[Metal Gear]

The entire political compass is bs to begin with.

What do Republicans ("right wing") have to do with Nazis ("right wing")?

What do Democrats ("left wing") have to do with Communists ("left wing.")?

No, republicans/democrats have more in common, and it is probably fair to say that Communists and Nazis have more in common, then they do with the left/right American ideologies.

Since the whole spectrum is bs, then it makes sense that technocracy does not align on it. It's pretty much eliminating scarcity through improving society's technology.

[Takkon]

To the OP, I disagree. I don't think that technocrats belong in the bottom left. I think we belong squarely in the center as impartial observers of an imperfect system, because either we are right and technocracy is inevitable or we are doomed. I think you may agree on that, right? So it's really only a matter of what your prescription would be in the mean-time anyway, which is something I think more interested parties should figure out amongst themselves. Just my two cents to get a good topic rolling.

[Takkon]

Takkon: That's an interesting point of view, but I'm not sure I entirely understand it. Are you perhaps referring to the political position of Technocrats in regards to what should be done prior to the enacting of the Technate?

Exactly right. I don't think I will ever be able to see a technate, and I certainly don't think the policies that would be feasible in a technate would be feasible in the current world as it stands. Personally I don't think we should be going to the leftmost end of the political spectrum prior to a proper technocratic society coming into being because I think that actually might retard progress towards developing more efficient methods of resource distribution, something I think we can both agree would be one of the primary checkpoints we will need to reach prior to technocracy. IE technology would have to come to a certain point that makes capitalism less efficient at allocating resources than a "controlled" and generally more egalitarian method of resource distribution could offer. I think the problem is that if you simply set that as your goal prior to it becoming feasible, most people might end up worse off than under a not guaranteed but generally workable system like capitalism.

But I would never really see myself at the rightward end of the spectrum, since at that point you are simply supporting capitalism as its own end rather than a means to economic growth and creativity, that is not taking it as the only workable economic form but as a well-balanced system of incentives and allocation.

As for what would happen after a technocratic society, I disagree that it would be left-wing even then. I personally think that certain social and economic issues will simply wither away with hierarchy and social organization as we know it. Whereas there may be more broad social issues that will become a point of contention, I doubt a future society will ever argue the merits of gay marriage or "statism". ;)

That brings me to my point about centrism. I think that because by the time our system will be in place, our opinions will no longer fit on the left/right, up/down scales. It'll simply be what you can do and what is not possible for now. Human problems will be a thing of the past, as with human disagreements.

I was just noticing similarities between what Technocracy says about how the Technate operates and what that part of the compass suggests.

This I would agree with, but I think for now, not playing either field may be more beneficial to us than identifying with one side or the other. After all, I think we can offer real solutions, rather than having to focus on prescriptions for various social ills. We're talking about the creation of a new system to make life as we know it an anachronism. Naturally I don't think nationalism, internationalism, socialism, or capitalism have a place in the future.