Now he doesn't actually make the concession I think it's consistent of what he says, that he ought to concede that direct democracy might be better at improving the citizens, because after all the citizens have much more to do on in service of the state  but his view is that direct democracy has the opposite failure to guardianship, that while it might be better at improving citizens it's absolutely hopeless in managing the affairs of the state and his reasons for that is that we need experts with experience in order to carry out the affairs of government and although these people ought ultimately to be held responsible to the people, people shouldn't sit in judgment  them in every one of their decisions.