the power to sway masses onto their sides. Technocrats do not, as it is not their purpose.
Yet popularity and thus legitimization are essential to a working system.

Voters decisions are fed to the machines main brain on 4 year intervals.
Maybe it could be done through hypothetical scenarios or simulations rather than direct yes or no votes.

>It lacks any vision and values.
>What is a goal of a techocracy ?
>Who decides on the values the technocracy needs to defend ?
Why should the government have any goals or values? The sole function of the government is to, basically, run the country - security (domestic and international), health, infrastructure, basic human rights. Free market takes cares of all things related to culture and national values.

Not him, but when those things go cross purposes? When security can be achieved at the cost of health or basic human rights? What about when the economy would be boosted by something that costs you in security, or health? How do you decide which of the several good things that you want should be prioritized?

Most of the political issues are ideological issues.

Technocrats will view the issues through ideological lenses just like other whatever-crats.

>Free market takes cares of all things related to culture and national values

I'm not a commie but the free market doesn't take care about all things related to culture and national values.

Also everything you mentioned security, heath and infrastructure as well as human rights have an important ideological dimension ?

Just as examples:
How much are the upper classes supposed to pay to help finance the health system of poorer people ? Should individuals be allowed to own fully automatic guns to protect their own life at costs of having some freaks do mass shootings every few month ? Should the infrastructure of rural areas be renewed by the state to keep them economically viable even if it's not the most economic option ? How much should the goverment care for eviromental issues ? What are basic human rights ?

>Hierarchy is human nature
>he says while posting stirner
did your brain slip out?

And how do you figure you will keep me from exerting power over others without exerting power over me, sport?

Get out Stirnerposter, REEEE

Did sterner really think the average person could live his philosophy?

Why can't they?
The only thing holding you back is the spooks, the ghosts in your mind.

shoot you
anarchists aren't all anarcho-pacifists

>shoot you
How is that not coercion?

Because normal people are too emotional to think that way

It is.

Fuck you.

it's self-defense
if you want to get technical, sure it's coercion, but take that up to the guy who defined anarchism as without coercion

stirner was very emotional, he acknowledged that emotions are a part of being human

>All forms of hierarchy and coercion should be abolished.

You need to abolish coercion with coercion.

Defensive coercion if you will.

...

I prefer my use violence to be constrained within a framework of rule of law, legitimized by democratic proceedings and enforced by a dispassionate bureaucracy.

>You need to abolish coercion with coercion.
You need to turn over some of your freedoms, to protect some of your freedoms.
>Defensive coercion if you will.
Social contract if you will.

>You need to turn over some of your freedoms, to protect some of your freedoms.
No I'd rather protect my freedoms by shooting the people that try to infringe on them.
>Social contract if you will.
I'm not signing it.

You don't have to sign it. We can make you or break you. The people opposite to where you stand are more numerous and more organized, and more willing to sacrifice themselves for common goals - sacrifice is, after all, one of the premisses of the social contract.

And thus is the point of anarchism. To shoot these nasty men.

Not that guy, but that doesn't sound like a contract at all, it sounds like just another variant of might makes right, which leaves you in no position of inherent legitimacy.

>which leaves you in no position of inherent legitimacy
We got big guns, lots of big guns. You know, the kind of legitimacy that actually matter.

It assumes experts are incorruptible and automatically have the same interests as those they are supposed to represent.

Well then all this talk about a social contract is pointless. You have ultimately the same legitimacy an African warlord has over their territory. A criminal that gets away with it in your system has absolute legitimacy in so doing. Your social contract is just window dressing for collective despotism.

That is the goal, maybe. But you can't accomplish more than break down rule of law, and replace large governments and courts of law with smaller government-like institutions (like brutal revolutionary councils). Kangaroo courts and lynch mobs will replace the judicial institutions.

Over time, as organizations grow they will become more bureaucratized because they will require more specialized clerks to remain efficient at larger scales.

The smaller organizations will cooperate with each other until they merge as unions, federations, or groups like that, or compete until some are conquered by others, until the smaller organizations give way to bigger ones.

Anarchy isn't really an end, it's a transactional stage between radically different political establishments.

Which is why it's important to keep the insurrectionist spirit alive and remember to shoot all statists on sight.

If Muslims can hang apostates from the trees for over a thousand years, then an anarchist society can be maintained in the same way.

Literally communism without the buzzwords like 'proletariat' or 'class struggle'.

African warlords often lacks popular and international support.

Also what is this "legitimacy" you speak about? Sounds quite spooky to me.

>Your social contract is just window dressing for collective despotism.
Not my problem, feel free to check out of it and build yourself a nice Zeml'anka in middle of Siberia.

I don't think you understand the concept of social contract. Why yes, I suppose I do support something with similarities to your concept of "collective despotism", but that isn't the end-all of the social contract. While many democracy-advocates latch onto the theory of social contract, you also have people like Hobbes that use it to push for a Leviathan sovereign.

Social contract theory isn't about making the best society or best political system, it's about why society works the way it does, and why political systems form.

