[Chrysalis]

My impression from other threads is that many INTJs will show a tendency to advocate one of these 2 system. The diametrical nature of both systems is pretty striking which makes me wonder if I am right. I am particularly interested about the pros and cons and if common aspects can be found.

So which system do you think is better and for what reasons?



Chrysalis added to this post, 11 minutes and 54 seconds later...

Dear Liberals and Conservatives: Feel free to bring all your passion about politics into this discussion to make it as interesting as your ideological battlegrounds!

[OmegaPsi]

You know, honestly, I was a large supporter of technocracy when I heard of it. But..I recently just figured out it would turn into an Eliteist Networking government.

<Tenttively and Cautiously Technocratic: (Unclear definiton of intelligence)> Totalitarian Liberalism Ftw.

[universalis]

Not sure if you meant civil libertarianism or not, so I voted technocracy. I wouldn't advocate the anarchistic type of libertarianism.

[Alexander]

	Originally Posted by mattosphere To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I wouldn't advocate the anarchistic type of libertarianism.

Why not?

[universalis]

Because I believe government is necessary to control the pyscho's and SF's. I mean unless you want to regress back to feudalism or warring tribes.

[Ool]

	Originally Posted by Chrysalis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So which system do you think is better and for what reasons?

Technocracy, because only technology will enable us to get out of this gravity well, to survive cataclysmic events bound to happen sooner or later on this planet, and to survive in the depths of space.

I mean, this may appear like an idyllic life, but seen from a distance living on the outer layers of the crust of the dry parts of this planet is really a pathetically limited and fragile mold-on-a-wall existence.

But this is really a false choice. For one thing, libertarianism and technocracy neither exclude each other nor does the absence of the one entail the presence of the other.

And besides, libertarianism doesn’t really work, just like communism never worked, and as for technocracy, come to think of it, I’m not really sure what that’s actually supposed to mean. “Rule of the machines…?”

[OmegaPsi]

Ool:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[SShack]

Maybe I'm stupid, but reading their site makes me believe that Technocracy is an economic system, not a political system. Wouldn't it be more accurate to choose between technocracy and capitalism?

[dragonsscout]

Technocracy and libertarianism aren't opposed to each other. Democracy and technocracy are. Unless I'm missing something, I can't really vote in this poll because I don't see a choice.

[Chrysalis]

	Originally Posted by mattosphere To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Not sure if you meant civil libertarianism or not, so I voted technocracy. I wouldn't advocate the anarchistic type of libertarianism.

Both are incarnations of Libertarianism, so I don't really care. In fact there are even more forms of Libertarianism. However the main essence of Libertarianism reads more or more less like this:

Wikipedia - Libertarianism Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error; that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals; and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty.

I assume that Libertarians perceive Technocracy as authoritarian and bureaucratic while Technocrats regard Libertarians as naive ideologists.

	Originally Posted by mattosphere To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because I believe government is necessary to control the pychos and SFs.

You don't only need to control the SFs but also the NFs.

	Originally Posted by Ool To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But this is really a false choice. For one thing, libertarianism and technocracy neither exclude each other nor does the absence of the one entail the presence of the other.

This is not a false choice. Like I said in the opening post I chose to compare this 2 systems because I think that INTJs will experience a natural attraction to one or the other.

	Originally Posted by dragonsscout To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Technocracy and libertarianism aren't opposed to each other. Democracy and technocracy are. Unless I'm missing something, I can't really vote in this poll because I don't see a choice.

You are overlooking that I never claimed they were diametrical. Just like Democracy and Technocracy are not necessarily opposed to each other. Nothing requires to be in complete opposition to be compared and put in contrast. Nevertheless Technocracy and Libertarianism are very contradictory in a specific aspect: Technocracy is pure rationality while Libertarianism is just another ideology.

	Originally Posted by OmegaPsi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I would rather stick to a broader definition of Technocracy like the one from Wikipedia and not advertise or support a specific movement such as Technocracy Incorporated. For instance
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is neither a representative nor decent description of Capitalism as well.

