Originally Posted by Sini
I happen to agree with your predictions, only I think there is even worst scenario than technocracy that can conceivably take place - theocracy. I don't think it is given that our technological society would survive. Our grand children might end up marveling at our tales of instantaneous communications on the go and imaginary worlds built in the digital space. When Rome fell it brought on dark ages, there is no reason to expect the same won't happen when US collapses (and do not go gentle into that good night).

Also, as a big proponent of republic and democracy, I think where we went wrong in adhering to one person, one vote rule. Not everyone is qualified to vote. These feeble minded people add hysteresis to the system where it does not respond rationally.


I wont disagree in principle that the right to vote could theoretically be more limited. The question is by what metric? I can see pitfalls in a great many vetting methods.

The biggest pain points as I see them are as thus:

First is sheer scale, both of number of people and number of issues. The public mind can follow a very limited number of issues, and political figures are naturally clueless about the principles behind most issues, even when they genuinely desire to govern well in regards to those issues. This is exacerbated by a trend of wanting govt to do even more, and handle things in a more detailed manner. It is then further exacerbated by all of the issues being handled by the same political offices.

To wit: policy for everything from telecommunications to health to money originates from, or originates from appointees of, or at least is veto-able and/or enforced (or not) by the office of president. This might have worked when there were relatively few issues, and the Federal Govts scope was generally more limited, or served more of an oversight role, only stepping in when needed. These days, the govt is expected to actively manage these sectors. Yet, how can we expect good governance when neither the president nor the voters have any clue about the actual workings of most of those segments? Nevermind congress that votes on everything despite their, or their constituents lack of knowledge. If there were only a half-dozen segments that were actively managed, maybe it would be possible - but these days govt is expected to be intimately involved in producing ends, not just policing the means.

A good example is the monetary policy we were just discussing. Voters don't understand it, or don't think it really matters, and are losing their shirts and country due to that lack. This is generally why most people would consider me financially conservative/libertarian, not wanting govt to be involved - or at least not involved too deeply, and relegated to strict oversight roles that operate using very clear, well-defined criteria for oversight and action.

It's not that I think reducing govt is utopian, or that the world will even be measurably better in most segments by doing so. It is about putting all your eggs in one basket. When politics ultimately controls the fate of an entire sector of society, and the politics fails, then the sector fails. When you have so many sectors of society dependent on the same locus of political power, then inevitably some are going to fail.

If, in certain circumstances, people decide that activist govt is needed no matter what - then fine. But the political offices for that sector need separated out, and elected and overseen individually. You want to implement a widespread govt run health system? OK. But you can't just form it from Congress, and have the current President appoint its top officials, and expect it to work in the long run. Maybe it is a year, maybe it is a century, but it will eventually fail with catastrophic consequences. See the Federal Reserve system, which, despite its myriad shortcomings over the years, would not be tanking our entire society were Volcker still running it: its not that a Federal Reserve system can't work, its just that when it massively fails, it takes down everything else with it.

If we want to give active govt any chance to succeed, each segment needs to be its own office, and its officials elected independently. We need to elect a Director of Health, and the Board, and the regional and local managers. Who we have running our massive health system cannot be dependent on who we vote for as President because of entirely unrelated international politics, or abortion, or anything else. It has to be its own thing, looked at independently, and voted on independently.

-

Second is culture.

Representative government has been shown to fail in most areas of the world. Thus, there is obviously nothing about representative government itself that is self-sustaining. It relies on the culture of the people to make it work, and keep it going. When people don't value it, or forget what it is, it fails.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)