第一篇习作Issue45，欢迎拍砖互改~【第二稿】

figuechenUID: 2850619

非常感谢各位的意见~已经根据意见修改了一遍，第二稿见8楼~

Issue45——"Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carrying out the will of the people whom they serve."

   Should government officials rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carrying out the will of the people whom they serve? I agree insofar with the assertion that government officials ought not to carry out whatever will their taxpayers order. At the same time, however, I cannot accept the claim that government officials should rely completely on their own judgment instead of reasonable will of the people.
    One reason why I believe the government officials should not obey all the will of the people is that it is not feasible. It is common sense that each hierarchic class has its own interest, leading to varieties of wills which might be contradictory on the same topic, and therefore it is impossible that the government officials choose not to stand on a certain side. Before the U.S. Civil War began, the factory owners in the north were badly in want of freed slaves as workers while the landowners in the south had the intention of keeping the slaves to accomplish farm works. The two opposite wills cannot be carried out by the government officials obviously, resulting in the Civil War. John Locke, the English philosopher, assumed in his work that “people establish a civil society for resolving conflicts in a civil way with the help from the government”, while another English philosopher Thomas Hobbes pointed out in his work Leviathan that “There should be a strong government to avoid discord and civil war”.
    In addition, even assuming that the will of different kinds of people is harmony, we can still find out that the will of the people might be in conflict with the outlook of the government. A government takes charge in the military and social security aspects, whose work may not be easily accepted and understood by most people. Take the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War for an example; the political leaders are quite satisfied that political strategy to control the mid-east was carried into execution while the people care more about the casualty and the costs. As Clausewitz explained in On War “War is a continuation of a political commerce and merely a real political instrument”. In the game of politics, the majority of people might seem a little short-sighted compared with the long-term plan of the government officials.
    However, it does not mean that the government officials can sit in their offices and make whatever decisions they like. One of the reasons is that decisions made by officials without surveying or concerning the demands of people are usually unsound. Louis XVI, the French King, ignored the public concerns about reducing the legal rights of a King and rejected to accept the idea that all men are equal, which was declared as the cloture of the French Estates-General, directly causing the occurrence of the French Revolution. We cannot deny that it is obeying the will of some people that survives the Kingdom of England and it is the ignorance of the will of people that Louis XVI was executed and sentenced to death.
    Another reason why the will of people should be the reference to the decisions made by officials is that being accustomed to adopting policies with fully their own will would probably induce bureaucracy and autocracy. Hitler grabbed the power to do whatever he wants, and gambled the safety and prospers of Germany in a worldwide war. His deeds brought disaster to millions of innocent people, which forced people to meditate how to avoid autocracy. Perhaps   concerning the will of people when making decisions is an effective way for the officials. According to the French philosopher Rousseau, people form a government to protect them at the cost of some freedom, which means that people have the rights to confine what the government is doing and therefore can avoid bureaucracy and autocracy.
    In sum, it is true that the government officials should be given the freedom to have their judgment, which may disobey the will of some people, however it is also concerned that the officials should rely on the will of people instead of completely their own judgment. The government may have some privilege, which must be under the supervision of both Congress and the people.

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

zhanwei

I will read through your issue, around 7am, July 13, eastern time.  :lol ...

一米距离UID: 2170027

Issue45——"Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carrying out the will of the people whom they serve."

   Should government officials rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carrying out the will of the people whom they serve? I agree insofar with the assertion that government officials ought not to carry out whatever will their taxpayers order. At the same time, however,(just choose one is ok.) { I cannot accept the claim that government officials should rely completely on their own judgment instead of reasonable will of the people. (I prefer to use “…officials should rely on their own judgment completely while ignore the reasonable will of the people.”) } à我觉得你第一次用了否定的语气说政府不该怎么怎么样，第二次是否用肯定的语气会好一点？个人意见哈。e.g nonetheless, the government should take the reasonable will of the people into consideration while not rely on their own judgment completely.)

    One reason why I believe the government officials should not obey all the will of the people is that it is not feasible. It is a common sense that each hierarchic class has its own interest, leading to varieties of wills which might be contradictory on the same topic, and therefore it is impossible that the government officials choose not to stand on a certain side. Before the U.S. Civil War began, the factory owners in the north were badly in want of freed slaves as workers while the landowners in the south had the intention of keeping the slaves to accomplish farm works. The two opposite wills cannot be carried out by the government officials obviously, resulting in the Civil War. so it resulted in the …..i thought maybe the object of your sentence is the government could be much better àemphasize. John Locke, the English philosopher, assumed in his work that “people establish a civil society for resolving conflicts in a civil way with the help from the government”,(u quoted the original words or just slipped away from your memory? I am willing to use ‘of’ ) while another English philosopher Thomas Hobbes pointed out in his work Leviathan that “There should be a strong government to avoid discord and civil war”. pls add to several sentences for further analysis, otherwise it could be just the simple list of others’ points while not yours.

