I would propose a government based on an exactly opposite philosophy.  It would be called "non-expert government."  All the decision making would be based on the will of common, ordinary citizens.  And they would rarely be experts in any specific field which might be influenced by their decisions.  Oh, wait.  That's not called "non-expert government."  It's called "democracy."

Thank you Alan

Experts are ordinary citizens. Most people know a lot about one subject, and that makes them an expert. Genius is not required, just ordinary people talking about what they know about. In a sense Expert Government is more democratic than representative democracy. One does not need an elitist education or membership of a political party to get a job in Expert Government and influence the way the country is run.

When it comes to something important, like running a country, we should only consult people on matters they understand well. This is quite normal in everyday life and works extremely well. For example, most people would not ask a dentist to fix a car, or a plumber for investment advice.

Try to let go of the indoctrination that democracy is the only answer. Certainly democracy is an improvement on authoritarian leadership, but Expert Government is the next step.

For example, most people would not ask a dentist to fix a car, or a plumber for investment advice.

That implies that people are smart enough to take a car to a mechanic, but not smart enough to elect good representatives.  I disagree.  I think most people are smarter than you think.  And, collectively, they are smarter than any expert, or group of experts, you can imagine.

Certainly democracy is an improvement on authoritarian leadership, but Expert Government is the next step.

I disagree.  Your "Expert Government" can only exist if someone decides who is, or is not, an "expert,"  which weeds out anyone not deemed an "expert." This leaves the decision making to those who write the pre-requisites and qualifications determining who is an expert.  Your system would give the power of "who may represent the people" entirely to those who determine "expertice."  This, in my opinion, would inevitably lead to the authoritarian and "elitist" system you think it would avoid.  I would much prefer to trust the wisdom of the entire citizenry than trust some pre-requisite writing weed puller.

Democracy may not be the only answer, but it's still the best.

gebyatt,

I have a question...  Are you an expert in Governmental Systems?  If so, what are your credentials?

Alan

I have the feeling that you are not really interested in an exploration of these ideas.

The point of a forum is to explore ideas.

I suspect you ask the question to try to belittle me.

If I am wrong I apologise.

In case I am wrong I will answer your question:

I am the creator of Expert Government, so I would call myself an expert in it.

I cannot claim to be an expert in all forms of government, few if any could.

However, if you visit my site you can see from my observations that I have made some effort to survey the various forms.

Although I am still researching the subject, I feel that I know enough to draw the distinction between some other forms of government and the one I am developing.

I suspect you ask the question to try to belittle me.

If I am wrong I apologise.

No need to apologise.  I am trying to belittle you.  But I am doing it to make a point.  You see...  If the world adopted your system, but the world did not recognize you as an expert in governmental systems, your system would require us to ignore you.  If you didn't pass muster on the "expert checklist," your opinions would need to be disregarded.

 I am the creator of Expert Government, so I would call myself an expert in it.

That sort of defeats the purpose of your system, dosen't it?  I mean, if anyone can declare themselves a "expert," in any field they wish, then, everyone is a expert in everything.  In order for your system to work, there has to be a system to determine who is an expert, and weed out those who are not.  However, in a democratic society, with freedom of speech as a cornerstone, you have every right to postulate whatever crackpot ideas you wish.  You don't have to be an expert.  All you have to be is a person.   And those who disagree can disagree in a belittling tone if they wish.

I think people often make the mistake of thinking freedom of speech means "all ideas are equally valid."  That is most certainly not the case.  (See any post from Solve.)   Freedom of speech means anyone has the right to voice an opinion, no matter how good, or stupid, it may be.  And anyone else can support, or belittle, the idea, based on how good, or stupid, they believe the idea is.

I did look at your website.  I didn't see anything in it that would cause me to recommend it replacing the U.S. Constitution.

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.

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

By necessity, in a world where nobody can be an expert in everything, because humanity’s knowledge exceeds the amount of what an individual can keep up with.

Experts in one field are necessarily ignorants in other fields. The people who weigh the experts’ opinions should represent the average citizen (or average expert, which is the same) as much as possible.

