NationStates Jolt Archive

TECHNOCRATIC PARTY
Competent Leaders for a Better Tomorrow

Here's the manifesto, again. I've added a few things I forgot before.
If anyone's interested, post. If you disagree with something in the manifesto, and would join if it was different, post. Everything's negotiable to a certain extent.

Here's the manifesto:

We, the Technocratic Party, believe in rule by those competent to rule. We believe that science can lead to more effective governance.

Here is what we are not:
1. We are not a bunch of petty bureaucrats off to further complicate government. We desire effectiveness, and bureaucratic inefficiency would mar this.
2. We are not a group dedicated to suppressing magic and brainwashing the world. Get your head out of the roleplaying games.
3. We are not specifically beholden to any given real-world Technocratic platform.

What we are is a combination of various Technocratic positions, weeded out for what works.

Here are our principles:
1. Government should be ruled by those with the skill to use it to better people's lives, not by those the people want to rule them. Democracy is useful only as a means of gaguing what would make people happy, not a be-all-end-all absolute.
2. Human Rights are not inviolable. They have specific value to people, based on their contribution to happiness, and decisions to violate them will be based on taking this into account.
3. We will attempt to rule in a scientifically proven and effective manner, with a goal of maximizing the greater good. Provisionally, the greater good shall be measured using a simplified version of Rawl's Veil of Ignorance grounded in basic concepts of utility.
4. Unlike some Technocracies, we do not advocate the complete demise of the free market. We do however recognize the flaws in the market system and will intervene to correct them. If the market truly becomes untenable we will be willing to sacrifice it in favor of a more strictly planned system, but we will base such decisions on what benefits the market may be able to give.
5. As we intend to rule in a scientifically and empirically supported manner, we need as much data as we can get. As such, scientific development will be a top priority, including some degree of human experimentation if the benefits can be shown to outweigh the risks.
6. We intend to gather as much information as possible. This means some degree of monitoring beyond what may be comfortable, though not necessarily to a Big Brother level.
7. We also intend to disseminate as much information as possible. Education is a top priority, as a competent public leads to less need for intervention.
8. We will avoid ideology or religion-based reasoning except when dealing with proven claims. We may use the public's ideological or religious groups or tendencies if such would be deemed useful, however.
9. We wish to further transhumanist causes as much as possible, i.e. the enhancement both genetically and cybernetically of the human race.

Proposals:
1. We wish to transition to AI leadership in as many areas as possible as rapidly as possible, as this would be the most consistent and least likely to be biased or corrupt. This will also make Rawlsian calculations easier.
2. We wish to develop methods to measure utility within society. This could be done via some sort of measuring device hooked up to a portion of the populace a la Nielson. This device would measure endorphin levels over a period of time, which would then be compiled into a utility index. There might also be a measure of democracy involved in this process, adjusted to correct for the inaccuracies present in such a system.
3. We wish to develop computerized simulations capable of measuring a candidate's fitness to rule. We would extend such systems into a program of effective standardized testing to judge the correct position to place people in.
4. We intend to avoid harshly punishing dissidents against our policies, instead using economic policy to isolate them and take away the threat they pose without resorting to active harm.

Members:
Vegas-Rex
Holyawesomeness
Taredas

(If you are not on this list but expressed interest at some point please contact me ASAP before the election.)
Any other suitably Technocratic policies or goals are welcome. Feel free to post if you're at all interested.

So this time, no one even wants to take the time for pointless bickering?

Someone expressed interest in a Technocratic Party in the election thread. Where are you?

