American Constitution

[Husar]

No one has sold the argument that someone with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering is preferable than someone with a law degree.

Is that a problem or are you just stating that?
What about someone with a nuclear family?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is that a problem or are you just stating that?
What about someone with a nuclear family?

It's a problem since everyone seems to just be accepting that "technocracy" is inherently good.

Someone with an advanced degree in nuclear engineering could make a very, very good bill on updating the nuclear triad for the 21st century. But what would they know about literally any other subject under the sun?

Also, I am sure Mark Zuckerburg could write a tremendous piece of legislation regarding internet privacy with his extensive experience in managing Facebook...but it would only be a bill to strip it away further.

Have many of you guys even talked to some of the people coming out of college with STEM degrees? There is a guy probably designing reactors right now who once said in class, "Bisphenol A is only dangerous to men. Women can absorb estrogen mimicking components since their bodies are tuned for it."

[Montmorency]

It's a problem since everyone seems to just be accepting that "technocracy" is inherently good.

Someone with an advanced degree in nuclear engineering could make a very, very good bill on updating the nuclear triad for the 21st century. But what would they know about literally any other subject under the sun?

Also, I am sure Mark Zuckerburg could write a tremendous piece of legislation regarding internet privacy with his extensive experience in managing Facebook...but it would only be a bill to strip it away further.

Have many of you guys even talked to some of the people coming out of college with STEM degrees? There is a guy probably designing reactors right now who once said in class, "Bisphenol A is only dangerous to men. Women can absorb estrogen mimicking components since their bodies are tuned for it."

So are we talking about technocracy, or STEM people in law-making? Is it the structure, or the people?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So are we talking about technocracy, or STEM people in law-making? Is it the structure, or the people?

I don't see the distinction you are making. Are we not all operating under the notion that technocracy as applied to our own system would be a legislative body of STEM people?

Or are we really wasting our time discussing the notion of an undemocratic body of bureaucrats that simply make decisions about their own little sphere of knowledge without any input from the public?

[Montmorency]

Or are we really wasting our time discussing the notion of an undemocratic body of bureaucrats that simply make decisions about their own little sphere of knowledge without any input from the public?

Social scientists would need to be included in any arrangement, but lets leave aside the particular of "who is a technocrat" for now.

We need to ask what the function of government would be, and how structure serves that function. I don't have many ideas or feelings, but a few points I can make right now:

1. Undemocratic technocracy, or at least democratically-unaccountable technocracy, had a remarkably poor track record in the 20th century.
1.a. One of the biggest failings of the EU project is that it failed to politicize itself and has still failed to do so today other than being the new, passive, subject of politicization by populists. If you cared about the EU and its future, you were either an in-group elite, or a vociferous hater in the mold of Fragony. But this may be less a failure of technocracy than of the "pragmatic incrementalism" of national democratic politicians.

2. Is there more to democracy and democratic ideals than merely casting a vote? Perhaps there is a way a technocratic government, whether appointed by direct election or otherwise, can be democratic by reference to something other than franchise.
2.a. Would this require more politicization, when technocracy is usually conceived of as apolitical, and would politicization fundamentally damage putative advantages of technocracy (which broadly are greater responsiveness and effectiveness)?

[Brenus]

I think the problem with Constitution written during the 18th Century based on principles "discovered" during the 17th starts when it is becoming as "holly" book so being "interpreted".
The French Republics were not continuous... 1st was until the 1st Empire (if you considered the Consulate as part of the 1st Republic), the 2nd was cut shot by the 3rd Empire, 3rd by Petain's Vichy regime which abolished the Republic. 4th was an attempt the reinstalled a kind of third, but in including modern concepts for the time, i.e. women rights, Communist Party, but in keeping the old rulers in powers. The regime failed at the decolonisation test, so the 5th came under a kind of Coup from General de Gaulle...
From the 1st to the 5th, a lot of new concepts were included, and the 5th is now showing its limit, when you think the the 2nd at the Presidential 2nd round was abstention.
France has now reach the moment where it has to adapt, to renew the political pact between the citizens and the National Representation. Traditionally, it was done by revolutions, civil wars and wars.
I am keen on avoiding the tradition.
So, we need a new constitution, so we need a "constituante", where elected members will discussed the new rules which will be the skeletons of the law, including the new French reality and the need to give democracy and the citizens more control on the elected, in order to be able to get rid of the corrupted and the liars which cheated in order to be elected and just do the reverse of when they promised. I thing this process exist in some US states...

As the US is concerned, the Constitution will not change until some courageous one tell the citizens that the Constitution is not a the word of semi-gods, but humans themselves included in their time.

[Husar]

It's a problem since everyone seems to just be accepting that "technocracy" is inherently good.

