@SolarCross
It's irrelevant to you. I think to a student of attempts by questionable characters to lead free people into totalitarianism it would be at least slightly interesting as while it never amounted to anything it is more current than old ones like the Technocracy you like so much. Point of fact in 1932 computing essentially barely existed except as exceedingly primitive mechanical punch card assemblies, the 1932 technocrats could not have credibly woven AI computers into their sales pitch, they probably couldn't even conceive of such a thing. The technate hierarchy would be composed of human managers as they conceived it.
[
It's irrelevant to the discussion. I highly doubt what you described was Technocracy given that you know very little about it in the first place. You also have to give proof that Technocracy is, in anyway, totalitarian. You have to give me hard evidence and no, "because I said so" is not a valid answer.
Furthermore, there is no "sales pitch". The Technocracy Inc. movement started out as a couple of guys, walking around New York, giving flyers and pamphlets to random people on the street. Technocracy was developed as an invention to improve the human condition and to solve the cause of the Great Depression which was due to an abundance of resources rather than any reason within the constraints of the financial system. There was a genuine effort, no strings attached, to help people and this embedded itself into Technocracy's design. Unless you give proof that Technocracy, within it's design, is totalitarian, your argument falls flat.
The big lie is that their project is not political just technological. You literally cannot takeover the entire American continent's resource base, including human resources and production and distribution capabilities without getting political, that's political as Mao used the term as in "political power grows out of the barrel of the gun". Essentially that aim is just as collectivist, or more so, than even the Soviets attempted and there is no possibility of carrying out such a wheeze without getting heavy duty "political".
You stated yourself that they would've not had any information on any technology which is compatible with Technocracy. Yes, Technocracy Inc. became political eventually (which is why many of it's founders left in the first place) but the design of Technocracy itself is not political.
If the people will it, it will occur. Technocracy can only happen if everyone voluntarily wishes for it to happen and there is a high chance that people would given that, if you are actually knowledgeable of Technocracy, it would be within your interest to do so. The only thing that stops Technocracy is education on it, something you are resisting.
The other big lie is that "energy accounting" is magically superior to market exchange. Energy accounting in reality is just rationing. Rationing is done to essentially passive entities whose consent is not required because they are treated as property. Trade, as seen in the market, is what happens between free agents whose consent for participation is required. A farmer alots feed, medicine, space and other resources to his livestock based on his own technocratic resource accounting analogous to your technocratic energy accounting but when he wants to offload his cows on someone else of comparable legal status, ie free, then he must trade, ie get consent from the prospective trade partner. The technocrats intention is for trade to be completely eliminated and replaced with rationing, the marxists want to do the same thing and in the same way "abolish private property" which is the same thing as abolishing freedom and reducing all to slavery. The technocrats promise that people's new condition will be comfortable, more comfortable than ever, and they won't call it slavery but it is slavery, chattel slavery at that, and there is no reason at all to believe the promise on comfort will be delivered on, and almost certainly it won't be because once the technocrats have all the people's property and have reduced their legal rights to that of farm animals they won't have any need to provide anything but the most spartan of comforts at best.
Energy accounting isn't rationing at all because there is nothing to ration. You're thinking in terms of scarcity economics, Technocracy is
post-scarcity and therefore doesn't have to ration anything at all. Technocracy's goal is simply to get whatever resources someone wants to whoever wants them as efficiently as possible. Energy accounting isn't even the main distribution network Technocracy proposes. Energy accounting just measures what you're consuming and how much you're consuming to determine the amount of net energy loss in order to provide continuous inventory for products and services. Information Brief Number 29: Energy Accounting lists it's following benefits:
1. Register on a continuous 24-hour-per day basis the total net conversion of energy, which would determine (a) the availability of energy for Continental plant construction and maintenance, (b) the amount of physical wealth available in the form of consumable goods and services for consumption by the total population during the balance-load period.
2. By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible a balanced load.
3. Provide a continuous inventory of all production and consumption.
4. Provide a specific registration of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and services, where produced, and where used.
5. Provide a specific registration of the consumption of each individual, plus a record and description of the individual.
6. Allow the citizen the widest latitude of choice in consuming his individual share of Continental physical wealth.
7. Distribute goods and services abundantly to every member of the population.
This has nothing to do with rationing at all.
This isn't really the place to discuss technocracy as this thread is about a different kind of totalitarianism (a more palatable one too). Pofo has a whole sub-forum devoted to this 1932 totalitarian fad, which seems excessive given the negligible interest in it.
It is not totalitarian at all and you have given no arguments at all to support such an assertion. Technocracy is important and requires all the exposure to the world it can get so goddammit it deserves it's own sub-forum whether you like it or not. It certainly has a better future than Austrian economics ever has, especially given that your ideology's flaws are slowly coming to light.