No Stupid Questions

By definition, most political problem don't have a clear/unique good solution. You want to build more housing ? But how do you do-it ? Even on pretty technical topic like fire-safety, where do you set the balance between blocking various industries with heavy procedure and ignoring all safety practices for the sake of efficiency ?. Look at topic like tobacco and drugs ? Do you want to ban them because it's unhealthy ? Or allow them on the name of personal freedom ? Depending who look at the questions, it's going to change a lot.

Who decides what the relevant skills are?

Who gets to decide social justice issues? Cops or advocates?

Edit: what about climate policy? big Oil? Or climate people?

It may be described as that on paper, but in our reality what it seems to translate into is the tech CEOs making policy decisions, and all those that have actually been proposed are just regulation cuts that benefit their particularly company or industry and actively harm everyone else. So, yeah, thats bad.

How do you select the psychologist, social scientist, and team of economists that fill these roles?

Knowledge being the key to power, I can't say I'm inherantly against it (though power in and of itself is a risk).

The problem of course is, generally speaking... all fields run as a business under capitalism, and thus the top of them is generally the person who runs the business side.

IE I would love for knowledgable doctors to be in charge of healthcare decisions... unfortunately in practice what we get is hospital CEOs, health insurance executives etc... That specialize in how to help extract money from sick people... and not prioritize helping people not get sick, and making sure everyone can be treated if they are.

What's wrong is that definitions don't mean anything these days. Maybe ever. Technocracy now refers to oligarchy but with tech CEOs specifically. I would also prefer a system where there are technical requirements before you when get the chance to try to get power.

There are two levels of problems with a technocracy.

The first is a problem that's common to all hierarchical systems, entirely regardless of their specific nature. They will, each and all, sooner or later come to be dominated by people who hold the positions they hold solely because they most lust for those positions and are most willing to do absolutely whatever it takes to gain and hold them.

It makes no difference what sort of limitations or stipulations might be in place - if there is a position that holds authority over others, it will eventually come to be held by the most vicious and conniving bastard in the organization, because they will be willing and able to go to lengths to which nobody else will go.

The second problem with a technocracy is ancillary to the first, and common to all hierarchical systems that focus on some specific philosophy or identity. The positions of power will still come to be held by the most determined psychopaths, but unlike in a more general system, the abusers in power will have an additional claim to legitimacy by paying lip service to the ideal. They're generally able to act even more destructively than other psychopaths, since they can hide their malevolence behind the philosophy or identity both before and after the fact.

Or more simply - problem 1 is that you end up with psychopathic assholes, and problem 2 is that you end up with psychopathic assholes who have even more power than your run-of-the-mill psychopathic assholes because, after all, they're experts.

@jayemar already gave a valid counterpoint, about how to select the technocrats in the first place. But let's suppose we did somehow select the best and brightest of their fields. The next problem is that life is messy, and there often isn't a single answer or criteria which determines what is in the public interest.

Btw, for everyone's benefit, J-PAL is the Jameel Poverty Action Lab at MIT, with branches covering different parts of the world, since policies on addressing poverty necessarily differ depending on local circumstances. They might be described as a research institute or maybe a think tank, as they advocate for more-effective solutions to poverty and give advice on how to do that.

Poverty, as an objective, can be roughly distilled into bringing everyone above some numerical economic figure. There may be different methods that bring people out of poverty, but it's fairly straightforward to assess the effectiveness of those solutions, by seeing how many people exit poverty and how much the solution costs.

Now take something like -- to stay with economics -- management of the central bank. The USA central bank (The Federal Reserve) was created with a dual mandate, which means they manage the currency with care to: 1) not let inflation run amok, and 2) keep USA unemployment low. The dual mandate is tricky because one tends to begat the other. So when both strike, what should a technocrat do? Sacrifice one goal short-term to achieve the other long-term? Try attacking both but perhaps fail at either?

Such choices are not straight yes/no or go/no-go questions, but are rightfully questions of policy and judgement. Is it fine to sell 10% of parkland for resource extraction if it will iron-clad guarantee the remaining 90% is protected as wilderness for time immemorial? How about 25%? 60%?

Subject matter experts (SMEs) are excellent at their craft, but asking them to write public policy -- even with help from other SMEs -- won't address the fuzzy dilemmas that absolutely arise in governance.

In a democratic republic, voters choose not only the politician with views they agree with, but also are subscribing to that politician's sense of judgement for all of life's unknowns. Sometimes this goes well, sometimes that trust is misplaced. Although it's imperfect, this system can answer the fuzzy dilemmas which technocracies cannot.