Insert/edit link

Before you give the government new powers, try the Munger Test: cross out "government" and insert the name of the politician you trust least.

在赋予政府新权力之前，请尝试芒格测试：划掉“政府”并插入您最不信任的政治家的名字。

Then see if you still like the idea.

然后看看你是否仍然喜欢这个主意。

In his 52nd EconTalk appearance, Mike Munger talks with host Russ Roberts about public choice, politics without romance, and why treating government like a loving family (or your family like a business), ends badly.

在第 52 次 EconTalk 演讲中，迈克·芒格与主持人拉斯·罗伯茨谈论了公共选择、没有浪漫的政治，以及为什么对待政府像一个充满爱的家庭（或者把你的家庭像一个企业），结果会很糟糕。

Along the way, they talk about why Edmund Burke's famous defense of legislators voting their conscience cost him his seat in Parliament, how a group lunch explains politics, and why voters rationally know so little.

一路上，他们谈论了为什么埃德蒙·伯克（Edmund Burke）著名的对立法者投票良心的辩护让他失去了议会席位，集体午餐如何解释政治，以及为什么选民理性地知道得这么少。

DIT (Dual Interest Theory) has a placeholder for romance.

DIT（双重利益理论）有一个​​浪漫的占位符。

It is part of the shared-with-the-other-interest, or simply other-interest.

它是与他人共享的利益的一部分，或者只是其他利益的一部分。

It is internalized within the own-interest = self&other-interest.

它内化于自身利益=自身利益与他人利益之中。

Or, like Adam Smith said it (so, DIT is old news), wealth(incentive)&moral sentiment(ethic).

或者，就像亚当·斯密所说的那样（所以，DIT 已经是旧闻了），财富（激励）和道德情感（伦理）。

In a Public Choice Theory based in DIT, we might say incentive&romance(the ethic shared widely).

在基于DIT的公共选择理论中，我们可以说激励与浪漫（广泛共享的道德规范）。

Try DIT.

尝试 DIT。

You might like (D)IT.

您可能喜欢 (D)IT。

But to be fair, the “public interest theories” public choice is reacting against assume ONLY public interest and altruism for state actors.

但公平地说，“公共利益理论”的公共选择是对国家行为者仅承担公共利益和利他主义的假设做出反应。

Gordon Tullock himself famously wrote a piece (admittedly, a short piece!) on “ A (Partial) Rehabilitation of the Public Interest Theory .” The point being that one should not assume public officials are never public spirited.

戈登·塔洛克本人曾写过一篇关于“公共利益理论的（部分）复兴”的著名文章（诚然，是一篇短文！）。要点是，人们不应该假设公职人员从来都没有公益精神。

The mistake is to assume they are always, and only, public spirited.

错误在于假设他们总是而且只是热心公益。

One of the best ever, but I’ve never listened to one with you and Dr. Munger that was not special.

这是有史以来最好的之一，但我从来没有和你和芒格博士一起听过一首不特别的歌曲。

I hope you have Munger on several more times this year.

我希望今年你能多邀请芒格几次。

And I will have to go back and listen to the first 15 or so and take you up on the idea to listen to one per week from you and Dr. Munger.

我将不得不回去听一下前 15 首左右的内容，然后向您提出每周听您和芒格博士讲一首的想法。

I have to listen to ones you do with him more than once to make sure I get all the nuance especially including todays.

我必须不止一次地听你和他一起做的事情，以确保我了解所有的细微差别，尤其是今天的事情。

Thank you again for doing all the work to make things interesting and educational.

再次感谢您所做的所有工作，使事情变得有趣且具有教育意义。

I can see why Mike has been on 52 times.

我明白为什么 Mike 出现了 52 次。

Especially the definition of liberalism.

尤其是自由主义的定义。

Thanks to you both!

谢谢你们俩！

PS, Russ – I literally LOLed at your commentary on Tom Brady.

PS，拉斯——我真的很喜欢你对汤姆·布雷迪的评论。

(You can also try “everyone for themselves” in place of “every man for himself.”)

（你也可以尝试用“每个人都为了自己”来代替“每个人都为了自己”。）

I always find Dr. Munger and Dr. Roberts conversations enlightening.

我总是觉得芒格博士和罗伯茨博士的谈话很有启发性。

I think they identified a root cause of many of the issues today is the inability for people to be humble and tolerant.

我认为他们发现当今许多问题的根本原因是人们无法谦虚和宽容。

I would like to think things would get better, however, I don’t see how in an environment where the most extreme views are rewarded and the humble and tolerant are castigated.

