Technocratic Definition

The most well known definition is this.

Technocracy is a hypothetical form of government in which engineers, scientists, and other technical experts are in control of decision making in their respective fields. The term technocracy derives from the Greek words tekhne meaning skill and kratos meaning power, as in government, or rule. Thus the term technocracy denotes a system of government where those who have knowledge, expertise or skills compose the governing body. In a technocracy decision makers would be selected based upon how highly knowledgeable they are, rather than how much political capital they hold.

In all cases technical and leadership skills are selected through bureaucratic processes on the basis of specialized knowledge and performance, rather than democratic elections. Some forms of technocracy are a form of meritocracy, a system where the "most qualified" and those who decide the validity of qualifications are the same people. Other forms have been described as not being an oligarchic human group of controllers, but rather an administration by science without the influence of special interest groups.

It has a bit of things that can could added on. Of course, this is not much of a libertarian ideal... there isn't much equality. All must have a core knowledge of the sciences, and have progressive mindset. People who would be useless and doing nothing, would be left behind in the dust. This is not cruelty, this is simply how life works. If one doesn't want to keep himself up and relies on other people to hold himself up, he is not a strong-willed person.

Now equality of opportunity is important. Starting off on the same level, and progressing from there is what must happen, as at this day and age only those with a successful family have a good headstart. From there the people branch out, into different fields and specializations while the lazy are either ignored or thrown out. Intellectual brilliance, ingenuity, creativity, knowledge, all these things are important.

I'll be adding onto this list, but feel free to add more of your insights.

We can use this thread for our ideas on how we should run our technocracy, yes?

Yes.

For Education, people should pay for a uniform and their books. That will contribute to the pay of the teachers. The teaching should also be tough, you're going to have to pay attention and work hard to pass the classes.

PubR wrote:

For Education, people should pay for a uniform and their books. That will contribute to the pay of the teachers. The teaching should also be tough, you're going to have to pay attention and work hard to pass the classes.

I agree, though tough is subjective. Something that may be tough for one mind, could be of ease to another. There would need to be broad subject areas which could challenge every student in a different way.

By tough, I mean it needs to be more aggressive and not a waste of time like the standards of, say, the American public school system.

Agreed, there is realistically no competition in schools at all. What is the point to do better than your peers, if everyone is treated the same? Competition challenges the mind and broadens it. Test scores are just statistical numbers, it is not the only valid proof of intelligence.

Plus the teachers don't have a passion to teach. Some, maybe, but the rest just treat the job like another paycheck. We also got to work around that.

Teachers should be paid on how good they are too, but not meaning that a mediocre teacher will be below the poverty line. Just a small gradient. It should be very general knowledge centric. Encourage critical thinking, for no critical thinking got most of the population dumbed down as it is today.

If the teachers do bad we just fire them.

Fuck tenure.

Inurdaes wrote:

Teachers should be paid on how good they are too, but not meaning that a mediocre teacher will be below the poverty line. Just a small gradient. It should be very general knowledge centric. Encourage critical thinking, for no critical thinking got most of the population dumbed down as it is today.

Well, we can't condone mediocre efforts, if the teacher is bad, why is he a teacher in the first place? Allowing leniency just lets everyone become lazy.

Inurdaes wrote:

Teachers should be paid on how good they are too, but not meaning that a mediocre teacher will be below the poverty line. Just a small gradient. It should be very general knowledge centric. Encourage critical thinking, for no critical thinking got most of the population dumbed down as it is today.

Mediocre teachers will not exist.