*engaging in pointless bickering*

bicker

I was not at all aware of this certain idealogue and im not completely supportive of it, one of the things i agreed with is the statement about democracy and how ineffective it is in putting a competant person in power which is true, the masses pick someone based mostly on their personal biases. The Genetic enhancement as well as "human experimentation" is a wee bit creepy one question is how would you pick people for experimentation would it be prisoners, volunteers (yeah right), or random people you kidnap? Also government by computer sounds a little dangerous computers have no pity, or any emotion or instincts whatsoever the people the computer rule would be little more than numbers on a spreadsheet to it and it is absurdly easy to hit the "delete" button. The rule by computer is scary computers have no emotions and no creativity or sense of innovation they just run things if a new problem arose they would just crash. How would you measure someones fitness to rule there really is no benchmark for political apptitude. The proposal on "dissidents" is a bit vague who are the dissidents true threats enemies, terrorists, anarchists etc. or just anyone who disagrees with the party. The measuring of utility by putting monitors on the populace is really big-brotherish invading someones privacy is one thing, but their anatomy? another positive thing about technocracy is the focus on education, you can't get enough education and most of the worlds problems would be solved with affluency and education. I think democracy could work if the masses were politically educated and with tighter restrictions on who can vote.

I was not at all aware of this certain idealogue and im not completely supportive of it, one of the things i agreed with is the statement about democracy and how ineffective it is in putting a competant person in power which is true, the masses pick someone based mostly on their personal biases. The Genetic enhancement as well as "human experimentation" is a wee bit creepy one question is how would you pick people for experimentation would it be prisoners, volunteers (yeah right), or random people you kidnap? Also government by computer sounds a little dangerous computers have no pity, or any emotion or instincts whatsoever the people the computer rule would be little more than numbers on a spreadsheet to it and it is absurdly easy to hit the "delete" button. The rule by computer is scary computers have no emotions and no creativity or sense of innovation they just run things if a new problem arose they would just crash. How would you measure someones fitness to rule there really is no benchmark for political apptitude. The proposal on "dissidents" is a bit vague who are the dissidents true threats enemies, terrorists, anarchists etc. or just anyone who disagrees with the party. The measuring of utility by putting monitors on the populace is really big-brotherish invading someones privacy is one thing, but their anatomy? another positive thing about technocracy is the focus on education, you can't get enough education and most of the worlds problems would be solved with affluency and education. I think democracy could work if the masses were politically educated and with tighter restrictions on who can vote.

The genetic stuff and human experimentation would be purely consensual, except in the case of limited economic experimentation if the risks are very low. We would establish sufficient computer security, and would be sure to design systems that are sufficiently innovative, probably using some sort of pseudo-darwinian processes. Instincts, emotions, and pity are some of the problems of democracy that you mentioned, we intend to weigh the common good accurately. Aptitude would be measured mostly via simulations, with a few tried-and-tested principles also tested for when we discover them. Dissidents doesn't mean those opposed to the government so much as those opposed to technocracy itself, or those who try to use influence to damage our plans for society. There wouldn't be monitors on everyone, just a small random selection. It's really not that much more invasive than jury duty.

Well, so long as your platform has a plank where you want to beat up the other nation I am in. After all, all of these goals are useless unless we can beat up the other nation.

Well, so long as your platform has a plank where you want to beat up the other nation I am in. After all, all of these goals are useless unless we can beat up the other nation.

There's room for beating up the other nation, though it would probably be more efficient to treat them like we treat dissidents, i.e. eliminate the threat they pose using economics and the media. With soft measures we can avoid wasting life and defeat our opponents much more completely.

So, Holyawesomeness, can I count on your vote?

And yes, this is a BUMP!

My revised signature should sum up my reasons for joining the Technocrats nicely. :)

My revised signature should sum up my reasons for joining the Technocrats nicely. :)

Welcome to the Party! It's always good for a small party to get new people, and in our case I was fearing the public interest had died.

There's room for beating up the other nation, though it would probably be more efficient to treat them like we treat dissidents, i.e. eliminate the threat they pose using economics and the media. With soft measures we can avoid wasting life and defeat our opponents much more completely.
Hey, beating the other guy is good so long as they are beaten up, all that matters is the efficiency and effectiveness in achieving the goal, I did not necessarily mean war I guess I should have said beating without the up since I just want to be superior. Meh, I guess I wouldn't mind voting for ya. Technology leads to power, power leads to victory, your party wants to master technology and therefore wants to have victory. Sure, the Technocrats are the cool party. We just need to have some form of defense to protect us from jealous enemies and crush dangerous opponents.

