Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs
Futarchy: 對(duì)價(jià)值投票檐迟，對(duì)賭信念
by Robin Hanson
This short "manifesto" describes a new form of government. In "futarchy," we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs. Elected representatives would formally define and manage an after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare.
這段簡(jiǎn)短的“聲明”描述了一種新的管理方式。在“futarchy”中码耐，我們可以對(duì)價(jià)值投票追迟，對(duì)賭信念。當(dāng)選代表對(duì)國(guó)民福利伐坏，會(huì)在形式上規(guī)定和管理“事后”措施，同時(shí)市場(chǎng)投機(jī)者會(huì)說出期待那種策略來提升國(guó)民財(cái)富握联。

Democracy seems better than autocracy (i.e., kings and dictators), but it still has problems. There are today vast differences in wealth among nations, and we can not attribute most of these differences to either natural resources or human abilities. Instead, much of the difference seems to be that the poor nations (many of which are democracies) are those that more often adopted dumb policies, policies which hurt most everyone in the nation. And even rich nations frequently adopt such policies.

民主看上去比獨(dú)裁（例如：國(guó)王和獨(dú)裁者）更好桦沉，但是它仍然有問題。當(dāng)今社會(huì)金闽，國(guó)家財(cái)富包括不同的眾多方面纯露，但是我們不能歸類這些不同要么為自然資源，要么為人類的能力代芜。而是埠褪，多數(shù)的不同看來是貧窮的國(guó)家（許多是民主國(guó)家）是更多的采取了愚蠢的政策，這些政策傷害了國(guó)家中的多數(shù)個(gè)體挤庇。甚至是富有的國(guó)家也會(huì)經(jīng)常采取這樣的政策钞速。

These policies are not just dumb in retrospect; typically there were people who understood a lot about such policies and who had good reasons to disapprove of them beforehand. It seems hard to imagine such policies being adopted nearly as often if everyone knew what such "experts" knew about their consequences. Thus familiar forms of government seem to frequently fail by ignoring the advice of relevant experts (i.e., people who know relevant things).

這些政策并不止是事后回顧起來才知道愚蠢；通常有一些人懂得很多這樣的愚蠢策略并有很好的理由在事前反對(duì)他們嫡秕。如果每個(gè)人知道存在這樣的一些“專家”明白它們的后果渴语，很難想象這些愚蠢的策略還會(huì)如此頻繁地采納。因此常見形式的管理會(huì)頻繁地失敗昆咽，因?yàn)樗雎粤讼嚓P(guān)專家（那些知道相關(guān)事情的人）的建議驾凶。

Would some other form of government more consistently listen to relevant experts? Even if we could identify the current experts, we could not just put them in charge. They might then do what is good for them rather than what is good for the rest of us, and soon after they came to power they would no longer be the relevant experts. Similar problems result from giving them an official advisory role.
其他形式的管理方式會(huì)更加持續(xù)聽取相關(guān)專家的建議么？即使我們能確認(rèn)出當(dāng)前的專家掷酗，我們也不能只是讓他們負(fù)責(zé)调违。他們可能會(huì)做對(duì)他們有益的事情，而不是對(duì)剩下的我們有益的事情泻轰，一旦他們掌握了權(quán)利他們就不再是相關(guān)方面的專家了技肩。給予他們官方咨詢顧問的角色，也會(huì)產(chǎn)生同樣的問題浮声。

"Futarchy" is an as yet untried form of government intended to address such problems. In futarchy, democracy would continue to say what we want, but betting markets would now say how to get it. That is, elected representatives would formally define and manage an after-the-fact measurement of national welfare, while market speculators would say which policies they expect to raise national welfare. The basic rule of government would be:
When a betting market clearly estimates that a proposed policy would increase expected national welfare, that proposal becomes law.
“Futarchy”是一種未經(jīng)檢驗(yàn)的管理方式亩鬼，目的是為了解決這類問題。在Futarchy中阿蝶，民主依然是表達(dá)我們想要什么雳锋，但是對(duì)賭市場(chǎng)現(xiàn)在來決定如何實(shí)現(xiàn)它。那就是羡洁，當(dāng)選代表對(duì)國(guó)民福利玷过，在形式上規(guī)定和管理“事后”措施，同時(shí)市場(chǎng)投機(jī)者會(huì)說出期待那種策略來提升國(guó)民財(cái)富。管理的基本原則是：
當(dāng)對(duì)賭市場(chǎng)清晰地估計(jì)出一個(gè)被提議政策會(huì)提高期望的國(guó)民財(cái)富辛蚊，這個(gè)提議就會(huì)變成法律粤蝎。