Alan

If your area of expertise is wildlife management then you are not an expert in forms of government, so your views are worth no more than mine. As you are not an elected representative of the people on this forum, by your own measure I can ignore you. Having a dialogue on a forum also means to treat others with respect if you want it returned. As you find no value in this idea I suggest that you can stop wasting time on this thread.

Momo

As you identify, people cannot be experts in many things. The correct response is not to get a few people together to talk about things they know little or nothing about. Rather, it is to get multiple experts to deliberate only in their specialism and arrange government into many specialisms. There is no such thing as an average citizen, they are all experts. In a sophisticated society we should have sophisticated government. We need to move on from government based on tribal ideas of a few powerful leaders.

If your area of expertise is wildlife management then you are not an expert in forms of government, so your views are worth no more than mine.

Exactly.  And, because your "expertise" is self-proclaimed, yours are worth no more than mine.  But, it is in your "Expert Government" world that only the opinions of experts have value.  In the real world of free speech, any idea has the value it deserves, no matter who proposes it.

As you are not an elected representative of the people on this forum, by your own measure I can ignore you.

Certainly.  I have no problem with that.

Having a dialogue on a forum also means to treat others with respect if you want it returned.

I don't expect you to treat me with respect.

As you find no value in this idea I suggest that you can stop wasting time on this thread.

If you think the only value in a thread comes from agreement with stupid ideas, I am indeed wasting time on this forum.

Hi gebyatt. Couple of points:

I think Alan is correct in pointing out that one glaring weakness in your sysetm is in deciding who is qualified to be an expert. Your web site suggests that government experts would be term limited, but nothing is specified about who picks the experts who will be appointed. And they will be appointed, not voted in, apparently. Which leads to the conclusion that there will be some kind of panel – or several panels – with the power to determine expertise and the power to make appointments. How will the panel(s) be constituted? How will the panelists be chosen? Is there any democracy left in this system, where regular people -- read non-experts --  actually have a voice in who will run government?

I also found this interesting:

 “Expert Government is a single entity with no politicians or parties, just experts and some administrative staff to help them.”

 “Some administrative staff” is another way of saying “bureaucracy.” In present forms of government -- all of them -- they are the real power, the ones who know how to get things done – or not, as they so choose. I suspect your new government will be the same. The “experts” might make decisions, but it will be up to the “administrative staff” – the REAL experts – to get things done.

You should also keep in mind that, in a very real sense, we already have the form of government you describe. In our democracies, elected legislators and agency heads (or in Britain’s case, members of parliament and ministers) rely on smaller committees of members and their staffers who have (or quickly acquire) expertise in their specific spheres of responsibility. Whether Senate or House committees or subcommittees in the U.S. or select committees in the U.K., these panels provide the expertise – or seek expert testimony or contract for expert services and advice – in matters having to do with their areas of governing.

This way, we get the expertise I think we all agree is necessary as well as representative government, which, I’ll  agree with Alan, is vital for the protection of the rights of individual citizens. Under your proposal, “expert” can all too easily be read as, or become, “elites,” who, with no seeming accountability under your system to those they make decisions for, would almost certainly come to abuse that power.

Checks and balances are vital to keeping any government doing its job with a minimum of corruption and absolutism. Who checks your experts? Who do they answer to, if not to voters? What’s to stop a “chief expert” from taking power?

You should also keep in mind that, in a very real sense, we already have the form of government you describe.

Henry,

I thought about pointing out exactly the same thing.  The difference, I think, between the current systems in place, and the system being proposed is the elevation of "experts" from advisors to policy makers.

gebyatt,

I have no problem with anyone proposing a new idea.  But, since you were the one that proposed it, you must be the one who defends it and explains why your idea is better than "the old way" of doing things.  If you can't defend it, and explain it in detail, it's dead in the water.  A "better mousetrap" has to stand up to scrutiny and criticism.  Don't expect automatic approbation.

Alan,

We rarely get new people in the forum that aren't spam and willing to discuss their ideas. Gebyatt obviously has respectable intentions so I was a bit surprised by the way you talked to this person.

Gebyatt,

Calling everyone an expert would change the meaning of that word. Its not going to force everyone to respect each other or agree that we all have suitable credentials for a job in government.

"Open government. Government is made of citizens for citizens, so nothing should be hidden from citizens.

Government is constantly policed for misuse of influence."

