I wrote a piece "against epistocracy" a few years ago. Final paras
"Brennan has chosen to illustrate his argument for requiring voters to be better informed about the issues by picking an issue [the Trans-Pacific Partnership] on which he himself is clearly not well-informed.
Finally of course, Brennan’s casual reference to “most experts” raises the obvious problem with epistocracy. Who gets to decide who is well-informed? And who gets to decide who gets to decide?"
“In so far as the kind of technocratic knowledge natural science is producing has resulted in a considerable increase in our control of nature, it is an indisputable reality that has permitted the spectacular improvement of living conditions over the last couple of centuries.”
Is technocracy a description of the approach to government, or to life in general?
From my ignorant perspective, Friedman's critique is on point when applied to the government, which usually appears to take the approach that we know how to accomplish anything, it's just a matter of do we want to spend the money or not; when in fact, we often have no clue how to accomplish the goal, or no agreement on what the goal is.
A more pluralist approach, allowing different persons, organizations, regions, etc. to try different approaches to respond to perceived problems seems more epistemically appropriate when feasible. (E.g. It's hard for the US to have multiple immigration policies.) Federalism was intended to allow this, I suppose, but it seems to have failed to gain appreciation as a means for exploration and discovery.
Thomas Sowell: “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.” Anti-technocratic, or hyper-technocratic?
"Is technocracy a description of the approach to government, or to life in general?"
It is a description of the approach to government that encapsulates a broader way of life. Friedman's technocracy is really similar to Weber's or the Frankfurt School's account of rationalism. This is what makes his account interesting but also question-begging in a way: is there really an alternative to an alternative approach to government, given that the technocratic mindset is so entrenched in the way we live more generally.
I wrote a piece "against epistocracy" a few years ago. Final paras
"Brennan has chosen to illustrate his argument for requiring voters to be better informed about the issues by picking an issue [the Trans-Pacific Partnership] on which he himself is clearly not well-informed.
Finally of course, Brennan’s casual reference to “most experts” raises the obvious problem with epistocracy. Who gets to decide who is well-informed? And who gets to decide who gets to decide?"
“In so far as the kind of technocratic knowledge natural science is producing has resulted in a considerable increase in our control of nature, it is an indisputable reality that has permitted the spectacular improvement of living conditions over the last couple of centuries.”
Is technocracy a description of the approach to government, or to life in general?
From my ignorant perspective, Friedman's critique is on point when applied to the government, which usually appears to take the approach that we know how to accomplish anything, it's just a matter of do we want to spend the money or not; when in fact, we often have no clue how to accomplish the goal, or no agreement on what the goal is.
A more pluralist approach, allowing different persons, organizations, regions, etc. to try different approaches to respond to perceived problems seems more epistemically appropriate when feasible. (E.g. It's hard for the US to have multiple immigration policies.) Federalism was intended to allow this, I suppose, but it seems to have failed to gain appreciation as a means for exploration and discovery.
Thomas Sowell: “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.” Anti-technocratic, or hyper-technocratic?
"Is technocracy a description of the approach to government, or to life in general?"
It is a description of the approach to government that encapsulates a broader way of life. Friedman's technocracy is really similar to Weber's or the Frankfurt School's account of rationalism. This is what makes his account interesting but also question-begging in a way: is there really an alternative to an alternative approach to government, given that the technocratic mindset is so entrenched in the way we live more generally.