> You're literally advocating for a technocracy, which most people don't want.
No. They're advocating for what we've had since at least 1984 in the US. (Longer, really, as Chevron just established SCOTUS precedent for what was already the setup for decades.)
> We don't need a overclass of technical elites running our lives, we just need competent law makers.
And unicorns! And cotton candy clouds! And a river of chocolate!
Even the smartest and most well-intentioned lawmakers still have to function at a high level. They are not capable of getting down into the weeds on the breadth of issues applicable to an entire country of 350M people. Some will absolutely have pet issues they do a lot of research on, but understanding even the basics of everything is... tough.
> No. They're advocating for what we've had since at least 1984 in the US.
Are you suggesting this element of our governance has been well received by the population? Have you been satisfied with the government during that period?
Just because a system managed to become the status quo for a period of time doesn’t mean it wasn’t technocratic. Because that is absolutely a technocratic way to legislate.
The system described in the patent comment is also far more technocratic than chevron deference ever was. Allowing regulators some room to interpret legislation is completely different from giving them some high level objectives and carte blanch to implement them however they see fit.
> Even the smartest and most well-intentioned lawmakers still have to function at a high level. They are not capable of getting down into the weeds on the breadth of issues applicable to an entire country of 350M people.
They have never had to be, because that’s not how laws are written. Laws are written by teams of lawyers and subject matter experts, and then voted on by legislators. If you want to remove the legislators from this process, or distance them from it to some degree, then you’re removing/distancing the democracy from it.
> You’ve forgotten “industry lobbyists writing the whole thing and giving to a pet lawmaker”.
Lobbyists are made up of teams of lawyers and subject matter experts too. If you don’t like the people your law makers are consulting with, then change your law makers. In a democracy you’re allowed to do that, in the technocratic system described above you wouldn’t be.
> Lobbyists are made up of teams of lawyers and subject matter experts too.
With very different goals.
> In a democracy you’re allowed to do that, in the technocratic system described above you wouldn’t be.
No; in the partially technocratic system I describe - regulatory agency writing regulations based on the goals and authorities the legislature assigns them - the people can vote for lawmakers who a) confirm the President's nominees to run those agencies and b) write new laws adjusting any edge cases where they feel the regulator has conflicted with their intent.
That's the Chevron setup, that has worked quite well in a lot of realms. It's now being disassembled in favor of less democratic setup, where similarly unelected bureaucrats (Federal judges - with lifetime tenure!) and usually zero domain knowledge make the calls.
I am happy with a many of "the government" initiatives in my lifetime (which spans beyond your 84 threshold) that were enacted by one party (the one always cleaning up deficit messes), yes.
No. They're advocating for what we've had since at least 1984 in the US. (Longer, really, as Chevron just established SCOTUS precedent for what was already the setup for decades.)
> We don't need a overclass of technical elites running our lives, we just need competent law makers.
And unicorns! And cotton candy clouds! And a river of chocolate!
Even the smartest and most well-intentioned lawmakers still have to function at a high level. They are not capable of getting down into the weeds on the breadth of issues applicable to an entire country of 350M people. Some will absolutely have pet issues they do a lot of research on, but understanding even the basics of everything is... tough.