That isn't going to work.  You can't have an open government for all citizens and have them constantly policed.

Thank you Candace for your kind words.

I am just about to post a reply to Henry which I hope clears up a few details.

 I wil be interested to hear your comments.

Thank you Henry

My project is not complete, it is a big undertaking. A large amount of complexity exists that is not fully worked out, although more material exists than is on my web site. I added some detailed material in the past and subsequently removed it because incomplete it raises more questions than it answers. Nonetheless, I feel it is important to get feedback on what I have so far to minimise the chance that I have missed something significant. Sadly, when I seek views on forums some seem to prefer to immediately criticise the effort rather than look for value in it.

Experts are appointed in a similar way to a job. The existing experts in the relevant specialism, i.e. the potential colleagues, along with appointments experts (effectively a sub-role of the typical human resources role) review the candidates and employ the one they feel is best suited. This works well enough outside of government. It just needs a little adjustment. Your “regular people” comments make me suspect you are conflating two concepts here. This is quite common. I use the term expert as normally defined. I am not implying an elite or privileged member of society, which for example UK politicians typically are. Civilisation exists because almost everyone is collaborating as a specialist in some field. For example, cleaners are just as much specialists as particle physicists. An expert is simply a specialist who is good in their field. They need not be the best in the world, just good. Almost everyone is a specialist in something, and many are experts. What I am suggesting is that as civilisation based on specialisation works so well, why not use it for government. Indeed, if one were creating a system of government without the knowledge of any existing forms of government, why would anyone do anything differently than copy that very successful model? One might argue for Specialist Government if one wanted to lower the entrance requirements used in Expert Government. Specialist Government would be more egalitarian as it would not exclude anyone. However, I feel that government is important because of its far reaching effects, so asking for good over random ability seems wise. I may be over optimistic about how much difference this would make.

Although Expert Government contains some elements of democracy, so far I have avoided calling it a form of democracy. There are three principle democratic elements. Firstly, people need not join a political party to get into government. As being in government is a job, everyone has the opportunity, and there are very many jobs. Thus more people have direct influence on government policy. As distributing power to many non-elite people is the foundation of democracy, in a sense Expert Government is more democratic than representative democracy. Obviously this is at the cost of losing a vote for a representative. I think what is lost in one vote is miniscule influence over government policy relative to what is gained in wider distribution of power. This combined with a quick turnover of experts brings useful influence to more of the people over time. Secondly, one of the detailed elements not mentioned yet on my web site is a citizen-government contract. This is notionally similar to a constitution/charter/bill of rights. It is not immutable but changes to it may be proposed by government, individuals, and groups. However, due to its importance, proposed changes are voted on by all people. This is designed to make it difficult to change, but prevent inflexibility that would cause it to become anachronistic. Thirdly, another element that is not yet on my web site is an independent organisation that allows people and groups to challenge government if they feel that it has acted against the citizen-government contract. That organisation exists outside of government and the legal system and use of it is free. It only considers matters of conformance to the citizen-government contract. The people who assess the matters are drawn for the populace in a similar way to jurors appointed for court cases.

Your comments on “bureaucracy” are a fair observation. For me at this point I think how day-to-day influence is managed is a detail. I see no reason to believe the balance of power between experts and administrators would be worse under Expert Government than any other form of government. Indeed, as there are many more experts than elected representatives there should be relatively less administration staff and overall the administrators would wield less power.

I partially agree with your point about there being something similar in place in the form of special committees etc. This is a tacit recognition of the value of experts. However, while these experts have influence they do not have authority. Their advice can be ignored by politicians with other agendas. In addition, I would also suggest that some of the advisors you are talking about have their own agendas. They are very different from someone selected from the general public with an egalitarian agenda.

How can you tell that experts would abuse power any more than the politicians? Many people are suspicious about the motives of politicians. I certainly believe that many are motivated by power and wealth. The experts in Expert Government have less power to abuse and for a limited time, further they are actively policed. People have an independent organisation to use to correct abuse, and open access to all information created in the course of government activity. A very important feature for limiting misuse of power is not having hierarchical power structures, which concentrates power in the hands of few and inevitably leads to abuse. Expert government is specialism structured. Influence is limited to one’s specialism and no expert has more influence than another. The importance of not having hierarchical power structures was recognised in the commune movement that was so popular in the US in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Unfortunately, while they had no hierarchical power structures they also had nothing to prevent abuse of personal influence. In specialism structured government members of a specialism may ask a policing unit to moderate an expert that they feel is exercising undue influence. Policing is also proactive, visiting specialisms even when not invited.

