Do you live in a Convent? i said CRAP... despite what mommy says, its not a bad word. Unless you are the owner and proprietor of T.INC you cant take offence to me calling SOME ONE ELSES IDEA, crap.

I'm not letting Doomie off the hook for his hijinks. But "he started it" doesn't defend you choice of behavior, either.

I'm only offering advice to you, hon. Take it or leave it at your discretion. You don't need to defend yourself.

 

Wow, tones from text, thats awesome... am i being truthful or sarcastic? nobody knows

In this entire website, YOU are the only person to actively lash out at me with anything other than a joke. I find it odd, but then im not one to pass up an easy target. A kill is a kill... after all

     Where's the Johnny Winter version?, oh well ,

Richard Berry "Riot in Cell Block #9"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrI7Y73SxY4

 

@Jill: Keep your infernal Cookies I have a Pound of Muenster!
OM NOM NOM NOM.

So I'm "the other guy"? Come on people, my name isn't that hard or long, use copy and paste for crying out loud.

Oh and you're right, I'm just a fool. You see I thought this was a system of economics intended for Earth and Humans not giggling Angles dancing on the head of a pin in Heaven.

In that case, why do we need a system of economics at all? And really? Are there more than enough Large Hadron Colliders to go around, because I've always wanted to Smash an Atom. Okay, maybe that example is unfair, but it demonstrates a point in the extreme. There will always be scarcity of something for the simple fact that the universe is finite, most of it being empty space, and humans keep reproducing. Furthermore, if there's more than enough to go around then why do we even need any credits at all? Need a new Car? Well here you go, zero down payment and zero dollars a month for the rest of your life. Need a new House? Here you Go! Need Food? Here you go! Do we just have a 'budget' of energy credits to spend per year on survival and stuff we want? Then that means there isn't an infinite supply and therefore not enough for everyone, or are you arbitrarily limiting our supply for some other reason?

Because get this. It's human nature to want to 'one-up' their neighbor. When something is scarce everyone wants to have one and their neighbors to not have one. Once everyone has one its who has two. Once everyone has two its three, and so on. Do you intend on arbitrarily making this illegal or somehow changing people. No culture is immune to this influence.

Essentially, you're not arguing for Technocracy, you're arguing for Utopia, and it's never going to happen. And if the entire economy is predicated on having plenty to go around, then if that isn't the case the entire thing collapses. If it is the case, then the entire system is unnecessary. Its like what Nikolaj described. Since everyone had everything they wanted, then nothing was illegal. Essentially the final evolution of the system was the destruction of that system as it had became obsolete. Since your system's basic foundation is that it exists in the state where it is no longer needed, why is it needed?

Yep, it says energy credits can't be transfered, and I provided a way to transfer them, sorry I forgot the page was just right. It says right on the page that its right after all, how can I argue with that? I'm sorry I didn't realize that people would already have everything they ever wanted. See I was thinking this was meant to be realistic, and until you can start popping Universal Constructors out then this is not even remotely possible. There will always be limited resources and the Human Population keeps growing. Do the Math. Even a Universal Constructor won't stop this, just delay the innevitable. So what then? The wiki page says people are issued these credits independently of the amount of work they do. Everyone just gets the same credit distribution based on the total production power of the Technate. First off how is this in fact not just communism with a fancy name? Everyone gets the same thing no matter what they do. Furthermore, these people have a budget, that means resources are not infinite, and therefore, scarce. This means one person can buy something for a person and give it to them as a gift. The energy has been effectively transfered because all the energy really exists as is a representation of what it can produce or purchase, you know, just like money. The idea that people would not find a way to cheat the system is absurd.

Furthermore, how does making the energy credits expire do anything? If something costs more energy than we get a year do we just never get it? That seems silly. I don't see the credits expiring doing anything other than encouraging people to practice no economic restraint at the end of the year.

I answered this in my first post, maybe you should have read it instead of just tossing the 'WRONG' insult my way and storming off in a huffing cloud of self declared intellectual superiority. I read through all of your posts, despite you constantly insulting people, even when they didn't deserve it. Doomed's first comment was very polite, unless you think the word crap is the most heinous word ever. He voiced his oppinion, and you called him a moron for it. Since that moment, I decided I didn't judge you worth anything but my contempt. Yet I still heard you out.

