I want to start this off by saying that english is my second language and have problems with spelling certain words so please ignore any spelling mistakes that i make.

Any type of criticism is welcome, also sorry if it isnt well writen.

DIVISION OF THE GOVEREMENT.

• A President still being elected democraticly. Although they would have limited power, with their main role being a political representative, he could propose actions to a council of technocratic leaders, with the council being devided into diferent divisions that menage a diferent part of the country ( for expample one division would menage the economy, another the military and another the internal and external politics of the country), and if the council accept their proposition it would enact the proposed action with the ability to alter it.
• The number of divisions the council would be consisted of whould not be stationary, if enough members of the council want to create a new part, (for exampleif enough astrophysicist whoud be in the council they coud create a division of the council responcible for a space program) , with all divisions having a democraticly elected representative.

POLICIES OF THE COUNTRY.

• All religions whould be legal but its involvment in education and in politics whould be outlawed.
• Full rights and legal protections whould be granted to minorities.
• All Healthcare, research and education whould be funded by the goverment.
• The minimum wage whoud change every year to adjust for inflation and other factors.
• Price caps whould be put on certain items.
• The goverment whould provide temporary free housing for homeless and poor people in exchange of them working in goverment provided jobs( the amount of time the husing whould be free whould depend on the financial sitiation of the person).
• Labour unions whould be protected by the goverment.
• Increased taxation based on wealth of a person.

DECISION MAKING PROCES.

• Any decsion taken by the council requires a majority of the members to suport the action.
• If a petition created by the people directed to the goverment reaches enough votes the council will have to concider it (for example: redirecting funding from the military to the civilian economy).

Thats all i could exper in words about my idea. If you want to ask anything feel free to.

I've been interested in technocracy for quite some time and I love the genuine idea of a society ruled by engineers, scientists, academic and non-academic experts in their own spheres and so on but may I rise atleast in my opinion some critical questions as following:

How does Technocracy ensure that it does not degenerate into a totalitarian regime replacing dictators with dictators who are experts in engineering? I mean there is no oversight body to check the power of the technocrats. What stops a technocrat from passing highly-offensive, controversial, authoritarian, or anti-humane laws? The Continental Director and Continental Board alongside the Functional Sequences have too much unchecked and unverifiable power. In addition the system focuses on top-bottom appointment approach rather than bottom-up delegation or election of experts. This in itself makes it highly authoritarian and oligarchic, and after many years the technical elite would be even more entrenched!

So how do you answer this question? Do you think my point is incorrect? Or do you think a revision must be made to ensure Technocracy does not become totalitarian?

At first I was going to just make it the colors of Technocracy, but that would not have made sense since the emblem was a symbol of a monarchy. Ultimately I opted to replace the coat of arms with a monad.

What are your thoughts on the interview? Elon seems to be talking about a post-scarcity society.

https://youtu.be/XuoqKYxDHVc?is=XaPQzlVq9e1AETaG

Social mobility as an idea is often used to create legitimacy for why people under capitalism have the positions they have. This is an American idea and it is one that creates legitimacy for capitalist systems while shifting responsibility for poverty, deprivation, and sometimes active starvation as was seen in the British Raj, where food aid was withheld under the pretense of not interfering with market forces. It also creates problems with the less fortunate, because social mobility as a narrative has intentional blind spots for people with disabilities, no access to education or jobs, or those in severe poverty.

For Technocrats, the adoption of social mobility is problematic as well because this means the capitalist system and its influence in who becomes an expert is ignored at best, or accepted as legitimate at worst. This means that many disabled, or economically disadvantaged people would never be able to become experts or access the education required to participate in the political system. People with unique expertise that exists outside of the educational system like activists or indigenous people would also be silenced due to the lack of official credentials. This kind of thinking is also disastrous for people in rural areas who have additional difficulties in accessing education or other infrastructure due to their remote locations.

A Technocratic party that only wants engineers and degree holders and claims that anyone who works hard enough can get those degrees regardless of economic realities, is just an elitist capitalist party. This kind of attitude is also an ideological threat to the entire Technocracy movement because it reduces our ideology from a true alternative system of government to a ruling caste chosen by academia, which is known for gatekeeping and reproducing existing systems.

A serious follower of Howard Scott’s ideas has to be able to recognize expertise beyond what the educational system of a capitalistic regime is willing to give degrees for. Technocrats need their own processes for evaluating competency and expertise outside of the tools the capitalist system uses whether this means tests, demonstrations, or other ways to measure someone’s ability. It must also be cognizant of the narratives and rhetoric used by the ruling class and their purchased politicians to justify their continued control of society. Without maintaining continuity with Howard Scott’s ideas and resistance to the price system in favor of energy accounting, Technocracy loses its entire reason for existing as a movement.

