[nucklepunche]

I get that the economy of technocracy will be directed based on various technocratic principles but my question is about law. Obviously unless you are a utopian who thinks technocracy will do away with sociopaths entirely we are going to need laws. Who will make them? Who will determine them? What if people are in conflict in terms of ideas about how the law should be? Explain this to me as somebody who is only used to living in a democracy and electing lawmakers.

[CounterChaos]

Obviously unless you are a utopian who thinks technocracy will do away with sociopaths entirely we are going to need laws.

What makes you think this about a Utopian?

In my dream there is Congressional, Judicial and Military representation for the whole. Laws are created at the local community level (lawyers no longer exist). National laws only involve international affairs and military defense and are simple for the common man to understand............

[nucklepunche]

One of the ideas I have heard is that the reality is that only 5% of the crime is sociopathic and the other 95% is money related and thus would be eliminated. Drugs and that sort of thing would be non-issues since drugs would be something that are largely promoted through the money making apparatus, and under technocracy it would be treated like a medical issue. The amount of crime would be limited enough that the basic administrators of society could take care of it. The rest of the debates we have seem to revolve at their outset on a scarcity economy. Even supposed "hot button" debates like gay marriage could be put under this umbrella since all marriage is from a governmental standpoint is a financial arrangement.

[CounterChaos]

One of the ideas I have heard is that the reality is that only 5% of the crime is sociopathic and the other 95% is money related and thus would be eliminated. Drugs and that sort of thing would be non-issues since drugs would be something that are largely promoted through the money making apparatus, and under technocracy it would be treated like a medical issue. The amount of crime would be limited enough that the basic administrators of society could take care of it. The rest of the debates we have seem to revolve at their outset on a scarcity economy. Even supposed "hot button" debates like gay marriage could be put under this umbrella since all marriage is from a governmental standpoint is a financial arrangement.

Exactly! Common sense utilizing the sense of science. Once you take greed out of the equation (money) and apply science to all aspects of human existence - all social situations are covered. Gay partnerships would be just as natural as any other partnership. Your point on drugs as well is spot on in my opinion. You have to make it a social entity though (socialism) - across the board equality. It has to be simplified so that all understand the laws and can participate in each and every one of them. Recognition is all anyone needs in this type of society if everything is furnished cradle to grave. You still have innovation as well. People will be happy.

[nucklepunche]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSi1SCqa1YY&feature=fvst

That link is to a video which features Jacque Fresco talking about many of the subjects we have touched on in these past few posts. Fresco is not a self-proclaimed technocrat but he was in the 1930s. He is sort of a fellow traveler of technocracy so to speak. He's been at it a long, long time. I think he's around 95 or something, so he was sort of there at the whole start of technocratic ideas as a young man in his late teens/early 20s. His vehicle is the Venus Project and he is less focused on technocracy as he is on designing futuristic cities but he is a harsh enemy of the price system. You may hear his name mentioned in the same context as the Zeitgeist Movement. I'm not sure what your thoughts are on Zeitgeist but it is very controversial. If you like it fine, if you don't basically his whole connection is that he was featured in one of the documentaries and they adopted many of his ideas, though Fresco has accused the movement of being "clueless." Personally I have mixed feelings on Zeitgeist. It has some good ideas but it sort of reminds me of the LaRouchies and what the Ron Paul people are becoming.

[CounterChaos]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSi1SCqa1YY&feature=fvst

That link is to a video which features Jacque Fresco talking about many of the subjects we have touched on in these past few posts. Fresco is not a self-proclaimed technocrat but he was in the 1930s. He is sort of a fellow traveler of technocracy so to speak. He's been at it a long, long time. I think he's around 95 or something, so he was sort of there at the whole start of technocratic ideas as a young man in his late teens/early 20s. His vehicle is the Venus Project and he is less focused on technocracy as he is on designing futuristic cities but he is a harsh enemy of the price system. You may hear his name mentioned in the same context as the Zeitgeist Movement. I'm not sure what your thoughts are on Zeitgeist but it is very controversial. If you like it fine, if you don't basically his whole connection is that he was featured in one of the documentaries and they adopted many of his ideas, though Fresco has accused the movement of being "clueless." Personally I have mixed feelings on Zeitgeist. It has some good ideas but it sort of reminds me of the LaRouchies and what the Ron Paul people are becoming.

I'm on a 56k modem here in the Philippines, so that movie is going to take some time - I've never heard of Zeitgeist Movement, I'll read about it right now and get back later.............

EDIT:

Resource Based Economy

The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

I think I found home - finally.............

http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-v ... ed-economy

[nucklepunche]

I didn't realize you lived in the Phillipines, CC. I always thought you lived in the USA.

