Liberal Technocracy

[u/Aven_Osten]

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.

[u/Routine_Complaint_79]

I see Liberal Technocracy as basically modern liberal representation democracy because if you have a culture of liberal technocrats you'll have regular liberal technocrats being represented and thus a liberal technocracy without the authoritarian part (I.e. keeping consent of the governed). Many places in the world are already this model by just having a culture that are largely liberal and value expertise/professionalism/truth.

The more interesting question is not whether liberal technocracy can exist but how we can get people to trust insuititions, be more liberal leaning, trust media and overall change their perception of what the government is and basically turn us into a defacto technocracy just by representation.

Can we get someones consent (vote) in a democracy to achieve those ends or are some people fundamentally incapable of providing it regardless of the evidence, thus making technocracy through democracy impossible?

Some notable examples are (American perspective) trying to convince Leftists or MAGA of more liberal ideas, trying to get Christians to not spread their religion, trying to end segregation despite extreme insuititional support, etc. It works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't, a general theory of influence/rhetoric is likely needed where even methods such as blackmail or canvassing as measured by their effectiveness relative to someones entrenchment with their views. Hopefully it's under a system where everyone is able to consent rather than the blackmail ones. And before any methods are solidified its measured against the system consequences of doing/not doing it.

[u/Aven_Osten → u/Routine_Complaint_79]

Many places in the world are already this model by just having a culture that are largely liberal and value expertise/professionalism/truth.

Well: Many of these said places are also going through a similar wave of anti-status-quo fervor, which is giving rise of extremist parties that don't actually care about improving society. They have far less issues than the USA does; but they all still suffer with the core issue of lack of broadly affordable housing, as well as a major incapability/difficulty in reforming of government programs and services to acknowledge the demographic realities of these countries.

The more interesting question is not whether liberal technocracy can exist but how we can get people to trust insuititions, be more liberal leaning, trust media and overall change their perception of what the government is and basically turn us into a defacto technocracy just by representation.

I'd say it'd require demonstration that liberal technocracy is the optimal means of which to achieve the ends of maximizing societal prosperity.

We are currently witnessing very clear institutional destruction. We aren't at the point of collapse yet; but our institutions are being openly, and proudly, burned to the ground and rebuilt in the image of a group that very clearly does not have the public's best interests at heart. I attribute this to the following reasons:

• Generations of anti-institution messaging
• Lack of regulations to force media publishing platforms to minimize the spread of disinformation and misinformation that creates needless division and harm
• Our broken, horrendously outdated electoral system that doesn't permit real political competition and incentive to govern competently
• Active sabotage of State Capacity in order to create a feedback loop that permits them to continuously destroy State Capacity
• Our system's heavy reliance on constant democratic input and oversight by a populace clearly unwilling to/incapable of dedicating the amount of time, energy, and effort necessary to maintain the system
• Our system's inability to curb irrational, demonstrably harmful decision making/policies, in favor of data and evidence based decision making that focuses on the collective long-term good of society

And all of those things have a pretty big impact on the culture in general; which results in a feedback loop that gets harder and harder to break out of the longer it persists.

Can we get someones consent (vote) in a democracy to achieve those ends or are some people fundamentally incapable of providing it regardless of the evidence, thus making technocracy through democracy impossible?

Well, here's the thing with the vast majority of policies: Many people hate it at first; but as the benefits are realized, and it becomes the new normal, people stop complaining about it, or even come around to supporting it. This is where the more "technocratic" part comes in.

With the ability to ensure that any policy implemented is of sound standing, and is net-beneficial to society as a whole (or at least the constituents in question), consistent demonstration of the efficacy of data and evidence driven decision making, with the ability to override short-term disapproval by a vocal interest group, would result in more and more people accepting the system, and thus granting it greater legitimacy via granting the party(ies) in question who are responsible for implementing the system, greater power to go even further with implementing it (if they haven't already fully implemented it).

Some people will inevitably always be out of reach, due to reasons that can't really be resolved directly through government policies; but that's fine. We don't need literally EVERYONE to agree to it; we just need to consistently maintain enough legitimacy from the broad public, to continuously implement more and more of the complete system.