Hey, beating the other guy is good so long as they are beaten up, all that matters is the efficiency and effectiveness in achieving the goal, I did not necessarily mean war I guess I should have said beating without the up since I just want to be superior. Meh, I guess I wouldn't mind voting for ya. Technology leads to power, power leads to victory, your party wants to master technology and therefore wants to have victory. Sure, the Technocrats are the cool party.

Welcome to the Party, then.

Manifesto is officially BUMPED!

Let's keep this floating till the election.

Alright, I am going to throw some ideas out there and I want to know if they sound good. These ideas can be broken up, combined, whatever is required to attain efficiency.

1. Mild support for armed forces. Armed forces should be maintained at a level that allows them to be brought forth effectively and used defensively enough to ward off invaders. Large armed forces are undesirable due to high costs and inefficiency, small armed forces are undesirable because they do not effectively disincentize people from declaring war. We should find a good mean between price and effectiveness.
2. Large amounts of deregulation. Businesses will be deregulated in order to increase their efficiency and reduce bureacracy due to the idea of "survival of the fittest". If for any reason a business gets too large then it will be broken up, monopolies are inefficient, however, on average, businesses will be more efficient than government action due to external pressures that force it to be efficient. This deregulation extends to minimum wage as minimum wage affects the market economy negatively and as a policy only serves to increase inefficiency by ignoring natural market processes designed to bring about efficiency.
3. Labor unions will be suppressed. Labor unions are attempts at monopolizing the labor market and monopolies of any form negatively impact efficiency. We do support efforts to bring about cooperation between employers and employees but think that such force will disrupt things more than is necessary. Happy workers are productive workers and businesses should come to learn that.
4. The environment will be dealt with through taxing pollution, supporting anti-pollution technologies, and pursuing long term strategies that emphasize sustainable growth. Technological advance is mankind's best hope for dealing with the Greenhouse effect and other problems and we will regulate as much as necessary to ensure the long term health of mankind.
5. Crime. The technologists are anti-crime. We think it is bad and as such will try to find ways to prevent crime, to reform criminals, and to find use for those that are incorrigible. We intend to do all of this efficiently at the lowest cost possible to society. We will investigate methods of education that reduce crime, methods of reform that cost little to nothing and possibly that even contribute to society, and we will find things to do with those that cannot be dealt with through normal means.
6. Health. We intend to deal with health through education about preventative methods and through taxing or eliminating products that are dangerous to the health. Big Macs would be taxed to encourage healthier choices by people and healthier options offered by businesses; highly addictive drugs would probably be banned as the addiction in itself makes it a threat to the health of the user that cannot be halted through anything less than illegalization. Health care will be given to people as is most efficient, it will be private health care but systems may be put in place to reduce spread of disease and to deal with any problems that arise from a private system (systems put in place might be regulations, national health insurance, etc). Euthanasia will be allowed for the incurably ill, if those people want to die then we should let them because it would benefit both them and society.
7. Law. Lawsuits are a major drain on our society today. We intend to simplify the law to reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits. Some things should not be allowed into a court, some things need to be limited and some problems would not exist if we paid closer attention to efficiency. Streamlining the legal system will provide massive benefits to society in terms of freeing up resources devoted to the legal system.
8. Education will be compulsory for people below the legal age of adulthood. Education will focus on subjects that are important for getting a job, managing one's own life, and understanding one's place in society and the nature of society. This means that there will be a great focus on practical subjects and attention will be taken away from subjects that can be considered less practical. The purpose of education is societal benefit, not to match some ridiculous notions of being a "gentleman". Education after the legal age of adulthood is not compulsory but individuals will be strongly encouraged to take the opportunity and scholarships will be given to those with ability to do well. Trade school will also be encouraged. Every level of education should be used to help individuals progress to a beneficial future and reducing the loss of talent due to slackerism, as well as the promotion of those who do well will be our missions. We do not want to coddle the weak but instead seek to encourage strength.

meh, what do people think? I think that some of it needs to be adjusted but still.

I just hope you keep your electoral promises. Say NO to the right to privacy! Say YES to forcible genetic enhancement! Whoopee!

I cast my vote for you in the election thread.

