A good piece. An additional factor is the self serving nature of technocrats whereby they will continue making the “wrong” decisions and following them in defiance of the evidence if it is in the technocracy’s and their interests to do so.
The belief that reason logic and science can be complete enough to get you out of value judgements is a misunderstanding of what is in fact available for grounding first principles. A fully fledged technocracy as you say is unworkable because it will try to turn us all into machines. In reality technocrats should inform what is possible and what is the best way to do something, while politicians and trustees should still have the responsibility of deciding what is the desirable thing to do especially in the broader picture. One problem is case law has moved against them. Trustees etc have a duty to inform themselves, and then make their decision, but this has become a highly risk adverse practice, such that they effectively get the technocrats to tell them what to decide. A trustee might be sued for maladministration for not following technical advice. But which advice and to what overall balance of purpose?. I think we are falling into a technocracy because politicians and the law increasingly believe that man is a machine to which there is a right final answer for, if only the technocrats knew it, instead of a creature made in the image of God ,destined for personal individual growth and flourishing and needing freedom and empowerment to do so.
I basically concur with that final point. Ultimately the issue is theological (I'm increasingly of the view that ultimately all of the issues are theological!).
It fascinates me how many ways there are to get at the same diagnosis: the substitution of technocracy for democracy. You come via Hayek, Strauss, and Hume in this excellent essay. I'd happily come by Hume as well, but would generally go via Alasdair MacIntyre's 'myth of managerial efficiency', Chantelle Mouffe's democratic paradox, and Jacque's Ranciére's Hatred of Democracy. Indeed, I just covered it from that last angle:
I don't know enough about Hungary to comment. Certainly I think there are states like Israel and Japan that seem to have governments that still consider their role to be to represent the interests of the citizenry, though still in a highly managerial way.
Two matters of policy are raised here. "HS2" High Speed rail 2 - if this was economically a good idea then the money would be raised voluntarily, not by taxation, and land would not need to be taken by force. So it is not really necessary to talk about Hume and Hayek to know that HS2 is a terrible idea.
The other matter of policy is mass immigration into the present Welfare State - again this is not a "knowledge problem", it is nothing much to do with Hume or Hayek, it is a matter of what one's objective is. If one's objective is what Chancellor Hunt's objective is said to be, to increase "GDP" (GDP really being a measure of spending and thus including government spending on benefits and public services such as education and health) so that one can say that one has "avoided recession" in spite of higher taxes, then mass immigration is a very good idea - but if one's objective is to maximise the living standards of the people already here, then further mass immigration into this Welfare State is a terrible idea.
Economic arguments are not relevant in the context of HS2. If you connect the dots, you can deduce that the true reason it is being built is to become the only public transport link between ‘smart’ cities when private car ownership is eliminated in the name of the Net Zero religion.
A good piece. An additional factor is the self serving nature of technocrats whereby they will continue making the “wrong” decisions and following them in defiance of the evidence if it is in the technocracy’s and their interests to do so.
And the apparently complete lack of accountability and consequences for their appalling actions. No skin in any game makes them even more careless.
Indeed. No skin in the game.
The belief that reason logic and science can be complete enough to get you out of value judgements is a misunderstanding of what is in fact available for grounding first principles. A fully fledged technocracy as you say is unworkable because it will try to turn us all into machines. In reality technocrats should inform what is possible and what is the best way to do something, while politicians and trustees should still have the responsibility of deciding what is the desirable thing to do especially in the broader picture. One problem is case law has moved against them. Trustees etc have a duty to inform themselves, and then make their decision, but this has become a highly risk adverse practice, such that they effectively get the technocrats to tell them what to decide. A trustee might be sued for maladministration for not following technical advice. But which advice and to what overall balance of purpose?. I think we are falling into a technocracy because politicians and the law increasingly believe that man is a machine to which there is a right final answer for, if only the technocrats knew it, instead of a creature made in the image of God ,destined for personal individual growth and flourishing and needing freedom and empowerment to do so.
I basically concur with that final point. Ultimately the issue is theological (I'm increasingly of the view that ultimately all of the issues are theological!).
It fascinates me how many ways there are to get at the same diagnosis: the substitution of technocracy for democracy. You come via Hayek, Strauss, and Hume in this excellent essay. I'd happily come by Hume as well, but would generally go via Alasdair MacIntyre's 'myth of managerial efficiency', Chantelle Mouffe's democratic paradox, and Jacque's Ranciére's Hatred of Democracy. Indeed, I just covered it from that last angle:
https://strangerworlds.substack.com/p/giving-democracy-a-chance
I managed, for once, to avoid invoking 'imperial technocracy' in that piece, which is surely some kind of achievement!
The only relevant political distinction now is between technocracy and those who oppose it.
Fab! As always
Are there any non-technocratic models of government in the developed world? Might Hungary count as a politics-led state?
I don't know enough about Hungary to comment. Certainly I think there are states like Israel and Japan that seem to have governments that still consider their role to be to represent the interests of the citizenry, though still in a highly managerial way.
Two matters of policy are raised here. "HS2" High Speed rail 2 - if this was economically a good idea then the money would be raised voluntarily, not by taxation, and land would not need to be taken by force. So it is not really necessary to talk about Hume and Hayek to know that HS2 is a terrible idea.
The other matter of policy is mass immigration into the present Welfare State - again this is not a "knowledge problem", it is nothing much to do with Hume or Hayek, it is a matter of what one's objective is. If one's objective is what Chancellor Hunt's objective is said to be, to increase "GDP" (GDP really being a measure of spending and thus including government spending on benefits and public services such as education and health) so that one can say that one has "avoided recession" in spite of higher taxes, then mass immigration is a very good idea - but if one's objective is to maximise the living standards of the people already here, then further mass immigration into this Welfare State is a terrible idea.
Economic arguments are not relevant in the context of HS2. If you connect the dots, you can deduce that the true reason it is being built is to become the only public transport link between ‘smart’ cities when private car ownership is eliminated in the name of the Net Zero religion.
Once, not so long ago, I would have dismissed what you say here as a "paranoid conspiracy theory" - but now I can no longer do that Sir.