    In addition, even assuming that the will of different kinds of people is in
harmony, (harmony is noun. so u need a ‘in’, and it is a little weird to say like that, how about ‘compatible’? )we can still find out that the will of the people might be in conflict with the outlook of the government. (sorry, I am afraid I can’t understand u).
A government takes charge in the military and social security aspects, whose work may not be easily accepted and understood by most people. Take the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War for an example; the examples
the political leaders are quite satisfied that political strategy to control the mid-east was carried into execution be satisfied with, are quite satisfied with the political strategy which was carried into execution (in order ) to control the mid-east,
while the people care more about the casualty and the costs. As Clausewitz explained in On War “War is a continuation of a political commerce and merely a real political instrument”. In the game of politics, the majority of people might seem a little short-sighted compared with the long-term plan of the government officials. ( I don’t think this is a good example to support you coz most people claim it is not wise to have fire in Irag and Afghanistan)
    However, it does not mean that the government officials can sit in their offices and make whatever decisions they like. One of the reasons is that decisions made by officials without surveying investigating
or concerning the demands of people are usually unsound. Louis XVI, the French King, ignored the public concerns about reducing the legal rights of a King and rejected to accept the idea or: didn’t admit
that all men are equal, (heheh, I am not sure it is easily to get misunderstanding or not, how about ‘everyone is equal?” ) which was declared as the cloture of the French Estates-General, directly causing the occurrence of the French Revolution directly. We cannot deny that it is obeying the will of some people that would
survives the Kingdom of England and it is the ignorance of the will of people that Louis XVI was executed and sentenced to death.
that lead Louis XVI to death.
    Another reason why the will of people should be the reference to of the decisions made by officials is that being accustomed to adopting policies with fully their own will would probably induce bureaucracy and autocracy. Hitler grabbed the power to do whatever he wants, and gambled the safety and prospers of Germany in a worldwide war. His deeds brought disaster to millions of innocent people, it is too chinglish, he just got lots of innocent people involved,
which forced people to meditate how to avoid autocracy. Perhaps   concerning the will of people when making decisions is an effective way for the officials. Perhaps concerning the will of people is an effective way for the officials to make a decision. According to the French philosopher Rousseau, people form a government to protect them at the cost of some freedom, 在牺牲一定自由基础上，人们建立一个政权去保护他们？I can’t find any causal relationship between this sentence and the latter words. which means that people have the rights to confine what the government is doing and therefore can avoid bureaucracy and autocracy.
    In sum, it is true that the government officials should be given the freedom to have their judgment, which may disobey the will of some people, however it is also concerned that the officials should rely on the will of people instead of completely their own judgment. The government may have some privilege, which must be under the supervision of both Congress and the people.(not a very proper word here)

overall, i think u did a good job in giving lots of examples to support you, just pay special attention to the chinglish next time and u will do much better and better. Cheer up~

figuechenUID: 2850619

Issue45——"Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carrying out the will of the people whom they serve."

   Should government officials rely on their own ...
一米距离 发表于 2010-7-13 13:03

非常感谢你的修改建议啊~伊拉克和阿富汗战争的例子我写的时候也觉得不是太妥当，但苦于没有其它的例子，后来看别人的文章上用了美国购买阿拉斯加的例子，觉得很好，值得参考~

再次感谢你的帮助~我会认真根据大家的意见来修改的~

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

1, 拿civil war 爆发的起因 奴隶制度来举例是否适当。civil会爆发可能是因为南北的利益不能调和，而且也跟当时宪法一方面鼓吹人人平等，一方面承认奴隶制，造成了矛盾无法用法律解决。当时的政府起码支持了一方，而且奴隶主和北方的资本家自己本身很多就是goverment official。。。他们listen to了自己的will 跟人民的will是什么 好像没怎么讨论。
2，iraq war 被很多人认为是一个错误。而且举这种sensitive的例子，万一rater是反战的，会引起反感。伊拉克战争不像civil war，它本身不是正义的。能不支持最好不要支持。
3，加强王权的决定的例子，我也觉得看着比较诡异。主要是你的论证TS是 usually unsound。封建专制和奴隶制一样，这不仅仅是unsound和listen to people‘ will的问题，而是制度的问题。把论证的重点写成，不听从人民的意见，会遭到反抗，和其它严重的后果是不是更直接一点。

觉得你的文章还是写的不错的，不过前两段写得比较有问题，例子的问题，如果没有合适的，可以纯说理。用了不合适的例子比不用更伤害论证。不是每段都一定要有名的例子的。

PS.，"All men are created equal ” 人人生来平等。别的句子都有点奇怪。

figuechenUID: 2850619

1, 拿civil war 爆发的起因 奴隶制度来举例是否适当。civil会爆发可能是因为南北的利益不能调和，而且也跟当时宪法一方面鼓吹人人平等，一方面承认奴隶制，造成了矛盾无法用法律解决。当时的政府起码支持了一方，而且 ...
lingli_xiaoai 发表于 2010-7-13 18:25

1.我干脆直接拿掉了Civil War这几个词，就直接说南北利益无法调和，所以政府无法执行所有群众的意见。这样说理应该说得通了吧？
2.Iraq War我换掉了~
3.Chingish我会注意的~不过平时受毒害太深了哈，还是要和大家多多交流，才能发现这些问题~