Wikipedia - Technocracy A technocratic government is a government of experts designed to ensure administrative functions are carried out efficiently. Technocracy can, in theory, take many forms and incorporate many systems of government. Technocracy may come about as a provisional form of Noocracy, in which the economy is regulated by economists, social policy is decided by political scientists, the health care system is run by medical professionals, with the branches of the government working together and sharing knowledge to maximize the performance of each in as equal a way as is feasible. Technocracy is often thought of as administration of scientists and engineers.

[SShack]

I think the tremendous flaw in the concept of technocracy/noocracy in that description is the assumption that scientists and engineers are interested in or have the time to take responsibility for governmental administration.

If this were to happen, I suspect these folks would find their time taken up more and more with having to address the public and speak on issues and they would find less and less time to actually engage in science and engineering. It would actually probably hamper innovation due to the time-consuming nature of governance. That's why they tend to play advisory roles. They get to spend their time working on solving problems and passing along their solutions to leaders.

And this is not even getting into the issue of the definition of "expert," which feeds into the "meritocracy" debate we were having on another thread.

[Tocsin]

Any system of government in which the few control the many, regardless of their qualifications or intentions, is just another form of tyranny.

Any "system of government" where people are free to do whatever they want without restraint is just another name for anarchy.

I'll take a piss... um... pass on both technocracy and libertarianism.

[Chrysalis]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Any system of government in which the few control the many, regardless of their qualifications or intentions, is just another form of tyranny. Any "system of government" where people are free to do whatever they want without restraint is just another name for anarchy. I'll take a piss... um... pass on both technocracy and libertarianism.

So you prefer preserving the tyranny in which we currently live in?

[Alexander]

	Originally Posted by mattosphere To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Because I believe government is necessary to control the pyscho's and SF's. I mean unless you want to regress back to feudalism or warring tribes.

I think just how current government systems develop to be effective, I think something like anarchism can develop to also be effective. I don't think returning to the stone age is a foregone conclusion.

I think I would much prefer a system based on individual freedom rather than the rule of the opulent.

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by Chrysalis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you prefer preserving the tyranny in which we currently live in?

The one thing that has become more than apparent in the last forty years, it is that the survival of a functioning democracy requires an informed and involved public, and an impartial media to serve as defender of the public interest and as a source of unbiased information.

All of these things the United States currently lacks.

As you suggest, what we are living in does qualify as a form of oligarchic tyranny, which I would prefer not to live in.

But, even though our state of affairs in terms of politics is indeed miserable, choosing another miserable form of government is not an improvement.

The ugly reality is that there is no way to wave a magic wand and change uninformed and misinformed people into intelligent people. The more ignorant and misguided people are, the more defensive they become about their ignorance; even to the point of personal pride in stupidity and disdain for "intellectual elites."

The only hope for attaining democracy for me is to move to a place where people are already intelligent to maintain it. And the sad truth is that I am already to old to emigrate to such countries, as they exist in Europe and elsewhere.

[enWTFp]

Those who live on the high-end of technocracy have no fair idea about the dirt over which it is built. Just saying. Not sure who is the idealist here.

I don't support fixed political systems. They inevitably lead to corruption and wrong decisions, following the pressure of policy over objective reasoning.

[Chrysalis]

	Originally Posted by enWTFp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Those who live on the high-end of technocracy have no fair idea about the dirt over which it is built. Just saying.

This is not system intrinsic and therefore not a sound argument. You can say that about any administrational system or clerical, business and military leaders.

	Originally Posted by enWTFp To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't support fixed political systems.

A Technocracy will not be a fixed system. The scientific approach will define society as an organic and therefore dynamic system. Just like economics can be explained by physical and biological models.

Just as in Libertarianism or Democracy there is not just a single possible form of Technocracy. In fact it is even possible to create a Democratic Technocracy by adding technocratic elements to the system we have now.

	A technocratic government is a government of experts designed to ensure administrative functions are carried out efficiently. Technocracy can, in theory, take many forms and incorporate many systems of government.

You should refrain from simply rejecting the idea of Technocracy without thinking through the chances for human progress.

[le Duc]

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The one thing that has become more than apparent in the last forty years, it is that the survival of a functioning democracy requires an informed and involved public, and an impartial media to serve as defender of the public interest and as a source of unbiased information. All of these things the United States currently lacks.

