(May 14, 2013 at 1:04 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Well, there are some crucial differences that a technocracy has as proposed (not that I'm championing the idea that we'd be able to pull them off very easily) from a vanilla oligarchy. Oversight, redress, social ownership - it;s alot of things cobbled together under the banner of the most prominent and different feature of that sort of arrangement that the proponents wants to advocate. I think that altogether it's sufficiently different from any of the contributing influences to be given it's own space.
(and as far as oligarchies go - I don't think that any were explicitly left on the table - though everything offered has the potential to contain, either intentionally or unintentionally - elements of oligarchy)
why shouldn't the values of technocracy be consideed oligarchy the tech geeks as we call them today could easily become the economic royalists of tommorow if computers and robotics are left to be our masters than those that design and control them shall be the rulers of the world is that not in it's own sense a monarchy???............ is it easily defined under trademark law that those who create such technology rule over it's rewards, what if bill gates, or steve jobbs had designed a series of robots too rule over us all instead of pc's??? would they not have a substantia control over our daily lives and have enourmous wealth?
maybe we should focus on redefining property, trademark, and intellectual property laws before we build space ships and flying homes?
do you not fear that the oil barrons of today shall rule over the energy sources that would bring us such technology would they not control our governments with such a powerful influence that our homes, jobs, and even families would be based upon their decisions. there can be many advances in the world, but simply defining a government based solely on technology without addressing such issues a private property and democracy you leave the planet open to an economic monarchy
