5 ms·

The whole discourse over this in the US is getting nuts as of late. We justifiably get annoyed when uninformed lawmakers make sweeping laws without understandi

The whole discourse over this in the US is getting nuts as of late. We justifiably get annoyed when uninformed lawmakers make sweeping laws without understanding the technical issues involved. It's frankly bizarre to have some 80 year old fossil who can barely understand using a cell phone be involved in something like deciding net neutrality or AI regulations. We should be equally annoyed at the current trend of throwing medical issues into the public sphere. There's no reason whatsoever why random people like my mom whose education is in textile design and mostly watches cat videos all day should participate in the public drama of who should get what medical treatment when. We have professionals who specialize in medicine for a reason.

whitemary 3y ago
It distracts from the economy. Simple as that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
brucethemoose2 3y ago
There are downsides to technocracy, like doctor groups or AI companies pursuing their self interests a little too much. And at the federal level, many of the older congressional members are not as uninformed as you might think. They have a big information machine around them. ...But, in general, yeah. Its absurd how uninformed the debates can get these days.
notacoward 3y ago
> There's no reason whatsoever why random people... Having "random people" participate is a cornerstone of democracy. As others have pointed out, it's what separates democracy from elitist technocracy - and, ultimately, oligarchy. The problem is that another cornerstone is the public's responsibility to educate themselves. Nobody seems to do that any more, including here. This is the foundation that's failing. Fix the broken cornerstone, not the one that's still intact (though under assault in the form of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement).
- antisthenes 3y ago
  > As others have pointed out, it's what separates democracy from elitist technocracy - and, ultimately, oligarchy. Having "random people" (or people without specific domain knowledge) in a democracy doesn't really do anything to prevent oligarchy, it's tangential at best and orthogonal realistically. > The problem is that another cornerstone is the public's responsibility to educate themselves. That seems like a tall order in a culture that consistently promotes ignorance as a virtue for the wide masses.
  - notacoward 3y ago
    Please don't use "realistically" to privilege your own opinion beyond its merit. My opinion is just as reality-based as yours. Time after time after time, leaders within any elite have accumulated personal power and turned it into an instrument of that power (as opposed to its original purpose). When that elite is ruling society, those leaders therefore are too, and we have a word for that: oligarchs. We probably can't fix the organizational dynamics that lead to this accretion of power, but we can prevent it from being our basis of government by keeping the franchise broad. Limiting franchise has always been a favorite tool of dictators, oligarchs, and supremacists - not of people who actually believe in democracy.
    - antisthenes 3y ago
      > My opinion is just as reality-based as yours. Only assuming you can process information from the real world correctly, which isn't a given. Not a judgment on you personally. > We probably can't fix the organizational dynamics that lead to this accretion of power, but we can prevent it from being our basis of government by keeping the franchise broad. Is there any evidence that keeping the franchise broad is the most effective strategy of running a country over multiple generations, where knowledge of organizational dynamics gets lost over time? That's a very strong claim, without much supporting it. > Limiting franchise has always been a favorite tool of dictators, oligarchs, and supremacists - not of people who actually believe in democracy. I don't particularly believe in democracy (one of the reasons being an extremely broad, misused catch-all term for whatever the speaker means themselves), but I do believe in strong institutions and separation of powers to the degree that it's possible. But again, that's kind of orthogonal to whether this is an effective way to enact change by the broad franchise.

whitemary 3y ago

It distracts from the economy. Simple as that.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

brucethemoose2 3y ago

There are downsides to technocracy, like doctor groups or AI companies pursuing their self interests a little too much. And at the federal level, many of the older congressional members are not as uninformed as you might think. They have a big information machine around them. ...But, in general, yeah. Its absurd how uninformed the debates can get these days.

notacoward 3y ago

> There's no reason whatsoever why random people... Having "random people" participate is a cornerstone of democracy. As others have pointed out, it's what separates democracy from elitist technocracy - and, ultimately, oligarchy. The problem is that another cornerstone is the public's responsibility to educate themselves. Nobody seems to do that any more, including here. This is the foundation that's failing. Fix the broken cornerstone, not the one that's still intact (though under assault in the form of gerrymandering and disenfranchisement).

antisthenes 3y ago
> As others have pointed out, it's what separates democracy from elitist technocracy - and, ultimately, oligarchy. Having "random people" (or people without specific domain knowledge) in a democracy doesn't really do anything to prevent oligarchy, it's tangential at best and orthogonal realistically. > The problem is that another cornerstone is the public's responsibility to educate themselves. That seems like a tall order in a culture that consistently promotes ignorance as a virtue for the wide masses.
- notacoward 3y ago
  Please don't use "realistically" to privilege your own opinion beyond its merit. My opinion is just as reality-based as yours. Time after time after time, leaders within any elite have accumulated personal power and turned it into an instrument of that power (as opposed to its original purpose). When that elite is ruling society, those leaders therefore are too, and we have a word for that: oligarchs. We probably can't fix the organizational dynamics that lead to this accretion of power, but we can prevent it from being our basis of government by keeping the franchise broad. Limiting franchise has always been a favorite tool of dictators, oligarchs, and supremacists - not of people who actually believe in democracy.
  - antisthenes 3y ago
    > My opinion is just as reality-based as yours. Only assuming you can process information from the real world correctly, which isn't a given. Not a judgment on you personally. > We probably can't fix the organizational dynamics that lead to this accretion of power, but we can prevent it from being our basis of government by keeping the franchise broad. Is there any evidence that keeping the franchise broad is the most effective strategy of running a country over multiple generations, where knowledge of organizational dynamics gets lost over time? That's a very strong claim, without much supporting it. > Limiting franchise has always been a favorite tool of dictators, oligarchs, and supremacists - not of people who actually believe in democracy. I don't particularly believe in democracy (one of the reasons being an extremely broad, misused catch-all term for whatever the speaker means themselves), but I do believe in strong institutions and separation of powers to the degree that it's possible. But again, that's kind of orthogonal to whether this is an effective way to enact change by the broad franchise.