我想事情会变得更好，但是，我不明白在一个最极端的观点得到奖励而谦虚和宽容的人受到严厉谴责的环境中，我不明白如何做到这一点。

I feel strongly that the blame doesn’t lie with politicians or bureaucrats, but rather with the electorate.

我强烈地感到，责任不在于政客或官僚，而在于选民。

Collectively, we all need to do be better citizens and voters and show the way for politicians.

总的来说，我们都需要成为更好的公民和选民，并为政治家指明道路。

I realize I am being naive, but a guy can dream, right?

我知道我很天真，但人都是有梦想的，对吧？

There really are politicians who want to do the right thing, and they know what the right thing is.

确实有一些政治家想做正确的事，他们知道什么是正确的事。

BUT…voters aren’t paying attention, and PRIMARY voters in particular punish leaders who try to find centrist solutions.

但是……选民没有关注，特别是主要选民会惩罚那些试图寻找中间派解决方案的领导人。

As a (likely one-term) school board president …

作为（可能是一届）学校董事会主席……

the last section hit me pretty hard.

最后一部分对我打击很大。

Which they don’t, because people who are active are going to become corporate CEOs, not senators.

但他们没有，因为活跃的人将成为公司首席执行官，而不是参议员。

The people who become senators are the ones who like to spout nonsense to cameras, in my personal opinion, because the incentives reward that kind of behavior.

在我个人看来，成为参议员的人都是那些喜欢在镜头前胡言乱语的人，因为激励措施会奖励这种行为。

The main thing is that you have to get reelected, so the public choice insight here is: Yes, behavioral symmetry means we’re going to get different behaviors given the difference in incentives, but the incentives in politics are pathological.

最主要的是你必须再次当选，所以这里的公共选择见解是：是的，行为对称意味着鉴于激励的差异，我们将得到不同的行为，但政治中的激励是病态的。

They actually rule out the romantic notion that officials want to do the right thing.

他们实际上排除了官员想要做正确事情的浪漫想法。

I’ve seen this play out over and over — fellow board directors making bad votes because it won’t play well in the broader political environment or it will compromise their bid for city council or because it’ll annoy their base who they count on to campaign for them etc. I try very hard to employ *exactly* that Burke quote, but I’ve fallen into exactly the dynamic you describe.

我已经一遍又一遍地看到这种情况发生——董事会同事投了不好的票，因为这在更广泛的政治环境中不会发挥良好作用，或者会损害他们对市议会的竞选，或者因为这会惹恼他们指望为他们竞选的选民等等。我非常努力地采用“完全”伯克引用的那句话，但我已经陷入了你所描述的情况。

I’m pretty sure I won’t have friends to campaign on my behalf if you do this again and I’m sick of the insanity.

我很确定，如果你再这样做，我不会有朋友代表我竞选，而且我厌倦了这种疯狂。

I think there may be a problem with the feed.

我认为饲料可能有问题。

I’m not sure what happened, but there seems to have been some kind of crosswire where another podcast was uploaded in error.

我不确定发生了什么，但似乎存在某种交叉线，导致另一个播客错误上传。

Imagine my surprise when the main topic of the episode turned out to be economics!

想象一下，当这一集的主题变成经济学时，我有多惊讶！

While I enjoyed it, this is certainly not the type of content I’ve come to expect from EconTalk.

虽然我很喜欢它，但这肯定不是我期望从 EconTalk 获得的内容类型。

Please address this technical issue at your earliest convenience.

请尽早解决此技术问题。

I mean, that’s funny and all.

我的意思是，这很有趣。

But, ouch.

但是，哎哟。

“I got a note from the governor of Missouri that I needed to vaccinate one of my children.

“我收到密苏里州州长的一张便条，说我需要为我的一个孩子接种疫苗。

I was offended.

我很生气。

Because the implication was I didn’t know my children well enough or love them enough or care for them enough, and the governor of the state had to weigh in and admonish me about my duty as a parent.”

因为这意味着我不够了解我的孩子，不够爱他们，不够关心他们，州长必须介入并警告我作为父母的责任。”

Would you have been offended if the governor had reminded you that you had to have your car inspected.

如果州长提醒您必须检查您的汽车，您会觉得被冒犯吗？

The implication is that you don’t know your car well enough to take care of it properly and make sure the brakes and headlights work.

这意味着您对您的汽车不够了解，无法正确保养它并确保刹车和车头灯正常工作。

What follows is so obvious, I’m embarrassed to be writing it.