And like I said, I'm against any system where people aren't rewarded for doing good or hard work in a tangible way. If Energy Credits aren't earned (from the wiki page), then what incentive is there to work at all?

And as for calling it bullshit, I'm sorry for calling a Spade a Spade.

Ironically enough, you're the one arguing like a Theist. I bring up points, and you just close your eyes and chant 'You're Wrong You're Wrong' over and over again hoping I'll go away.

P.S. I never trust anyone who uses All Caps.

Actually, I have my own little think-tank in an analysis of it as presented. lol.

The 'beginner's' page is pretty decent.

The forum there looks as though there also people wanting test scenarios like me. They got the same answer you gave me. lol.

I agree that another independent survey needs to be done.

Of course, there already things in motion such as Pickens' plan that would greatly skew even the results of a new study if conducted now.. That crazy old guy has projected an ROI of 8 years for his alternative energy plan, which is very aggressive in my opinion. It seems that he is doing well selling the idea and would probably be doing even better if the market hadn't caught up to the speculators this year.

While that is still dealing in money, it has the prospect of altering the amount of money spent on electricity so drastically that no one will be open to hearing other plans until the next 'crisis'. With the projected usage following a direct proportion, the system of 'growth' maintains itself a little longer.

If the average wind speed were greater than 3.1 mph here in my little neck of the woods then I'd have one in my backyard. lol.

Energy would be assigned to everyone. You just get it, without needing to sell your work. This sounds a lot like socialism: a central bureaucracy determining how much money (energy) everyone will get. When mohammed claims that there would be no selling I think he means no private party transfers. You could shop at approved government run stores, but you could not just make products or services and sell them. And of course since money expires, you could not gather enough capital to start your own business, as your saved up money would devalue. This system is a capitalists nightmare. Technocracy Inc claims not to be socialist, but I think they are. They are socialist with an odd twist of energy accounting being used to determine what products people will get.

It is a credit system. The credits merely represent energy rather than having an arbitrary and market determined value. The credits expire, but energy obviously does not. Also you wouldn't be able to use energy as money in this system, you could only use government issued energy credits as money. The energy credits are money regardless of how much technocrats deny it. Also, as soon as your old credits expired you would be given new ones. The expiration is only there to prevent someone from being able to save money. That will halt any private long term economic plans. That way only the technocrats will be able to create new businesses or produce long term economic changes. This is a pure command economy; which as far as I am concerned is hard-core socialism. Needless to say, I think this system would be disastrous.

uhh... How can I expect you to have an understanding Technocracy, a system that has never even been tried out, when you don't even know that you can vote in a socialist society, a system which has existed, and does exist many places in the world? I mean, even a very superficial knowledge of political history and political ideology would tell you that, and if you don't even have a superficial understanding of politics, then how can I expect your observations of technocracy to be at all varented?

Good Evening, Im John Smith, from the Conservative Party INC. Im here on your doorstep today to talk to you about, Toilet Seats, yes, Toilet Seats. You see, i think myself a clever door to door salesman, so i stole the Conservative Party name, incorporated it, and used it to allow myself easier access into your home, and mind.

 

 Sound familar?

 

/facepalm

... how... ironic

Having buffed myself via the wikipedia article on Technocracy and it's various forms and implementations, I can't say that it'd be a horrible system.  It's apparently possible for it to work to any extent within a variety of governmental and bureaucratic systems as well as with varied economic systems.  The only factor maintained is that in some capacity technical experts, 'who justify themselves by appeal to scientific forms of knowledge' would be reliant on to force policy independant of political or economic expedience.  I can imagine that, if the PMO and his Cabinet here in Canada were required constitutionally to oblige the consultations of technical experts in the fields they administer better decisions would be made.  As it is, technical experts tend to get fired in this country from their watchdog positions because the Government needs to save face, or that is, maintain or gain political capital.

Spot on, The Doomed Soul. Technocracy Inc throws around the words 'technocracy' and 'science' without actually advocating for a technocracy or being scientific. The currency manipulations and energy accounting proposed by them have nothing to do with science. They in no way, shape or form have ANYTHING to do with science. They do like to lie and claim to be scientific though, because that gets some people to think that their currency manipulation/ economic equality scheme is grounded in science somehow. Your example of what they are doing could not be closer to the truth.

Also: nice avatar, I just got the Dark Crusade expansion.

 

Definition of money : “ Universal accepted thing that you can exchange for different things  ”

Now explain how this definition doesn’t apply to a energy credit system.

