译文/Translated：
管理的目的本来是要创建一个公平的竞争环境，让人类繁荣昌盛，然而人类历史上却充斥着各种失败的管理模式。各种管理系统最大的威胁都在于少数人对大多数人的暴政或带来不公平竞争环境的系统。公平的竞争环境就好比小心地让一块木板在一个点上实现平衡，一旦它开始倾斜，它就会因为正反馈循环获得动力，倾斜的速度加快，最终这块木板就完全掉下来。
想保持公平的竞争环境关键在于要有多个支撑点，并确保没有哪个角比其它的更强。它需要建立负反馈循环，这样才能慢慢地恢复平衡。
我们中的无政府主义者希望能有一个没有政府的世界，这个世界中没有人制定其他人都要遵从的法律。但这个世界只有当人们都能平等地捍卫自己利益的时候才会出现。唯意志论者却认为，人们都认同的政府是有用的，这样的政府主要目的是发展非暴力的（因此才是符合人们意志的）政府解决方法。当这样的世界真的实现的时候，它会利用制裁实现孤立，最终切断人和社会的联系。任何不尊重制裁的人最终都会受到制裁。
这样一个自愿服从政府的社会面临的一个挑战是总会有人想诉诸暴力，而制裁会迫使受制裁的人为了生存使用暴力。换言之，制裁（或孤立）是监控一个社会的好方法，但是只有在很多社会（国家）和平共处、愿意接受其他国家制裁的情况下，这才是一个有利于社会的方法。想想如果美国想要通过驱逐罪犯解决自己遇到的监狱（不足）问题会出现什么情况？如果没有任何其它国家愿意接收这些罪犯，那又会发生什么呢？
加入一个社群会带来很多好处，但是加入任何社群都需要遵守社区规则。没有规则的社群最终会回归丛林法则，也就失去了作为社群的最基本特征。如果我们想建立社群并为这个社群设定规则，那么我们就进入共同决策的领域，也就有了取得共识的需求。管理挑战的核心就在于此。
为了个体利益损害社群利益这样的社群协调问题非常多。比如说，我们都因为市场上有各种食物而收益；但是如果有一方能够以低于其它所有人的价格出售食物并因此获益，那么，这一方最后就会形成自然垄断。
一旦一方在生产食物的时候形成垄断，而市场上其他人没有这样的能力，这一方在市场上就有了前所未有的议价能力。如果你不按他说的做，那么你就不能获得任何食物。
自然，不管价差如何，确保有很多食品供应商在市场上竞争符合每个人的利益。供应商的数量应该足够大以免他们沆瀣一气，这样社会上所有人都能找到供应商。如果每个个体总是选择最便宜的供应商，那么所有其他的供应商都会破产，结果每个人都被奴役了。所以除非有足够多的人能够团结起来支付高昂的费用，否则其他供应商都会破产。正因为这样的情况，所以我们需要去中心化的社会管理规则。本质上来说，这些规则会干涉只考虑自我利益而破坏市场的自发交易。所以，如果大家能够合理地确保这些规则能够被执行，那么自发地同意这些规则是符合每个人的利益。
现在，我们已经证明了社会需要规则，这些规则一定会牺牲一些个人自由以免导致所有人的自由都受到影响。但这样，我们就面临两个挑战：判断这些规则有哪些以及防止系统被利用来谋取私权。就像供应食物的例子一样，社会也需要保证这种管理是去中心化的并不会被少数人利用。
我一直认为，我们想要避免靠拳头说话的丛林法则，人类必须建立和平条约。该条约必须定义诸如财产权、争议解决方案的内容。最终，该和平条约会成为所有政府的基础。
该和平协议应当包含社会如何作为一个整体做出集体决策的内容。但是，如果少数人可以参与决策过程，他们也可能会控制大多数人，因为大多数人可能觉得，与其冒着回到丛林法则或内战的风险，还不如维持现有的和平协议。因此，很重要的一点是，不管我们采用的是什么协议，它绝对不能被少数人利用，且决策过程中必须一致有去中心化的压力。
民主制度已经失败了
在民主制度中，选民选出代表投票决定法律，这是让控制权保持去中心的一个尝试。理论上来说，大众永远不会选择一个一直违背其利益的领导。你可以认为民主制是一种拥戴证明。
理论上，每个人都可以参选、提出观点，而睿智、客观的民众会选举出合理的领导。如果我们假定大多数人是诚实的，我们就可以假定一个社会、议会、或其它个人组成的组织就会实行人民的意志。
但是，研究却表明，受欢迎和不受欢迎的政策被通过成为法律的概率是一样的。换言之，在人民的意志和和平协议（即政府）之间是不存在相关性的。人们要么被迫接受法律，要么就得接受丛林法则（发生内战）。
政治家的选择偏向
民主的问题在于帕累托分布原则，该原则认为，生活中很多事情，80%的成果来自20%的努力。换言之，20%的人比其他80%的人加到一起产生的影响更大。这是一个递归原则，即，就算在这20个人中，其中4个的影响比其他16个的总和还大，1个的影响比其他3个更大。
这个分配原则从人口到城市，到财富，到名人的受欢迎度上，各个领域都使用。它还适用于任何行业中自然人才分布。不是每个人都可以成为明星运动员、最佳棋手、最美的、最受欢迎的。只有少数才能到达行业顶峰。政治家也是如此。
成为政治家需要的技能和做好的管理决定需要的技能是非常不同的。很多时候，最好的管理决策是最好的政治决策截然想法。
