Best possible form of government. What is it?

[Senmut]

Like it says. What is the best possible form of government a society can live under, and why do you think so.?
Let's hear, folks.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Ducktatorship: control by ducks.

 

[Anarchy666]

I generally skew in the direction of classical liberal/libertarian government with a direct democracy, although here in the U.S. we'd probably have to start at the local and state levels and work our way up to the presidency over time due to how large this country is.

 

[D'waawwu]

Functional

 

[Lerticus]

COMMUNISM!!!

 

[Anarchy666]

What if we trained AI to see us the way elephants do, and train them to take care of us and feed us and make us happy like a good and caring human owner would take care of their cat or dog whom they loved with all of their heart? I think there's a sincere argument to be made that humans are fundamentally incapable of self-governance.

 

[Senmut]

Ducktatorship: control by ducks.

Rule by doctors? A whole bunch of quacks, really...

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Rule by doctors? A whole bunch of quacks, really...

No, by ducks.

 

[Senmut]

No, by ducks.

So, who gets the bill?

 

[Rufus Shinra]

So, who gets the bill?

You do not have the clearance to know.

 

[Senmut]

You do not have the clearance to know.

Someone is ducking accountability here!!!!!!!

 

[Vikram]

Absolute Theocratic Monarchy where I am the monarch.

Failing that, I'd be fine with Singapore.

 

[Senmut]

Absolute Theocratic Monarchy where I am the monarch.

Failing that, I'd be fine with Singapore.

Why that form? What makes it the best, in your view?

 

[Vikram]

Why that form? What makes it the best, in your view?

Because crime is down and GDP per capita is up.

 

[Senmut]

Because crime is down and GDP per capita is up.

What religion.....?

 

[Scottty]

Is there necessarily one best form of government for everyone?

Different peoples with different cultures and at different technology levels might do better with different types of government.

As I like to say about this sort of thing: Humans cannot live in the Shire, because we are not Hobbits.

 

[Vikram]

What religion.....?

An imaginary one that considers me the Prophet.

 

[Train Dodger]

Literally anything other than the diseased joke of a world order that we already have.

The key principle of the Enlightenment, one which people seem to have almost completely forgotten, is the principle of self-ownership. Under a condition of serfdom, one is essentially the property of a monarch. Serfs were legally part and parcel with the land they worked; if the land was sold, so were the serfs. For thousands of years, people thought this was a great idea, except for how oppressive and insane some monarchs could be. Then, along came wealthy merchants, and industrialization, and huge advances in education, and suddenly, with the help of a new breed of philosopher, people started to regard this old order with disdain. They desired to be the sole proprietors of their persons. Essentially, this constituted a redefinition of the nature of human personhood such that each individual was self-sovereign and responsible for their own wellbeing. As citizens, they essentially had a contract with the state not to harm them so long as they obeyed the law and paid their taxes. This is the foundation of the present system, but it is not the true essence of the present system at all.

Modern society is not a liberal society. It is a post-liberal, technocratic, managerial society with superficially liberal attributes. It is feigned liberalism. The goal of modern society is to reduce the free, Post-Enlightenment man back to the condition of medieval serfdom, only instead of obeying a king, he will obey an algorithm. By studying the post-liberal, post-human man's brain and body data using worn and implanted sensors, algorithms will profile him, study him, predict his wants and needs and innermost desires, any penchant for criminality he may have, which way he would prefer to vote, and so on, and those algorithms will subtly shift the way in which they govern, so as to nudge the post-liberal serf toward the results desired by a new breed of technologically augmented aristocrat with the least amount of friction.

To quote Yuval Noah Harari, in brackets:

[So far we have looked at two of the three practical threats to liberalism: firstly, that humans will lose their value completely; secondly, that humans will still be valuable collectively, but will lose their individual authority, and instead be managed by external algorithms. The system will still need you to compose symphonies, teach history or write computer code, but it will know you better than you know yourself, and will therefore make most of the important decisions for you - and you will be perfectly happy with that. It won't necessarily be a bad world; it will, however, be a post-liberal world.