接下来的内容太明显了，我都不好意思写了。

The state has rules about what you can and can’t do to your kids.

州政府对你能对孩子做什么和不能做什么有规定。

Some of these rules protect the child.

其中一些规则可以保护孩子。

You can’t beat them severely (the way that might have been allowed a century ago).

你无法严厉地击败他们（一个世纪前可能允许的方式）。

You can’t put them out to work in a factory.

你不能让他们去工厂工作。

These rules protect the child.

这些规则保护孩子。

But you also can’t give an eight-year-old the keys to your car and tell him to go to the store for you.

但你也不能把你的车钥匙给一个八岁的孩子，然后让他帮你去商店。

Or give him an AR-15.

或者给他一台 AR-15。

These rules are designed to protect others.

这些规则旨在保护他人。

Not vaccinating your child puts other kids at risk.

不给您的孩子接种疫苗会使其他孩子面临风险。

“The state” does not have rules; the set of legislators who happen to have been elected in a system dominated by particular interests, and ignoring others, passed some legislation.

“国家”没有规则；一群立法者恰好是在一个由特定利益主导的体系中选出的，而忽略了其他利益，他们通过了一些立法。

Those rules are NOT “designed to protect” anything, they are the product of a process of compromise and deal-making.

这些规则并不是“旨在保护”任何事物，它们是妥协和交易过程的产物。

You seem to have bought the whole “the state loves us and wants what is good for us!” line.

你似乎已经买下了整个“国家爱我们并希望对我们有利！”线。

What follows is so obvious, I’m embarrassed to be writing it.

接下来的内容太明显了，我都不好意思写了。

If you take out “state” and put in “Donald Trump,” do you still believe it?

如果你去掉“国家”并加上“唐纳德·特朗普”，你还相信吗？

That is, “Donald Trump has rules about what you can and can’t do to your kids.” And that those rules are automatically, good, and just, because “the state” imposed them?

也就是说，“唐纳德·特朗普对你能对你的孩子做什么和不能做什么有规定。”这些规则是自动的、良好的、公正的，因为“国家”强加了它们？

You support ICE raids, and mass deportations?

您支持 ICE 突击搜查和大规模驱逐出境吗？

After, the state is doing THAT, too.

之后，国家也在这样做。

It must be good, right?

一定很好吧？

I have to admit, I’m very grateful that a commenter put up something that actually embodies the naive “The state loves us” view that I’m trying to question.

我必须承认，我非常感谢一位评论者提出的内容实际上体现了我试图质疑的天真的“国家爱我们”观点。

So, thanks for that!

所以，谢谢你！

Michael Munger: OK.

迈克尔·芒格：好的。

The government – oops no, a bunch of politicians — enacted laws that prohibit eight-year olds from driving or carrying assault rifles not in order to protect you and me and the general population but to further their own “particular interests.” But my amazingly gullible naivety leaves me with two questions: 1) do these rules not protect the general population?

政府——哎呀，不，是一群政客——颁布了法律，禁止八岁的孩子驾驶或携带突击步枪，不是为了保护你我和普通民众，而是为了促进他们自己的“特殊利益”。但我令人惊讶的容易上当受骗的天真给我留下了两个问题：1）这些规则不能保护普通民众吗？

And 2) which particular interests do they serve?

2）它们服务于哪些特定利益？

I’m no genius or grand philosopher but I always feel better when someone on Econtalk validates my thoughts and philosophies with their own that are eerily similar to mine.

我不是天才或伟大的哲学家，但当 Econtalk 上有人用与我出奇相似的想法和哲学来验证我的想法和哲学时，我总是感觉更好。

Mike distills classical liberalism to mean humility and tolerance.

迈克将古典自由主义提炼为谦逊和宽容。

For years I’ve distilled liberal thought and liberalism, and used it in conversations, down to “maybe I’m the ignoramus; maybe I have something wrong and the other person has it right.” Albeit it’s not as professional or eloquent as Mike’s, but it’s very much in the same vein.

多年来，我不断提炼自由主义思想和自由主义，并在对话中使用它，甚至“也许我是个无知者；也许我有什么问题，而另一个人是对的”。虽然它不像迈克那么专业或雄辩，但它的风格非常相似。

My entire career has been in government, particularly public finance, so the Mike Munger episodes tend to be my favorite.

我的整个职业生涯都是在政府工作，特别是公共财政，所以迈克·芒格的剧集往往是我的最爱。

Thanks to you both for such a wonderful time.

