This will be a bit messy, a bunch of jottings in notepad that I just want to get onto the internet and make search available. Hopefully you can understand it. I don't have time or inclination to edit it to make it more readable (sorry). And some of it may have even been posted before (the earlier stuff, if any).
TGGP, nothing startlingly insightful. Just when there is agreement about desired outcome, the legislation that has the greater probability of achieving that desired outcome among multiple options is the better legislation, by technocratic standards. The decision that it's better for one's healthy cellular systems to persist over a longer period of time than for one's cancerous brain cells to maximize growth over a shorter period of time is a normative decision. The best way to remove or thwart those cancerous brain cells is a technocratic decision.
(Once again, I understand there can always be niggling about this, but I think the broad concept is solid).
So, I think we want neurosurgeons that are technically competent, and I think we want legislators and administrators that are technically competent. Hence the law professor/public policy professor standard. Although I'm leaning towards experimental social scientist as the archetypal model for lawmakers, and I'll probably right about that in a post soon (as well as explaining why I think they should be at the top of the scientific hierarchy, above theoretical physicists, for example).
TGGP, I care about agreement because it allows for apples to apples comparison about technocratic achievement. Being a technocrat is about process. Being an ideologue is about fundamental goals (which could sometimes be about process, but don't have to be) it seems to me. So the agreement aspect is just to eliminate ideological noise in order to assess technocratic capability. For example, nazi germany and the USA share agreement that trains should run on time. Americans generally favorably assess nazi technocratic ability to manage railways. The soviets and the americans shared a goal for essential goods for common citizens to be easily accessible. When soviets saw that markets were a superior technocratic tool to achieve this than centrally planned approaches, they began to implement markets into their economic distribution mechanism.
technocratic institute new to nyu law
atheists are lousy people because it's a self-selected group of people willing to publicly and nonanonymously refute popular myths.
Instead of separation of church and state we should have state experimentation with religion (different myths, or lack thereof, in different regions, to determine which results in the best consequences).
Fascinating analysis. I know too little about macroeconomics to know if it's insightful or crackpot.
Important update on Dr. Ishii
This breathless, manic post is both exciting and scary:
Martin Ginsberg, magna cum laude, harvard law:
JD, MPA, PhD profiles:
Alex C. Sienkiewicz
Stephen Foreman, PhD, JD, MPA, Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs, Robert Morris University
Pauline Sieverding, PhD, JD, MPA
Victoria Sutton (Vickie Sutton), MPA, PHD, JD
Kennard D. Brown
Ken Brown, JD, MPA, PhD
Joshua M. Chanin, JD, MPA, PhD
Charles H. Wilson III
Kevin Marshall JD, MPA, PhD
Kevin S. Marshall
Brian Nickerson, PhD, JD, MPA.
Deleon, Patrick H., PhD, MPA, JD. 2000
JD, PHD (econ)
Josh Wright (J.D. PhD. Econ.)
Daniel Kessler (Stanford Business School Jd, Phd econ)
JD, PHD (Math)
these mythmaking technocrats seem to exist in a different magesteria than the uberempiricists and hyperrationals. I'd like to best criticisms of their work by TGGP, Douglas Knight, Mitchell Peters, Caledonian, and others. BEST CRITICISMS, not easy countermythologies.
Lani Guineer's latest:
Four people much better qualified to be appointed to the New York Senate Seat
Theresa A. Pardo
Judith R. Saidel