| Welcome to NationStates - Canada. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| SFTDOG; Society For The Discussion Of Government | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jul 14 2008, 10:54 AM (1,464 Views) | |
| Niongor | Jul 19 2008, 11:37 AM Post #41 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
• Technocracy: a governmental or organizational system where decision makers are selected based upon how highly skilled and qualified they are, rather than how much political capital they hold. A form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control; "technocracy is described as that society in which those who govern justify themselves by appeal to technical experts who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge" • Robocracy, (also machine rule): is a common theme in science fiction stories and film, in which an artificially created lifeform takes over the naturally evolved beings that created them. In cases where this takeover is hostile, it may be called a cybernetic revolt, but it may occur peacefully, with humans deciding that machines, such as androids, robots or sentient computers, would provide a better lifestyle for humanity. As a theme, it may reflect a fear of the autonomy of a machine that can run itself, eventually rendering its creators obsolete, or a fear of one's creations running out of control, becoming the new masters (see cybernetic revolt for a more in-depth discussion). To be totally honest, neither form is workable (yet) and I can't see why you would choose to compare them other than to pick two forms of power whereby, in both instances, the majority is suppressed in favour of the elite few. I suggest our next comparison and discussion be "Authoritarianism and Libertarianism" (that is, if I'm allowed to suggest types of government to compare). |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Jul 19 2008, 12:04 PM Post #42 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
niongor this is a democracy discuss your heart out, not literally, im not a heart surgeon type... i think technocracy could work under the right circumstances same as *some* types of anarchy. It would make people want to gain knowledge and the society would thrive with technological improvements from the smartest and most qualified in society at the helm, there could possibly be national polls for the most qualified to be put into office. Niongor i believe that some types of places/people are used to a certain government and work best with it, for some people authoritarian type of gov. is their best and it'd keep them in line, maybe not happy, but it'd keep peace, and for others a republic could be their cup of tea. I believe a government should be founded and based off the people and their culture, history, past and present. Also republics aren't the best system of government i think, they often go corrupt and become hinderences to society, like in rome... |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Jul 19 2008, 12:28 PM Post #43 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
You infer here that "republic" and "libertarianism" are hand in hand, you may not have meant this but this is certainly how it comes across to me. Don't make that mistake. Just because a nation can elect its head of state, does not mean it is libertarian in nature. I agree with you that technocracies may well in courage those without power to seek knowledge, however, it would by and far alienate the general populace who, in my opinion, would be more likely to see that given government as elitist and possibly supremesist, afterall it's essentially creating an intellectual apartheid. Furthermore technocracies are not essentially ran by the best of the learned. Scientists and professors may have vast knowledges of their fields, but very often these people do not have the right kind of knowledge. Knowing the physics behind Newton's laws won't help you run the healthcare system or create a workable immigration plan. As for machine rule, I don't believe any credible argument can ever be made for humans handing control of their destinies and lives over to robots, however advanced. It would be like the black majority in South Africa handing power over the whites because they thought they "could do a better job of it". The case could never reasonably be put forward in my view. |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Jul 19 2008, 12:41 PM Post #44 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
technocracies could be run by those who know well and are extremely knowledgeable in a specific government office though. They could be knowledgable in human mind and social behavior and much more things for general understanding, and even more for complete understanding of the populance, then they should/would know about the government office, the world, politics and much else. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Jul 19 2008, 01:28 PM Post #45 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
This kind of society would still create an intellectual apartheid, though. We would be divided into the smart and the not-so-smart. All leaders would be smart intellectually. Their mind power outweighs all else. The soldier who has given a life of servitude to his country but with nothing more than an average IQ would have no place in government. Any technocratic government would come to be despised for the fact it would create an almost childish situation of "I'm smarter than you, therefore better!" mentality, and that would insight hatred within people for this form of government. The smart would come to see themselves as ahead of the rest. In nature it is intended that the fittest survive and the smartest aren't necessarily the fittest (I don't mean physically). Essentially, a technocracy would create a government that was elitist and exclusive to the average joe. Therein lies it's inability to ever function. Governments that have no support don't usually last long. |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Jul 19 2008, 01:31 PM Post #46 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
robocracies could work though, if robots gain A.I and learn as much as humans do, we could let them deal with it, with impartialness, and no-corruption, while we work towards technology and other things. Therefore you can have a little of both. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Jul 19 2008, 02:04 PM Post #47 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
Again, I gotta dispute this factor. Human's handing power of their affairs over to robots would be like God handing power of, well, God over to us humans. The creator does not submit to the created. Furthermore, you yourself, KK, have said where there is power to be had, humans will clamber for it, therefore where power is to be had, humans will not hand it over. There would be no human compassion, understanding or conviction in what is done by machines. Humans would become another factor to be calculated and equated over. Handing our fate over to robots is handing out our own death sentances. Robots would be smart enough to work out that the only problem with this planet is the humans that destroy it and thus, they would seek to "solve the problem". |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Mirahge | Jul 19 2008, 02:12 PM Post #48 |
|
And you say I have problems!