感谢你们俩度过了如此美好的时光。

The year of Munger should be a collector’s edition boxed set!

芒格之年应该是珍藏版盒装！

Lovely episode, but I had one thing.

可爱的一集，但我有一件事。

The ancient Latin definition for “tolerance” means to suffer.

“宽容”的古拉丁语定义是“受苦”的意思。

You may not like someone’s view, but you suffer through it and tolerate it.

你可能不喜欢某人的观点，但你会忍受并忍受它。

Why must I make space for them to be “right”?

为什么我必须为他们“正确”留出空间？

I believe your definition of toleration is too demanding.

我认为你对宽容的定义太苛刻了。

Isn’t it enough to treat each other fairly, without needing to necessarily attempt to believe them?

公平地对待彼此，而不必试图相信他们，这还不够吗？

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam.

该网站使用 Akismet 来减少垃圾邮件。

Learn how your comment data is processed.

了解您的评论数据是如何处理的。

Additional ideas and people mentioned in this podcast episode:

本播客节目中提到的其他想法和人物：

A few more readings and background resources:

更多阅读材料和背景资源：

More related EconTalk podcast episodes, by Category:

更多相关的 EconTalk 播客剧集，按类别：

* As an Amazon Associate, Econlib earns from qualifying purchases.

* 作为亚马逊合作伙伴，Econlib 通过符合条件的购买赚取收入。

Intro.

简介。

[Recording date: August 18, 2026.]

[记录日期：2026年8月18日。]

Russ Roberts: Today is August 18th, 2026, and my guest is Mike Munger of Duke University.

拉斯·罗伯茨：今天是 2026 年 8 月 18 日，我的嘉宾是杜克大学的迈克·芒格。

This episode is scheduled to be the 1,069th episode of EconTalk, and this will be Mike's 52nd appearance of those 1,069, which means our archive, after this is published, will contain a year of Munger.

本集预计是 EconTalk 的第 1,069 集，这将是迈克在这 1,069 集中第 52 次露面，这意味着我们的档案在出版后将包含芒格的一年。

You can listen to Mike and me for once a week for a year or an episode for every card in deck of cards, which has no meaning whatsoever.

你可以每周听迈克和我一次，持续一年，或者为一副牌中的每张牌听一集，这没有任何意义。

He was last here in March of 2026, talking about the UNC-Duke basketball experience and how Duke allocates tickets for that game.

他最后一次来这里是在 2026 年 3 月，谈论北卡罗来纳大学-杜克大学的篮球经历以及杜克大学如何分配那场比赛的门票。

Our topic for today is a set of essays that Mike has written, and we're going to focus on the one on public choice, which is a technical term that we hope to explore in our conversation today.

我们今天的主题是迈克写的一组文章，我们将重点讨论公共选择的文章，这是我们希望在今天的对话中探讨的一个技术术语。

Mike, welcome back to EconTalk.

迈克，欢迎回到 EconTalk。

Mike Munger: The 52nd episode.

迈克·芒格：第 52 集。

I want to assure you that I feel all the honor that the situation merits.

我想向你保证，我对这种情况感到非常荣幸。

Russ Roberts: You're bowed by it.

拉斯·罗伯茨：你被它折服了。

I can see it's heavy on your shoulders.

我看得出你肩上的担子很重。

Russ Roberts: Well, I'm grateful to you for all the times and knowledge that you've given the program.

拉斯·罗伯茨：嗯，我很感谢你为这个项目付出的所有时间和知识。

Russ Roberts: So, let's talk about public choice.

拉斯·罗伯茨：那么，我们来谈谈公共选择。

It is a subdiscipline of economics.

它是经济学的一个分支学科。

It's a way of looking at the world, and that's what we're going to explore.

这是一种看待世界的方式，这就是我们要探索的。

Get us started.

让我们开始吧。

Mike Munger: I'm now president of the Philadelphia Society, which is--some people say it's the American Mont Pelerin Society.

迈克·芒格：我现在是费城协会的主席，有人说它是美国朝圣山协会。

At our meetings, 3- or 400 people who are classical liberals and conservatives get together, and many of them would like to reclaim the label of liberalism because, in most of the world, liberalism is a label that attaches to what we call classical liberalism, and public choice is a branch of that.

