> What a terrible technocratic view of democracy. Ugg. Sure,
> such experts should be given some real free play, but the
> workers who health depend on the sewer line deserve some real
> say in where such lines go, not just leave it up to
> technocratic aesthetics. I like representative systems where
> the experts are restrained by periodic review by dumb-shit
> political representatives who need it all explained in small
> words. It keeps technocracy from running too much amok.
You seem to mix up two kinds of experts - those who are placed in th eposition of authority and thus everything they sai passess for words of "wisdom" and those who have the skills and ability to critically examine facts presented to them. It is like a corporate boss and the winner of sporting competition - the former prevails over eberyone else because he has been placed in the #1 position, the latter is placed in the #1 position because she prevailed over everyone else. I see no problems with the latter having some real say.
I find it, howver, scary when self-righteous, ignorant masses disregard experts and elect their political representatives through idiotic popularity contests. You certainly would want the doctor who operates on you or the pilot in the cockpit of your plane to be appointed to ther positions by testing of their expertise rather than elected by a popularity contest. Why is it, then, that we should elect dumb-shit politicians to run one the most sophisticated system ever created - the modern state?
Wojtek