|
I'm with Nio on this... Technocracy Frankley, if i were in a technocracy, i would revolt faster than a heartbeat. It should be up to the people to decided who to elect. You need people to know how to run things politically. Robocracy Silly, Silly, Silly. What he said ^ |
|
"Life continues on, with...or without you" ~Locust Queen, Gears of War 2 RP Charecters: James Redmen - 28 days later Pvt Damain Horton - On the Front Lance Dersan - Cops | |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Jul 19 2008, 02:13 PM Post #49 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
we might not have an option in order to "hand" robots power, if they are strong enough, they could take it, and if they want to solve a/the "human" destruction of earth problem, they would have a paradox, firstly they were created by humans, and therefore were created by the destructors of earth, and the next paradox would be if they decided to destroy our species, that would destroy much of the earth's environment, and they probably wouldn't want to do that unless they terraformed it to a silicon paradise. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Jul 19 2008, 02:46 PM Post #50 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
If the robots were powerful enough to remove humans from power, then they'd be powerful enough to maintain, advance and recycle themselves, without a human creator needed. Furthermore with humans out the way the only paradox that could possibly take place is the paradox of taking over earth to save it from man and then realising without man, there's no need to save the earth. |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Jul 19 2008, 02:49 PM Post #51 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
who know, maybe humans would make technological singularity with the machines and become "posthuman" cyborgs. you should look up Posthuman theory, on wikipedia(or just posthuman). Personally technocracy had a good idea with smart people in charge, i think we should implement some of that into democracy at least, like maybe have an iq test on the many things they'd do in office before they'r allowed to run to make sure they won't mess up a country. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Jul 19 2008, 03:03 PM Post #52 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
That's essentially apartheid!! You're setting qualifications of office that will automatically exclude a large proportion of people from holding office!! This is utterly ridiculous. Furthermore, where would the level be set? Average IQ would certainly be "below standard" for office because, well that's everybody and under technocracies "not everyone can hold office", as you yourself said KK. Maybe not but everyone should decide who holds that office, not just the select few who know the difference between alpha radiation and beta radition. Where would you fall KK? No offence meant in anyway, but I'm guessing nobody on this forum would hold power under a theocracy, simply for the fact in such a system "smart" will never be smart enough. One more thing, it's one of THE most corruptable forms of government. Once the geeks get their power they won't let it go. As Mir said, I'd revolt quicker than a heartbeat, so would EVERYONE else in the world. |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Jul 19 2008, 03:04 PM Post #53 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
personally i think a republic is most prone to corruption, either that or democracy, depending on the people under it. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Jul 19 2008, 03:56 PM Post #54 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
"Republic" is not the same as "democracy". Again, a republic is not one and the same as a democracy KK, you don't seem to understand this. Republic is a system of governance, democracy is a system of society. You either believe in the right to vote or you don't. There are no middle grounds. However, it is very possible to be between wholly approving a republic and wholly disapproving. You are misusing the term republic and democracy in what you said previously. |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Jul 19 2008, 04:31 PM Post #55 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
still corruption and evil flourishes where freedoms are abound, and the masses communicate effectively... or where many evils have befallen upon a country or people... germany would be a great example, their democracy fell to evil by an elected official... Evil only requires ignorance and for good men to do nothing. unfortunately by the time they do something, it's beyond control. However if the people are well informed, and do not accept things easily then evil will be the least of worries, unfortunately the USA is not the 100% free country i wish it was. I can understand the government monitoring things for safety in the country and for it's peoples, but the viacom thing really made me angry WHY SHOULD A C O M P A N Y be allowed to view your youtube files??? They aren't doing it for the safety of ANYONE, only for their own fat pockets of money... political correctness is a chain, and it is binding america into the abyss of evil surprisingly quickly. ALL governments get abolished sometime or another... then replaced... so far i'd say the USA is at it's breaking point into an evilish new age of government... however, government is a necissary evil. Sometimes a dictatorship can grant more freedom than a democracy... It's all up to the leader in charge really. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Niongor | Jul 20 2008, 08:33 AM Post #56 |
|
Giver of the *Hi-5*
|
A recent survey showed that countries with higher levels of personal freedom combined with high amounts of democracy are almost always without exception the happiest and most fulfilled countries on Earth. The Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) and Ireland are always the top nations on these lists. My point being this: although you say evil will always flourish in democracies, the irony is that in all other systems of society and governance evil flourishes to a wider and greater extent. Do you honestly believe that people in a democracy are more corrupted and evil than those living under a dictatorship? You misquoted what you said before:
At least in a democracy, good men have a chance to do something, unlike other forms of governance. |
"There is no next time: it's now or never!"
