Nintendo Kid posted:

What don't you like about Technocracy?

computer parts posted:

Wealth is correlated to education.

James Loewen posted:

[s]imilar results were registered again and again, in surveys by Harris, NORC, and others... Throughout our long involvement in Southeast Asia, on issues related to Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, or Laos, the grade school-educated were always the most dovish, the college-educated the most hawkish.

Fansy posted:

The issue with education is that it correlates with success, and success correlates with seeing the world as meritocratic.


USA Gallup poll concerning the Vietnam War from January, 1971:

computer parts posted:

That's because there was a draft. The same correlation did not hold true for Iraq:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/7699/blacks-postgraduates-among-groups-most-likely-oppose-iraq-invasion.aspx

Nintendo Kid posted:

Some states HAVE gotten rid of county governments either in full or almost completely, but they're also states that are geographically small.

Negative Entropy posted:

VitalSigns posted:

rudatron posted:

You probably wouldn't make a good carpenter either, but you're missing the point. You keep thinking that politics is a craft, it's not. Inter-twinned in the political process are assumptions about what society should be, that is, opinions. You can't prove that one opinion is objectively better than another, because each ordering of political positions must itself make assumptions that certain kinds of opinions are better than others: that is, embedded into any ordering of subjective statements is a subjectivity, a morality.

The Erland posted:

On the other hand, there's certainly a benefit to MPs having better qualifications than the general public. Politics is certainly a craft, and thinking about policy as primarily value judgments is wishful thinking. There are plenty of political decisions that aren't ideological, and in these cases there can certainly be a benefit to having educated, smart people making these decisions.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Can you give us examples of these political decisions that aren't ideological?

rudatron posted:

But my point wasn't just about mistakes of judgement or whatever, it was about what they want. The general public and the ruling class want very different things from society. They desire different outcomes because they are their own group, separate from society as a whole. When you give them power, you give them the opportunity to deny the outcomes the public wants, in favor of the ones they want. A rule-by-experts is not an objective system, because there is no such thing as an objective governing system. It's an oligarchy, and it inherits the same kind of problems you see in oligarchies everywhere.

Representative democracy as we know it is an improvement, but incomplete. The people making decisions in a representative democracy are not the same kind of people as the public in general, they have different goals. The system remains undemocratic until those goals align with those of the public. In most countries today, it is the rich whose interests are over-represented, simply by the expense of running an election campaign.

Direct democracy involving everyone, on every issue, undermines the point of having a government that takes care of its issues for the people. Only a very small number of people want to be politically motivated all the time, most (rightly) see politics as something that gets in the way of them living their lives. So that's not feasible, people aren't going to get on board with that. You have select a subset, and we know from statistics that a simple, random sample is likely to be representative of a population. This, I claim, is the more democratic system, the one were representatives are chosen by lottery.

If your immediate reaction to that is 'they're too stupid', then you reveal your elitism. Political representatives today are morons, they rely on a bureaucracy below them to actually do work, they themselves aren't that clever. The average person is more than capable of fulfilling that role.

rudatron posted:

You're assuming that knowing 'the right thing to do' is a skill or craft. It's not, it's an opinion. An opinion that is often a result of self-interest, which is then justified after the fact. Human beings tend to do this! If you create a society governed by a technical elite, you will create a oligarchic dystopia. If you think that's an improvement, or a good society to have, then I'm sorry you're just insane. If you think technicians are somehow immune to acting from self-interest, then that is naive elitism!

You probably wouldn't make a good carpenter either, but you're missing the point. You keep thinking that politics is a craft, it's not. Inter-twinned in the political process are assumptions about what society should be, that is, opinions. You can't prove that one opinion is objectively better than another, because each ordering of political positions must itself make assumptions that certain kinds of opinions are better than others: that is, embedded into any ordering of subjective statements is a subjectivity, a morality. If you grant control over societies' morality to the rich (for example), then society (as a system) will respect the wishes of the rich over and above all others. That leads to terrible outcomes, and it stands against the ideal of a fair and equal society.

So while the activities of the surgeon general often do require specific medical knowledge, the political side of his tasks do not. But, here's the catch: the surgeon general gets their position through nomination and confirmation. They may be a political creature, but the kind of political creature they are is under the direct control of politicians. The surgeon general is a member of the bureaucracy, people chosen to fulfill someone else's political goals (in this case, the president and the senate).

The Erland posted:

Which kinds of weapon systems should be bought for the military, city planning issues and many legal issues fall under the category "things that are really important but may not be possible to assign an ideological side to." They certainly have ideological elements as well, but that isn't the only thing that needs to be considered.

gfarrell80 posted:

Everybody used to get around perfectly fine on trains and streetcars

gfarrell80 posted:

(A-10 is the first that comes to mind).

The Erland posted:

Which kinds of weapon systems should be bought for the military, city planning issues and many legal issues fall under the category "things that are really important but may not be possible to assign an ideological side to." They certainly have ideological elements as well, but that isn't the only thing that needs to be considered.

gfarrell80 posted:

Those resources could be committed very differently towards other infrastructure development

A Buttery Pastry posted:

City planning has a ton to do with ideology. To give an example, one of the big issues here in Denmark is that the student population in the major towns is (and has been) growing, without a similar increase in housing. The decision not to built more housing is directly related to the fact that this will cut down on the profits of developers that own existing housing. I'm certain similar choices are made constantly all over the world.