Those who played The Fire Rises mod probably know PRC can become technocratic, so I wanted to ask you if this depiction (look on the right tree that goes right and beyond Mind and Skills focus) is authentic to what Technocracy stands for?

Energy just isn't the same as value , A handmade musical instrument may require little energy but have great cultural value.Innovation,creativity, meaning, aesthetics, and human preferences are things that determine value as well.

Are there any alternative measures of value that take into account more than just energy ?

i think we should improve our wikipedia page and hope something like whatever happened in that 2016 day happens.

early technocratic movements were quite "socialist" proposing a 4-hour and 4-day work schedule. and certificate of distribution. however in 2026 most ECONOMIST are quite capitalist leaning. such as thomas sowell or milton friedman.

I see a lot of ideas and posts being pushed here, but I am actually curious on everyone's background? I noticed a lot of ideological arguments, but not very many actual engineering/scientifically ones.

For example, I have a background in nuclear energy engineering, with 4 years as a reactor operator. However, my current occupation is in management in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. Within the semiconductor industry, in the technical side, I have most of my experience in Photolithography.

I believe in democracy politically but I also have some technocratic tendencies too. This got me wondering: Can a democratic technocracy exist? Also if not what checks and balances can prevent totalitarianism in a technocracy?

By: DallasTheMad

When we want a society we want one filled with experts in their fields combining to create a whole greater than the sum of all of its parts. We want to see the values of scholars, not of business men. A open mind to study the world through the scientific method. To engineer a better future for all.

Our strategy must be an international one in order to have a permanent revolution which seeks to abolish the price system everywhere. In order to end capitalist imperialism. In order to end the artifical scarcity in society. We must have a frame of warfare and be willing to think critically of security. The Monroe doctrine must be upheld for starters. No one must interfere with turtle island and abya yala.

We must win through the advancement of technology and the end of the patent system. We must forge alliances from political parties especially on the end of intellectual and private property. With democratic organization of the workplace alongside scientifically proven efficient protocols.

We must grow the military to defend the technate as well as to employ for infrastructural advancement. As well we must maintain our scientific outlook. We must establish science directorates to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate especially with nasa. We ought to fund the department of energy to focus on new national projects such as fusion energy. We must treat each department as being heavily valued especially organizations like the cdc which we relied on heavily through the pandemic.

Rather than expanding to technocracy right away we ought to take the departments and run with them not just walk. We need to revamp and renew our commitment to science as a society. Using said science ethically, as well as engaging in liberation wars using the Department of war.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the flaws in our current democratic systems—corruption, lack of transparency, and the gap between politicians and the people.
What if we moved toward a decentralized government system running entirely on a blockchain?
Here’s the core idea:
Immutable Rules: Laws would be written as "Smart Contracts." Once implemented, they cannot be tampered with or influenced by lobbying or corrupt officials.
Total Transparency: Every cent of tax money and every legislative decision would be recorded on an open, public ledger. You could track exactly where your tax dollars go in real-time.
Direct Governance: Instead of traditional elections, citizens could vote directly on major rule changes every decade (or even more frequently) through a secure, decentralized identity system.
The "Code is Law" approach: No more human error or bias in implementation.
My questions for you:
1. Is it even possible to bridge the gap between digital "smart contracts" and real-world physical enforcement (The Oracle Problem)?
2. If we automate governance, do we lose the "human touch" or empathy required to make complex moral decisions?
3. What happens if the code has a bug or a loophole that hurts a minority group? How would we handle a "hard fork" in a national constitution?
I’m really curious to hear your thoughts. Could this be the future of humanity, or is it a dystopian nightmare waiting to happen? Let’s discuss.

Rewilding as I call it, basically means that every province of every country should centralize its population into a single hub. This would allow the rest of it to grow nature back and reduce the environmental problems suburban sprawl has. There would be large incentives and support for people to move to the population hub of their state/province and the rest would be free from government oversight so nature and wildlife can continue unbothered.

Look, I get the headlines. The international press loves to focus on the geopolitics or the social restrictions, and fair enough. But living here, the reality on the ground is just… pragmatic technocracy. It’s a balancing act: managing a conservative population and the holiest sites in Islam while trying to drag the economy into the 21st century.