Someone with an advanced degree in nuclear engineering could make a very, very good bill on updating the nuclear triad for the 21st century. But what would they know about literally any other subject under the sun?

But that would be just the same with a lawyer. I specifically proposed making the inclusion of certain fields necessary so the expertise in the group would not be one-sided. That's because I also thought that having just the most popular scientists being elected by the populace is a very bad idea. In fact it might even be a bad idea to have the population elect them alone. One could give a certain percentage of votes to the scientific community the people come from. But even that enters new problems where science becomes politicized as business interests would begin to bribe and influence them just like they do the lawyers and the population. The only true solution can be to use CRISPR to remove our genetic predisposition towards greed. Only the altruistic hivemind can save our civilization.

[Gilrandir]

Eh, why not go by reputable and necessary scientific fields?
A certain number of physics experts, chemists, biologists, behaviorists and other fields.

... on condition they are Nobel Prize winners.

[Husar]

... on condition they are Nobel Prize winners.

So then the noble committee gets to decide who can be elected in which country?
Wouldn't you have to inflate the number of winners the more countries adapt it because otherwise half the countries of the planet have an empty upper/lower house and the rest can only fill the seats for some of the important fields of science?

Besides, some nobel prize winners may be highly specialized, whereas a government function might be better filled by a generalist who has a network of people specialized in various areas who he can consult for advice.
Perhaps being a professor at a public or well-rated private university might be a much better entry barrier.

[Gilrandir]

So then the noble committee gets to decide who can be elected in which country?

Only those winners who have the citizenship of the respective country can run for the parliament of this country.

Wouldn't you have to inflate the number of winners the more countries adapt it because otherwise half the countries of the planet have an empty upper/lower house and the rest can only fill the seats for some of the important fields of science?

No, the countries without Nobel prize winners will be left without the parliament.

Besides, some nobel prize winners may be highly specialized, whereas a government function might be better filled by a generalist who has a network of people specialized in various areas who he can consult for advice.
Perhaps being a professor at a public or well-rated private university might be a much better entry barrier.

Most importantly: I was kidding. The master troll was beaten with his own weapon.

[Husar]

Most importantly: I was kidding. The master troll was beaten with his own weapon.

Beaten? I was just exchanging thoughts with you and others.
I'm flattered that you call me a master though.

[Gilrandir]

Beaten? I was just exchanging thoughts with you and others.

... unaware of being trolled. Losing your grip?

[Husar]

... unaware of being trolled. Losing your grip?

You're probably trying to troll me now, or you use a very different definition of trolling than I do:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

The art of deliberately, cleverly, and secretly pissing people off, usually via the internet, using dialogue.

I wasn't pissed off by your comment, so I'm not sure what you're on about if you're not trying to make me angry by repeatedly saying I'm losing something.

I'm okay with losing my grip or your "trolling" contest though, how about we go back to the topic now before everyone else leaves?

[Gilrandir]

You're probably trying to troll me now, or you use a very different definition of trolling than I do:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling



I wasn't pissed off by your comment, so I'm not sure what you're on about if you're not trying to make me angry by repeatedly saying I'm losing something.

Perhaps I was wrong in using the word. What I meant by your "trolling" is "talking as if seriously but in fact kidding but not letting others feel it is kidding".

I'm okay with losing my grip or your "trolling" contest though, how about we go back to the topic now before everyone else leaves?

They already have.

[Xiahou]

My proposals to save the republic:
Do away with the direct election of senators.
Do away with party identification on ballots and one-button party line voting- if you want to be a party-line hack, you should at least have to go to the trouble of learning their names. If you can't be bothered, then don't vote.

I liked it when we didn't have term limits and presidents had the humility not to seek third and fourth terms. FDR ruined that though.

[Montmorency]

Do away with the direct election of senators.

Speaking of technocracy, a summary of proposals from a recent book by Parag Khanna, Technocracy in America, suggests the Senate as a chamber be replaced by an "Assembly of Governors" in which sit the governors of each state - with the twist that each state elect two governors each, one domestic and one to send away to Congress.

I haven't read the book, but it sounds neat.

[a completely inoffensive name]

humility not to seek third and fourth terms. FDR ruined that though.

Teddy tried before him, but failed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

My proposals to save the republic:
Do away with the direct election of senators.
Do away with party identification on ballots and one-button party line voting- if you want to be a party-line hack, you should at least have to go to the trouble of learning their names. If you can't be bothered, then don't vote.

I liked it when we didn't have term limits and presidents had the humility not to seek third and fourth terms. FDR ruined that though.

The first 15 amendments were all reasonable. 16 through 18 were a big NOT. Sadly, only one of those has been repealed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The first 15 amendments were all reasonable. 16 through 18 were a big NOT. Sadly, only one of those has been repealed.