This is not about demolishing democracy. It is a rational re-examination of the design of government. Having looked at civilisation for examples of successful paradigms I found an idea that is worthy of consideration, simply because it is so successful.

Dear gebyatt

I love your ideas. I highly recommend to read the following articles. Please let me know what you think about. Thank you :-)

The Concept of a Pan World

http://www.aussenpolitikforum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2117

Politics in the Light of Initiatic Science

http://www.aussenpolitikforum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2109

Synarchy vs Anarchy

http://www.aussenpolitikforum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3924

When love comes, there will be no more religion 

« It is when one has no more love that laws and rules are needed; and even at this moment, laws and rules do not serve in much. As long as there is no love, there will be religions which will never be able to bring the human beings towards God. But when love will come, there will be no more religion. Religion will become internal and will show itself under shape of kindness, brilliance, sacrifice, sweetness and light. It is when love left the humanity that religion has come to compensate for it. But when love will come, religion will fade because it will have entered again the heart of the man. » 

Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov

I would appreciate more comments just on the principal idea used in Expert Government. To refresh your memory:

Civilisation has advanced in a large part due to specialisation of human activity. As this paradigm is so successful I suggest government comprises only specialists. As government has far reaching effects, Specialist Government should be improved by only using experts, and so the idea became Expert Government. I may be overoptimistic about the value of my trade of some egalitarianism for ability, by moving from specialists who have random ability to experts with good or better ability, but I note that employers generally try to pick the best candidate.

Gebyatt,

How can you tell that experts would abuse power any more than the politicians? Many people are suspicious about the motives of politicians. I certainly believe that many are motivated by power and wealth. The experts in Expert Government have less power to abuse and for a limited time, further they are actively policed.

Why for a limited time? Since the decisions these people are making will affect all of our lives, they will have power. There will always be interest in influencing those decisions.

~

A very important feature for limiting misuse of power is not having hierarchical power structures, which concentrates power in the hands of few and inevitably leads to abuse. Expert government is specialism structured. Influence is limited to one’s specialism and no expert has more influence than another.

But they absolutely will. Trying to run an organization without anyone in charge is minimally an invitation for endless bickering. This government will never get anything done. Out of necessity leaders emerge.

~

 People have an independent organisation to use to correct abuse, and open access to all information created in the course of government activity.
 
How do the people correct abuse without a vote?

The importance of not having hierarchical power structures was recognised in the commune movement that was so popular in the US in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Unfortunately, while they had no hierarchical power structures they also had nothing to prevent abuse of personal influence. In specialism structured government members of a specialism may ask a policing unit to moderate an expert that they feel is exercising undue influence. Policing is also proactive, visiting specialisms even when not invited.

 What sort of influence would be considered criminal? If one person in these specializations stands out above the rest what power are you giving competitors or even jealousy? Who watches over the police?

Would the police be the independent organization the people use to correct abuse - the one you also said was outside of the legal system and free? The lack of individual personalities being recognized legally as authorities doesn't remove the potential for corruption.

You're replacing the ability to vote and the presence of authority figures in government with excessive policing. This would turn your expert government into a front for a police state which couldnt possibly be more democratic than representative democracy.

Thanks for taking time to look at these ideas Candace

You ask “Why for a limited time?”

I am suggesting that an expert has a limited tenure before being replaced by another expert. This serves two purposes. Firstly, this reduces the opportunity to become corrupt. There is an assumption here that the appointments committees have done a good job in ensuring that candidates do not enter the job already corrupt. Secondly, it gives more people a chance to influence government policy. In doing so it is enhancing the democratic principle of distributing influence/power. One of my observations is that the influence the average person has over government policy in one vote every few years is negligible. It is better to drop votes and politicians in favour of more ordinary people having a direct influence on policy by taking jobs in government. This is partly done by subdividing government into more roles, but also by changing the people in them often. You could look at this as an improved balance of power. In a representative democracy almost all the power is wielded by a few politicians. Very little power is then distributed among everyone else as votes. In my scheme all power is distributed to many more people than there are politicians, but at the cost of votes of negligible value. This is closer in an important sense to the most fundamental democratic principle of influence in the hands of the ordinary people. I know that some people will say the vote is not worthless as it excludes poor politicians and parties from government. However, there is plenty of evidence that it does not do a good job, such as UK politicians in prison for corruption, and effectively a choice between just two parties for government. There is a constant sequence of problems caused by incompetence that risks throwing the UK into a disaster situation. It is only a matter of time before it happens. We should act to change this crazy system before it happens, not after. We need evolution, not revolution.