我们的社会评价领导的人的时候看重的是那些狡猾、虚伪、迎合民众而不讲真话的领导人。我们这个系统伤害诚实的人而奖励不诚实的。我们这个系统让最会操纵大众的人当上了领导。一旦他们当权，他们维护统治的方法就是通过愚民教育、分治和征服、混淆视听等方法一步步削弱民众的力量。
民主制的理论和赢得博弈的实际技能完全不一致，这种情况下，唯一的解决方案是设定一个新的选择标准。这就意味着设计一个新的竞争环境，让最好的、最聪明的、最磊落的人登上榜首。当然了，设计任何系统也必须考虑到总有些人会打破游戏规则。这往往表现为选举操纵、内定等。
想象一下，如果统治社会的只能是最会打架的人，人们会有怎么样的反应？电视剧经常讲一些殊死一战而后加冠加冕的社会。这样的体制下，没有人代表弱者，这样的文化只重视强者、重视狡猾的、重视最适应环境的恶人，它也完全不会重视那些有同情心、有爱心等的人。
这样的管理方法早已失去市场，但是取代它的系统重视的也是武夫，只是这些“武夫”使用不同的武器罢了。我们的社会依然是由少数擅长另一种战斗的人所统治。现在，人们看重的不是力量、武器、战略，而变成了长相、宣传、政治策略。我们不再屈服于武力统治，我们屈服于通过谎言和欺诈在智力上和情感上凌驾于他人之上的人。
设计新的管理系统
我相信大多数都是诚实、善良的。在人口中进行随机抽样，你会发现不诚实的人最终会失败，通过的法律往往能够代表真正得民心的东西。但这是随机抽样中的直接民主，而不是完全抽样的结果。任何统计学家都会告诉你，假设通过法律需要在统计上有巨大差异的投票，而抽样则是完全随机的，那么二者的结果是一样的。
随机抽样的问题是大多数人不会真的希望管理他人，他们也没有时间/意愿参与。这就是说，结果最终还是偏向渴望权力的人，而不是淡泊名利那些。慢慢地，这样的偏见就会让系统崩坏，它会更加青睐渴望权力的人，因为他们会利用操纵所谓的“随机抽样”，毕竟，随机抽样很难进行审计。
随机抽样让“大众”做主，但实际是，“大众”不会真的为自己做主。他们的决策总是被擅长宣传的少数人征服。悲哀的是，大多数人会因为无知和信息不全做出违背自己最大利益的投票。所以尽管随机抽样带来的直接民主能够紧随“人民的意愿”，但是“人民的意愿”不一定真的就是他们的。
如果还有另外的方式从社会中进行“随机抽样”能够更好地过滤低劣的人品且不会产生随机抽样最后的系统崩坏问题，这样的社会会怎么样呢？
最好的民众
如果我们能选择最好、最聪明那个人，而不会偏向那些擅长操控他人的人，这个社会会怎样？我相信，解决方法是由大量需要各种技能和/或遗传易感性的竞争平台。现在我们只有一个竞争平台，要么通过诱骗要么通过欺诈获得选票。但是如果我们还存在其它的客观赢家的平台，如奥运会、象棋、打字速度、扑克、星际争霸、赛车、记忆、拼字比赛等，这个社会会怎样？如果其中一些维度是“最大的地主”、“最大的单金主人”等，这个社会会怎样。我们可以甚至举办可靠的抽奖，随机抽取一些人。
其中的关键是，应该由1000个不同的竞争，它们都要求各种不同的技能，这些技能不是某群人可以全部拥有的。如果你不是一个好政治家，但假如你可以把时间和精力花在成为这1000个领域其中某一方面专家，你依然可以进入政治圈。
一旦这1000个领域最好的人被选择出来，管理方案只需要2/3同意就可以。
要避免终生制和精英抱团，每个个体任职有期限限制。所以，如果跑最快的那个人已经结束任期或者他根本不想参和，那你就不一定要是最快的那个。这样在每个竞争领域，管理者都是业内最顶尖的十个。
相比民主制，这个方法还有另一个好处，那就是进入政府的人不用对竞选的捐款人负责，也不会受到媒体诽谤的影响。在位的人要努力成为该领域最厉害的一个，最后他们自然会偏向勤勉人，厌恶影响成功的政策。他们理解今天的牺牲是为了未来。他们会按照自己的良心和才智做事，而不是迎合大众（但这是现在的政治家赖以生存的基础）。
更重要的是，这些人来自各行各业，他们能代表社会不同的领域。这样就能打破有钱、有名、有权的人之间的联系，毕竟这样的联系会增加进入政府的壁垒，也更容易导致统治阶级的产生。
管理去中心化的核心是让新人能够进入管理岗、避免设立进入壁垒，以免偏向任何单一少数群体。
区块链上的管理
涉及到区块链管理的时候，相同的原则也是适用的。任何单一的衡量标准，不管是股权证明还是工作证明，都会被少数几个特别熟练的人所把持。所以，区块链应该由各种工作证明、燃烧证明、股权证明、人员证明、位置证明等共识管理。帕累托分布规则越大，这些分布就越独立，网络去中心化程度越大。
基于任何单一的“X证明”标准的区块链最终会变得中心化，哪怕当权者不断宣传系统非常去中心化也是如此。所以很重要的一点是我们能把真正的去中心化从伪去中心化中辨别出来。
只有通过真正的去中心化管理社会才能制定和执行共同决策，让人类不至于陷入囚徒困境。只有通过开放进入和公平竞争我们才能让社会不断发展，而不被内部的害群之马破坏。
原文/Original：
