u/Aven_Osten

I know: The answer is seems kinda obvious. But some people imagine it is a world in which all needs are met; and others imagine it as a world in which all needs and wants can be met, at little to no cost (simply by virtue of it actually being cheap/free to produce, financially speaking).

And some believe that it doesn't even necessarily mean near-complete automation of production of goods and services; just that everyone can get what they need/want, with little to no friction.

This sub seems to get regular questions asking if a democratic form of Technocracy exists; so I feel that it's time to talk about the ideology I've revived and been developing that is explicitly this.

---

Yes, a democratic version of Technocracy exists: Liberal Technocracy.

The "Liberal" part, refers to the subscription of many of the Liberal ideals. Specifically: The consent of the governed; which functionally just means belief in (a) democratic system/input.

The Technocracy part, ofc, refers to the subscription to the idea that experts and professionals should be the ones to make policy decisions.

In a Liberal Technocracy, the public establishes the goals that they want the government to achieve (in the vast majority of cases), while the experts and professionals (or "Technocrats", to keep it short) are the ones responsible for implementation of policies that best achieve those goals.

It is a proactive, data and evidence driven system of government, that ensures as much as possible, that society's material conditions remain at least stable, and that works to maximize civil liberties, freedoms, and overall societal satisfaction.

---

If you wish to learn more about what a Liberal Technocracy would look like in the USA specific: Read up on it here. I will state though that it may change a bit in the future, as I take in feedback from others, and revise how the system would work.

If you even have a limit, ofc.

---

Edit to clarify what "limit" means here:

"Limit" means, in this context: "If this person/group surpasses my personal limit for how acceptable a certain aspect, interest, hobby, belief, etc, of themselves is, then I will heavily reduce/completely end any future communication with them at bare minimum; if not go out if my way to warn others about them.".

Example: Some people firmly believe that consumption of pornographic content is so abhorrent, that it is worthy of completely isolating that person from society; or at least themselves and their loved ones, if that isn't a realistic goal.

Another example: Some people believe that if you do not believe in god, then you are an affront for humanity itself, and they must isolate themselves and their loved ones from you, to avoid becoming "godless" or whatever.

Both are examples of things that doesn't cause harm to anyone, yet are concrete limits for many, that determines whether or not they accept/associate with someone/some group.

And for the question regarding what "harm" means: That's a hard one to answer; and any answer I give will have flaws in them. So, I'll try my best to give a clear, consise answer; but it'll inevitably result in any future answer needing clarification on the type of "harm" being done; and if one even really classifies it as such.

My best definition that I can give of "harm" here, is the engagement of any sort of act, or the subscription to any sort of belief, that results in objective, measurable harm done to another individual/group in some shape, way, or form; whether that be socially, economically, mentally, physically, emotionally, etc.

Aka: Rather than the current status quo of the responsibility of fixing the country's problems being so heavily pushed on to the federal government, or trying to get the federal government much more involved administratively and fiscally in matters relating to healthcare, social protection, public infrastructure, public services, etc: We instead place greater emphasis on state and local responsibility to help their citizens, while the federal government is delegated to fixing issues that diminishes the ability for states to act autonomously, or issues that just generally cannot be feasibly resolved at the state/local level.

• Interior of roundabout will not be changed due to historical significance/being in the Historical Register
• Original concept was a 500 ft by 420 ft rectangular space lined with trees around the perimeter w/ rectangular reflecting pool in center
• Changes to modes of transportation made the circle less accessible
• Lane-splitting islands added before was “compromise” to minimize impact to historical nature while improving pedestrian safety
• Proposed pedestrian crossings, 10 foot wide, two-way bike lanes, lowering entry and exit design speed, provide two access points to interior of circle
• 596 survey respondents; 60% lived within 1 mile of circle
• 91% interacted as drivers; 57% as pedestrian; 47% as cyclist
• 18% typically travelled with child or dependent
• 69% said made it easier to drive through
• 27% thought it made it easier to travel through by bike; 28% thought not 28%, said pedestrian 38%
• 70% do not spend time in center of circle; 12% spend time at least once per month
• 55% said drivers go too fast and don't adhere to lanes
• 12 foot wide shared-use sidewalks, bike facilities, physical expansion of circle interior edge, additional greenspace on edge, pedestrian sidewalk, stamped concrete truck apron(s), raised crosswalks, bike ramps, pedestrian-activated stop lights, all proposed in preliminary design

---

The full presentation can be found in the embed link.

One method of establishing a LVT that I have supported. I hope this idea spreads to more places; if not any other method of implementation.

I think it's pretty clear to everyone at this point, that the Supreme Court is very partisan; despite its original intent on being a non-partisan and very fact-based legal ruling entity/group.

There's been proposals for a long while now, that aims to resolve the issues caused by the combination of this reality, and the fact that Supreme Court Justices serve for life; the main one being that each Justice serves for an 18 year term, at which point they are up for replacement, and each president gets to replace one said Justice each term they serve.

But I have heard of another proposal recently regarding clarification of the constitution: Make it the legislatures job to clarify what is and isn't constitutional, and the Supreme Court is more delegated as an enforcement entity, rather than an legal-ruling entity.

---

Are there any other proposals you guys have regarding this? Are the two stated proposals one y'all agree with at all?

As we have headed deeper and deeper into the Trump presidency, there has been more and more calls for the Democrat Party to fight to implement their policies, and to energize their own support base to go out and support Democratic causes, rather than just trying to appeal to people/groups further to the right of them; sometimes called "being Republican-Lite".

Parallel to that: There's been ever growing complaints about how the Democratic Party lacks any real/clear moral convictions, principles, and/or vision for the future, to sell to the public; and that the party needs to put up more candidates with such a drive to them and message to sell.

---

So, with that precursory statement out of the way: I ask anybody reading, what principles, beliefs, vision, etc, you are looking for, in a candidate running for election as a representative/head of government.

Well then...that doesn't sound good.

I ask because any time I point out that one needs to:

• Go out and vote in every election
• Message their representatives
• Attend and speak up at every public meeting and hearing
• Organize with like-minded people and pressure the government to do what they want

...the stated demands for a government that listens to the people and is highly accountable to it, almost always switches to, "I don't have time for that"; or, "I shouldn't have to do all of that"; or, "I shouldn't have to tell the government how to do its job"; or just any phrase that basically says, "It's not my responsibility to control the government".

---

I've already settled on how much public participation I want in the government decision making process, accounting for how people actually think and act regarding this; but I'm interested in hearing others opinions/views on exactly how much involvement the public should have in what the government does and doesn't do.