Really appreciate your advice~

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

其实1的例子很多。。。比如什么纳税的问题，社会福利的问题，对外政策的问题。可以说出了统治阶级以外，人民群众本身也分成各种social 阶层，不可能有一致的利益。goverment的存在本身就是为了调和人民利益的冲突，解决社会资源应该怎么分配的问题，也就是说为别人做决定，大家都不要吵了，这种职能本身就决定了他们要有能力权衡形式，做出自己的决定。就跟judge一样，不管双方的律师怎么说，做决定的是它，这个决断力是goverment official 必须有的。

figuechenUID: 2850619

这是文章的第二稿，欢迎各位大大接着就不合适的地方拍砖~

Issue45——"Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carrying out the will of the people whom they serve."


    A society is like a ship. The captain should rely on his own judgment while he has to depend on his sailors. Similarly, the government officials should make their own decision while they ought not to turn a deaf ear to the people.
    There are two reasons why I believe the government officials should not obey all the wills of the people. The first one is that it is not feasible. It is common sense that each hierarchic class has its own interest, leading to varieties of wills which might be contradictory on the same topic, and therefore it is impossible that the government officials choose not to stand on a certain side. Before the U.S. Civil War began, the factory owners in the north were badly in want of freed slaves as workers while the planters in the south had the intention of keeping the slaves to do farm works. The two opposite wills cannot be carried out by the government officials at the same time. John Locke, the English philosopher, assumed in his work that “people establish a civil society for resolving conflicts in a civil way with the help from the government”. It is the government’s duty to eliminate the improper wills and carry out the feasible ones, just like the function of a judge in a court.
The second reason is that even assuming that the will of different kinds of people is harmonious, we can still find out that the majority of people might seem a little short-sighted compared with the long-term plan of the government officials. For instance, William H Seward, the U.S. Secretary of State, made the decision to purchase Alaska from Russia in 1867. Although the price seems to be amazingly low today, his decision has been fulminated by most Americans. However, he became a hero several decades later since plenty of oil has been found there. We can see from this example that most people can see only an inch of light towards some of the national affairs while the government officials usually have an outlook for them.
However, it does not mean that the government officials can sit in their offices and make whatever decisions they like. First reason is that decisions made by officials without investigating or concerning the demands of people might not be accepted by the people. Louis XVI, the French King, ignored the public concerns about reducing the legal rights of a King and denied the idea that all men are created equal, causing the occurrence of the French Revolution directly. We cannot gainsay that it is obeying the wills of some people that survive the Kingdom of England and it is the ignorance of the wills of people that sentences Louis XVI to death.
    The second reason why the will of people should be the reference to the decisions made by officials is that being accustomed to adopting policies with completely their own will would probably induce bureaucracy and autocracy. For example, Hitler grabbed the power to do whatever he wants, and gambled the safety and prospers of Germany in a worldwide war. He brought millions of innocent people involved, which forced people to meditate how to avoid autocracy. Perhaps concerning the will of people is an effective way for the officials to make a decision. In order to avert bureaucracy and autocracy, it is necessary to have government officials turn their ears to our people before they make up their mind to do something.
    In sum, it is true that the government officials should be given the freedom to have their own judgment, which may disobey the wills of some people. However it is also concerned that the officials should rely on the wills of people instead of completely their own judgment. The government may have some privilege, but it must be under the supervision of our people.

lingli_xiaoaiUID: 172506

The two opposite wills cannot be carried out by the government officials at the same time. needs can not be satisfied by xxx 这样说好一点，carried out 更像是执行一种政策或者一个行动 John Locke, the English philosopher, assumed in his work that “people establish a civil society for resolving conflicts in a civil way with the help from the government”. 这句话在这个段落，用的很恰当It is the government’s duty to eliminate the improper wills and carry out the feasible ones, just like the function of a judge in a court. 这句话有点不对，eliminate 是消灭，即使政府不支持，也没办法消灭愿望本身，你消灭的是争端。make a final decision for people have conflict interests like the judge who has a final say of whether a suspect is guilty or not, thus end the endless arguments between two sides 之类的话，当然我这句话可能有些语法错误。领会精神就行了。

we can still find out that the majority of people might seem a little short-sighted compared with the long-term plan of the government officials. 你compare 对象是人对人 主语对主语 short-sighted是形容词 不能和plan这个名词compare啊。。所以是with government officials who .......... 这个简单的语法问题比较容易错，要注意

暂时改这些。。。表杨一下努力修改的同学 至少我看的前三段，比起原文论证上有了很大的进步。
现在没时间看后面的，以后再说吧。要干活去了。

figuechenUID: 2850619

The two opposite wills cannot be carried out by the government officials at the same time. needs can not be satisfied by xxx 这样说好一点，carried out 更像是执行一种政策或者一个行动 John Locke, the En ...
lingli_xiaoai 发表于 2010-7-13 19:44

非常感谢进一步的修改意见~我会认真地再仔细修改的~