[Paradigm]

I've been reading up on technocracy, and repeatedly, the claim is made that Technocracy seeks to control technology, not people. But if you're controlling technology, are you not controlling the people who make that technology? Are you not governing over scientists and inventors?

[Paradigm]

Also, I noticed that the energy credit system would eliminate the profit motive, and that scientific decisions would be made by a governing body. This reeks of central planning, which socialism has shown to be inefficient. It seems to me that the best way for technology to advance is for inventors to be able to profit from their inventions. I recognize that the profit motive can be harmful in some areas, but in the vast majority of areas of economic activity, it creates a net positive. If someone has a chance to improve their current situation, no matter how good that situation might be, they will do so. If an inventor gets paid the same regardless of whether or not he invents things, what incentive does he have to do so?

[Paradigm]

For instance, suppose that the people decide, through their 'purchases' and other mechanisms, that they would like x number of blue shirts of a certain style and size in a given cycle. This would be a subjective decision. The technical administration then has the job of deciding the best way of getting that amount of shirts to them, given certain guidelines inherent in the system (such as energy and resource efficiency, environmental protection, etc.). By using science and engineering, they would design the best way to produce and distribute that quantity of product to the population, given factors such as where the shirts are desired, available resources, geographical terrain, etc. They would determine the one best way of doing this, and then be responsible for executing it. In no way are they telling people what to wear, but instead just finding the best way of giving them what they want.

But it's just that one administration producing those items, right? So would they create the designs of these clothes? It seems you're getting rid of competition, which harms innovation. They would have a monopoly on all markets.

But what irks me even more than the fact that they determine what is produced is the fact that they have the power to decide what doesn't get produced. For example, I like drugs. That's right, you heard me. I like to smoke weed, drop acid, and take shrooms and ecstacy, and fuck anyone who doesn't like it. It's my body and I'm going to decide what to do with it. But what if the Technate are all anti-drug, like our current government is? At least with the current system I can get these things through the black market. With the price system destroyed and the profit motive done away with, no one's going to be willing to provide me with the intoxicants I desire. The Technate can talk all they want to about how their decisions are scientific and not social, but the fact is that when you're producing all the products, bias plays a major role.

[Paradigm]

After reading through the Technocracy FAQ, it seems my last question has been answered. Apparently, they intend to solve the problem of drug addiction by making it impossible to obtain drugs. I guess they intend to impose a sober society onto everyone, unless of couse they plan on making alcohol, in which case they are hypocrites. No thanks. I prefer to have a society in which my wants as well as my needs are met by someone willing to supply them to me, and which doesn't make the assumption that what's good for my health is necessarily what's best for me. That's the thing: By having a monopoly on production, the Technate gets to decide what's best for me. Oh sure, I can decide which of their products to get, but if they're unwilling to produce something I want, I have nowhere to turn to. Fuck all you social elitists who think you know what's best for me! If I want to alter my consciousness, that's my goddamn business and none of yours.

[Mecha]

No straight system has no conceivable downside, particularly in respect to freedom.

My own belief: the choice of "system" only changes who must allow for any particular freedom. Ie in a straight democracy, 51% controls your freedom. In a constitutional liberal democracy, 66% to 51% would be required. In a dictatorship, one. Oversimplified, but you get my point: any power system invests power in certain individuals. Even libertarianism/Free Market does not escape this.

This reeks of central planning, which socialism has shown to be inefficient. It seems to me that the best way for technology to advance is for inventors to be able to profit from their inventions.

If an inventor gets paid the same regardless of whether or not he invents things, what incentive does he have to do so?

I like the centralized planning system, personally. Some of the other things I simply don't like (particularly imposing soberness, restricting drugs, ect).

Socialism has shown it to be inefficient? If you are thinking of the USSR, considering they turned a agricultural backwater into a big bad evil empire that went into space first, built nuclear reactors and subs (not good ones, but in context it seems unlikely, yes?), ect. That was also during mass murder, revolutions, mass corruption, ect.

One of the major parts of technocracy is that when the profit motive is eliminated, people will work because they want to. This can be seen that rich (or very well off) people get jobs for the heck of it. People have an inate desire to be valued: those that do not feel drive such as that would not be a problem to be supported in a Technate. The cultural vitality that would result from a culture freed of the profit motive would be most impressive, in time. Even now, people do a good bit of volunteer work, and that is in addition to any work they currently have. People WILL choose to work in large numbers, because of the inate desire of value among other things.

Technate can talk all they want to about how their decisions are scientific and not social, but the fact is that when you're producing all the products, bias plays a major role.

Hehe, personally I think that when a society is free of the profit motive, the boredom factor would really make people less stigmatized about drugs. However, one of the big parts of technocracy was that they would use technology for enforcement of rules (make them impossible to break) but the rules would be social in nature, thus would be by the civic government. Suppose the Technate does not produce drugs anyways, but can't make it illegal either (civic domain falls under civic government). Then all that must be done would be a person to order the parts, grow/make the drugs himself. I can see problems with this even, but I assert there is no plan for a perfect society other than perfect people.

~Mecha

[Tangerine]

I am very interested in how people will be able to use drugs in a Technocracy. Like cannabis, tobacco, alcohol and other widely used 'soft'-drugs. My current understanding states we'll grow them ourselves. Please expand that subject.