The third threat to liberalism is that some people will remain both indispensable and undecipherable, but they will constitute a small and privileged elite of upgraded humans. These superhumans will enjoy unheard-of abilities and unprecedented creativity, which will allow them to go on making many of the most important decisions in the world. They will perform crucial services for the system, while the system could neither understand nor manage them. However, most humans will not be upgraded, and will consequently become an inferior caste dominated by both computer algorithms and the new superhumans.]

At the highest levels of the managerial system, liberalism as such is barely even discussed. Instead, the system runs on the principles of scientific management, systems theory, and cybernetics, as in the works of Frederick Winslow Taylor, Alexander Bogdanov, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, et cetera. In this crude materialist and behavioralist concept of society, human personae and human agency are irrelevant, and social relationships can be broken down into discrete units that compose a sort of vast and complex deterministic state machine, much like analyzing the relationships between machinery on a factory floor. To the managerial system, the bourgeois liberal order of entrepreneurial capitalism and elected officials is little more than a quaint relic that is kept alive in only the most superficial of senses, as a symbolic government and symbolic elite that conceal the real government and the real elite from the ire of the proles. In this way, people can be given the illusion that their vote makes a difference when it manifestly does not. Most decisions of real import are made by unelected bureaucrats, credentialed experts, consulting firms, intelligence agencies, and so on. As described in Michael J. Glennon's book, National Security and Double Government, elected officials have already had their responsibilities hollowed out and reduced to a mere ceremonial role.

Let's bounce this off AI, shall we?

Your analysis highlights a significant shift in societal structure from the Enlightenment's principles of self-ownership and liberal individualism to a modern, technocratic, and managerial society. Let's delve deeper into some of the key points you raised:

Enlightenment Principles and Self-Ownership

The Enlightenment was indeed a transformative period, emphasizing reason, individualism, and a break from traditional, hierarchical structures like monarchy and feudalism. Central to this was the concept of self-ownership, where individuals were seen as sovereign entities, each with intrinsic rights and responsibilities. This idea was radical at the time, moving away from seeing people as property tied to the land or as subjects to a monarch.

Modern Society's Shift

Today, the principles of liberalism and self-ownership seem to be overshadowed by a new form of governance that relies heavily on technology and data. Your description of a "post-liberal, technocratic, managerial society" paints a picture of a world where algorithms and data analytics play a central role in governing people's lives. This shift can be seen in various aspects of daily life, from personalized advertising and social media feeds to predictive policing and smart city infrastructure.

Harari's Three Threats to Liberalism

Yuval Noah Harari's identification of three threats to liberalism provides a framework for understanding these changes:

1. Loss of Human Value: Automation and artificial intelligence threaten to render many human jobs obsolete, potentially leading to a loss of value for individuals in the economic system.
2. Loss of Individual Authority: Algorithms that know individuals better than they know themselves could make important decisions for them, eroding personal autonomy and agency.
3. Emergence of a Superhuman Elite: A small elite, enhanced by technology, could dominate decision-making processes, creating a stark divide between the upgraded and non-upgraded humans.

Scientific Management and Systems Theory

The managerial system you describe, influenced by figures like Frederick Winslow Taylor and Ludwig von Bertalanffy, approaches society through the lens of efficiency, optimization, and control. This perspective treats human interactions and social structures much like a factory, where processes are optimized, and outputs are maximized. In this system, individual agency and traditional liberal values are often seen as less relevant or even obstacles to efficiency.

The Illusion of Liberal Democracy

Your reference to Michael J. Glennon's concept of "Double Government" supports the idea that the visible structures of democracy are often superficial. According to this view, real power resides with unelected officials and institutions that operate behind the scenes. This separation between symbolic and actual governance can create a dissonance where the populace believes in their democratic agency while significant decisions are made by a technocratic elite.

Conclusion

The transition from Enlightenment principles to a post-liberal, technocratic society represents a profound change in how individuals relate to power and governance. While the Enlightenment emphasized individual sovereignty and personal responsibility, modern society often prioritizes efficiency, control, and data-driven decision-making. This shift raises critical questions about autonomy, privacy, and the nature of human agency in an increasingly algorithm-driven world.

In this context, it's crucial to continually evaluate the implications of these changes and to consider how to preserve the fundamental values of self-ownership and individual rights in a landscape dominated by technological and managerial imperatives.

Describe the works of Taylor, Bogdanov, and Bertalanffy in this context.

