China's technocracy is actually pretty similar to what you've got here:

Quote

If you work in the government you have a single task (as opposed to a politician who must be educated on all fronts) and you are, of course, hired not elected.

China has a legislative body--all of whom are elected in. What exactly am I not understanding?

I thought pedophiles didn't care for gender.

IM BETTER THAN SOLDIERS WAAAAH WAAAAH WAAAAH GIVE ME ATTENTION

Technocracy is not a guarantor of low corruption, if China is any example. I'd like to see politicians relegated to true public servants, who sacrifice wealth and benefits out of passion for politics, not eliminated entirely.

How exactly is China an example of a technocracy? They have politicians do they not?

Quote from: Yu on January 19, 2015, 09:48:04 AM

Quote from: Flee on January 19, 2015, 09:46:15 AM

That's a lot of reading.

Don't be lazy Flee, read it.

I started but lost interest near the end of the first page. Does something interesting happen afterwards?

tl;dr: He hires a guy to follow his wife and his brother's wife around town (they claimed they were going to go on some vacation) and he finds that they were all supposed to fuck in the hotel but his brother's wife chickened out and decided not to cheat, but the guy's wife did end up fucking the stranger multiple times. The wives both send texts claiming the other wife cheated on their husband. They eventually come home after the Hotel and pretend everything is normal, but it slowly turns into a yelling clusterfuck of lies and crying. The guy decides to get a divorce but his brother decided to forgive his wife.

Specifically I would call it a conservative technocracy or possibly a modern free market technocracy and it's all based on efficiency and elimination of corruption. If it were based on central power, it would not be a free market technocracy. So before I list my arguments, I'm going to briefly explain what version of technocracy I'm advocating. Essentially there would be no democracy and no politicians in this kind of government. If you work in the government you have a single task (as opposed to a politician who must be educated on all fronts) and you are, of course, hired not elected. However corporations are still led by the private sector because it is empirically true that command economies don't function as well as free market economies.

My arguments:

• Democracy doesn't exist and is very hard to achieve. I'm going to speak in reference to American democracy for this thread but it should blend well with other democratic countries as well. Essentially we believe that the people have power, but we don't really. We believe we have the power to elect politicians, but the politicians are not looking out for our best interests. Society has evolved in which the most ruthless and convincing are elected rather than the most capable and committed. This is because the powerful just have too much influence over society. And so, those elected into power benefit the powerful people first and the common people second. You can look to the very common occurrence of buying politicians as a reference to my argument.
• Even if we could attain democracy, it's not something we would want. Say the powerful no longer have the enormous influence over society as they do today, would we really be in a better position? The common people may be able to vote for politicians who look after their best interests but the people don't know what their best interests are. The masses aren't bright and they're not going to elect in the right people for the job. You can argue that democracy would work if the people were smart, but for now that's just not a realistic scenario. Though I would love to be proven wrong on this point.
• Technocracy reduces corruption. I'm not saying that corruption would be completely eliminated, but it would be far less potent than what we have today. This is because in a technocracy workers are hired for a single task. In a democracy, politicians must be educated on all subjects. The theory is that if you only have one responsibility, you are less likely to fuck up and sell out. Politicians aren't going to care about every issue and if a powerful individual asks them to reconsider their opinion on something they don't care much for, they're far more likely to do it. Limiting one's responsibilities increases their chance of succeeding and doing well, that is the underlying point.
• There are objectively more efficient, more ethical solutions than others. It is believed that all possible solutions are equally considerable and that we should let the majority decide which they like best. But if our main goal is human flourishing, as most people would agree is what we ought to achieve, then it is better to let expert individuals figure out the right answers and the wrong answers as well as the righter answers and the wronger answers to all problems we come across. This decision making must be left up to experts, not the masses. Of course the masses should be able to bear witness to these decisions and freely speak their minds upon them, but it just isn't possible or preferable to give them the power to make the decisions themselves.

I may be missing some arguments but these are all I can remember during the time I've spent writing this (I did not intend this to become an essay, my apologies). If you have any questions, counter-arguments, logical fallacies to point out, weak points in my arguments to comment upon, feel free to do so. I'm clearly not the kind of person who sticks to any idea so don't feel there's any reason not to bother to give me criticism. I'm also (hypocritically) not an expert myself nor do I have any idea how to transition into a technocratic government, but I'll try my best to tackle these questions if they come up.

tl;dr: The first sentences of each argument are meant to sum up that argument. At the very least read those and skim over the introduction.

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 19, 2015, 06:57:02 AM

Quote from: Muffin Master on January 19, 2015, 06:48:41 AM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 19, 2015, 06:45:21 AM

Quote from: Muffin Master on January 19, 2015, 06:44:15 AM

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 19, 2015, 06:40:49 AM

I've never been attracted to dumb girls. Not sure if that's what your girlfriend is, (though most people are going to claim that the one they love isn't dumb), but she doesn't profile as a smart girl. Sure dumb girls might not be socially awkward but they'll probably cheat, lie, and play games with you all the way up to your divorce.

Do you think people can change?

How old is she?

She's 18, and I know that's not old enough for her to be mature.

Her personality likely won't change once she reaches her early twenties. As far as the lying goes, all I can say is that if they're still lying when they're 18, they'll probably lie until they're dead. That really just comes from personal experience though. I think lying is just a personality trait, and the longer they let it sit the harder it is change. And unless she really loves you, I sincerely doubt she's being honest about trying to change. If you want to know if she's being truthful you ought to assess your relationship and understand how close she really is to you. Because no one is going to change for someone else unless they truly love that someone else.

It seems like she really does love me that much.

If you really think so then you should probably just run with it and see how things ago. Just don't be surprised if you're still with her a few months from now and you start catching her in lies again.

Quote from: Dustin xLilD on January 19, 2015, 06:40:49 AM

I've never been attracted to dumb girls. Not sure if that's what your girlfriend is, (though most people are going to claim that the one they love isn't dumb), but she doesn't profile as a smart girl. Sure dumb girls might not be socially awkward but they'll probably cheat, lie, and play games with you all the way up to your divorce.

Do you think people can change?

How old is she?

And now we wait for the final updates on the fight

I don't know. At what age are humans able to start thinking? I'm guessing my first thought was an observance of how crying got myself what I wanted.

But why did they only have 87 ships defending earth?

$30 a month, plus the blood sacrifice of a well bred hog.

Hey SecondClass, look at this cute bunny

I don't think there's such thing as a soul either. But I still don't understand why 'I' perceive existence the way I do. Am I not just a set of systems and mechanisms? How exactly does a 'machine' come to life?

HOLY FUCK THIS MUST MEAN WE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS

Quote from: Meta Cognition on January 18, 2015, 02:08:32 PM

Oh for fuck's sake. We're not having parodies in Serious now.

This isn't a parody. I'm seriously looking for evidence.

Close your eyes. Look deep into your soul. What is God telling you?

He is real. There's a reason you cannot disprove him.