David Weigel doesn't seem to know many engineers:
The introduction of formal processes for evaluating the effects of public policy and law, and a maintenance process for fixing the problems that policies and laws cause. A government run more by engineers than lawyers is one that is much more likely to consider reviewing the effectiveness and side-effects of policy and law to be an intrinsic and mandatory part of government.
Skepticism toward a lot of the sophistic arguments that lawyers often find convincing. A government run more by engineers than lawyers would be more inclined to ridicule and drum out those who draft such absurd and non-sensical arguments as the majority ruling in Kelo v. New London than to accept their arguments. In short, engineers are far less prone than lawyers to accepting tortured, bullshit arguments that are just exercises in seeing how far you can twist definitions and logic.
While it may be true that engineers are used to mechanical systems and software, that doesn't mean that they are less capable of drafting consistent and good laws and policies than lawyers. In fact, one of the major problems with government today is that the laws are often so inconsistent and poorly thought out. This comes from the tendency of lawyers to be educated in studying cases, what engineers call "use cases," but not to be educated to have to maintain a holistic understanding of the system as a whole. To engineers, the problems with the laws is predictable. It's what software engineers call "hacking," aka, flying by the seat of your pants while writing code, rather than doing a systematic study of what problems need to be fixed.
A government dominated by engineers is not the same thing as the sort of debacle that was shown in the Simpsons when Mensa took over Springfield. Let's not forget that engineers are a special subset of people with above average IQs. More specifically, a subset whose intelligence is focused on systematic problem-solving. We really could use a lot more of that sort of intelligence in Congress, the Presidency and the Judiciary.
I'd be lying if I claimed not to cringe at some of this. The "rule by engineers" concept seems periously close to the Simpsons episode where MENSA takes over Springfield. (It ended badly.)There are other advantages to having a government run more by engineers than lawyers besides "more results than rhetoric." Just off the top of my head they are:
The introduction of formal processes for evaluating the effects of public policy and law, and a maintenance process for fixing the problems that policies and laws cause. A government run more by engineers than lawyers is one that is much more likely to consider reviewing the effectiveness and side-effects of policy and law to be an intrinsic and mandatory part of government.
Skepticism toward a lot of the sophistic arguments that lawyers often find convincing. A government run more by engineers than lawyers would be more inclined to ridicule and drum out those who draft such absurd and non-sensical arguments as the majority ruling in Kelo v. New London than to accept their arguments. In short, engineers are far less prone than lawyers to accepting tortured, bullshit arguments that are just exercises in seeing how far you can twist definitions and logic.
While it may be true that engineers are used to mechanical systems and software, that doesn't mean that they are less capable of drafting consistent and good laws and policies than lawyers. In fact, one of the major problems with government today is that the laws are often so inconsistent and poorly thought out. This comes from the tendency of lawyers to be educated in studying cases, what engineers call "use cases," but not to be educated to have to maintain a holistic understanding of the system as a whole. To engineers, the problems with the laws is predictable. It's what software engineers call "hacking," aka, flying by the seat of your pants while writing code, rather than doing a systematic study of what problems need to be fixed.
A government dominated by engineers is not the same thing as the sort of debacle that was shown in the Simpsons when Mensa took over Springfield. Let's not forget that engineers are a special subset of people with above average IQs. More specifically, a subset whose intelligence is focused on systematic problem-solving. We really could use a lot more of that sort of intelligence in Congress, the Presidency and the Judiciary.
I agree, Mike, but still, the thought of a Configuration Control Board for changing a law doesn't quite sit right with me... :)
I am quite skeptical of any system of government that has a "ruling class." (yes, that would include many governments that exist today).
As am I, however I think that a government run primarily by engineers has the potential to be significantly less evil than one run by lawyers, if for no other reason that much of a lawyer's livelihood comes from making the laws so cumbersome that lawyers are needed.
Hey, it beats the normal parliamentary procedures that lawyers set up for analyzing the problems and working around them...
It would be fun to see the political parties change from Republican & Democrat to Electrical and Mechanical...and don't get me started on those civil guys...
:)
You'd have an instant multiparty system:
-Electrical
-Mechanical
-Atomic
-Civil
-Software
-Systems
Though I think that you'd want experienced software engineers who have a lot of experience developing object-oriented software hierarchies to model your constitution and legal system. Software engineers would be the best at that, IMNSHO.