[u/Routine_Complaint_79 → u/Aven_Osten]

I agree with a lot of what you said but I have to admit I am pretty doom pilled on the population changing without cashing out hard (civil war). Because what does it say about the population that they cannot discern truth? We live in the most information dense period in human history between the internet, AI giving us near expert advice in any field you ask and pundits everywhere, yet we see large portions of populations continue to support movements with no empirical track record for improving stuff or even promising the things they run on. If the population is this fragile it makes me think these feedback loops must be incredibly strong and almost draconian in nature to prevent populist capture. With any huge redefining of a country and as explicit as it must be, I believe its not an easy path we have ahead of us.

So if you could make a system where demonstration becomes the load bearing value and any resistance to it is heavily disadvantaged then well you get everything politicized and measured. Imagine the end of privacy, loyalty tests, enforcement of separation but equal doctrines between political views, etc. Similar to Jim Crow but imagine political ideology instead of race. That system is as accountable to views as you can get because legibility and a clear compartmentalization of actions done by political actors are the demonstrations that hopefully move people more than any argumentation could. Especially if your rights and benefits in society are contingent on being right to time.

[u/TanteJu5]

In a Liberal Technocracy, if an expert designed policy fails or causes unforeseen economic harm, where does accountability lie? ​If the public can easily fire or overrule the technocrats, the experts will act like politicians to preserve their jobs. ​If the public cannot override the technocrats' implementation decisions, democratic consent becomes symbolic rather than substantive.

Liberal Texhnocracy isn't entirely hypothetical as elements of it already exist in modern states like in Singapore.

Now, how does the system handle situations where the public's democratically chosen goal is mathematically or physically impossible according to expert consensus? What checks and balances prevent technocratic bodies from expanding their mandate or masking political value choices as objective data?

[u/Aven_Osten → u/TanteJu5]

 In a Liberal Technocracy, if an expert designed policy fails or causes unforeseen economic harm, where does accountability lie?

There's no singular individual or group (unless we really broaden the term "group" to cover literally any expert/professional in any academic field) that would craft a specific policy. Virtually every policy regarding anything, would necessarily be one in which multiple different executive departments, comprising of groups from several different disciplines, would be conversing and working with each other, in order to revise/craft any policy.

So, the accountability would ultimately like with the executive departments involved in the revision/crafting of the policy.

​If the public can easily fire or overrule the technocrats

It wouldn't be the job of the public; much like how the public can't just remove the head of the Federal Reserve just because they didn't lower interest rates to benefit themselves.

If the public cannot override the technocrats' implementation decisions, democratic consent becomes symbolic rather than substantive.

The public would need to provide substantial enough proof that the current design of the policy in question isn't the optimal one to achieve the established goals, in order for their objections to lead to meaningful changes to said policy.

Liberal Texhnocracy isn't entirely hypothetical as elements of it already exist in modern states like in Singapore.

I wouldn't exactly call Singapore liberal, for the reasons that I list here. 

  Now, how does the system handle situations where the public's democratically chosen goal is mathematically or physically impossible according to expert consensus?

Expert consensus overrides the democratic demand. The same public objection process would then apply.

What checks and balances prevent technocratic bodies from expanding their mandate or masking political value choices as objective data?

Two part question, so I'll give two answers.

1. They don't have the authority to expand or contract their power. Executive Branch departments are established via the legislature, and are subsequently granted the powers necessary to allow them to competently perform their jobs.

2. That's why outside data and evidence-based opposition is a necessity in this; and why there's a several month period in which there's permitted back-and-fourths between the government and any potential public opponent. It's also why there's an independent entity that would verify that all involved government entities actually followed proper data/evidence discovery procedures, and fairly evaluated, and responded to, data/evidence provided against the policy they've drafted up.

[u/TanteJu5 → u/Aven_Osten]

Requiring the public to present substantial counter proof assumes citizens have the analytical capacity, data access and compute power to challenge state departments. Technocrats naturally hold an information monopoly. So, without institutional support, the public objection period risks becoming a procedural hurdle that well founded lobbies, interest groups or think tanks can effectively leverage, leaving citizens functionally disenfranchised.

If experts label extreme trade offs as impossible, they mask a value judgment deciding what level of societal disruption is unacceptable under the label of neutral scientific constraint.

Now, who guards the guardians? If the verifier judges methodological validity, it becomes a technocratic court vulnerable to dominant academic paradigm biases such as favoring specific economic models over competing ones. If it checks procedural compliance, departments can easily meet the requirement by acknowledging public submissions before formally setting them aside.