You also ask “How do the people correct abuse without a vote?”

Policing units are empowered to investigate and remove members of government who are abusing their influence. Anyone from the government or outside of government can request that a member of government be investigated. People can check that members of government are acting correctly by examining the meetings and output of government, as all activity in government is open to examination by anyone. Multiple independent policing units divide this important power up, so that even if corruption gets into one policing unit, multiple others can be asked to check it. Many detailed rules must apply to policing units to ensure their integrity, but this scheme is less corruptible than the current system where politicians are just about untouchable. UK politicians even have parliamentary privilege to escape the laws that apply to the rest of us. The current system certainly is very much more open to abuse.

You ask “What sort of influence would be considered criminal?”

A lot of detailed guidelines need to be created on this. My current thinking is that a range of measures are required from feedback that behaviour is unsuitable, for example being seen as aggressive or overly assertive, thought issuing guidance and reprimands, eventually culminating in exclusion or even criminal proceedings. I believe in early and staged intervention rather than late and severe intervention. Sometimes people are not aware that they are not acting as they should be, and the feedback will stop an escalation to a more problematic scenario. As described above, the police are subdivided into separate units that can be called upon to moderate each other. One of the important principles of policing is well defined and narrow influence. This helps prevent them from becoming corrupt. So the police I have been discussing so far only deal with matters of behaviour of government members. I see a role for a distinct policing unit to enforce changes in policy that does not conform to the citizen-government contract. They would have power to dismiss all members of a specialism that were shown to have created policy that was intentionally against the contract. At the other end of the scale they could simply require a policy to be changed where for example a technical infraction occurred.

You say “… replacing the ability to vote and the presence of authority figures in government … would turn your expert government into a front for a police state which couldnt possibly be more democratic than representative democracy.”

Remember these policing units only have influence over members of government and in very well defined and narrow circumstances. They have no influence over anyone else. It is essential to restrict their power to prevent any abuse of it. They are distinct from the criminal police and have no influence outside of government. I certainly want to avoid creating an authoritarian police state. I have an egalitarian and liberal agenda.

gebyatt,

I recently told my kids (I have two teenagers and two that are almost there) that the computers are going to be shut off during the day this summer. I'm also starting something next week that is going to be time consuming, so I hope to get back to this by Sunday night, or more like early Monday morning (I'm in PST)

Thanks for taking the time to articulate your reasoned views Candace.

I think the problem with your concept is more complicated because excluding economics which truly should never be moderated from a central location, nothing that a government faces should be a known. That means you would not know what experts to have in place.

If a country is ran correctly every single situation is new, and be definition no expert could be found. Government in its oldest meaning was spiritual leading. Over time our dictionaries have recorded as a more literal controlling of people but it was never intended to be that. I bring that up because no government has civil duty, mean they should not be involved in things like social programs or the like.

In the real use a Governments job is to provide military security, make certian that a predeterminded social morality can be maintained (although it should not be them maintaining it) and that a normalized form of trade is established and maintained. There is really is very little need for an experts in a government that sticks to its purpose.

But, that never happens does it? So we need to realistic here. The worst case situation would be if all the people making decisions felt they were better at it than everyone else, and were in a position to hide any evidence to prove otherwise. Where I believe your idea sounds great, when I think about human nature I can see where it would have no chance of long term success.

I suspect this is another problem - and do not take this as a slight on the UK. (I have lived here half my life). I suspect you have a sort of democracy in mind but unless I am wrong you are from the UK and have never lived in a democracy or encountered one. The UK is definitely not a democracy and does not even uphold democratic ideals - although it does pretend too. You could look to the US, which definitely does uphold democratic ideals but oddly is a federal republic which means the powers that be have far too much power.