This is something that's going to be true for a lot of political decisions. Maybe the exact way you design a new airport is largely technical (maybe), but the decision to built a new airport is itself a choice that's going to prevent you from doing other things.

gfarrell80 posted:

The decision to support the federal highway system with what, 200 billion dollars of spending or more each year is ideologically based around the car and single family suburban home ownership. Those resources could be committed very differently towards other infrastructure development - say, a better light rail or high speed rail system. Everybody used to get around perfectly fine on trains and streetcars but it was a very conscious ideological series of decisions which ended up where we are today. Cars are pretty awesome but they are drat expensive.

computer parts posted:

Unless moving between cities was a goal you had.

(Also streetcars were demonstrably worse than what replaced them)

gfarrell80 posted:

Maybe I'm painting a picture of roses in the past, but have you ever tried to ride a bus anywhere? The few times in my life I've done bus commuting it is annoying as hell. Of course I have never tried using a streetcar either.

quote:

And I would say that while highways do stretch between cities, they are not a primary means of moving people and freight between cities. Very few people use highways to commute between major metropolitan areas. I maintain that highways are mostly about allowing easy decentralized growth around a city (suburbia).

gfarrell80 posted:

Maybe I'm painting a picture of roses in the past, but have you ever tried to ride a bus anywhere? The few times in my life I've done bus commuting it is annoying as hell. Of course I have never tried using a streetcar either.

And I would say that while highways do stretch between cities, they are not a primary means of moving people and freight between cities. Very few people use highways to commute between major metropolitan areas. I maintain that highways are mostly about allowing easy decentralized growth around a city (suburbia).

I'll concede all the other criticisms. But stagecoach a method of travel for the common man? Really? I suppose maybe.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/humanity-surprised-it-still-hasnt-figured-out-bett,36361/

rudatron posted:

You're assuming that knowing 'the right thing to do' is a skill or craft. It's not, it's an opinion. An opinion that is often a result of self-interest, which is then justified after the fact. Human beings tend to do this! If you create a society governed by a technical elite, you will create a oligarchic dystopia. If you think that's an improvement, or a good society to have, then I'm sorry you're just insane. If you think technicians are somehow immune to acting from self-interest, then that is naive elitism!

computer parts posted:

A streetcar is just a bus that can't change its lane when it's in traffic.


Tons of people use highways to commute and travel (non constant, i.e. vacations and the like), unless you're differentiating between the interstates and "actual highways" for some reason.

Mischitary posted:

I'd reckon that there's indeed a great value to having bureaucracy be specialized to a large extent, but I also agree with the notion that our elected officials, who vote on many pieces of legislation of various different types are not necessarily better fit for the job than most. They are not trained to be a politician in the same way an electrician is trained, for instance, and in many occasions those representatives who are seated on various committees are there not because they have expertise in that subject, it's sometimes just politics.

I mostly reject the idea, in general, that some people in this topic have espoused, about the necessity of the "smart people" to be in positions of power because it is those same "smart people" that define what "smart" means. It's totally incestuous. Why does a guy who graduated from Harvard Law have more authority on, say, raising the Medicare retirement age than an ironworker? Especially when in most cases politicians don't exactly come to their own conclusions on a ton of subjects and instead rely on the "common wisdom" of the "smart people".

rudatron posted:

Also trams are more comfortable to ride and quieter, but not being able to change lane isn't the problem. In aggregate, changing lanes just to speed you up actually slows down the entire system. You trade personal improvement for collective pain. The problem are cars will keep doing that, because individual drivers are selfish. If you had just transit, no cars, they'd be fine.

Trams are electric, so they're cheaper to run, but you obviously need the infrastructure. Ultra-capacitor buses seem really interesting to me, but transit-chat is for another thread.

Mischitary posted:

I'd reckon that there's indeed a great value to having bureaucracy be specialized to a large extent, but I also agree with the notion that our elected officials, who vote on many pieces of legislation of various different types are not necessarily better fit for the job than most. They are not trained to be a politician in the same way an electrician is trained, for instance, and in many occasions those representatives who are seated on various committees are there not because they have expertise in that subject, it's sometimes just politics.

I mostly reject the idea, in general, that some people in this topic have espoused, about the necessity of the "smart people" to be in positions of power because it is those same "smart people" that define what "smart" means. It's totally incestuous. Why does a guy who graduated from Harvard Law have more authority on, say, raising the Medicare retirement age than an ironworker? Especially when in most cases politicians don't exactly come to their own conclusions on a ton of subjects and instead rely on the "common wisdom" of the "smart people".

computer parts posted:

By and large they come from wealthier, more stable backgrounds than the public at large. Wealth is correlated to education.

rudatron posted:

If you despise the common person, as you clearly do, then democracy is not favorable to you. For myself, it's unfair to deprive the common person of political power, or create a system where their interests are not recognized.

The proposition system has problems, that are not a result of being 'too democratic' or whatever. It's direct voting, but it's not compulsory. It has the same issues as representative voting, such as the need for advertising just for exposure and to get the signatures necessary. Because of that expense, they're usually a case of one rich group vs. another rich group. If anything, it's not democratic enough.

SedanChair posted:

That assumes that "direct democracy" and "voting on taxes" are one and the same.

Slobjob Zizek posted:

Why would they not be?

Slobjob Zizek posted:

What are the benefits of direct democracy? Do you voters actually enable better social outcomes? Is California better for a cap on property tax, the three strikes law, or recalling Grey Davis and installing Arnold Schwarzenegger for no discernible reason?