I’m waiting , this massage will be repeated until you answer it or copy past a answer from your websit

 

 

O ye because having something that will rot ( energy credit expire ) will not encourage people to spend it for something else like insane , end of sarcasm. Dude if something is expiring it will not encourage saving it , it will encourage spending and consumption ! The energy credit system is a system that encourages wistfully consumption ! Don’t believe me imagine that gas in your tank will disappear do to a time limit on it every day , now you have some gas left in your tank before the end of the day ? Why waist it drive around the block like insane its going to despair regardless of your non action. Your system encourages wistfully life think about this.

 

You don't have to play this game mohammed. We get it that you are incapable of defending Technocracy Inc. So rather than support it with arguments you claim that everyone who disagrees with you must not understand it well enough. The sad thing is that you don't seem to understand that energy credits are money. They just are, people here have posted definitions of money for you and everything. You refuse to present arguments to support the idea that they are not money and instead make the unsubstantiated claim that it just isn't and that we must not understand Technocracy Inc enough if we think expiring money whose value is based on energy accounting is still money.

If someone disagrees with you saying "you just don't understand it" is NOT an argument. We get Technocracy Inc, we just don't like it or we think that energy accounting is nothing more than currency manipulation. Your refusal (and perhaps inability) to defend Technocracy Inc leads us to think that you lack enough understanding about it to argue in its favor. Imagine if a communist told us that communism was great, and we asked him some questions and voiced some complaints about communism. If every response of his was "well, you just don't really understand it, so I will not argue in favor of it with you," we would assume that he was either too ignorant or too stupid to formulate arguments in favor of his position. And if this communist was also petty, condescending and insulting then he would be guaranteeing that we did not like communism. I'm pretty sure that you would not appreciate a person doing what I just described; so stop doing it to us unless you want to make us dislike Technocracy Inc for no other reason than your condescension and inability to argue in favor of it.

 

It is not that Carx is avoiding learning about this, it is that Carx holds an opinion that contradicts your own (he thinks that energy credits are some form of currency). Since he (Carx is male right?) disagrees with you it does not mean that he must be ignorant. Even if he is ignorant, you inability to demonstrate how wrong he is would make some think that he is correct. He at least presented a rough definition of currency, something that you have not demonstrated to be false and have not presented yourself to support your naked assertion that energy credits are not a form of currency.

 

All in favor, of giving Mohammed an Asshat avatar if he refuses to defend his position or admit being wrong?

or would that get us death threats from muslims?

Sigh, If you had read any of my posts you would have had these supposed 'differences' explained as merely an ingenious way of hiding the fact that they were really the same.

*Money is transferable, and therefore can be traded, gambled, stolen, or used as a bribe.
>>Energy Credits are only an abstraction of the physical production(wealth) of a nation, you know, just like money. The Energy Credits, since they aren't really energy, are only good for what they can buy (just like money). They CAN be transferred, buy something for someone else, give it to them, energy credits transferred. Suppose one month someone has a Birthday, they've already spent their monthly allowance, so you offer them part of yours (which you have perhaps judiciously saved for such an occurance...) to buy them a nice juicy steak at your local government owned food store. In the process of this you have 1: Transferred Energy Credits 2: If the person has influence somewhere you could have just bribed someone 3: Given a gift 4: Gambled, because they may or may not help you out later.

*Money is scarce, and thus can never provide all the needs of a society regardless of whether they have the resources or not.
>>Sorry, but if your energy credits are supremely plentiful to provide everything anyone could ever want, then that means that your nation is producing more than enough of everything to go around (since your allowance of energy credits is based on the physical production power of the nation). In a society experiencing such plenty there would be no need of any economic system at all. If you are not at that point, then Energy Credits are Scarce (Just like money).

*Money is not physically measurable. It is based on the inherently unstable idea of value and thus makes the lives of citizens and the society itself, unstable.
>>Neither are Energy Credits, since they are just "an abstract representation of wealth[Production Power], it can be further abstracted itself."(*1) These energy credits represent a largely intangible base product. Furthermore, they are based on an unstable idea of value. What happens if a source of energy runs out? What happens if a resource required to produce a product runs out, or a fresh vein is discovered? Price will always fluctuate unless you strictly control it.
Furthermore, since the very article you referenced commented on how the price is impossible to predict because it is based of a seemingly infinite number of variables, how will production power and other things be reliably measured?