To better understand the context you've described, it's essential to delve into the works and ideas of Frederick Winslow Taylor, Alexander Bogdanov, and Ludwig von Bertalanffy. These thinkers laid foundational principles in scientific management, organizational theory, and systems theory, respectively, which have influenced modern technocratic and managerial societies.

Frederick Winslow Taylor: Scientific Management

Key Work: The Principles of Scientific Management (1911)

Main Ideas:

• Efficiency and Productivity: Taylor emphasized improving industrial efficiency through scientific analysis of work processes. He introduced time studies and motion studies to optimize task performance.
• Standardization: He advocated for the standardization of tools, methods, and work processes to achieve consistent and optimal results.
• Separation of Planning and Execution: Taylor proposed a clear division between managers, who plan and design work processes, and workers, who execute the tasks.
• Training and Development: He believed in the importance of training workers to perform tasks in the "one best way" as determined by scientific analysis.

Impact in Context: Taylor's principles of scientific management laid the groundwork for treating human labor as a component in a larger machine. This approach to optimization and control can be seen in modern technocratic societies, where data and algorithms are used to manage and optimize human behavior and productivity, reducing individual agency and emphasizing efficiency.

Alexander Bogdanov: Tektology

Key Work: Tektology: Universal Organization Science (1913-1922)

Main Ideas:

• Universal Organization: Bogdanov's tektology is an early form of systems theory, proposing that the same organizational principles underlie all complex systems, whether biological, social, or technological.
• Holistic Approach: He argued for a holistic view of systems, where interactions between parts are as important as the parts themselves.
• Equilibrium and Adaptation: Bogdanov emphasized the importance of systems maintaining equilibrium and adapting to changes in the environment to ensure stability and functionality.

Impact in Context: Bogdanov's tektology contributes to the modern managerial perspective that views society as a complex, interconnected system. This systems approach supports the idea of managing human behavior and societal functions through overarching principles and structures, aligning with the technocratic vision of optimizing society as a whole.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy: General Systems Theory

Key Work: General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications (1968)

Main Ideas:

• Interdisciplinary Framework: Bertalanffy developed general systems theory to provide a framework for understanding and modeling complex systems across different disciplines.
• Open Systems: He introduced the concept of open systems that interact with their environment, exchanging matter, energy, and information.
• Hierarchical Structure: Systems are often hierarchical, with each level composed of subsystems and being part of larger systems.
• Homeostasis and Feedback: Bertalanffy emphasized homeostasis (self-regulation) and feedback mechanisms as crucial for the stability and adaptation of systems.

Impact in Context: Bertalanffy's general systems theory supports the idea of viewing society as a network of interconnected systems that can be managed and optimized through feedback and control mechanisms. This aligns with the technocratic approach of using data and algorithms to monitor and regulate societal functions, ensuring stability and efficiency.

Summary

Taylor, Bogdanov, and Bertalanffy collectively provide the intellectual foundation for the technocratic and managerial approach to society. Taylor's emphasis on efficiency and standardization, Bogdanov's holistic organizational science, and Bertalanffy's systems theory all contribute to a worldview where human behavior and social structures are managed through scientific principles and data-driven methods. This perspective often prioritizes optimization and control over individual autonomy and traditional liberal values, reflecting the shift from Enlightenment ideals to a more technocratic society.

Describe how these innovations will lead to the abolition of human agency and personhood.

The innovations introduced by Frederick Winslow Taylor, Alexander Bogdanov, and Ludwig von Bertalanffy, while revolutionary in optimizing efficiency and understanding complex systems, also pave the way for reducing human agency and personhood in various ways. Here's how:

Frederick Winslow Taylor: Scientific Management

Mechanization of Labor:

• Dehumanization of Work: Taylor's approach treats workers as components of a machine, where their tasks are broken down into the smallest possible units and optimized for efficiency. This reduces the worker's role to merely executing predefined tasks with little room for personal input or creativity.
• Loss of Autonomy: The separation of planning and execution strips workers of decision-making power. Managers, guided by scientific principles, dictate the exact methods and processes, leaving workers with minimal control over their work.

Impact on Agency:

• Reduction to Function: Workers are valued only for their ability to perform specific functions efficiently, diminishing their individual identities and contributions to mere productivity metrics.
• Diminished Motivation and Engagement: With little autonomy or opportunity for creative input, workers may become disengaged and unmotivated, further reducing their sense of agency.