Oh and don't pay any attention to Zeitgeist. Basically some guy named Peter Joseph released three documentaries and some social movement formed around them. The first one is genuine nutter stuff, like Jesus never even existed as a man and is a collection of myths, that the government did 9/11, and a lot of behind the scenes stuff about bankers, etc. It's sort of like a movie that Alex Jones would make.

The second one advocates moving beyond the price system and talks a lot about Jacque Fresco and his ideas, which have been around much longer.

I can't remember what the third one was about but basically its sort of like a pseudo-cult. It isn't a political cult in the exact same way Ron Paul, Lyndon LaRouche, and Alex Jones are because these people do not seem to hold Peter Joseph and Jacque Fresco up to that level. Of course Jacque Fresco doesn't really care too much for these people, but it is these movies that have increased his visibility and I give them credit for that.

Here's a summary of Fresco on Larry King back in 1974. He was old even then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOPkGAtt48

[CounterChaos]

Yeah, check out my above edit...............

This is just what I have been screaming about since I got here............

Thanks for showing me this nucklepunche........

[Figlio di Moros]

But, Kolzene, who would be making the laws? Not a democracy, not in the modern sense anyways, but then, how are legislatures determined, and what relationship, if any, will they have to the technates?

Given the nature of Technocracy, I can image several sources of legislatures-

1) Noocracy- legislatures being selected from amongs specialists in human behavior, interaction, and culture. So, perhaps a college of Professors highly respected in Sociology, Philosophy, Anthropology, etc. who interact to establish and determine how to enforce codes of ethics.

2) "Geniocracy"- A Republic, with a restrictd enfranchisement and legislature based on Intelligence and knowledge.

3) Selecting gifted children to be trained towards an order, which would only interfere on minimal basis to ensure ethical governance. Can't think of a name for it.

4) Timocracy- "Rule by the love of honor". Could manifest in an Aristocracy, Stratocracy, or a restricted franchise Republic.

5) Kritarchy- eliminate the legislature all together, and have Judges rule based on common law.

By no means an all-inclusive list, but I hope it outlines some possibilities for Technocratic-adjecent civic governance.

[Figlio di Moros]

Ah, sorry- been a bit tired lately. So, then, a form of Noocracy, with ethicists, psychologists, etc. forming a legislative subfunction of the Control board?

[Figlio di Moros]

I'm not sure the one form necessarily denotes the other. Technocracy is used as an economic system, where 1) the use of technology, and 2) estute professionals administering it's distribution forms the basis, as compared to other economic beaurocracies which might favor economist or entrapanuers, or even worker control. Noocracy, on the other hand, denotes a political structure, while the economic substructure isn't necessarily the same as the one promoted by technocrats. In otherwords, Technocracy is economic rule by engineers and hard scientists, whereas Noocracy is political rule by philosophers and social scientists. I could see, for example, a Noocracy that had some engineers administering railroad projects while capitalism itself still exists. At the same time, I already suggested several alternatives for political administration within a technocratic economy.

But, over all, these two ideas do seem to jive. Just as long as engineers aren't writing laws.

[Smertios]

This is a very very interesting thread. Both from the original perspective of the discussion about lawmaking and the path the thread took afterwards, discussing the relationship between technocracy and other systems in that matter. I'll start by the latter and then move to the original point.

Basically, there is a wide range of matters in which technocracy, noocracy, aristocracy, geniocracy, meritocracy etc agree with. They all have a very special thing in common: they agree that society should be ruled by those who are better prepared to rule, not those chosen subjectively by the majority.

Noocracy and technocracy are very similar terms, if you think about it. The major difference between them is the time period when the terms were thought. I have to disagree with this simplistic analysis that noocracy is equal to the rule by social scientists, whereas technocracy is equal to the rule by hard scientists. Mainly because I don't really like this distinction between sift and hard sciences at all. A science is a science. And many people, including Comte and Taylor, tried to apply the systematic approach used for natural sciences to study social systems, with relatively high rates of success.

If you compare the modern technocracy method proposed by TNAT to Taylor's scientific management idea, you will see a lot of stuff in common. Taylor's idea was basically to apply a systematic approach to management and labour, in order to maximize the efficience of production. I'll even go as far as saying that the modern concept of industrial engineering is entirely based on Taylor's idea that scientific methodology could be applied to the line of production. This led to this misconception that "industrial engineering" is a good term, but as many here might be aware by now, I'm against such nomenclature. It all goes back to the original definition, where 'engineering' was a synonym for 'applied science'. And that's obviously not the best definition out there, since it makes pretty much everything a branch of engineering. 'Engineering', 'applied science' and 'technology' are terms with different meanings, but that's another topic, completely.