History is littered with failed attempts at governance, the primary aim of which is to create a level playing field in which mankind can prosper. The primary threat of all governance systems is tyranny of the majority by a minority or any system that creates an unleveled playing field. A level playing field is like a board carefully balanced on a point, once it starts to lean it gains momentum with a positive feedback loop which accelerates the rate at which the board is tilted until it is completely falls over.
The key to keeping a playing field level is to have multiple points of support and ensuring no one side is stronger than another. It requires the creation of negative feedback loops which restore balance over time.
The anarchists among us long for a world without government, a world where there is no one making laws that everyone else has to follow. This world can only exist when all people are equally able to defend their interests. The voluntarists recognize that government by consent is useful and primarily aim to develop non-violent (and therefore voluntary) solutions to government. This world, when fully realized, utilizes sanctions to cut people off from society by coordinated shunning. Anyone who doesn’t respect the sanctions becomes subject to them.
The challenge such a voluntary society faces is that there are always people willing to use violence and sanctions can force those sanctioned to resort to violence as a means of survival. In other words, sanctions (or excommunication), are a great way to police one community, but only work to the benefit of society if there are many communities (countries) living at peace and ready to accept those sanctioned by other countries. Imagine if the United States decided to end its prison problem by deporting criminals? What would happen if no other country wanted to take them?
There is tremendous value to joining a community of people, but joining any community requires adhering to that communities rules. A community without rules defaults to the law of the jungle and loses its very identity as a community. If we are to establish a community and create rules for such a community then we enter the realm of joint decision making and a need for consensus. This is the very heart of the governance challenge.
