I will give you a specific

I will give you a specific example.  I am an expert in a certain field (wildlife management).  I have the degrees and certifications to vouch for my "expertise."  And, I work for the government.  And, I play a large role in setting laws that deal with hunting in my state.  Under your system, my opinions should be passed into law unfettered by public input, because I am the expert.  However, our democractic system does not work that way.  My opinions are run through groups of other experts, then through the public, and finally, through a political commission (consisting of people who are businessmen, lawyers, doctors, or whatever) in a public forum where everyone has the right to speak.  And, the commission passes the hunting laws, after listening to both experts AND the public.  The commission has no expertise in biology.  They are not experts.  They are, however, representatives of the people.  I applaud that system.  No one should take my expert opinion and turn it directly into law.  There are other factors which need to be considered.  That is where the public input is needed.

One more little tidbit...  Don't think that all "experts" agree at all times.  They don't.

Reply

  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <h2> <h3> <div> <span> <blockquote> <!--break--> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr> <br> <table> <td> <tr> <img> <map>
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.