>not being an anarcho-capitalist

Enjoy getting fucked by governments you statist cuck

>anarcho-capitalist
is not a coherent idea.

>being an ancrap
enjoy getting fucked by corporations you corporatocratic cuck

>Supports private property
>Thinks he isn't a cuck
>Thinks he isn't a crypto statist.

sing it with me lads

youtube.com/watch?v=yHk7QGp0vXA

>If I replace the government with private functionaries who do the same thing, they'll for some reason act differently!

Anarcho-capitalism is borne out of the misunderstanding behind the reasons why private entities don't commit coercive aggression on a large scale in a state; it's only uneconomical because the state is so much better at it and squishes such competition ruthlessly. Take that state away and the cost of coercion goes way down. That's why you have things like African warlordism and the old condetteroti wars or the the EIC.

>Also what is this "legitimacy" you speak about? Sounds quite spooky to me.

You're the one that started with the spooks, you silly bastard. There's nothing more spooky than the idea of some sort of social contract you attempt to put ahead of your own interests as though it were something with a concrete existence.

>Not my problem, feel free to check out of it and build yourself a nice Zeml'anka in middle of Siberia.

I'm not an anarchist, and I'll keep doing what I've always done and what everyone else ultimately does: going along with the state as I see fit.

Hobbes absolutely did use social contract theory as a means to assert the legitimacy of the system. It wasn't just a matter of why the society forms, it was also a matter of why the state was allowed to do whatever it wanted, because in his view the alternative was much worse.

I should state outright that I'm not opposed to social contract notions; we're actually part of a whole shitload of social contracts in our interpersonal relations, I just don't buy into some grandiose narrative of a social contract that grants our society implicit legitimacy. Our society is, and always has been sustained by mutual force and force is ultimately the only genuine metric of our legitimacy.

That was a terrible choice of colour. Stirnerian anarchism should just be a flat black flag, since it's arguable the purest and most intellectually consistent form of anarchism.

Good.

Anarchist society is not a society at all, and comparing an actual institution with fucking anarchy is absurd, get over yourself goddamn edgelord.

>There's nothing more spooky than the idea of some sort of social contract you attempt to put ahead of your own interests as though it were something with a concrete existence.
Well, the contract is enforced by armed men, so it is quite a spooky spook.

>going along with the state as I see fit.
Then what's the deal if you gonna obey at the end of the day?

>Hobbes absolutely did use social contract theory as a means to assert the legitimacy of the system. It wasn't just a matter of why the society forms, it was also a matter of why the state was allowed to do whatever it wanted, because in his view the alternative was much worse.
I feel you are somehow trying to challenge some statement of mine, but this doesn't seem to contradict any of my points? The theory is about rational people submiting to the social contract because it's preferable to life outside the social contract - Hobbes was all about how the natural state of mankind was constant conflict - but different authors had different notions of what would be a better social contract. Hobbes legitimized absolutism, others pushed for democracy.

>I should state outright that I'm not opposed to social contract notions; we're actually part of a whole shitload of social contracts in our interpersonal relations, I just don't buy into some grandiose narrative of a social contract that grants our society implicit legitimacy. Our society is, and always has been sustained by mutual force and force is ultimately the only genuine metric of our legitimacy.
I'd say that besides mutual force, there is also love, caring, camaderie and nice stuff like that, because beneath my somewhat cynical rhetoric I'm really a cuddly carebear, and I like to think I'd use my force to protect others even if there was no gains in my future for doing so.

But now I'm sleepy. G'night.

Yeah, but you'd want to avoid associations with the ISIS flag.

cool. Does that mean you always obey?

There's the Socratic fallacy.
Just because the philosopher-king, or technocrat, knows what is good, doesn't mean they will do it.

We see this every day. We know something is good, but we chose to do the bad thing instead, and a technocrat would be no different.

Everyone jaywalks.

universities and education is funded and owned by the state which means that the state will inject its own propaganda onto the students and censor anything they won't like in education

You're going to have groups of armed men to enforce your codes of behavior, by this isn't a state?

tell me the equation for eliminating war forever

i really dont get this meme, can someone explain this to me? thank.

>using technocracy to decide over subjective matters of policy making
Wew

>security (domestic and international), health, infrastructure, basic human rights. Free market takes cares of all things related to culture and national values
All that sounds a lot like goals and values to me...

Irishfag here I hate the fact all the poltitians in my country are schools teachers, what the fuck would a school teacher know about running an economy and so on, surely economists should run the economy.

ooh that's deep

> going along with the state as I see fit.
lol you really don't but if that is the rationalization you want to fool yourself with go ahead.

everyone is a cuck in the end get over it.

unfortunately most economists don't know a whole lot about the economy, but I guess it is preferable.

They're trying to destroy magic.

t. Veeky Forums

One fedora to rule them all.

Technocrats are usually massive spergs that can not, in any way, relate to people in any meaningful way which essentially excludes them from politics.

No spiritual qualities.

>abolish hierarchy
>can't enforce it
>people inevitably create their own hierarchies