What will reform political philosophy?

[cratehorus]

In our lifetimes, no, probably not - I mean there's no ruling it out entirely, I've got another 50 left in me at the least - but I don't expect it. One way to ensure that it's never a reality for anyone, ourselves or our children or our children's children is to suggest and maintain that it isn't worth adding in for consideration just because we think it might be difficult to accomplish. Or if we show a preference or deference to fascism over it.....fuck...

it's unrealistic and borderline childish....i mean "technocracy" the name even sounds stupid there's no coherent doctrine or manifesto just basically let machines and robots do everything, if it were a true legitimate philosophy........... there would be plenty of religous fantics crying that it's the devils work, and plenty of matrix conspiracy theorists denouncing it, along with "totalitarian" novels written by dumb assholes exagerrating any possible wrong.... there are alot of things needed to be worked out before we start considering technocracy a legitimate politcal philosophy....like abolishing fascism something alot of people don't want too do.... and working out/defining hybrid theories like anarcho-capitalism and marxist-leninism

---

A technocracy is just one form that an oligarchy could take, and that was left off the table.

wha?

---

These are changes in political culture/social norms, but not philosophy as such.

By political philosophy, I mean points such whether we should strive for equal opportunities or equal outcomes, or allow all to vote. These are points that generally reduce to common answers, and this has been the same for decades.

felons aren't allowed to vote.... immigrants as welll..... no equal oppurtunities for women and the handicapped...... there are mutiple countries still stating that people of different religous backrgrounds shouldn't be allowed equal rights like in saudi arabia........ and then of course there is gay rights in africa which has permitted mass executions..... where on earth have these "ideals" been agreed upon for decades???... fiji maybe???

[cratehorus]

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

[Minimalist]

Sadly, if history has shown us anything it is that change only comes with violence. And the forces of reaction are always ready to try to turn back the clock.

[Jackalope]

Sadly, if history has shown us anything it is that change only comes with violence. And the forces of reaction are always ready to try to turn back the clock.

Those in charge perhaps ought to remember this and perhaps squeeze our collective balls a little more gently, yes?

[Minimalist]

Just because they are greedy does not mean they are wise.

[dazzn]

In our lifetimes, no, probably not - I mean there's no ruling it out entirely, I've got another 50 left in me at the least - but I don't expect it. One way to ensure that it's never a reality for anyone, ourselves or our children or our children's children is to suggest and maintain that it isn't worth adding in for consideration just because we think it might be difficult to accomplish. Or if we show a preference or deference to fascism over it.....fuck...

it's unrealistic and borderline childish....i mean "technocracy" the name even sounds stupid there's no coherent doctrine or manifesto just basically let machines and robots do everything, if it were a true legitimate philosophy........... there would be plenty of religous fantics crying that it's the devils work, and plenty of matrix conspiracy theorists denouncing it, along with "totalitarian" novels written by dumb assholes exagerrating any possible wrong.... there are alot of things needed to be worked out before we start considering technocracy a legitimate politcal philosophy....like abolishing fascism something alot of people don't want too do.... and working out/defining hybrid theories like anarcho-capitalism and marxist-leninism

---

A technocracy is just one form that an oligarchy could take, and that was left off the table.

wha?

---

These are changes in political culture/social norms, but not philosophy as such.

By political philosophy, I mean points such whether we should strive for equal opportunities or equal outcomes, or allow all to vote. These are points that generally reduce to common answers, and this has been the same for decades.

felons aren't allowed to vote.... immigrants as welll..... no equal oppurtunities for women and the handicapped...... there are mutiple countries still stating that people of different religous backrgrounds shouldn't be allowed equal rights like in saudi arabia........ and then of course there is gay rights in africa which has permitted mass executions..... where on earth have these "ideals" been agreed upon for decades???... fiji maybe???

yeah.. and in most Western liberal democracies, all don't hold equal rights? lol... And Saudi Arabis is a liberal democracy.. lol..

I get you people don't understand the question. No harm in saying as such...

[cratehorus]

yeah.. and in most Western liberal democracies, all don't hold equal rights? lol... And Saudi Arabis is a liberal democracy.. lol..

I get you people don't understand the question. No harm in saying as such...

no they don't do gay couples have the right to be married? and since when the hell do we have equal rights for immigrants..........most african americans don't even vote.....hell we just had an election about whether or not there is such a thing as legitimate rape or not.............. are this questions about western.............liberal.............democracies...........or this is about polititcal global philosophy maybe you don't think the rest of the WORLD should be included in this is question but i do.............

[Sal]

I'm a Social Democrat with Technocratic leanings.

Technocracy is only possible in a very literate and well educated population. We aren't even close to that in any society, although Scandinavia has a few politicians that support technocratic theory, who happen to be Social Democrats as well.

[dazzn]

yeah.. and in most Western liberal democracies, all don't hold equal rights? lol... And Saudi Arabis is a liberal democracy.. lol..

I get you people don't understand the question. No harm in saying as such...

no they don't do gay couples have the right to be married? and since when the hell do we have equal rights for immigrants..........most african americans don't even vote.....hell we just had an election about whether or not there is such a thing as legitimate rape or not.............. are this questions about western.............liberal.............democracies...........or this is about polititcal global philosophy maybe you don't think the rest of the WORLD should be included in this is question but i do.............

you didn't understand my initial question. i never mentioned gay marriage or rights for immigrants.