Whenever someone starts fantasizing about transitioning to a technocratic government, I start fantasizing about hoarding guns in preparation the coming civil war / revolution it would result in.
The very concept of a technocratic government assumes people know and agree what the goals should be and fully understand the consequences. If that was the case, the current political system would "work". Instead people disagree on what the goals should be, and will change their opinion on what the goals should be if the goals the initially chose causes changes they dislike.
E.g. if you present proof that legalizing cannabis would have only positive effects, don't expect most people who are against it to change their mind, expect them to change their argument for why it should remain illegal.
Any technocratic government would necessarily need to be dictatorial and heavily oppressive - one that wasn't wouldn't stay in power for any amount of time.
I keep seeing this idea prop up - especially over on Reddit. And it scares me. I've said there that I'd be first in line to take up arms against a government like that, and I'm serious, as I'd see it as a massive threat against my freedom.
Italy just installed a technocratic government. If they manage to save Italy from completely imploding (which is the course it's democratic government set it on), then you may have reconsider your stance on this.
That they needed to (begrudgingly) install a technocrat at the 11th hour simply to stave off total and utter destruction of their economy (and the wider EU economy) is, in my opinion, proof enough that Technocratic governments are the way to go.
Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. When the majority are idiots, you have a real problem that will always lead to catastrophic results.
I see idiots as a threat against my freedom. And considering their inability to think strategically or consider long term scenarios, I think the civil war war between the intellectuals and the morons you predict would be over very quickly.
In a very, very limited sense. A government in a country with a parliamentary system is subject to support of parliament. As such, its powers are drastically limited compared to the US executive, for example, as it can be overthrown by parliament at any time. In this case they have a very narrow mandate from parliament, and can expect to be forced to resign if they don't consult with parliament very closely on everything they do.
In other words this is a show to give confidence to investors. Nothing would have stopped Berlusconi or another politician from running the government but actually take advice from economists seriously in the first place. If anything, Italy is a demonstration of why a technocracy will not be accepted longer term - it is only begrudgingly tolerated as a stage show even now because they're staring down the abyss and are hoping it will calm things down, while they could have taken advice from the exact same people at any time in the past years.
Why didn't they? Because they didn't like the answers given when they asked for advice, and the voters wouldn't have voted for them if they did follow it.
The moment things looks better, the same squabbling will continue, because the only reason there's anything resembling a truce between the parties in Italy now is that they all agree that for the moment the debt is the controlling issue, and everything up to and including this stage show is better than a default.
Also, look up the history of Italy. The Italian government changes more often than some people changes clothes, because the parliament has generally been extremely quick to replace the sitting government if it makes decisions parliament does not like. Berlusconi's government has been a massive aberration. This is not a culture that will tolerate a government that takes decisions they don't like unless they see it as absolutely impossible to avoid.
> That they needed to (begrudgingly) install a technocrat at the 11th hour simply to stave off total and utter destruction of their economy (and the wider EU economy) is, in my opinion, proof enough that Technocratic governments are the way to go.
This is a ridiculous argument. They chose to install a government lead by an economist as a temporary measure to try to fix a problem. It does not follow that this government will be given free reign - Italy has a parliamentary system, and the government can be voted down at pretty much any time, as mentioned above. Nor does it follow that this government will sit very long - in Italy that would be the exception rather than the rule for any government. Nor does it follow that this government will make good decisions if it tries to make decisions outside of the one area where it has a real mandate from parliament.
Nor does it follow that it will actually solve the problem in a way more beneficial to Italians than a government composed out of politicians. Keep in mind that this government was put in place by politicians out of desperation - the same politicians that participated in creating the mess in the first place.
If you don't trust these politicians to make the right decisions in the first place, why would you trust their decisions in installing this government?
> Democracy is the tyranny of the majority. When the majority are idiots, you have a real problem that will always lead to catastrophic results.
Yes, you will have problems, but you will have even greater problems when someone thinks they have objective measures for what is "right" despite the will of the majority. Quite a lot of despots got started this way - if you don't have popular support, either you won't have a government or you will need to start the oppression.
As much as a lot of things could be a lot better under a lot of minority governments, ultimately the only way for this to come to pass would be oppression. I'll take the government of idiots over an effective oppressive dictator any day.
> I think the civil war war between the intellectuals and the morons you predict would be over very quickly.
It would not be a civil war between intellectuals and morons, but between wannabe dictators (arguable they are the real morons) and everyone else, including most intellectuals. And yes, it probably would be over very, very quickly, as the very people who fantasize about this kind of government tend to do so because they are disgusted about the very type of politics required to gain the popular or military support required to install one.
Yeah, I was broad in my definition of Technocracy when applied to Italy, I'll give you that. But Technocracy isn't defined as well as Democracy because there's no real context from history to draw on, so I stand by it. Italy has a Technocratic government right now.
That said, A Technocracy does not imply dictatorship. Nor does it imply despotism. These are two "aspects" of a Technocracy you've just made up on the spot to support what you believe.
All I ask is that my chancellor be a qualified and learned economist. That my minister for health be qualified in a related field such as medicine or biology. That the scientific/ethical debates in parliament (or congress) be argued between scientific experts and philosophers and economists, not by people who have never actually had a real job outside of politics, or have little to no education in the field they are responsible for. When our leaders can say sincerely "I asked God what to do", and everyone thinks that's ok, we've lost the plot. That's Tyranny.
What I want is to feel confident that the people making the decisions that govern my life know what the hell they're talking about. What I have right now, what we all have right now, are leaders who make decisions based on how much money someone is willing to pay them, what they feel in "their gut" to be right, or what some magical fucking tyrant living in the sky tells them to do.
The very concept of a technocratic government assumes people know and agree what the goals should be and fully understand the consequences. If that was the case, the current political system would "work". Instead people disagree on what the goals should be, and will change their opinion on what the goals should be if the goals the initially chose causes changes they dislike.
E.g. if you present proof that legalizing cannabis would have only positive effects, don't expect most people who are against it to change their mind, expect them to change their argument for why it should remain illegal.
Any technocratic government would necessarily need to be dictatorial and heavily oppressive - one that wasn't wouldn't stay in power for any amount of time.
I keep seeing this idea prop up - especially over on Reddit. And it scares me. I've said there that I'd be first in line to take up arms against a government like that, and I'm serious, as I'd see it as a massive threat against my freedom.