The comparison between Taylorism and Technocracy is interesting, because they all begin at the same starting point. Taylor noticed that the process of manufacturing was entirely based on measurable variables. He then started working on these variables to maximize the efficiency of production. If a worker took one path to carry material from one side to the other, Taylor would measure what the optimal path was. He would measure the time used for a worker to work and rest, make sure the effort done by the worker was minimal (for example, by making sure the tools were always at reach) etc. In the end, he was mainly working with entirely measurable natural variables: time, distance/space, physical strength, body resistance, body shape etc. And by manipulating those variables, he was able to maximize production as an output. Scientific management would, then, be a science as hard as math or physics, and still be a social science.

Technocracy starts at the same point. One of the first things noticed by Technical Alliance in the 1920s was the fat that there is a direct relation between human work/labour and physical work/energy. All human actions require physical energy to be conducted. Therefore, all work done by humans would be entirely measurable in terms of energy spent in realizing that chore. And by measuring and working with that variable, it would be possible to maximize the efficiency of economics, and then, maximize human life conditions. Of course, after that starting point, each idea took a completely different path. But that they started by basically the same analysis is important. Because that explains why technocracy is what it is.

Many people confuse technocracy as being the system in which the country would be run by natural scientists and engineers. And that view is really flawed, because the idea behind technocracy is not that. It is closer to the rule by experts than the rule by engineers. Of course, in many case, the experts in question would be engineers. But that would not be necessarily true for all situations. For example, the traditional bus example used by some technocracy supporters:


Obviously, that is the line of thought adopted by the technocratic movement as a whole: a scientific or technological solution is always preferable and more efficient than a politico-economical one. And to be honest, I agree with it 100%. But that kind of example leads to the misconception that I'm talking about here. Technocracy does not state that technological solution is always needed, but that a scientific or technologic one should be. Because of course, in terms of administration, it wouldn't be an engineer who would count as an expert, but a graduated administrator. In terms of medicine, it would be a physician, not an engineer. Let's re-consider the bus example with a different approach. Let's imagine the problem is a health issue. In a given village in an African country, a random illness appears and gets 60% of the population sick, with 30% dying. The best solution for the problem is not a political one. You could simply isolate the village, forbid villagers from leaving and people from going there. That wouldn't solve the problem. The best solution would be to have a group of doctors go there, analyze the situation, identify the cause of the illness and work on a cure. And physicians are by, no means, engineers.

Now, getting to the original topic, the only answer we need is who the experts would be in the process of lawmaking. The obvious answer would be lawyers. But that would be incorrect. Technocracy was not thought with laws in mind, and that's the ultimate truth about it. The technocratic system of governance is based on administration theory, not on the traditional idea of separation of powers. Let's take a look at the famous technocracy administration chart:


As you can see, that mirrors the system of governance of private corporations, not necessarily the system used by nation-states. In that system, the closest thing you have to a Parliament would be the decision-making Continental Board. And they wouldn't be making legislation. They would be similar to a Parliament or an Executive Cabinet in the sense of being the top decision-making entity in the system. But there wouldn't be laws being written, for a very specific reason: technocracy supporters do not believe laws are an effective tool for administration. So it is useless and should be abolished.

The closest thing to a law in a technocracy would be specific guidelines established by individual experts. For example, if the health department decided a specific medicine was being ineffective in combating a specific disease, they simply rule that that medicine was ineffective, so it would no longer be used, and that a new medicine would have to be developed. That would be the closest thing to a law under that system. And even that kind of thing would be decided based on purely objective notions: either it is being efficient or it isn't, based on reliable data collected.

In that way, I'd say that technocracy is not the same thing as noocracy, but that the latter definitely includes the former. In both systems, the idea that instructed experts would be in charge of each area is the basis. However, technocracy is really well defined, with all characteristics being well determined already. Noocracy is a more general term, that includes any system in which the skilled/wise were in charge. In that sense, I'd say that even geniocracy would count as a form of noocracy, though geniocracy is based on elections and census suffrage (based on people's IQ rather than wealth, though), rather than actual skill.

I was also gonna make a comparison with aristocracy, geniocracy and meritocracy, but this post is already large enough, so I'll stop it here.

[michael3]

I'm of an Anarchist bent, so the possibilities involved with Technocracy intrigue me. Technocracy is new to me, but I find the possibilities of a genuine non-scarcity System of thought interesting to me. The only problem I think I have is that the answers provided in what Technocratic literature i've read, is that they seem a little too 'certain'...An air of infallibility I tend to reject most other areas.

[Smertios]

Well, every ideologue seems to be certain that his ideology is entirely true. And let's face it, of all "egalitarian" ideologies, technocracy is the one that makes the most sense, since it is based on abundance and easy accessibility to all products, rather than work quotas and central distribution.

I'm still not entirely convinced that self initiative will be enough to get people working for free. Certainly that would work in terms of arts, academic research and perhaps even programming and technology development. But there is a possibility that most people would not be doing it at all. They'd simply be lazy and consuming as much as they wanted, since everything would be free.

Everything else makes perfect sense, in my opinion.