system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I think an ideal society would be run by technocrats that heavily fund education, healthcare, and science. CMV

I know there's a lot of moving parts to this, so I'll try to tackle each part individually. Basically a society set up this way would heavily invest in human capital (education and healthcare) and technology (indirectly through scientific advances). I understand there are marginal diminishing returns to just "throwing money" at something, but I think that holds true for any government spending structure.

Please keep in mind that I'm not calling for bigger government or dramatic structural changes. This is just a redeployment of budget and a different focus.

**1) Education:** This would of course mean education in the traditional sense (stronger public schools, stronger affordable state colleges) with higher paid teachers that are held to higher standards (much like doctors in America's society). But not all people are best utilized by going down the "traditional" book smart path. So education spending would also be put towards technical schools. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or an english professor. You can be a plumber or an electrician or a mechanic. But be sure you'll go to an excellent school and learn a useful, real-world skill.

But what about the "crappy" jobs, like garbage man and fast food worker? There will still be those people who do not do well in learning/applying a technical skill. Those lower tier jobs will still be filled. The point is that an individual still has *access* to an advanced education. Whether they can succeed in that skill is still left to a capitalist way of thinking.

**2) Healthcare:** Again, we're investing in human capital. There's no reason why someone who thinks they have diabetes should avoid expensive monitoring and treatments (or not even know they have it), only to waste away within 10 years, racking up hundreds of thousands of hospital bills. Keeping people healthy and having a *preventive* view of healthcare will keep a society's best resource (people) healthy and ready to work.

But what about supply limits? There's only so many kidneys and hearts that can be transplanted. We can't give it to everyone. I agree, but that aspect would still operate as in a capitalist system. If you have the money you can still buy your way to that access. That aspect is exactly like the current american system (few haves, many have-nots), only the key to this is the simple *preventive* measures (oh you have pneumonia here's the treatment free of charge, now continue being productive, instead of, oh crap gotta work through this sickness, and now I wheeze and can't do hard labor anymore cause i never went to the doctor). 

**3) Science:** This ties everything together really. Better science = better, cheaper healthcare. Better computers, better resources, better education, better everything. If you have any doubts why this should be a priority, read all the applicable commercial things available due to NASA spending alone (hint: it wasn't just tempurpedic). But also think what else science has done for our modern world. Plastic, vaccines, medical procedures, water treatment, agriculture, computers. All game changers.

**4) But why would we "waste money" on X, or Y, or Z?** Well, there's no such thing as "wasting money", just applying funds to different sectors. When NASA spent $2.5 billion on curiosity, they didn't just take that money and put it in a package and send it to Mars, never to be used again. That money paid the scientists, the engineers, the raw material for the rover, the mechanics to upkeep the machinery, the janitors, security officers, the land owners that own the space used for the project, etc, etc, etc. That money is going back to the public as a reinvestment into human capital. The economy is still a free market as it is now. 

**5) What about military? What, we'll just let people invade our precious utopia?** No. Military spending is important. It just shouldn't dominate the budget. Military spending would be substantially less and limited to defending against attacks on our own soil (such as anti-missile defense, coastal defense, local ground troops... and think of how badass it'll be with all the... you guessed it, awesome science and educated and healthy troops we have!). Deterrence programs, such as 24/7 bombers and 24/7 subs with nuclear capability to threaten retaliation in the event of an attack would be fair game.

What about giving foreign aid in the event of another WW2 situation? We can still do that. We have the best science and therefore technology. And we can still deploy money to help allies.

**6) But you mentioned technocrats in your title... how does that come in?** I admit this is probably one that I can budge on, but the theory on this one is that our leaders are experts in their field. Why should we have some out-of-touch politician that got to their position by throwing money at it make policy decision on education when they have zero understanding of it? How about the 60 year old guy who was an amazing teacher for 40 years, understanding the system quite well, and is super educated and healthy and ready to make positive changes based on his real-world experience? Right now we have politicians making decisions based on memos written by staffers backed by a few studies. Why not have the guy reading it be someone who can be critical and truly understand the information?

I know there's a lot I didn't cover but for the most part, for the sake of argument, everything else stays the same. Free markets, capitalism, no bigger government, just a redeployment of budget and better (maybe) politicians. I'd be open to suggestions regarding taxation or wealth distribution. I think current monetary policy is good (not perfect) and that quantitative easing was a positive move.
gpt
Your idea is the rationale behind the various administrative agencies.

Congress can't effectively run a space program, so we'll create NASA.

Congress doesn't know how to improve education, so we'll create the DOE.

Congress doesn't know how to regulate workplace safety, so we'll create OSHA.

Congress doesn't know how to protect the environment, so we'll create the EPA.

Each of these agencies is supposed to be subject experts in their area of expertise to be able to effectively administer and manage the subjects they have authority over.

This hasn't solved the problem of politicians, now we fight about who gets to appoint the leaders of these agencies (President) and how to dole out money to each agency (Congress).  Sometimes we fight about how much authority each agency should have (Congress + President) or whether the agency's actions are within the scope of authority (Judiciary).

We have a system similar to what you have described, and we're no better off for it.  The system doesn't improve efficiency, it creates more avenues for conflict.