TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Bases of a Social Technocracy (I haven't found anything similar so far).

I had a wild idea long ago, about the creation of a social technocratic government system based on three principles:

1) The broad objective is to promote social development and better living standards, not economic growth, assuming the first will lead to the latter eventually and not vice-versa.

2) The main focus will always be to promote education in all its forms (Arts & Science), with emphasis on freedom and accessibility of information for everyone.

3) The government is a tool for the people to serve themselves therefore it should be easy to use and efficient; public services are created on basis of legal social contracts which can be overridden.

Ideally this would be a retroactive system; the more education given to the people, the better the quality of the people in charge. Encouraging rationalism, and discouraging blind idealism and specially proselytism. It is expected that the person in power is "not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of [his] character." (Paraphrasing MLKJr.)

The government should be composed of three bodies,the popular body (which is elected as a democracy, and advocates for the morality), the technical body (which elects members on project basis, and advocates for the rationality) & the auditing body (which supervises and accounts for efficiency, and represents the viability). The majority of vote is slightly balanced towards the technical body.

The thing about the technical body is that it the members are chosen like in a free market, whoever does the best job gets the contract. This person is appointed by a panel of scholars, is fully accountable for his actions and is constantly evaluated by the auditing and technical bodies for performance on basis of the logic of their ideas as well as the returns on investment. There is no time limit, the person can be replaced a week later if he is not suitable, or stay forever if he is the best in what he does.

Thanks, for more details message me. Any feedback is valued.


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 8 2011: The challenge is always implementation. All systems are "perfect" in their conception. It's in their birth that they get a bit scrambled.

    (I think you might mean "basis.")
    • Sep 8 2011: That's actually what I'm posting it for to figure out how could it get scrambled. I know no system is perfect, but as in businesses, plans have to be put to test to recognize major flaws before they happen.

      And you are right, it is basis. Translation problems.
    • thumb
      Sep 8 2011: In addition to issues of being scrambled at birth (which is inevitable human flaw), there is the lack of foresight of the power of individuals, who don't like the idea because it's ideologically threatening or because it's not actually working. Marxism/Socialism is detested in America because of the former reason.

      The solution I see to this is forming a governmental STRUCTURE, separate from the governing body itself, so that the government can adapt as generations evolve:

      It separates the logic of the ways a government is run, from the use of that government. (It's like the difference between building a web application's administrative functions and actually using those administrative functions.) We should have a government structure, which provides the means through which a society can govern itself — then society can use that structure to build its laws.

      Just as importantly, it forces the means of government to remain independent of ideological influences. For example, where American government fails is that its administrative structure is too specific to the administrative functions at the time. In an analogy, the code used to build a custom blog’s administration panel in 1999 for a foot cream site is still being used in 2011, heavily modified, for a YouTube-like site. Not only is the code old, the context changed drastically — just as society changes.

      Many of the ideas in the constitution are just old ideas. The right to bear arms in the constitution was an entirely different idea in 1800 than in it is now in 2011. Had this been changed several times in the past 100 years, alongside the development of much deadlier weapons, there would be less argument and potentially more progress.
      • thumb
        Sep 8 2011: QUOTE: "Marxism/Socialism is detested in America because of this."

        I do not think Marxism/Socialism is detested in America because it doesn't work; it is detested because it is ideologically inconsistent with the American image of itself.

        The fact is socialism does "work." As much as we can say any system works. The star on the stage at the moment is socialist. And there are many countries that practice socialism ... to a degree. Even America.

        The notion that 7 billion people can be governed is, in itself, faulty That we can be governed by a single system is folly. At least for the foreseeable future. We cannot even agree on what basic ideas mean ... freedom, liberty, justice. They mean different things to different people.
        • thumb
          Sep 8 2011: I did not mean that at all. That was just a poorly constructed sentence. I agree with everything you said.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.