Hehe, you got my vote.

Alright, I am going to throw some ideas out there and I want to know if they sound good. These ideas can be broken up, combined, whatever is required to attain efficiency.

"snip"

meh, what do people think? I think that some of it needs to be adjusted but still.

Ok, there are some problems with this stuff, but I agree with some of it:
1. Direct armed conflict is generally inefficient. While it remains the best option it would be best to have the balanced army you describe, but I really think it would be more useful to move into less obvious forms of conflict. See the dissenters section of the manifesto for more detail.
2. The market has its uses, and it has its drawbacks. Direct regulation will be weighed based on what it actually does, but other methods of control are also available. We will in general try to aid the market in acheiving efficiency, which may mean some "soft regulation", i.e. controls less obvious than direct legislation.
3. Applying this standard to business, any sort of corporation, chain, whatever, would also have to be suppressed. Competitive labor unions (as in with eachother) would be more effective. Our end goal, however, is to eliminate the need for unions whatsoever by mechanizing labor and using education and birth control to make workers valuable enough to get the desired conditions.
4. Amen, brother.
5. Again, pretty much in line with Technocratic policy. Remember though, as with unions, the end goal is to make crime totally unnecessary.
6. Information is our best tool to increase health. We need not even ban the more addicitive drugs, just make them carry detailed data as to their effects and educate the populace to understand this data. If healthcare can be effective publicly then it will be, if not then it will be private, but in both cases we will try to make it affordable to everyone through economic measures more than through direct regulation and management.
7. Frivolous lawsuits are inefficient, I agree. In general, we would also wish to make legal action, particularly against the government, unnecessary.
8. Education is indeed important. Though preparing people for a trade is important, what is perhaps more necessary is giving them enough knowledge of how the world works to maneuver effectively through both market and government and to come up with new innovations for both. This means both massive science education and education in newly empiricized social sciences. We also need to encourage critical thinking and creativity.

Oh, what the heck, forget the UUP...

May I join this party?

Oh, what the heck, forget the UUP...

May I join this party?

Sure. Go vote, and be prosperous.

Ok, well, I was just curious about immediate goals for the technocratic party. I do realize that in the long run we will eliminate many things however, every journey begins with one step.

In the long run we do seek to outstrip our enemies to the extent that actual warfare will not be effective against us.

Soft regulation doesn't sound bad, it is just that well meaning restrictions tend to be bad. We should definitely help our industries be competitive but try to avoid subsidies and the like.

I see the idea about competitive unions. There is a threat caused by big business and by big labor, both need to have their influence checked. In the long run we will not have very much labor problems as menial jobs will eventually be replaced and our focus on technology will give us a strong economy and strong economies don't have as many problems with strife.

Ok, good, regulation of externalities through taxation is good.

Crime is to be eliminated in the long run, I was mostly addressing the short run.

Ok, right, the banning of illegal drugs was just something to be done because under the current system people do not act on the information given. In the long run you are right, an enlightened people do not need bans. Yes, efficiency is key.

Legal action should ideally become unnecessary.

Well, I figure that teaching them a trade and teaching them good business and life management skills would work quite well. We currently have a problem with the ability of individuals to run their lives well. If we can get more people to be independent of government programs and away from crime and such through teaching trades and the workings of the system then the rest of our problems are solved. The sum of the strength of the individuals comprising society is to some extent the judge of a society, AKA stupid people ruin everything and their numbers need to be reduced.

By the way, what will we do to drum up support for our party? We only have about 7% of the vote.

By the way, what will we do to drum up support for our party? We only have about 7% of the vote.

Yeah, and I could swear there were more people interested. We're not exactly destined to be an incredibly popular party, especially with the election underway and most people perceiving the DSP and UDCP as the default choices, now that they've pulled ahead of the pack. About all we can do now is seek out those who seem interested and badger them about voting.

Hmm... perhaps we could allow humans a slightly bigger role in government?

Hmm... perhaps we could allow humans a slightly bigger role in government?

They get a provably good idea, they pass the simulations, they get a role. Much of science would still be done by humans, simply because computers would have trouble questioning their own programming.