I think your idea is a good starting point but in truth is just a reflection of exactly what the US has right now. Legally their politicans are restricted in everything they do - if it is not defined as their job in the constitution they can not do it. That is legally. In practice their politicans do anything they want and that is exactly what I mean by human nature. Also, worth nothing that their politicans all rely on experts in the field for every decision

So in realtiy your Expert government is just the US Federal Republic but I guess more regulated, and minus a President.

Thank you Clayton

I could respond to each of your points, but I want to discuss the critical point. Details can be adjusted.

Many governments are conspicuously failing to manage their countries.

I suggest that while issues like corruption remain very important due to shortcomings in human nature, there is another growing problem that dwarfs them all.

Civilisation is much more complex now than it was when existing forms of government were devised, and it will get progressively more complex. Consequently, failures in managing countries will become more common and more severe unless government is rethought to accommodate that progression. The obvious answer is all around us. Civilisation advances because of the specialisation of people. Government too should be based on that undeniably successful principle.

Check out the Thomas Thwaites presentation on TED http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_thwaites_how_i_built_a_toaster_from_scratch.html. In less than eleven entertaining minutes he demonstrates what a powerful concept this is.

Expert Government?

Experts tend to be those that agree with your opinion. the rest are idiots. Look at OD.

Thank you Ttrryosborn

I recognise what you say about some of the people who comment on OD, but by saying that you sound like a person who must be more open-minded. In which case consider my ideas fairly.

There are two important questions arising from your statement:

[1] Are experts the best we can do?

[2] How do we appoint the correct experts?

Consider [1]

Partitioning government into many specialisms with many collaborating specialists in each is the critical factor.

Example: I imagine that if you wanted something important done well that you would seek out an expert. If you needed dental treatment you would go to a dentist, you would not seek out a geezer who tries his hand a lot of things and does not know much about any of them, but says he really wants to have a go as long as you pay him very well. Politicians are geezers.

I think events are demonstrating the problems with trusting these geezers - politicians. They are making a mess of running our complex societies.

The old issue of ensuring corruption is checked was improved by earlier forms of democracy and is still important. Indeed, my proposal makes every effort to reduce the chance for corruption from the levels we have now. However, the increasingly important issue is that politicians are ineffectual because of the design of government. Nobody, regardless how clever they are, can make sensible policy decisions on such a broad range of complex issues. We need many experts in each of many narrow specialisms collaborating to develop the best policy.

The longer we wait to do this, the bigger the problems will get. The trend is already obvious. Society is never going to get simpler, so the problem will get worse.

Consider [2]

If we accept that partitioning government into many specialisms is the critical factor, employing any specialists will be enough to improve government. However, we should aspire to use experts, not just specialists.

I propose that selection is just like interviewing people for a job. Find out their experience and references. This is done by the people from the specialism one will be working in. They are best placed to understand if a candidate knows what they are talking about. Naturally, there will be a need for rules that prevent people being employed that are known in any way to the existing members of the specialism. These are details that can be improved over time. It is important not to let this selection issue prevent the important idea of specialism structured government.

Take a look at the site for more details:

http://expertgovernment.org.uk/

'Otherwise it (Expert Government) is dogma free to enable it to adapt to changing needs and circumstances.'

A worthy goal for sure, but a highly naive one, dogma, prejudice, bias, etc., is a part of the human condition. Curious that you don't understand this considering you are trying to craft the next 'evolutuionary' step in human affairs.

Your analogy of not seeing a dentist for repairs to your car is a faulty one. Car repair and dentistry are both fields in which there are clearly defined steps for sucessfully carrying out car repairs or dentistry. Government is not like that, what works in one place may not work in another. Good Governance also requires competing ideas and a environment where anyone can put forward an idea, not just 'experts' (whatever that is) where ideas would become homoginized.

'Civilisation exists because almost everyone is collaborating as a specialist in some field. '

The clashing of ideas had been more benificial to our civilization that collaborating.

'cleaners are just as much specialists as particle physicists. An expert is simply a specialist who is good in their field.''

This is perhaps one of the most foolish things I have ever read on these boards.