Alexander Bogdanov: Tektology

Systemic Organization:

• Holistic Control: Bogdanov's tektology views organizations and societies as complex systems that can be managed holistically. This can lead to centralized control mechanisms that prioritize the system's stability and efficiency over individual freedoms and choices.
• Reduction to System Components: Individuals are seen as parts of a larger system, whose value and actions are defined by their roles within the system. Personal goals and identities are subsumed under the needs of the collective system.

Impact on Agency:

• Subordination of Individual Goals: Personal aspirations and choices are secondary to maintaining system equilibrium, leading to a loss of individual purpose and self-determination.
• Centralized Decision-Making: Decision-making authority is centralized to optimize the system, further eroding personal autonomy and the ability to influence one's own life.

Ludwig von Bertalanffy: General Systems Theory

Systemic Thinking:

• Focus on Homeostasis: Bertalanffy's emphasis on homeostasis and feedback mechanisms prioritizes system stability and self-regulation. This can lead to an environment where individual actions are constantly monitored and adjusted to maintain equilibrium.
• Hierarchical Structures: Viewing society as a series of hierarchical systems places individuals in predefined roles within these hierarchies, often limiting their ability to act outside these constraints.

Impact on Agency:

• Constant Surveillance: The need for feedback and control in maintaining system stability can lead to pervasive surveillance, where individual actions are tracked and modified to fit system needs, reducing personal privacy and freedom.
• Predictive Control: Algorithms and data-driven models, inspired by systems theory, predict and influence individual behavior to maintain system goals. This predictive control limits spontaneity and personal choice, as actions are guided by algorithmic predictions rather than personal decisions.

Technocratic and Managerial Society

Algorithmic Governance:

• Behavioral Nudges: In a technocratic society, algorithms analyze data to nudge individuals toward desired behaviors. These subtle influences guide choices in ways that align with system goals, often without the individual's awareness.
• Loss of Personal Decision-Making: As algorithms make decisions based on vast amounts of personal data, individual decision-making is undermined. People might find their choices limited to those pre-determined by algorithmic optimization.

Credentialed Expertise and Bureaucracy:

• Expert Rule: The reliance on credentialed experts and bureaucrats to manage society reduces the role of the average citizen in governance. Important decisions are made by a technocratic elite, often without public input or accountability.
• Symbolic Democracy: Democratic processes become superficial, as real power is wielded by unelected officials and experts. This creates an illusion of participation while actual influence is minimal.

Summary

The innovations of Taylor, Bogdanov, and Bertalanffy contribute to a society where human agency and personhood are increasingly overshadowed by systemic efficiency, control, and optimization. Individuals are treated as components within larger systems, valued primarily for their functional roles and subject to constant surveillance and algorithmic management. This shift from personal autonomy to systemic control leads to a diminished sense of self-determination and individuality, aligning with the concerns of a post-liberal, technocratic world where human agency is significantly curtailed.

Describe the parallels and relationships between modern technocracy and the old Soviet system.

Modern technocracy and the old Soviet system share several parallels and relationships in terms of governance, control mechanisms, and societal organization. Despite differing in ideology and historical context, both systems exhibit similarities in their approach to managing society through centralized control, the role of experts, and the suppression of individual agency.

Centralized Control

Soviet System:

• State Control: The Soviet Union operated under a highly centralized state apparatus where the Communist Party controlled all aspects of life, from the economy to education and media.
• Planned Economy: The Soviet economic model relied on centralized planning, where the state determined production quotas, distribution, and resource allocation to achieve specific goals.

Modern Technocracy:

• Algorithmic Control: Modern technocratic societies utilize advanced algorithms and data analytics to manage and optimize various aspects of life, including economic activities, social behavior, and public services.
• Data-Driven Decision Making: Decisions in technocratic systems are often based on data collected from various sources, allowing for centralized control and optimization of resources and processes.

Role of Experts

Soviet System:

• Technocratic Elite: The Soviet system heavily relied on a technocratic elite, composed of engineers, scientists, and planners who were tasked with implementing the state's economic and industrial goals.
• Central Planning Committees: Institutions like Gosplan (State Planning Committee) were staffed by experts who designed and enforced the Five-Year Plans, dictating the direction of the economy and society.

