Comments on: Fight The Fighters

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 12 May 2010 06:09:49 +0000

I certainly see some value in this idea, but I’m not 100% convinced of any of your 3 premises.

That said, there seems to be a path dependency to political change. Not all peoples will accept or readily adapt to all forms of government, regardless of their potential to generate well-being. Would we be ready for futurarchy, if it could be handed down now?

By: David C

David C — Sun, 09 May 2010 15:50:43 +0000

That’s different. In your case, the company still has the possibility of not failing at all times. In this case, any time the odds are low enough for the bill not to be passed, that’s a guaranteed loss for the person betting against. So all bills will always pass in an efficient system.

By: Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler — Sun, 09 May 2010 08:30:28 +0000

That happens in other markets too – e.g. if market traders all think your company is going to fail – and so sell your stock – then that reduces your assets – and so is likely to increase your chances of failure.

By: required fields

required fields — Sat, 08 May 2010 05:55:35 +0000

http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706/

By: TGGP

TGGP — Sat, 08 May 2010 03:18:45 +0000

Bryan Caplan, who proudly flies the pacifist banner, agrees.

By: David C

David C — Sat, 08 May 2010 00:56:56 +0000

I've read most of your paper on this subject (although not even close to thoroughly) and there's one problem I'm having, which I'm not sure if it has been addressed. The major difference between futarchy and other betting markets is that betting markets aren't able to influence the outcome. This ability to influence the outcome would distort how people bet. If a bet is automatically called off every time the market closes below 50% in favor of a proposal, then this gives investors zero incentive to bet against a proposal when the market is below 50%. If the market never rises above 50% again, then they won't make any money. If the market does rise above 50% again, then they should wait until that occurs to place their bet and make more money. Regardless of where the threshold is set for approving a policy, an efficient market will always remain above that threshold. On the other hand, automatically giving the money to the person who bets against if the proposal fails would give the investor in favor of the proposal zero incentive to bet below the threshold, and they would wait until the market was above the threshold.

By: Phil Goetz

Phil Goetz — Fri, 07 May 2010 20:06:40 +0000

I’d be happy to get the simpler project accomplished – Create laws with functions and parameters, and some process for setting those parameters over time.

We have laws relating benefits to GDP, I believe. But we could do a lot more than that. We could design homeostasis into our laws.

By: Φ

Fri, 07 May 2010 19:32:57 +0000

I would go even further than that. Describing the “pascifists” of recent memory as ” folks [who] took the side of stopping the fights” is to take a naive and uncritical view of their pretensions. In contrast, I would describe the kind of people who chanted “Ho Ho Ho Chi Min / The NLF is gonna win” as actively talking the enemy’s side.

By: Erisiantaoist

Erisiantaoist — Thu, 06 May 2010 21:12:05 +0000

You’ve just inspired me to tell people I’m a futarchist when they ask my political leanings. I’m far from 100% convinced it will work, but I’m even further from believing in the efficiency of any other political stance with a name; and futarchy will be much more entertaining to defend.

By: j r

j r — Thu, 06 May 2010 15:56:40 +0000

the problem lies in that you seem to be asserting that human beings are status-maximizers. in one sense we are, but that can easily be trumped by our tribalism.

human beings have this incredible ability to sublimate their own personal wants into some larger group, so that a success by the group or a member of that group feels as good as personal success.