Oh come on. 16 is a bad amendment? Before income tax, the primary US tax income was from tariffs and excise taxes.
The introduction of the income tax is what allowed the US to unshackle itself from protectionist economic policy and become the world leader in free trade.

This idea that all of the progressive amendments are all flawed is just lazy right wing philosophy. Both the 16th and 17th Amendments improved the status quo by increasing representation (see my earlier comment about absent senators) and opening up US economic policy.

I am curious about the idea Monty floated from the Technocracy book about a Senate of Governors. I would like to read more about that and see what mechanisms they propose for picking which governor acts in which role.

[Strike For The South]

Technocrats tend to be extremely specialized nerds with no social skills.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My proposals to save the republic:
Do away with the direct election of senators.
Do away with party identification on ballots and one-button party line voting- if you want to be a party-line hack, you should at least have to go to the trouble of learning their names. If you can't be bothered, then don't vote.

I liked it when we didn't have term limits and presidents had the humility not to seek third and fourth terms. FDR ruined that though.

Question - did FDR do a worse job in his Third and Fourth terms?

Would his opponents have done a better job than him?

Was there another Democrat as good as him ready to serve as President?

If the answer to none of those questions is yes - and I think it's generally accepted that he was a great President throughout, that he beat his opponents fairly as the better candidate and that there was no Democrat to stand in his place - then what you are doing is fetishising Washington's Two Terms.

It's by no means clear that Washington only served two terms on grounds of "humility" as opposed to infirmity.

[Xiahou]

Oh come on. 16 is a bad amendment? Before income tax, the primary US tax income was from tariffs and excise taxes.
The introduction of the income tax is what allowed the US to unshackle itself from protectionist economic policy and become the world leader in free trade.

It also allowed the federal government to further supplant the state government and allowed for spiraling government spending.

Teddy tried before him, but failed.

Even Teddy took a term off before trying to run again.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Technocrats" is a term used to represent what is really being sought:

Somebody who will govern/vote/regulate reationally based on technical principles/rules and not be swayed by social interaction, cultural trends, past grievances, etc.

In other words, Vulcans.

Vulcans do not, of course, exist [apologies to those diehard Trekkies who would rather not acknowledge this].

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh come on. 16 is a bad amendment? Before income tax, the primary US tax income was from tariffs and excise taxes.
The introduction of the income tax is what allowed the US to unshackle itself from protectionist economic policy and become the world leader in free trade.

This idea that all of the progressive amendments are all flawed is just lazy right wing philosophy. Both the 16th and 17th Amendments improved the status quo by increasing representation (see my earlier comment about absent senators) and opening up US economic policy.

I am curious about the idea Monty floated from the Technocracy book about a Senate of Governors. I would like to read more about that and see what mechanisms they propose for picking which governor acts in which role.

The deleterious portion of the 16th amendment is that empowerment of Congress to directly levy without apportionment among the States. The apportionment was SUPPOSED to be cumbersome, this limiting the power and scope of the federal government so as to prevent states being superseded. The direct election of Senators was less problematic -- a majority of states were already doing so at the time -- but was, again, a tool for limiting the power and role of the states to influence national policy etc.

Within less than one generation of the ratification, the Great Depression 'mandated' a government response in the form of the New Deal. Congress could enact laws and fund them through the federal levies. The scope and pervasiveness of Government skyrocketed. Even setting aside wartime effects, the federal government has become far more pervasive than it was, taking a role in day-to-day life unheard of before WW1.

Interestingly, the "Great Depression" was LESS of an economic downturn than the recessions of 1865-67, 1873, 1882, 1890, 1893, 1896, 1907, 1913, 1918, 1920, and 1923 (though the last 4 are arguable). Somehow, we got through those without government handling everything.

[Pannonian]

"Technocrats" is a term used to represent what is really being sought:

Somebody who will govern/vote/regulate reationally based on technical principles/rules and not be swayed by social interaction, cultural trends, past grievances, etc.

In other words, Vulcans.

Vulcans do not, of course, exist [apologies to those diehard Trekkies who would rather not acknowledge this].

Experts exist though. And I'm not asking for much. Just for an antithesis of this attitude.

"I think people in this country have had enough of experts."
Michael Gove, cabinet minister in UK government.

Call me an authoritarian, a Tory, or whatever, but I do think that people in their specialist fields probably know better than I do, and it would be a good idea to listen to their advice rather than rely on the adage that my vote is worth as much as theirs. Democracy mitigates against tyranny. It doesn't mitigate against ignorance.

[Montmorency]

It also allowed the federal government to further supplant the state government and allowed for spiraling government spending.