There are entire classes of social coordination problems where it is to the benefit of the individual to act in ways that harm the community. For example, we all benefit by having a market with many choices for food; however, if one party is able to sell food at prices below all other parties ability to make a profit, then that one party will end up with natural monopoly.
Once one party has a monopoly on producing food and everyone else in society loses the ability, that party has unprecedented bargaining power in the market. If you don’t do as they say then you get cut off from food.
Naturally, it is in everyone’s interest to ensure there are many competing food providers regardless of the difference in price. The number of providers should be large enough that they cannot effectively collude and all members of society can find someone from whom to buy food. If each individual always chooses the cheapest provider, then all other providers will go out of business and everyone becomes enslaved. Unless enough people cooperate to pay higher prices, other providers will go out of business. It is this situation where community rules for governance that enforce decentralization are required. By its very nature, these rules will have to interfere with the voluntary trade that causes everyone to defect out of personal self-interest. That said, it is in everyone’s interest to voluntarily agree to these rules if they have reasonable assurance that they can be enforced.
We have now come to a situation where we have proven that communities need rules, and these rules necessarily sacrifice some individual freedom to prevent an outcome of losing all individual freedom. This leaves us with the challenge of deciding what these rules are and preventing this system from being captured for private profit. Like the provision of food, society needs assurances that governance is decentralized and not captured by a minority.
I have long held that to escape the law of the jungle, where might makes right, mankind must establish a peace treaty. This peace treaty defines things such as property rights and dispute resolution policies. Ultimately, it is the peace treaty that serves as the foundation of all governments.
Part of every peace treaty is a means for the community as a whole to make joint decisions; however, if a minority can co-opt the decision making process they can control the majority which feels bound to recognize the existing peace treaty rather than risk returning the the law of the jungle and civil war. For this reason it is critical that whatever treaty we adopt, it cannot be permanently captured by a few and that there are constant decentralizing pressures on the process.
Democracy has Failed
Democratic systems where the people elect representatives to vote for laws was an attempt to keep control decentralized. Presumably the masses would never elect people who would continuously act against their interests. You could view democracy as proof-of-popularity.
The theory is that anyone could run for office, present good ideas, and a smart and discerning public would elect them. With an assumption that the majority of people are honest, it is reasonable to assume that a committee, congress, or other body of individuals would carry out the will of the people.
Studies have shown that regardless of how popular or unpopular a particular policy is, the odds of it being implemented as law are the same. In other words, there is no correlation between the will of the people and peace treaty (aka government) they end up being forced to accept or else default to law of the jungle (aka civil war).
Selection Bias for Politicians
The problem with democracy lies in the Pareto Principle which observes that in many areas of life 80% of the results are achieved by 20% of the effort. In other words, 20 people have more influence than the other 80 combined. It is a recursive principle which states that of those 20, 4 have more influence than the other 16 combined, and 1 person has more influence than the other top 3 combined.
This distribution applies to everything from population of cities, to wealth, to the popularity of celebrities. It also applies to the distribution of natural talent in any industry. Not everyone can be a star athlete, the best chess player, the best looking, the most popular. Only a very few are able to reach the pinnacle of their area of expertise. This also applies to politicians.
The skills required for advancing as a politician, and the skills required to make good governance decisions are very different. In many cases, the best governance decisions are polar opposite of the best political decisions.
As a society, we have established a method for ranking our leaders that rewards those who are cunning, deceitful, and tell us what we want to hear rather than the truth. A system that handicaps the honest and rewards the dishonest. A system that puts people in power who are best able to manipulate the masses. Once in power, the key to maintaining power is to weaken the masses further through miseducation, divide and conquer, and confusion.
The theory of democracy and the reality of the skills required to win that game are completely out of alignment and the only solution is to devise a new selection criteria. This means devising a new competition where the best, brightest, and most honest people rise to the top. Of course, the design of any system must account for the fact that there are people who will break the rules to win. This occurs in election rigging, assination, etc.
Imagine how people would react if society was ruled only by those who are the best fighters among us? Television has given us many examples of communities where the king is decided by a battle to the death. Under such a system, the weak and frail have no representation and the culture will favor those who are strong, cunning, and most fit and it will not favor those with empathy, caring, etc.
