
Ambivalence on Technocracy - exolymph
https://sonya.substack.com/p/ambivalence-on-technocracy
======
ethiclub
>Competitive markets solve most problems on their own. (The largest exceptions
are externalities and physical monopolies.)

I believe I align in position with the author for the most part, but this
quote seems difficult for me. "Free market solves issues apart from every
stakeholder other than supplier and consumer, i.e. most issues". Perhaps I am
missing an element that is preventing me from embracing the principle of
charity here.

More broadly thinking about the article,

\- (Not aimed at article or author) I think it is a disservice and detrimental
to call modern states 'democracies', given that they lie somewhere in between
pure democracies, meritocracies and clique dictatorships (given the amount of
true input the people have in decisions, and the misalignment between public
opinion and government decision (A large part of the latter appears to be a
general 'lag' where governments trail behind general movement to the 'left'
over centuries).

\- Laissez-faire govs (free market) could be argued as observationally a poor
way to raise QOL (example reference:
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/20446694?mag=socialism-make-
peo...](https://www.jstor.org/stable/20446694?mag=socialism-make-people-
happy&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), and here is a rebuttal to this theory:
[http://www.forastateofhappiness.com/does-size-matter-i-
highe...](http://www.forastateofhappiness.com/does-size-matter-i-higher-tax-
happier-countries/)) \- There is clearly a problem with a free market, in that
financial incentive is a blunt tool (hence externalities)

Government and capitalist structures both broadly reflect the same issue,
"they don't truly reflect or act to our opinions, needs and wants". There
seems to be 'bearish' opinion on government, turning people towards
capitalism. Examples include embracing Uber and Airbnb (deciding not to, or
missing the relevance, of legislation in the hotel and taxi industry).

Based on all of the above, it could be argued that:

\- The idealistic structure would be a socialist state reflecting expertise
(meritocracy-technocracy spectrum) and opinion (pure/direct democracy)

\- However, the pragmatic structure (for those that have become cynical with
the previous bullet) is to refer to the free market to fulfil needs.

\- The free market doesn't mirror opinion/needs (in a similar way to modern
gov), but arguably is more likely to adopt systems _soon_ to allow for this
(online 'referendums', 'vote with your wallet')

\- Governments are oligopolies in that there are very few options, and then
only every 4 years.

\- In contrast for this, if we have a more outspoken and educated populace,
then organisations will have to cater for this else demand falls (and other
orgs that _do_ will fill the vacuum)

In practice, I feel that the best option to rely on (or expect) is a mix of
both - E.g., New structures are explored by Capitalism that are carefully
guided by the population and applied ethics - While more mature structures can
be adopted / absorbed into socialist systems.

Therefore (hopefully) capitalist incentives will become far more nuanced,
moving from a financial incentive (peppered with a little legislation) to a
system that caters for more externalities, ethics, etc. This removes the
'middle-man'. At the moment, the government listens to the poeple, and
legislates accordingly. This can take centuries or never happen at all. With a
direct link between organisation and us (new technology allows for this), we
can more rapidly see action taken. Facebook springs to mind - People are
starting to question it's purely $-driven actions.

This vastly simplifies the issue of course, especially as organisations can
all run concurrently (rather than a single party being in place to govern),
meaning that a misaligned sub-population could still provide demand for an
immoral company. Despite this, I am optimistic that orgs will start to use
their online platforms to garner opinion and ensure that their output is
aligned with us. They are incentivised to do so, as it increases demand. This
optimism is actually a phoenix from the ashes of cynicism (after waiting
decades for governments to open up local online referendums, treat petitions
more seriously etc.)

~~~
exolymph
Thank you for the substantive and interesting comment!

~~~
ethiclub
It was an interesting and thought-provoking article, thank _you_. I was going
to email my comment to you actually, to see if you were able to provide
rebuttals or issues with my points. Thoughts welcome.