I'll agree with the last sentence, but it implies that these somehow existed at one point or another. Take a glance at a biography of Truman or Lincoln, or historical notes surrounding the Spanish-American War, just to name a couple, and a media-pursuing-an-agenda appears to be a timeless institution.

[Autoptic]

	Originally Posted by Chrysalis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You should refrain from simply rejecting the idea of Technocracy without thinking through the chances for human progress.

I do not serve this Human reification of yours. I certainly don't serve your notion of progress. God is the Good, so the Good is God. Man is now the Good thus Man is God, right? Humanism is religious and just as dogmatic and self-righteous. Only you forget good is individual as all values are. That you have similar ones in your head to another or many others doesn't change this at all thus the problem of a technocracy. It isn't compatible with libertarianism if it steps on so much as one person's private property as a matter of policy no less, especially if it denies him the ability to exchange it freely with others according to private agreements (i.e., free market capitalism). It's not just an economic system. It's the property rights themselves.

[SShack]

	Originally Posted by le Duc To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'll agree with the last sentence, but it implies that these somehow existed at one point or another. Take a glance at a biography of Truman or Lincoln, or historical notes surrounding the Spanish-American War, just to name a couple, and a media-pursuing-an-agenda appears to be a timeless institution.

The "media" is a collection of human beings, just like every other organization on earth. Human beings have agendas (whether they will admit it or not). Ergo, the media has an agenda.

Oh, and it's not some sort of monolithic entity. It drives me up the damned wall every time I hear that. People don't call McDonald's to complain about bad service at Burger King, but I'll be damned if I don't get people calling me and e-mailing me bitching about the behavior of other media outlets like I'm supposed to do something about it.

[dragonsscout]

Originally Posted by SShack To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The "media" is a collection of human beings, just like every other organization on earth. Human beings have agendas (whether they will admit it or not). Ergo, the media has an agenda. Oh, and it's not some sort of monolithic entity. It drives me up the damned wall every time I hear that. People don't call McDonald's to complain about bad service at Burger King, but I'll be damned if I don't get people calling me and e-mailing me bitching about the behavior of other media outlets like I'm supposed to do something about it.

That's all very true, I think that a lot of people loose sight of that. I also think that the media is a business. On the whole, much of the media goes for what makes money, which is sometimes, perhaps often, not important.

I voted for libertarianism, which would work, as long as nobody has an agenda which involves power over others and the government is good at its few jobs. Of course, neither of those is ever going to happen. Technocracy has the inherent problem of "who are the experts" and that the experts will eventually become the power hungry. Libertarianism has the problem of destroying itself, as above.

[SShack]

I think I'm going to start a separate thread about the media, because it crops up now and then in other political threads about what it does, what purpose it serves, et cetera, et cetera. I'm curious about INTJ interpretations of the media. Because I am a masochist.

[Skatt]

I'm really surprised at the results of this poll so far. As an NT, I would thrive in a libertarian government. However, I am also the minority and my counterparts cannot be trusted with the same freedoms. I voted technocracy because I believe that the downfall of humanity will be ignorance. While it is not going to solve that problem, it is a step in the right direction.

[Vagrant]

If there was a benevolent AI dictator, I would in all probability be in total favor of that. It'd be efficient, and since he would be designed benevolent, everyone would benefit. The probability of that actually occurring is incredibly low -- the AI would probably be fraught with errors and little "loopholes" to benefit the makers of the AI. Not to mention, it'd have to be pre-programmed to avoid certain things like nuclear warfare, simply because trial by error would be problematic with nuclear weapons.

However, I would also thrive under a libertarian system, because I always make the wisest choice that I can.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive either.

[Chrysalis]

	Originally Posted by Skatt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm really surprised at the results of this poll so far. As an NT, I would thrive in a libertarian government. However, I am also the minority and my counterparts cannot be trusted with the same freedoms. I voted technocracy because I believe that the downfall of humanity will be ignorance. While it is not going to solve that problem, it is a step in the right direction.

My suspicion is libertarian conformity. Technocracy is not really politically correct.