Now then, I have one question (this is a gross understatement) which you have refused to answer;

How is a System of Economics where everyone receives the same wage no matter what level of work they perform and have no ability to own their own business or even relatively common (speaking from a North American Perspective) items such as Cars anything other than the most perfect form of Marxist Communism ever? This is Marx's Wet Dream. An isolated "Worker's Paradise" where everything is controlled and everyone gets the same treatment no matter what they actually contribute.

Furthermore, explain how such a system will not lead to stagnation and collapse as people decide they can just be increasingly lazy since actually putting forth effort yields no tangible results? Ever heard of the phenomena known as 'Social Loafing'? Look it up.

Ultimately though, I don't really care whatever your reasons are, this system is an abomination to freedom. It specifically says that humans aren't allowed to own their own businesses. What happens to artists? Furthermore, how do you measure the 'energy value' of art? You can't. Does that mean all art is produced and sold for free? Or is art not produced at all? Do people just buy things with their energy credits and then give those things to you in exchange for your art if you want te sell it?

Frankly, I addressed all of these points (minus the art thing, that one's new) in my first two posts. Reading your post i can tell you know nothing about my position, it's obvious you havent read any of my posts at all. But I should probably stop posting to you now, after all; When you completely avoid learning about my position before you start to call it unfounded or stupid or start arguing against it, it is probably a good idea to not argue with them.
NOTE: If parts of the above paragraph seem familiar to you mohammed, there just might be a reason behind it.

(1): The same article you quoted.

Energy credits are scarce. A limited number of them would be made. And they would be doled out a little at a time (yes, two years worth of money is a tiny amount compared to long-term investing). I can not understand how these could be considered not to be scarce. Is there some other definition of scarce that I am unaware of?

 

I am unconvinced that Technocracy would be more efficient than any of the mixed markets currently operating. Centralized economic control is wasteful and inefficient. Tempering the cruel efficiency of the free market with social services to prevent destitution and anti-trust laws seems to be working pretty well. Changing over to a command economy will not work as well (if you disagree, feel free to give examples of efficient command economies that deliver plenty to their citizens).

 

No there wouldn't. People don't work that way. People are going to want to get a hold over more credits than are assigned to them by the Technate energy accountants. Lets face it: no one is going to be content with what government bureaucrats tell them is enough to live on. Also this is ignoring the fact that people want things that require more than two years of saving to acquire. One of the most disastrous parts of Technocracy Inc's ideas is that people will be unable to economically plan, save or invest more than two years at a time. Though I suppose that there would not be any personal economic planning or saving anyways, since the Technocracy Inc bureaucrats would dictate economics through price setting (yes, setting the energy value of a product is setting its price, which is a powerful and abusable economic control). What I wouldn't give to be on that price setting (oh wait, I mean "energy accounting&quot panel.

 

Odd, I thought you avoided these questions because they are damning towards to possible success of Technocracy Inc's ideas.

 

And for the most damning part of the post:

So Technocracy Inc assumes it will exist in an economically perfect future in which there is so much plenty that money is obsolete? If this is the case then why would we need Technocracy Inc? In such a future we would already be in an ideal economic state, with no need for technocrats. If there was so much plenty that money was obsolete, then there would be so much plenty that there would be no need for energy credits (which are just an alternate form of money). If Technocracy Inc's premise in part rests on existing in a star-trek like future in which scarcity as we understand it does not exist, then it will simply never come about. That is little more than simply wishing that all our problems would be handled for us by technology in the future (which could happen, but if it did no one would need a group of technocrats price setting in that kind of a future).

 isnt Sinphanius your alt login?

 

No ?

And why would i create an alt account to put up a logical arguement, where instead i could use it to be a complete and utter wanker

 

...

Like this account

Ah wonderful. Since you're incapable of arguing against me you insist I must not be a real person. Nice.
And frankly, Insulting. I am not The Doomed Soul. Deal with this and don't make the comparison again. We have a different writing style, different avatar, different name, different everything.

@The Doomed Soul: Don't take this the wrong way, I have nothing against you, I'm just a different kind of evil. A Lawful Evil or at least Neutral Evil to Your HOLY-CRAP-ON-A-STICK-STAB-FIRE-STABBITY!!!!!!!1!1!!!!!eleven!!111!!!!!! Chaotic Evil. Though I really think Richard is far less Chaotic and more capable of planning than most likely give him credit for. He's like the Joker like that.

