Parent addresses this explicitly:

>not because politicians are any better than the average person, but because they tend to have at least a bare minimum of education, access to advisors, some positive incentives -the next election- and no high stakes on the decision like, say, a bar owner

The “no high stakes” part is what’s the most interesting to me, but unfortunately in US national politics I think it tends to not be true. For a single bar, sure, but for massive corporations and industries there is far too much intermingling of private and political incentives.

If a population does not tend to follow expert advice and a politician is incentivized by an upcoming election, it seems more of a negative incentive for them to act according to rationality

Who said they they aren’t forced to. Specific individuals clearly can act reasonably on their own. It’s groups where you need control and systems of government influence those in power. Democracy’s clearly force winning some elections, but even dictatorship means relying on the military, police, and taxation etc.

Who says systems of anarchy wouldn’t also force certain people to do certain things?

They are being forced to - by the threat of being voted out of office.

Then you have an endless circle of force, which doesn’t really explain why governments can work but other systems couldn’t work. Because of course other systems would also contain circles of force.