This method of governance has fallen out of favor, but in its place we have erected a new system that favors a different kind of warrier with different weapons. We are still a society ruled by a minority of people adept at a different kind of combat. Instead of strength, weapons, and battlefield strategy we have good looks, propaganda, and political strategy. We no longer submit to people that dominate others physically, we submit to people that dominate others mentally and emotionally via lies and deceit.
Designing a new Governance System
I really do believe that the majority of people are honest with good intentions. In a random sampling of the population you would find the dishonest people would lose and that the laws that are passed would tend to represent what is truly popular. This is direct democracy by random sampling rather than full sampling. Any statistician will tell you that the results will be the same assuming passing a law requires a statistically significant difference in vote and the sampling is truly random.
The problem with Random Sampling is that the majority of people don’t actually want to govern others nor do they have the time/desire to participate. This means that the result would still be biased toward the power-hungry and away from the leave-me-alone types. Over time this bias could allow the system to be corrupted to further favor the power-hungry via manipulation of the “random sampling” which is difficult to audit.
Random sampling puts the “masses” in charge, but the reality is that the “masses” are not truly in charge of themselves. Their decision making is conquered by the minority skilled in the art of propaganda. Tragically, the majority will vote in ways that are against their own best interest out of ignorance or disinformation. So while a direct democracy by random sampling would more closely follow the “will of the people”, the “will of the people” might not actually be theirs.
What if there was another way to take a “random sample” from society that did a better job of filtering below-average quality personalities and didn’t have the weakness of gradual corruption of the randomness?
Democracy of the Best of the Best
What if we could select for the best and brightest among us without biasing toward those adept at manipulating others? I believe the solution is to have a large number of competitive games that require a vast range of skills and/or genetic predisposition. Today we have one competitive game, winning votes by hook or by crook. But what if we had other games with objective winners such as the Olympics, Chess, Typing Speed, Poker, Star Craft, race car driving, memorization, spelling bee, etc. What if some of the metrics were the “largest land holder”, the “largest single gold holder”, etc. We could even host a provably honest lottery to select some people at random.
The key component of this is that there should be 1000 different competitions requiring a diverse set of skills that no single group of the population can possess. If you are not a good politician, you can still get into government assuming you can dedicate the time and energy to become the best of the best in any one of 1000 different fields.
Once the best of the 1000 different fields are selected, governance would require 2/3 approval.
To prevent life-terms and the establishment of an elite club, each individual can only serve for a limited term. So you don’t have to be the fastest man alive if the fastest man has already served his term or doesn’t want to participate. This opens up governance to the top 10 or more people in every competitive category.
The added benefit of this approach over democratic approaches is that those who get into government are not beholden to campaign donors nor vulnerable to media smear campaigns. Those in charge would have to work hard to become the best at what they do and will naturally be biased toward policies that favor those who work hard and against policies that interfere with success. They will understand sacrificing today for the future. They will be free to act on their conscience and intelligence rather than pandering to the masses on which the very job of politicians depend.
Most importantly, these people will come from all walks of life and races and would represent a wide cross section of society. It would break the link between wealth, fame, and political connections which create barriers to entry to government and enable capture by a ruling class.
The key to decentralization of governance is keeping it open to new people and avoiding creating barriers to entry that are biased toward any single minority.
Governance on Blockchains
When it comes to governing blockchains the same rules need to apply. Any single metric, whether proof of stake or proof of work will become dominated by an entrenched few who are most adept. This is why blockchains should be governed by many different proof-of-work, proof-of-burn, proof-of-stake, proof-of-person, proof-of-location, etc. The more pareto distributions and the more independent those distributions are the more decentralized the network will become.
Blockchains based upon any single proof-of-x metric will become centralized even if those in power spread propaganda about how decentralized the system is. It is important that we maintain the ability to discern the illusion of decentralization from real decentralization.
It is only through true decentralization of governance that a community can make and enforce the joint decisions necessary to save mankind from societies prisoners dilemma. It is only through open-entry and objective competition that we can drive society forward without it becoming corrupted by incumbent insiders.
原文链接/Original URL:
