✳flâneur — a map of the web's best reading

Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs

mason.gmu.edu · 1,125 words · saved by 6 readers

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). 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. "Futarchy" is an as yet untried form of government intended to address such problems. In futarchy, democracy would continue to say what we want,

Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs Futarchy: Vote Values, But Bet Beliefs 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. 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

Explore this link on the map →

saved by

related reading