Musk, Altman, Thiel, Ellison, Zuckerberg, Page, and the like are trying to implement technocracy. And that's something we should be resisting at every opportunity.
Several people (maybe all, I do not know for sure) on that list are pretty hard core right wing populists, correct? Isn't that completely at odds with technocracy? Or are you thinking that they are just taking advantage of a populist movement but are themselves technocrats?
The populism stuff doesn't mean "We're protecting the little guy from elites who conspire against him." It means "We're protecting ourselves from other elites who conspire against us - but the little guy will still be better off with us as the authoritarian elite."
The key word here is populism. Finding scapegoats (immigrants, woke feminists, lazy unemployed people) to explain away societal ills caused by inequality. Of course tech billionaires prefer blaming the scapegoats to blaming themselves. It serves as a political shield, so that they can continue to hoard wealth and control.
In the 30s, industry leaders aligned themselves with Hitler and Mussolini. They both focused on technology as a means of control. Capitalists also see the benefit of cheap labor and a war economy.
Right wing populism and technocracy are a match made in heaven, because fascism is good for the bottom line.
The actual problem with technocracy (if done right) is that the work of experts grows increasingly incomprehensible to average men. Even if things work out perfectly, experts can't properly take risks or make a leap of faith in other people's name. (Not to argue our current democratic model is any good at it)
That's a recipe for disaster. The technocrats define who can be a technocrat, and can design the process to benefit them. The incentives are towards elitist, racist, cronyist policies that would select for sociopathic tendencies.
What's the difference between a technocrat and a bishop in this case?
> What's the difference between a technocrat and a bishop in this case?
I am not a free market capitalist, I am a socialist; but I also believe in decentralizing decision making because centralized systems run by self-proclaimed people-of-merit always produces bad outcomes in the long run; left or right.
Having to find consensus is messy and difficult but always wins out in the long run.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL12574BA6D8566A03&si=SyeE...
>Having to find consensus is messy and difficult but always wins out in the long run.
It is talked about in the very first video. How votes are bought in the current system. Nothing is rooted in facts.
The (global) discussion should be about fixing the problem. How to find the least terrible system rather than point out all solutions are terrible.
> there's never any single "correct" solution for any engineering problem let alone social ones
In contrast, populism is a style, not a set of beliefs.
Among many so-called "populist" politicians you will find very intensely elitist and anti-democratic belief systems, just kept quite mute.
> The "Demands" adopted by the Ocala convention called for the abolition of national banks; the establishment of sub-treasuries or depositories in every state, which would make low interest direct loans to farmers and property owners; the increase of money in circulation to not less than $50 per capita; the abolishment of futures of all agricultural and mechanical productions; the introduction of free silver; the prohibition of alien ownership of land, the reclamation of all lands held by railroads and other corporations in excess of what was actually used and needed by them, held for actual settlers only; legislation to ensure that one industry would not be built up at the expense of another; removal of the tariff tax on necessities of life; a graduated income tax; the limitation of all national and state revenues to the necessary expenses of the government economically and honestly administered; strict regulation or ownership of the means of public communication and transportation; and an amendment of the United States Constitution providing for the direct election of United States senators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocala_Demands
People need to stop discussing reality through weird propagandistic brand names that people were literally paid to come up with, and talk specifically about material differences in policy.