刚写一篇issue，大家来看看有什么可以改进的吧~ - ChaseDream

The statement referred to the question who should really be the decisionmakers for policies. From the speaker's point of view, major policy decisionsshould be made by politicians and government experts because they are moresophisticated about these kinds of issues so they can make the right choices.Surely I also agree to the speaker that government experts should make thefinal decision but I can hardly concur with the reason as well as the bridgebetween them.

For the reason part, I cannot support the assertion that those politicalgovernors are more informed than the public, which will lead them to make thechoices that are always good for the society. Surely that most governmentofficers have accepted education about management and politics, so they do knowwhat is good for the society and what isn't. However, they know the rules forgoverning a country mostly from history, which can don't make the right senseto the status quo. Furthermore, the public knows what we people need the most,and government experts are after all a small group of people relative to thewhole society. Therefore, they may not know the public's thoughts. In thissense, politicians and experts cannot be said to be informed and sophisticated.Inversely, the general public knows more about the interest conflictionsbetween them.

Since the public knows more about what are the most needed things, can weeasily conclude that major policies should be made by the general publicinstead of politicians? The answer is of course not. Although it seemsdemocratic, it is actually extreme anarchism which means the existence of asociety will be overturned so we will become beasts who don't care others'emotions. Once we know what is needed by the society, we should ask seasonedgovernment experts to justify or deny it. They will scrutinize the bill andconsider about the marginal social benefits versus costs. The policy can onlybe validated when the total benefits exceed or at least equal to costs to allthe people. And this is why I concur with the claim. As for the inferencebetween the reason and claim in this statement, the speaker simply reckons thatit should always be the people who know the most who are the final bosses.

As what I said above, we need a government to make the ultimate decisionsbecause we can be organized and avoid negative externalities if the society iswell ordered. Surely that some people can come up with examples like Hitler,Stalin or Gaddafi who dominated the society and finally ruined it because ofmismanagement, but we cannot insist it happens categorically. These vividinstances are in the pool of the most extreme bad lessons, they are toocentralized. A healthy and booming society should be well leaded, namely peoplehave their basic human rights, media has the license to publicize correct truthor the markets can be freely function without manipulation and so forth. Basicconditions provided, the communication between public and government back andforth will accelerate the development of the society. And the carefullyconsideration with the final policy decisions will no doubt benefit all of thepeople.

Who can be the boss of policy-making is indeed a significant issue facedby a society. If we have an insightful look at it, we will find that theultimate authority should be back to the leaders and this is why they are"leaders". However, it works not because of their being informed butrather their ability to reconcile conflictions and contradictions. A well-beingand healthy society will soon show up as long as the public bring in a bill andlet the experts to have the final say.