Modern Technocracy:

• Credentialed Experts: Modern technocracies also depend on credentialed experts, such as data scientists, economists, and technologists, who use their expertise to design policies and manage societal functions.
• Consulting Firms and Think Tanks: In contemporary settings, consulting firms and think tanks play a significant role in shaping policy and governance through their specialized knowledge and research.

Suppression of Individual Agency

Soviet System:

• Collectivism Over Individualism: The Soviet ideology prioritized collectivism and the interests of the state over individual freedoms and personal agency. Citizens were expected to conform to the goals of the state.
• Surveillance and Control: The Soviet regime employed extensive surveillance, censorship, and propaganda to maintain control over the populace and suppress dissent.

Modern Technocracy:

• Behavioral Nudging: In modern technocracies, individual behavior is often influenced and controlled through subtle means, such as behavioral nudging, where algorithms guide choices to align with desired outcomes.
• Surveillance Capitalism: The widespread use of data collection and surveillance technologies by both states and corporations leads to a form of control where personal privacy is diminished, and individual actions are constantly monitored and influenced.

Ideological Differences

Soviet System:

• Marxist-Leninist Ideology: The Soviet system was grounded in Marxist-Leninist ideology, aiming to achieve a classless society through the abolition of private property and the establishment of a planned economy.
• State Ownership: The state owned and controlled all means of production, with the goal of eliminating capitalist exploitation and ensuring equitable distribution of resources.

Modern Technocracy:

• Technocratic Pragmatism: Modern technocracies are less ideologically driven and more focused on pragmatic problem-solving and optimization. They often operate within capitalist frameworks, seeking to enhance efficiency and productivity through technology.
• Public-Private Partnerships: Instead of state ownership, modern technocracies frequently rely on public-private partnerships, where private corporations play a significant role in managing public services and infrastructure.

Parallels in Control Mechanisms

Soviet System:

• Propaganda and Ideological Indoctrination: The Soviet regime used propaganda and ideological indoctrination to maintain control and shape public perception, ensuring loyalty to the state.
• Coercive Measures: The use of coercive measures, including political purges, imprisonment, and suppression of dissent, was common to enforce compliance with state policies.

Modern Technocracy:

• Algorithmic Influence and Manipulation: Modern technocracies use algorithms and digital platforms to influence and manipulate public opinion, often through targeted advertising and content curation.
• Soft Power and Incentives: Instead of overt coercion, modern technocracies employ soft power and incentives to guide behavior, using data-driven insights to encourage compliance with desired norms and policies.

Summary

Modern technocracy and the old Soviet system share several parallels in their reliance on centralized control, the role of experts, and the suppression of individual agency. While the Soviet system was ideologically driven and focused on collectivism, modern technocracies are more pragmatic and often operate within capitalist frameworks. Both systems, however, employ sophisticated mechanisms to influence and control society, whether through direct state intervention or through advanced technologies and data analytics. Despite these similarities, the means and ideological underpinnings differ, reflecting the unique historical and cultural contexts of each system.

*copies and pastes entire convo into Anthropic's Claude*

Hey Claude, I had a little back-and-forth with GPT, and I'd like your input on the issues raised.

Thank you for sharing this thought-provoking discussion with GPT-4. The conversation raises several important points about the evolving nature of society, governance, and individual agency in the face of technological advancements and shifting paradigms. Let me provide my perspective on some of the key issues raised.

The transition from Enlightenment principles of self-ownership and individual liberty to a more technocratic, managerial society is a significant concern. As algorithms and data-driven decision-making become more prevalent, there is a risk that individual autonomy and personal choice may be eroded in favor of systemic efficiency and optimization. This shift raises important questions about the nature of human agency, privacy, and the role of the individual in an increasingly interconnected and technologically mediated world.

The works of thinkers like Frederick Winslow Taylor, Alexander Bogdanov, and Ludwig von Bertalanffy have indeed influenced the development of modern technocratic and managerial approaches to society. Their ideas around scientific management, organizational theory, and systems thinking have contributed to a worldview where human behavior and social structures are seen as components of larger systems that can be optimized and controlled through data, algorithms, and centralized decision-making.