Futarchy is intended to be ideologically neutral; it could result in anything from an extreme socialism to an extreme monarchy, depending on what voters say they want, and on what speculators think would get it for them.

Futarchy的目的是在意識(shí)形態(tài)上中立；它可以導(dǎo)致一切從極度的社會(huì)主義到極度的君主制度袋马，這取決于投票人表明他們想要什么初澎，以及投機(jī)者認(rèn)為應(yīng)該為他們拿什么。

Futarchy seems promising if we accept the following three assumptions:
Democracies fail largely by not aggregating available information.
It is not that hard to tell rich happy nations from poor miserable ones.
Betting markets are our best known institution for aggregating information.

Futarchy似乎有希望成功虑凛，如果我們接受以下三個(gè)假定：

• 民主多半會(huì)失敗因?yàn)闆]有收集到足夠多的信息碑宴。
• 分辨富有幸福的國(guó)家和貧窮痛苦的國(guó)家并不是那么困難。
• 對(duì)賭市場(chǎng)是我們知道的收集信息的最佳機(jī)構(gòu)桑谍。

GDP is today the most common measure of national wealth. It seems hard for frequent travelers to escape the impression that people in high GDP nations tend to be richer and better off than those in low GDP nations. Economists thus tend to be willing to recommend policies that macroeconomic data suggest are causally related to increasing GDP. It seems that it is not that hard to, after the fact, tell rich satisfied nations from poor miserable ones. GDP may be good enough, and with the full attention of our elected representatives, we should be able to do even better, such as by including happiness, inequality, health, leisure, and environment measures.
GDP現(xiàn)在是最通用的衡量國(guó)民財(cái)富的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)延柠。經(jīng)常旅游的人很容易有這樣的印象，那些在高GDP國(guó)家的人比那些低GDP的國(guó)家的人相對(duì)更富有锣披。經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家往往愿意推薦那些贞间，在宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)數(shù)據(jù)上顯示有對(duì)增長(zhǎng)GDP有因果關(guān)系的政策”⒎拢看起來在經(jīng)過這個(gè)事實(shí)之后增热，分辨富有滿足的國(guó)家和貧窮痛苦的國(guó)家并不難。GDP或許就足夠了胧辽，在有了當(dāng)選代表的全部關(guān)注下钓葫，我們應(yīng)該做的更好，比如包括幸福感票顾，社會(huì)平等础浮，健康，休息時(shí)間和環(huán)境等標(biāo)準(zhǔn)奠骄。

If we can measure how rich nations are, we can use such measurements to settle bets. This is good because betting markets, and speculative markets more generally, seem to do very well at aggregating information. To have a say in a speculative market, you have to "put your money where your mouth is." Those who know they are not relevant experts shut up, and those who do not know this eventually lose their money, and then shut up. Speculative markets in essence offer to pay anyone who sees a bias in current market prices to come and correct that bias.
如果我們可以衡量國(guó)家的富裕程度豆同，我們可以使用這樣的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來建立賭注。這是很好的含鳞，因?yàn)閷?duì)賭市場(chǎng)和投機(jī)者們普遍在搜集信息方面做的更加出色影锈。為了在預(yù)測(cè)市場(chǎng)上有發(fā)言權(quán)，你必須“有所行動(dòng)“蝉绷。那些人們知道他們不是相關(guān)方面的專家的人會(huì)閉嘴鸭廷，那些最終不了解事實(shí)的人最終會(huì)損失他們的資金，然后他們就閉嘴了熔吗。預(yù)測(cè)市場(chǎng)的本質(zhì)是辆床，提供機(jī)會(huì)支付給那些看到了當(dāng)前市場(chǎng)價(jià)格有偏見然后來糾正偏見的人。