Even Teddy took a term off before trying to run again.

Wouldn't it be better to say that 20th century global monetary reforms allowed for spiraling government spending, because spiraling government spending was no longer the brick around the neck it once was, instead the basic engine of commerce?

The deleterious portion of the 16th amendment is that empowerment of Congress to directly levy without apportionment among the States. The apportionment was SUPPOSED to be cumbersome, this limiting the power and scope of the federal government so as to prevent states being superseded. The direct election of Senators was less problematic -- a majority of states were already doing so at the time -- but was, again, a tool for limiting the power and role of the states to influence national policy etc.

Within less than one generation of the ratification, the Great Depression 'mandated' a government response in the form of the New Deal. Congress could enact laws and fund them through the federal levies. The scope and pervasiveness of Government skyrocketed. Even setting aside wartime effects, the federal government has become far more pervasive than it was, taking a role in day-to-day life unheard of before WW1.

Interestingly, the "Great Depression" was LESS of an economic downturn than the recessions of 1865-67, 1873, 1882, 1890, 1893, 1896, 1907, 1913, 1918, 1920, and 1923 (though the last 4 are arguable). Somehow, we got through those without government handling everything.

Worse? Maybe in the sense that the Punic Wars and the Athenian plague were bigger killers, in proportion, than WW2 or Spanish Influenza.

We got by for thousands of years just fine without antibiotics too, and thousands before without metallurgy or agriculture.

I don't take state (vs. federal) supremacy as a good in itself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Question - did FDR do a worse job in his Third and Fourth terms?

In his third, his performance as an executive was not notably impaired. His 4th term, barely three months long, was in some ways a disaster. Yalta saw Stalin take the rest of the Allies to the cleaners with little pushback from FDR. FDR was too tired and sick to think past the end of the war. CHF would claim him within a few weeks of the conferences end. AND he didn't even inform his #2, despite of his condition, about the development of a city killer weapon.

Would his opponents have done a better job than him?.

Dewey was a solid leader and would have handled the office creditably -- and a good note more skeptically in terms of coping with the USSR. Enough to really have changed post-war Europe? Difficult to say.

Was there another Democrat as good as him ready to serve as President?.

Hard to say. Rayburn had the brains and skill, but preferred the legislature. Wallace had the ego, drive, and brains, but not the support of the party. That's how Truman got picked.

While I have always appreciated Washington's tradition of two terms and out, a key element of the tradition was it's voluntary character. I wish term limits were not needed -- but that would require more voters who gave a rat's patoot. I would still prefer no limits unless they were imposed by voters making their choice. Washington opted out because he deeply believed in the concept of Cinncinatus -- that the executive should serve, complete, and then step down from power. He was also, in all likelihood, sick of politics at that point. That is likely NOT true of many of the subsequent office holders.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I don't take state (vs. federal) supremacy as a good in itself.

Whereas I prefer political decision making to be handled at the lowest practicable level and wherever possible by the people most directly affected and/or being forced to fund it.

[Pannonian]

In his third, his performance as an executive was not notably impaired. His 4th term, barely three months long, was in some ways a disaster. Yalta saw Stalin take the rest of the Allies to the cleaners with little pushback from FDR. FDR was too tired and sick to think past the end of the war. CHF would claim him within a few weeks of the conferences end. AND he didn't even inform his #2, despite of his condition, about the development of a city killer weapon.

Dewey was a solid leader and would have handled the office creditably -- and a good note more skeptically in terms of coping with the USSR. Enough to really have changed post-war Europe? Difficult to say.

Hard to say. Rayburn had the brains and skill, but preferred the legislature. Wallace had the ego, drive, and brains, but not the support of the party. That's how Truman got picked.

While I have always appreciated Washington's tradition of two terms and out, a key element of the tradition was it's voluntary character. I wish term limits were not needed -- but that would require more voters who gave a rat's patoot. I would still prefer no limits unless they were imposed by voters making their choice. Washington opted out because he deeply believed in the concept of Cinncinatus -- that the executive should serve, complete, and then step down from power. He was also, in all likelihood, sick of politics at that point. That is likely NOT true of many of the subsequent office holders.

From what I've read, I strongly doubt if anyone else would have opposed Stalin any more effectively than Roosevelt did. To do that, the US would have had to take Britain's advice, and probably had to shore up Britain's imperial position as well in order to strengthen this anti-Communist ally. Everything I've read points to a determination not to do this. The US weren't going to fight for the benefit of the British and their empire. If that was going to be the case, then either the US takes up the slack as it did, with the accompanying costs. Or the USSR takes over more of the world than it did. Roosevelt was already as Anglophilic as any US president was going to get.

[Beskar]

Lack of Term Limits is the playground of dictators.