Care to back that up with facts? See I was under the impression that things wear with age. Even the Pyramids wear, and the more complex our technology gets, the more wear it takes and thus the more maintanence it requires to keep operational. This is just the way it is.

Yes, I know of planned Obscolescence. The problem is things break down or become obsolete on their own, not because some bunch of corporate suits sitting in a board room twirling their mustaches make them go obsolete or break down. Has there been a sharp decline in quality in favor of quantity? Undoubtedly, I've still got some original solid steel Tonka Trucks, you know the kind you could commit small scale Vehicular Homocide with. This is more because the cost of plastic is cheaper than the cost of metal, and the people were too stupid to realize that in the end buying a cheap toy five times is more expensive than buying a good toy once, not some evil corporate plot.

Seriously, Razor Blades that never dull? You do realize that would require Molecules that are so strongly bonded to each other that they cannot move at all in the slightest in relation to their other Molecules right? So long as Molecules can move they will move away, lose their binding, and thus the edge will dull. As for Light Bulbs, we can extend the lifespan, but nothing is eternal. The oldest still burning bulb(*2) is 107 years old, however it uses a heavy Carbon Filament and is only a 4 watt bulb. Modern Light bulbs average at about 50 Watts for the normal ones, up to 100 for the high powered bulbs.

So far this sounds like an 'Evil Capitalist Conspiracy' Argument. Back it up with facts or stop using it.

You also danced around (SEE: Ignored) my question about what happens if a resource runs out. I hate to break it to you, but we don't live in a world of plenty. The world gets smaller every day (actually I think its every quarter second now)(*1) and our already limitted resources get stretched thinner and thinner, even as they run closer and closer to depletion.

Minor Note, I write out your full name, do the same for me. For crying out loud you typed 7 of the letters and left off the last three? That's not even a good abbreviation. If you have to abbrieviate it, I will be referred to as 'Sin'. Thank you.

I wrote the final damning response in my second post;

If there is so much there, and people have enough energy credits to buy more than they could ever want, then the entire system is unnecessary, the energy credits are unnecessary. Everything is unnecessary because there's no point in even keeping track of it since the supply of product could never ever run out. If there isn't enough, the entire system will collapse. Every system of a command economy has collapsed. China hasn't Collapsed because they have a large portion of their country that is not a Command Economy.

Also, earlier in the thread you stated that this entire system was

. Now then, isn't the definition of 'Conserve' essentially to limit something. One moment;

So what is this system, conservation or having more than enough to go around? Because the two aren't exactly compatible. You can have enough to go around while conserving resources, but it tends to require that the resources be made scarce, or that people's access to certain resources be restricted (thus making them effectively scarce), and it limits how much of something someone can have. You have directly stated that this is antithetical to your beloved Technocracy Inc.'s plan. Resolve this conflict.

Also, If I'm the one who is not using logic then how come you are the one resorting nigh upon exclusively to Ad Hominem Attacks and unfounded assertions? Frankly, if these answers exist point me to where they are written on the website. Don't just point to the website, point to specific pages, because after reading every article you have brought forth, I remain unconvinced. And I'm tired of sifting through their pointless assertions that 'Technocracy is Inevitable or the World will DIE!!!!!!' and get annoyed when every other word in an essay seems to be 'control'.

Finally, explain why Social Loafing won't happen.

(1): To anyone who cannot tell, I'm speaking metaphorically in reference to the average world Birth Rate.
(2): Livermore's Centennial Light

 also doomed and sinphan you guys seem to have a lot of pride in being "evil". how does it make you feel when atheist argue that morality (goodness) comes from evolution and logic.
Evil being irrational as it is must make you guys feel out of place here.
 

 

 

 

man you are going all over the place.. there is no encouragement to spend on things you will never use or do not need at all in energy.  But it looks like some things have been revised for a more modern look at technocracy as noted here: 

i learned about technocracy about 20 years ago. so i might need a refresher course on some of the new ideas etc but in that time i have never heard a good argument against it and believe me you guys havent said anything i havent heard. 

people wouldn't own things like boats either. when you wanted to use one you would just go get it from the boat outlet and use it, when you are done you would take it back and they would deal with maintenance. The real value of a boat is in its use not having it sit in your shelter. 

