Skip to comments.William Henry Smyth had tyranny in mind when he wrote about a technocracy
Posted on 03/01/2014 8:28:27 AM PST by ProgressingAmerica
Has the word "expert" superceded the word "monarch"? It has, if you have ever taken the time to read the writings of William Henry Smyth, the original postulate of the concept of a technocracy.
If you read the Wikipedia page for "Technocracy", it tries to persuade the reader that a technocracy is an advanced form of meritocracy. That's a bunch of cuss words. Seriously, what an insult to everybody who reads the page. A "technocrat" is not any different than a bureaucrat. A bureaucrat with an engineering degree is still a bureaucrat. They just use one label to camouflage the other.
In the first four part series on Technocracy, William Henry Smyth ended the fourth essay (and thus, the first collection) this way:
IS THE EFFICIENT CONTROL OF MEN MORE DESIRABLE THAN FREEDOM?
So it is, with modern progressives who are fully immersed in bureaucratic despotism - technocracy. Just ask Peter Orszag, who not all that long ago was a higher level member of the current Administration's staff. (Director of OMB) Here is what he wrote: (My previous entry)
To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions.
The problem(as he later points out) isn't their existence or that it is "undemocratic"(He is calling for less democratic rule), the problem is that it is too openly undemocratic. That is, the progressives want to run your life via "expertise" without you realizing it.
In other words, Orszag wants Smyth's "control without control". Smyth is quite honest that control without control is a paradox, but that will not stop people from seeking it. Furthermore, just as Orszag calls for "independent institutions" (He means commissions and boards, quite openly) William Henry Smith called for exactly the same thing: (From Technocracy, part 1, last paragraph)
The need of a Supreme National Council of Scientists supreme over all other National Institutions to advise and instruct us how best to Live, and how most efficiently to realize our Individual and our National Purpose and Ideals.
This "advise and instruct us how best to Live" does not sound like Smyth had liberty in mind to me.
Progressivism - Technocracy - Bureaucratic despotism.
The real issue is that bureaucrats/politicians/technocrats use their self-assigned power, not to solve problems of society, but to inflict damage on those who disagree, repress the masses, and elevate themselves to be privileged and elite.
As the Bible states, there is nothing new under the sun. Just as it was back in Genesis, the fundamental problem with man is that he is hopelessly selfish to the detriment of his fellow man, and he wants to be his own god. In short, to someone who does not submit to the Creator, true self-denial is not a consideration. This guy is just proposing a new spin on the simple fundamental problem that has been here from the very beginning. Same gift; different wrapping paper.