Glad to see another Transhumanist and Technocrat here on Debate Politics.
Jazzratt said:
... my views tend toward communism - although I tend to update parts of that theory with technocracy...
I'd caution you to be careful attempting to use technocracy to "update" other economic systems, though. You mention anti-capitalism as a result of your disgust at the inefficiencies of the Price System... but Communism is just as much a function of the Price System, and it leads to the same abuses.
It doesn't matter who sets the prices and who owns the machines. If your economic system is based on trading labor for goods, automation will destroy it. And if your means of production are controlled by majority rule... well, it'll destroy itself.
ARealConservative said:
No economic system relies on individual rights more so then capitalism.
Capitalism relies on the rights of capitalists, and the only human rights it supports are those that can be bought or sold.
ARealConservative said:
If the only way to feed 6 billion people a day is to subject humanity to the form of slavery that you currently endorse, then the invisible hand is efficiently keeping population levels down to managable levels.
Not knowing how much technocratic design he has absorbed into his Communism, I can't speak for his views-- but Technocracy is not a system of slavery. It does not involve State ownership over either the means of production or the means of distribution, and it does not allow those who control production or distribution to use them as tools of control.
If you're interested in seeing how this technology differs from Socialism or Communism, read the materials on
Technocracy, Inc's website.
She *proves* that Capitalism is the only true moral, acceptable, and victimless system. Careful, it is some heavy reading.
Think you hit the wrong key-- you were looking for quotation marks, not asterisks. You can "prove" anything you want in a fictional work, simply because you are in control of what is effective in your fictional world and what is not.
Might also point out that the moral postulates and arguments she uses to defend Capitalism would also rule out absolutely any attempt by government to reward, influence, or coerce moral behavior-- and that the moral values she professes are antithetical to human civilization.
wonder cow said:
Isn't Technocracy based somewhat on merit whereas Communism is not?
They're both theoretically based on merit, but they're both somewhat subject to human frailties. The major improvement in Technocracy is that it removes the means by which corruption is rewarded-- since there's no way to "game" the system for material benefit or trade political favors, there's simply no reason to be corrupt.
Technocracy is still slightly vulnerable to favoritism and office politics, but it requires the support of one's co-workers
and one's superiors to rise in position-- so variance between the best candidate and the one who gets promoted woud be less.