 

 

 

I politely asked you to not call me 'Sinphan' but to either use the full name Sinphanius, or Abbreivate it as 'Sin'. Could you please do this? I'm asking politely.

Interesting, it seems you've just restated a bunch of stuff I said in my post and acted like they were actually arguments for your point.

First up, the Centennial Bulb:

Amazing isn't it. Yet once again, this is a 4 watt bulb with a heavier than average carbon filament. Its designed to be a night light, not for use as a reading light in black as pitch conditions. It has not yet burned out, but it will. Modern Lights are far more powerful than this light, as such they wear down much faster. You notice how in their pictures of the bulb they have a modern Fleurescent Light bulb Blazing alongside it? There's a reason for that. On a minor note, this is an old light bulb, but as it was made in 1901, a full 22 years after the invention of the light bulb(1), it is by no means one of the first.
And I need to learn about science? I know a bit about science, and one of the most basic principles of Science is 'Nothing Lasts Forever'. Can things be made more durable than they are made today? Yes. Is this process easy, not necessarily. Some things are just cheaper to make quicker and with less quality, and that cost is already arived at based on resource availability, labor availability, and the energy that will be required to produce it.

Come to think of it...

I thought I already commented on this.

So I ask again, what happens when a resource runs out? The energy cost to refine or extract the resource has not changed, how will the Technate account for it? Will it arbitrarily limit its use or arbitrarily increase the 'energy cost' needed to obtain this resource. What happens to products produced with this resource, once again, the energy cost won't have changed until the resource runs out, there will just suddenly be less of it to go along. Supply and Demand Economics naturally accounts for this, how will Technocracy?

As for them not talking like the only possibility without a Technate is Death:

If that isn't a bunch of 'join us or die' fear mongering then I really don't know what is. When someone says the line; 'The Lucky ones will not be the survivors' in anything other than a discussion on MAD, I start worrying. Come on, that's more of a scare tactic than Hell is. It also bears a striking resemblance to Soviet anti-Capitalist propoganda.

Frankly, do I think the system needs to change? Yes, but not nearly as much or in the ways that Technocracy proposes. The economy is naturally correcting itself to environmental pressures, and will always adapt to the loss of a resource. All your Technocracy does is control people's economic freedom while accomplishing what a Free Market Economy will likely accomplish anyayws (provided it has at least some government oversight, I am in no way advocating Lassez Faire Capitalism). However I will always place more importance on freedom than on security.

As for conservation and having enough to go around;

I never said you couldn't have enough to go around while conserving resources. I in fact said that you could. However, when you are conserving resources you cannot have a situation where

Thus there would in fact not be enough for everyone to have everything they could want, thus someone could still buy something with their energy credits to give to someone else as a gift/bribe.

In other words, I never said that having enough to go around was antithetical to Conservation, I said Conservation was antithetical to Having Plenty for Everyone. Even if you have enough for everyone to survive, people will still want more, and that means those who can make do with a little less than the average person needs to survive will be able to use what they save to influence those who want more than what the average person needs to survive.

Also, How have you gotten from numerous posts in which I ask you to explain this to me the idea that I somehow 'don't want to understand it'? If you could actually argue your points instead of simply asserting that it works and is right while whining about your precious time, maybe it might help.

In Closing, you need to work on your reading comprehension and actually pay attention to my posts before you try to argue with me about them.

P.S. Clearly you don't understand my definition of Evil.

@ The Doomed Soul: Not sure I would be able to argue for the same evil I think you would argue for, but it still sounds like a fun idea. However if we have a discussion on the merits of evil, I would prefer to not use the official debate forum so others can interject freely in the discussion and because I just really hate the formal debate system. This is not meant to be insulting to the Administrators who made the forum, I think you came up with a beautiful, practical, and efficient system that serves its intended purpose brilliantly. I just don't like it.

(1):History of the Light Bulb

Technocracy is an idealistic and fantasy version of Corporatism. If you like the idea of the government being run by Wall Street, then these are the forms of government for you. In reality, it would be much worse. Scientists are no less susceptible to greed than any other human being - only in the setting of a Technocracy - you have the added conceit of that you're not only the leader - but you are ENTITLED to your status because of your amazing SKILL.

Such a superiority complex mixed with an absolute monopoly over essentially all economic activity will be functionally no different from a totalitarian and fascist state.