Kolzene wrote:Smertios: The reason why we say that it is not a political system is because no one has a position of political "power" to use their authority over others using subjective, opinion-based decisions. In the Technocracy system, there are only positions of responsibility, where people make objective decisions that anyone with the right expertise can check. That is why I keep mentioning the importance of separating objective from subjective issues, because Technocracy deals only in one and not the other. Political systems, while their decisions may sometimes or even often include objective facts, are still based on subjective authority and political power. Why do you think we keep getting people with such widely varying opinions on what should essentially be scientific issues best left to the experts?
You're right, politics is related to the power relations between individuals, but those relations can only exist as such where the law (or in some cases, force or coersion) provides that power. In Technocracy there is no such provision. People can only make decisions that objectively pertain to their function. Let me give you an example; today, we have people "voting" on whether we should use nuclear power. This is a technical issue, not a subjective one. In a Technate, it would first be decided if nuclear power can be done safely given current technology and resources, and if so, whether or not it meets other requirements for efficiency, sustainability, and power production capability, among others. It would be compared to other sources of power in terms of those same qualities, which are all objectively measurable, and thus a best choice could be made, again, objectively. The person (or persons) responsible for determining that would then be responsible for implementing it. If they did not, for whatever reason, the reason would be investigated and dealt with, with that person(s) possibly losing their position(s) (if no better solution could be found). Today, we leave such a decision in the hands of a fearful and technically ignorant population, and/or self-serving politicians (who are deciding based on ideology or what will get them elected) and corporations (which based their decisions on profitability). Do you see the difference?
I agree with your views that technical issues have to be dealt by experts, Kolzene. And I understand why you need to separate "subjective politics" to [what I will call right now] "technical politics". I'm just saying that the terminology is a bit unfortunate.
Politics and political science, as I mentioned, are a social science that studies how power relations take place in human society. That power doesn't necessarily have to come from laws, elections or coercion. As long as a power relation is established, there is politics involved. This is the case, fro example, in a classroom. When a student acknowledges that the flow of knowledge goes from the teacher to himself, a political relationship is being established there. At least for the moment, he will be in the submissive role, since it is in his best interest to learn whatever is being taught. As the teacher is the one who is able to teach him the subject, it is not a good idea for him to be above the teacher. If he already knows the subject and tries to impose his knowledge, the balance of power switches completely.
It is the same with technical knowledge. When you go to a doctor, for example, you will simply list your symptoms. Then you will listen carefully to his analysis. The ability to diagnose your illness is solely with him. If you try to argue with him, he will simply refuse to diagnose you. So, at least for the short moment you are in his office, the power is mostly in his hands. The patient will be in a submissive role. It is the same with lawyers, engineers, dentists, architects etc. Even less prestigious technical experts will have more power in their field of expertise than a layman. For example, yesterday, my parents received the mason that will work on our floor shortly. They simply tol him what they wanted, and proceeded to listening to how he would accomplish those requirements. About half an hour of mostly him speaking and explaining.
This kind of thing is not something you can get rid of, like that. Because power relations (and, by extension, politics) simply exist in our society. When it is in your best interest to maintain the submissive role, you will do it. If you don't, your life is pretty much screwed.
PoFo ethnic party statistics: http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8&p=14042520#p14042520