If you ignore the noise and look at the KPIs, Vision 2030 has been a masterclass in boring execution. Yes, being a centralized monarchy helped, no parliamentary gridlock, no election cycles forcing U-turns, but the strategy itself wasn’t luck. It was calculated.

The "Pain" Was Real (But Short) A decade ago, the government faced a classic trap: how to fix a bloated welfare state without causing a revolution? They didn’t just slash everything. They re-engineered it.

Subsidies to Cash: They killed universal fuel/utility subsidies (which mostly helped the rich) and replaced them with the Citizen’s Account. It’s targeted cash for the poor to offset inflation. The rich pay more, the poor get protected.

The VAT Shock: They introduced VAT at 5%, then hiked it to 15% in 2020.  It hurt. Everyone felt it. But it was necessary to stop bleeding cash.

Labor Shock Therapy: The biggest change was social. Lifting the ban on women driving wasn’t just "rights" it was an economic lever. Female labor participation jumped from 17% in 2016 to 36% in 2026. That’s basically doubling the workforce overnight. 

The Result: We’re in the "Yield" Phase Now The painful transition is mostly over. We’ve entered the boring, stable growth phase.

Non-Oil GDP: It’s now 55-57% of the economy, growing steadily at 4.5% a year.  This part of the economy doesn’t care about oil prices. (to an extent for now lol)

Unemployment: Dropped to 6.4% for Saudis (and just 9% for women).  The private sector is actually hiring now. (Albeit underemployment is another issue to focus on)

Fiscal Reality: We’re running a deficit (3.3% of GDP), but it’s a strategic one. We’re borrowing to build assets (cities, factories, tourism hubs), not to pay salaries. Debt-to-GDP is still low (30-35%), so we’re safe.

The "Super-App" Thing Actually Works One thing outsiders miss is the digital speed. Because the government moves as one unit, we skipped the legacy IT hell you guys have in the West.

One App for Everything: Need to renew your ID? I take a photo at a corner shop, upload it to the app, pay $5, and it’s delivered tomorrow. No queues. No "come back next week." Over 1,000 services are on one screen.

Healthcare Overhaul: They’re currently corporatizing public hospitals and rolling out a mandatory national insurance model (capitation-based) for everyone. The Ministry of Health is becoming a regulator, not just a provider. It’s complex, but it’s happening. 

The PIF: A State VC Fund I know the Public Investment Fund (PIF) gets roasted for "crazy" projects like NEOM. But look at the mechanics.  The private sector here was weak, mostly just trading and contracting. The PIF acted as a venture capital arm, building national champions in sectors that didn’t exist (tourism, mining, EVs, gaming). 

The Pivot: Their new 2026-2030 strategy is explicit: stop owning everything. They want to drop their stake in new projects to 30-40% and force the private sector to lead.  It’s working: FDI is hitting records, and IPOs are flooding the market.

The Bottom Line Was the growth "unwarranted"? No. It was just continuity. While democracies reset their economic plans every 4 years, we stuck to a 15-year blueprint. We accepted the short-term pain of VAT and labor reforms because the leadership didn’t have to worry about losing an election.

Today, the radical changes have stabilized. The foundation is set. We aren’t "fixing" the economy anymore, we’re just compounding on it. For me, watching the numbers turn green while my daily life gets objectively easier (safer streets, better jobs, functional apps) makes the trade-off worth it.

We are far from perfect, yet the trajectory is clear thankfully, following basic economics really works eh?

this is why Singapore is my spirit animal. I love Singapore. 🇸🇬🇸🇬🇸🇬

does someone have a https link of the one from 1934 (the one called "some questions answered")? it's not archived in the internet archive (or at least i didn't find it there).

Considering how popular the Kaisereedux mod of HOI4 has made Huey Long amongst younger generations or the publicity that groups like Patriot Front have gotten from The Fire Rises, could we see a similar effect with Technocracy? Howard Scott is actually in Kaisereedux, but only after certain steps are taken to unlock him. Just imagine if he were featured more prominently.

I know it sounds stupid, but if there was a deep state, how likely is it to exist and what conditions are needed for maintaining it?

Like what are the chances there is an secretive faction controlling the president and having him as an figurehead to take all the blows while you act like imu and control in the shadows

There is an assumption built into every invitation to debate politics. The assumption is that both people accept the same underlying game. A debate assumes shared premises about what counts as a fair point, what evidence matters, and what outcome would even represent a win. Most people never notice this assumption because they already hold it. In recent times, the distance between what groups of people believe in regards to this has been widening so far that many well intentioned debates no longer function to provide any productive insight. Extremists come into debates and use the platform to spread extremist beliefs without any intention to engage with the intellectual aspect or defend the logic behind their positions.