Speculative market estimates are not perfect. There seems to be a long-shot bias when there are high transaction costs, and perhaps also excess volatility in long term aggregate price movements. But such markets seem to do very well when compared to other institutions. For example, racetrack market odds improve on the predictions of racetrack experts, Florida orange juice commodity futures improve on government weather forecasts, betting markets beat opinion polls at predicting U.S. election results, and betting markets consistently beat Hewlett Packard official forecasts at predicting Hewlett Packard printer sales. In general, it is hard to find information that is not embodied in market prices.
預(yù)測(cè)市場(chǎng)的估計(jì)比不是完美的桅狠。當(dāng)有很高交易費(fèi)用時(shí)讼载，看起來會(huì)是一種高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)賭注的“偏見”轿秧，在長(zhǎng)期的價(jià)格累計(jì)走勢(shì)中，可能還會(huì)有過度的波動(dòng)咨堤。但是菇篡，這樣的市場(chǎng)，當(dāng)與其它機(jī)構(gòu)比較起來時(shí)一喘，它看起來做的要好驱还。例如，跑道市場(chǎng)的賠率會(huì)改善跑道專家的預(yù)測(cè)凸克，佛羅里達(dá)的橙汁期貨市場(chǎng)會(huì)改善政府的天氣預(yù)報(bào)议蟆，對(duì)賭市場(chǎng)打敗民意調(diào)查在預(yù)測(cè)美國(guó)選舉結(jié)果上，對(duì)賭市場(chǎng)在預(yù)測(cè)惠普打印機(jī)銷售時(shí)持續(xù)打敗惠普的官方預(yù)測(cè)触徐∵湎剩總的來講狐赡，很難找到一樣不能用市場(chǎng)價(jià)格體現(xiàn)的信息撞鹉。

A betting market can estimate whether a proposed policy would increase national welfare by comparing two conditional estimates: national welfare conditional on adopting the proposed policy, and national welfare conditional on not adopting the proposed policy. Betting markets can produce conditional estimates several ways, such as via "called-off bets," i.e., bets that are called off if a condition is not met.
對(duì)賭市場(chǎng)可以估計(jì)一個(gè)被提議的政策，是否會(huì)增加國(guó)民財(cái)富颖侄，通過對(duì)比兩個(gè)有條件的估計(jì)：國(guó)民財(cái)富在采納被提議政策的條件下鸟雏，以及國(guó)民財(cái)富在未采納被提議的政策的條件下。對(duì)賭市場(chǎng)可以產(chǎn)生幾種條件估計(jì)览祖，例如“命令停止”等孝鹊，對(duì)賭可以在一個(gè)條件不滿足時(shí)停止。

For a more detailed and academic discussion of futarchy, see my paper, Shall We Vote on Values, But Bet on Beliefs?, to appear in Journal of Political Philosophy, 2013. See also versions from 2007, 2003, 2000.

更多詳細(xì)信息和關(guān)于futarchy的學(xué)術(shù)討論展蒂，可以查看我的論文Shall We Vote on Values, But Bet on Beliefs?又活，在2013年的* Journal of Political Philosophy*有刊登。也可以參看其它版本從2007锰悼，2003柳骄，2000.

提到futarchy的媒體:
Max Bruinsma, Chris Keulemans, De cultuur als markt De Groene Amsterdammer August 12, 2000. (in Dutch) (English version)
Hal Varian, A Market Approach to Politics. New York Times, Page C2, May 8, 2003.
Ralf Grotker, Besser regieren, brand eins, 134-137, October, 2007. (in German)
Mark Leibovich and Grant Barrett, The Buzzwords of 2008, New York Times, December 21, 2008.
Robin Hanson, Open-Source Government: How can we fix our political system?, BBC Focus 206:21, August 2009.

原文：http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html
譯者：@rubyu2