[zarus]

The practice of political principle in everyday life is often neglected. We can see this, for example, in many "anarchist" or "egalitarian" groups that display cult-like behavior and violently suppress any sort of dissent. The results of these ironies can be very devastating, such as in the case of the Soviet Union, which claimed to be a worker's paradise and yet suppressed any traces of shopfloor democracy.

With that in mind, what behaviors on the individual/small group scale are consistent with technocracy? For a start, I'd advocate not believing gossip/herd instinct as a general rule and restraining speculation in the absence of information within group settings.

[Siberian Fox]

Welcome to the Politics Forum Zarus. I expect Kolzene will be a long in due course when he is free to give you a more authoritative answer, but I would have thought that a commitment to life-long learning is a personal tenet that fits well with technocratic principles.

It's interesting the point you bring up about decent in other ideologies, as technocracy - as I understand it - is very much fond of the top-down approach to governance itself.

[mikema63]

I have certainly always beloved so, and I support a very decentralized society so I hate it, but I must admit all the science and technology rhetoric is appealing but I think such a society as this is doomed to fail.

[mikema63]

I'm an anarchist though, my preference is for oohing to be done from the top down at all.

Edit: your a mod with so few posts

If I were to construct a voluntary society I will certainly look back into some of your ideas but I have a personal distaste for controls.

[mikema63]

So there are no decision making or enforcement systems?

[RhetoricThug]

Sounds like Kolzene is in support of fundamentally undermining what makes the machine- the individual and HUMAN. How can one system dictated by science (I'm sorry- nature) address the complexities of the human being and passion? Charles Darwin built his Darwinist perspective of evolution by studying nature, but couldn't build his theory as fact because the science doesn't- you'll like this- compute... with what man really is, and what dictates the individual changes in desires and thought process. Every man may be a product of his environment, but man can shape his environment. Man builds reality- essentially that is what politics is. We are very different creatures than the other forms of intelligent life that inhabit this world.

This is why anarchism is utopian and why I believe in it as the best political theory. I can never lay claim to providing you with one direct solution, I don't know what formulates you sir. That is why anarchism works for serving EVERYONE, and that is also why its utopian. I'll be the first to admit that its barely grounded in reality, but when is man grounded in reality if he controls his reality? Shit- getting along is hard.

Feel free to take things out context, I appear to be ambiguous and running in circles at a philosophical speed. Agnostic in my own nature. But how isn't that the equivalent to the atheist view of Nothing out of nothing equals something?

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" - Henry Louis Mencken

[RhetoricThug]

Very well-informed Kolzene. I suppose I'm due for an independent study of Technocracy. I'll admit I've stayed clear in a bias sort of way because I ignorantly assume that the Technocrats want only science to rule the world and not man's inner passions or creativity. I thought they do not advocate art and out of the box philosophy (such as out of the realms of scientific law) or metaphysical pondering.
Would an atheistic state be a requirement for Technocracy to grow and thrive?
And of course, creativity goes hand in hand with engineering and scientific discovery. All I'm asking- Do all of our creative efforts in such a society have to have practicality? Or do you view anything without appliance a waste of effort and lack or progression?