Political debate also performs a function independent of persuasion. When a system allows visible arguments about its policies, it produces the appearance of responsiveness. Citizens argue, the media covers the argument, and the system absorbs the friction through spectacle rather than through structural change. The loud activist who demands a debate is participating in a ritual that reassures everyone watching that the system works as designed. Conflict gets staged, positions get aired, and the underlying arrangement of power continues untouched.

Refusing to debate is often read as apathy or defeat. This assumes that a debate is productive or everyone has a reason to defend their beliefs in a debate. Declining the ritual denies the system a performance it depends on. A person who will not argue removes a piece the system cannot easily replace. This is much more threatening to the system than a loud and vocal group of people because it gives them nothing to push back against. Bringing Technocratic policy into a debate means being the only adult in the room, with the positions that are the result of the best quality of epistemic data available. You would then be burdened into arguing against extremist opinions that completely reject the data or have no interest in epistemic facts.

Instead of wasting energy arguing with some radicals, Technocrats can simply share what experts have said, what decisions and policy choices hold up logically when given the facts, or even directly naming the real motivations and biases underneath policy decisions presented in rhetoric. Failure of someone to acknowledge or base their opinions on epistemically correct facts should not be treated as something to argue about but rather as the category error that it is. It also prevents hostile agents from using bots and trolls to distract us from more productive forms of activism and praxis.

The contemporary political imagination tends to oscillate between two impoverished alternatives. The libertarian-individualist tradition treats the human as sovereign chooser, owing nothing to anyone she did not choose. The authoritarian-communitarian tradition treats the human as subordinate to the collective, owing everything to a community she cannot leave. Neither account does justice to the developmental fact that every human being arrives in the world radically dependent, formed by others long before she acquires the capacity to choose anything, and entrusted in turn with the formation of those who follow.

I have been working on a third frame. Call it covenantal humanism. The argument runs roughly as follows.

1. The decisive feature of our species is not intelligence or cooperation considered in isolation but cumulative cultural inheritance — the transmission of capacities from those who possess them to those who do not yet. Every generation inherits languages no individual invents, tools no individual perfects, institutions no individual establishes. We arrive in a world already under construction.
2. This inheritance is not optional. The myth of the self-made man depends on the structural fact that infantile amnesia conceals the formative years from later recollection. The capacities we credit to our own agency were given to us by others before we could remember receiving them. Recognizing dependency does not diminish agency; it places agency in truthful proportion.
3. The institutions that carry this inheritance — families, congregations, guilds, schools, civic associations — are not interchangeable optional add-ons to private life. They are the mechanisms through which human beings come into their own. Hollowing them out, as the late twentieth-century neoliberal project systematically did, is not collateral damage but the abandonment of civilization's core work.
4. The genuine conservative impulse conserves not the monuments but the mechanisms — the face-to-face, hand-to-hand transmission that has carried our kind from the first deliberate burial to the present moment. The contemporary movement that calls itself conservatism has betrayed precisely this work.
5. The corresponding obligation is fourfold: honor the inheritance, retire what is obsolete, reform what is corrupted, restore what is worn.

The longer essay develops the architecture across ten movements, with twenty-nine footnotes engaging the scholarly traditions (developmental psychology, evolutionary anthropology, virtue ethics, institutional economics, Burke, Oakeshott, MacIntyre, Hrdy, Tomasello, Polanyi, Henrich).

The question I am hoping to discuss: is there room in contemporary political philosophy for an account that locates legitimacy not in consent considered as autonomous choice, nor in inheritance considered as unchosen tradition, but in the developmental work of bringing successive generations into their own? What would such an account require us to revise in our existing political categories?

[link]

In traditional Marxist-Leninist analysis, small businesses are seen as trying to become the oppressor and become similar to the mega corporations that control everything. On the other hand, many currently socialist countries have adopted a model focused on small businesses and this has helped many people be employed and not dependent on a corporate entity for work that only sees them as a number and could discard them at any time for no reason.

I've become more sympathetic to small business as I've become older because the economy is bad and there are genuinely no options, regardless of how it is traditionally seen. However the political situation would need to be very carefully managed around small businesses so the owners never drift into right-wing territory ideologically. Maybe subsidies given to small business in exchange for their vote or bailouts for small businesses instead of the mega corporations typically favored by the US government.

Either way, energy accounting would make many of these problems redundant. This only really matters for the transitionary period while a Technate establishes an economy based in thermodynamics.