EnthusiasticNature94

So this is the manual that the bad tech support lines use. 😭

Technology isn't there yet. Try again in 20 years.

I'm not proposing anything specific, no. I said it was an example (and I even bolded the text).

I don't really have a stake in the specific example I gave, so I can't really comment much else on your critique of it.

Wake up, people. Reject mathematics. Reject formalism.

So would ASL, yet here we are.

The education system is for schooling, not learning.

So would ASL, yet here we are.

The education system is for schooling, not learning.

This is a really good response. Thank you.

I think we can have both the benefits of democracy being decentralized and resistant to systemic manipulation, and of technocracy having some minimum bar to deter ignorant individuals from harming society. There are trade-offs for sure, but currently, we the people ultimately voted for someone who openly said he'd impose tariffs (among other things).

One potential example (among many, many possibilities) is a system where academic organizations and think tanks stake their reputation to nominate candidates, and then the people vote on them.

For example, let's say the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) nominates a pro-tariff candidate to manage economic policy. And then let's say the people end up voting for them. After the tariffs wreck the economy, the reputation of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) will deteriorate considerably. In the next election, the people will vote the candidate out and ignore future EPI nominations.

Yeah, this is probably the main criticism of technocracies.

I personally advocate for a more decentralized version of technocracy. I don't really have stake in which decentralized system is best, but each decentralized system has at least some minimum bar to deter those who have absolutely no idea what they're doing from assuming power.

AI can type tedious snippets faster than me, but I can just read the code and revise it if needed.

You can still have a technocratic system that allows moral weights to be 'baked into' it.

For example, currently, in some states, judges are elected. The people decide what kinds of judges align with their values.

However, most of these states require judges to have a law degree to run, which is technocratic—you cannot run for a judge position without graduating from law school (and passing the bar in some states) first.

Sure, there are no good solutions and a vast amount of conflicting legal theories on how to address or interpret certain things, but as a whole, the judicial system is at least more grounded in some understanding of the law rather than random individuals who were able to market their way into judicial power.

I imagine a similar thing would happen for other issues.

Yeah, I agree.

Poor decisions still happen, but this would be a nice safeguard to lessen the severity and frequency of such poor decisions.

Most economists today would not support a tariff and subsequently wreck the economy.

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.