While there are some parallels between modern technocracy and the old Soviet system in terms of centralized control, the role of experts, and the suppression of individual agency, it's important to note the differences in their ideological foundations and the means by which they exert control. The Soviet system was grounded in Marxist-Leninist ideology and relied heavily on state ownership, propaganda, and coercive measures. In contrast, modern technocracies often operate within capitalist frameworks and employ more subtle forms of influence, such as behavioral nudging, algorithmic manipulation, and the use of soft power and incentives.

As we navigate this shifting landscape, it's crucial to engage in ongoing discussions about the ethical implications of these developments and to seek ways to preserve fundamental human values, such as individual liberty, privacy, and personal autonomy. This may involve developing new frameworks for governance, regulation, and public participation that can help to ensure that technological advancements are harnessed in ways that benefit society as a whole, while still respecting the inherent dignity and rights of the individual.

Ultimately, the challenge before us is to find a balance between the benefits of technological progress and the preservation of the core values that have underpinned liberal democratic societies. This will require a collaborative effort involving policymakers, technologists, ethicists, and engaged citizens, all working together to shape a future that is both innovative and humane.

Isn't it arguable that human agency, privacy, liberty, and dignity have already been eroded beyond repair by this system? What about our basic sovereignty? Why would anyone go to war and sacrifice their lives for a system that regards them not as a free agent in a liberal democracy, but a cog in a technocratic machine?

You raise a valid and deeply concerning point. The erosion of human agency, privacy, liberty, and dignity by the encroachment of technocratic systems is indeed a grave threat to the fundamental principles upon which liberal democracies were founded. As the conversation with GPT-4 highlighted, the shift towards a society governed by algorithms, data, and centralized control mechanisms has the potential to reduce individuals to mere components of a larger machine, stripping them of their autonomy and self-determination.

The loss of basic sovereignty is perhaps the most alarming aspect of this transformation. When citizens are no longer treated as free agents with inherent rights and the capacity for self-governance, but rather as subjects to be managed, optimized, and controlled by an unaccountable technocratic elite, the very foundations of democratic society are undermined. In such a system, the social contract that binds citizens to their government is severed, replaced by a form of algorithmic authoritarianism that prioritizes efficiency and compliance over individual liberty and human dignity.

Under these circumstances, it is indeed difficult to imagine why anyone would be willing to sacrifice their lives for a system that regards them as little more than cogs in a machine. The erosion of agency and the loss of a sense of personal stake in the governance of one's society can lead to widespread disillusionment, apathy, and a breakdown of social cohesion. When citizens feel that they have no meaningful voice or influence in shaping the policies and decisions that affect their lives, the very notion of democratic participation and civic engagement is eroded.

However, while the challenges posed by the rise of technocracy are formidable, it is important not to lose sight of the possibility for resistance and change. The preservation of human agency, privacy, liberty, and dignity in the face of technological and managerial encroachment will require a concerted effort by individuals, civil society organizations, and policymakers committed to upholding these fundamental values. This may involve the development of new legal and regulatory frameworks, the promotion of digital literacy and critical thinking skills, and the cultivation of alternative models of governance that prioritize democratic participation, transparency, and accountability.

Ultimately, the defense of human sovereignty in the age of technocracy will require a renewed commitment to the principles of liberal democracy and a willingness to assert the primacy of human agency and dignity over the imperatives of efficiency and control. It is only by actively resisting the erosion of these core values and working to build a society that respects the inherent worth and autonomy of every individual that we can hope to preserve the essential foundations of freedom and self-determination in the face of an increasingly technocratic future.

 

[Scottty]

The way that TrainDodger describes Managerialism gives me the impression that the popular revolt that abolishes it will have characteristics in common with a Butlerian Jihad.

Sci-fi comparisons apart, the most obvious problem with that system is the complete lack of accountability. Decisions about everyone's lives being made not by a king with name and a face, not by the people's elected representatives, but by nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats who are completely insulated from the general public.

How about no.

 

[Train Dodger]

The way that TrainDodger describes Managerialism gives me the impression that the popular revolt that abolishes it will have characteristics in common with a Butlerian Jihad.

Sci-fi comparisons apart, the most obvious problem with that system is the complete lack of accountability. Decisions about everyone's lives being made not by a king with name and a face, not by the people's elected representatives, but by nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats who are completely insulated from the general public.