| |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Jul 20 2008, 09:02 AM Post #57 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
democracy is like a door, but only the person with the key knows where it goes to, and they can lead it into a dictatorship or possibly a continuation of the democracy. FDR was almost a dictator of the USA with a surprisingly powerful cult of personality. A democracy is always fragile. Some "proclaimed democracies" are more of police states than anything. time 2 debate about: Monarchy. monarchy was not always the best government for lots of countries. Some still use it however. It was favored in europe for most of it's history. The monarchies still exist are probably led by a figurehead monarch, instead of the absolute monarch. Sometimes in the older days of europe they were often over confident and over zealous about their country, countrymen and colonies. Often revolutions broke out to replace them with better systems of governance. |
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Kyleslavia | Jul 20 2008, 09:49 AM Post #58 |
|
Stanley Cup Champ
|
It's hard when debating how effective/democratic monarchies are because the term 'monarchy' is mostly an umbrella term. When you refer to a monarchy you could be referring to an absolute monarchy or a constitutional monarchy, two very different types of government. Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to live in a state that was ruled by an absolute monarch. Today, we still have absolute monarchs in the form of individuals such as King Abdulla. A few examples of today's absolute monarchies would be Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, Bhutan, Oman, Qatar, and Vatican City. Today, the vast majority of absolute monarchs rule over nations that are poor and unhappy. At the opposite end of the spectrum are constitutional monarchies. Nations that have constitutional monarchies are rather democratic and have a happy citizenry. I wouldn't mind living in a constitutional monarchy/commonwealth realm nation. |
| Come and visit Kylesburg City, please clicky! | |
![]() |
|
| Kartoffel Kanzler | Jul 20 2008, 10:00 AM Post #59 |
|
Paul Emil Rocks
|
it's cool the USA is probably the only nation not in the commonwealth. The criteria would allow the USA to be in it, but i guess we still have that revolution celebrated.
|
| heh | |
![]() |
|
| Gold Antilles | Jul 20 2008, 12:43 PM Post #60 |
|
*First* Bermudian in NS Canada
|
The US would never join the Commonwealth for a single reason: they wouldn't be in charge. The USA only joins organisations it can run and dictate to. I live in Bermuda which is England's (and later Great Britain's) oldest colony. Since 1968 we have been independent of the UK deciding our own laws and it works. The UK takes care of our defence and foreign policy and we take care of our own internal issues. Also every Bermudian automatically qualifies for British citizenship as of 2002. Personally I love the Queen, known in Bermuda as "Queen of Bermuda". Monarchy works for Bermuda. The issue of Bermuda becoming a republic has been quiet but surfaced recently when the greedy for power Premier thought up a retirement plan and way to stay in power. Monarchy is a good system. A long term permanent figurehead who over looks temporary and widely ranging governments. Its worked in Bermuda for 400 years. No need to change it. Also its sneaky the way the Bermudian government is approaching the question of "keep the monarchy or replace with president". Essentially they're saying, "BRITISH OR BERMUDIAN" when really the two aren't different. Everythin Bermuda has the UK gave us. Secondly the government create an "us and them" situation with the whites. White people form about 35% of Bermuda and the government basically put black people in the position of "Well you're either black and don't like the monarchy or you're one of those whities!" Essentially pressuring them to side against the monarchy using race as an excuse. We rejected a republic in 1995 and in my view that's that. |
|
Premier of Gold Antilles "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" Patrick Henry | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Village · Next Topic » |







8:00 PM Jul 10