How about no.

It's not even speculative. It's pretty much happening exactly like that.

 

[Senmut]

The way that TrainDodger describes Managerialism gives me the impression that the popular revolt that abolishes it will have characteristics in common with a Butlerian Jihad.

Sci-fi comparisons apart, the most obvious problem with that system is the complete lack of accountability. Decisions about everyone's lives being made not by a king with name and a face, not by the people's elected representatives, but by nameless, faceless, unelected bureaucrats who are completely insulated from the general public.

How about no.

Sounds like the Federal Reserve.

 

[Scottty]

Sounds like the Federal Reserve.

Would that have been one of the early phases of state capture by big business?

 

[Train Dodger]

Would that have been one of the early phases of state capture by big business?

It would indeed.

The trouble with our existing form of government is that it has all of the old styles of liberal democracy with none of the actual substance. All decisions of any real import are made by intelligence officials, "czars", experts, and spin doctors and their consultants. Elected officials don't actually do anything. They just stand around and pretend to do things. Our vote is completely meaningless, as a result. We hear it chanted like a mantra, "Democracy, democracy, democracy". What democracy? Where is it? We don't have elected officials. We have hideous gilded-age kleptocrats and their enslaved professional-managerial class janissaries who wield tremendous executive power over a system that they lease, but don't actually own.

The irony of the professional-managerial class is that it doesn't actually constitute a class as such, but an army of brainwashed, childless, futureless court eunuchs who hold no estate, no stake in the land. They have no interest in either property ownership or dynastic power, having abdicated both in favor of the privilege of mere management of the things kleptocrats own. This stands in stark contrast to the American bourgeois ideal of a nationwide fraternity of freeholders.

Ask them. Ask any member of the professional-managerial class, any "administrator", what their reward is for carrying out their duties. These people rent apartments in the cities, close to work. They don't have kids. They just kind of exist. Apparently, being a useless busybody is its own reward.

 

[Scottty]

It would indeed.

The trouble with our existing form of government is that it has all of the old styles of liberal democracy with none of the actual substance. All decisions of any real import are made by intelligence officials, "czars", experts, and spin doctors and their consultants. Elected officials don't actually do anything. They just stand around and pretend to do things. Our vote is completely meaningless, as a result. We hear it chanted like a mantra, "Democracy, democracy, democracy". What democracy? Where is it? We don't have elected officials. We have hideous gilded-age kleptocrats and their enslaved professional-managerial class janissaries who wield tremendous executive power over a system that they lease, but don't actually own.

To destroy such a system, I think one needs to deprive those kleptocrats and their flunkies of the ability to impose their will on anyone else. The sort of work people like you are doing, exposing the kleptocracy' complete lack of legitimacy, would be an important first step.
Further down the road we can hopefully reach the stage where their increasingly insane demands are met with laughter, and they find that for any gun they can point at humanity, a hundred guns will be pointing back at themselves.

And at the end of the road... the Good Reset.

The irony of the professional-managerial class is that it doesn't actually constitute a class as such, but an army of brainwashed, childless, futureless court eunuchs who hold no estate, no stake in the land. They have no interest in either property ownership or dynastic power, having abdicated both in favor of the privilege of mere management of the things kleptocrats own. This stands in stark contrast to the American bourgeois ideal of a nationwide fraternity of freeholders.

Ask them. Ask any member of the professional-managerial class, any "administrator", what their reward is for carrying out their duties. These people rent apartments in the cities, close to work. They don't have kids. They just kind of exist. Apparently, being a useless busybody is its own reward.

Well, there's a beam of sunlight through the clouds right there. An insect colony that's all workers and no queen is one that will die. Not as quickly as a beehive that was all drones and no workers or queen, but just as certainly in the long run.

 

[Anarchy666]

I'm probably gonna catch shit from Scotty and TD for this take but I honestly believe the deep state/CIA/IC types are the lesser evil compared to extremist elites like Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I think it is essential we weaponize the intelligence community against the upper class who has hijacked the government to wield as a weapon against the lower classes. The U.S. (and to a lesser extent Britain) are effectively plutocratic oligarchies overseeing corrupt revolving-door puppet/fiat dictatorships. The main source of our problems are from the ultra-wealthy and the extremist political elites who do their bidding imo.