在我们的会议上，三到四百名古典自由主义者和保守派人士聚集在一起，他们中的许多人都想重新贴上自由主义的标签，因为在世界上大多数地方，自由主义是附加在我们所谓的古典自由主义之上的标签，而公共选择是古典自由主义的一个分支。

But, I wanted to start out by defining what I think liberalism is, because I think public choice is an offshoot of that.

但是，我想首先定义我所认为的自由主义，因为我认为公共选择是自由主义的一个分支。

Liberalism, to me, is a combination of two things: humility and tolerance.

对我来说，自由主义是两件事的结合：谦逊和宽容。

Humility is the assumption that I may not be right.

谦虚是假设我可能不对。

Tolerance is the assumption that you may not be wrong.

宽容是假设你可能不会错。

Now, obviously, in our hearts, we don't believe either of those things.

现在，显然，在我们心里，我们不相信这些事情。

Clearly, I am correct, and you are mistaken.

显然，我是对的，而你是错的。

So, when I say it's an assumption, you have to adopt that as a position, and that takes a great deal of self-control.

因此，当我说这是一个假设时，你必须将其视为一种立场，而这需要很强的自我控制能力。

So, I cannot force you--and it doesn't mean that I'm not capable of it; suppose I am capable of it.

所以，我不能强迫你——但这并不意味着我没有能力这样做；而是说我不能强迫你。假设我有能力做到这一点。

So, I have to forbear.

所以，我不得不隐忍。

So, liberalism requires that I forbear acting as if I know I am correct or acting as if I know you are incorrect.

因此，自由主义要求我不要表现得好像我知道我是正确的，或者表现得好像我知道你是错误的。

Now, there are limits on that.

现在，这有限制。

There may be things that you could advocate that, if you push on the hard cases, perhaps we can go around the edges; but for the most part, I have to believe that I might be mistaken, and therefore I have to persuade you, and I have to listen when you talk because you might be right.

也许你可以提倡一些事情，如果你推动棘手的案件，也许我们可以绕过边缘；但在大多数情况下，我必须相信我可能是错的，因此我必须说服你，当你说话时我必须倾听，因为你可能是对的。

So, the tolerance and humility are the two watchwords of liberalism, I want to argue.

所以，我想说，宽容和谦逊是自由主义的两个口号。

Russ Roberts: So, I want to take us back to a episode we did a few episodes back together that haunts me in a good way--in a good way, not the kind of wake-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night-sweating kind of way--which is the episode we did on Lord Moulton and the concept of obedience to the unenforceable.

拉斯·罗伯茨：所以，我想带我们回到我们一起拍了几集的那一集，它以一种很好的方式困扰着我——以一种很好的方式，而不是那种半夜惊醒、出汗的方式——这是我们在莫尔顿勋爵身上做的一集，以及服从不可执行的概念。

Which is to say the norms and practices that, they're not part of the legal system, they're a part of the culture, and they impose limits on decent people, on how they behave and what they say and what they do; and I would argue that your definition of liberalism, it's probably never existed.

也就是说，这些规范和做法不是法律体系的一部分，而是文化的一部分，它们对正派的人、他们的行为、所说和所做的事情施加限制；我认为你对自由主义的定义可能从来不存在。

As you said, we might just pay lip service to--we don't really believe it.

正如你所说，我们可能只是口头上说——我们并不真正相信。

But, having said that, I think at the heart of the Founding in the United States was some idea of that tolerance and humility combined.

但是，话虽如此，我认为美国建国的核心是宽容和谦逊相结合的某种理念。

It's why we have the checks and balances in America.

这就是为什么我们在美国有制衡机制。

And, as listeners who have been paying attention know, I feel like a lot of those norms have been eroded in the United States over the last 50 years, 25 years, and certainly the last 10 years.

而且，正如一直关注的听众所知，我觉得过去 50 年、25 年，当然还有过去 10 年，美国的很多规范都被侵蚀了。

I'm not sure they're coming back.

我不确定他们会回来。

It's much harder, I think, to create a norm than to live by it.

我认为，制定规范比遵守规范要困难得多。

So, in a certain sense, what you're proposing is an ideal, a stance, a way of looking at our discourse, yours and mine or any two people's conversations in a political system, at the highest level and in the most ideal way; and understanding that those limitations, those norms, get stretched, as you said, and they're going to get tested, and at times there'll be issues where we're going to have a great deal of trouble living by those norms.

所以，从某种意义上说，你所提出的是一种理想、一种立场、一种看待我们的话语、你的和我的或政治体系中任何两个人的对话的方式，以最高的层面、最理想的方式；正如你所说，这些限制、这些规范会被拉伸，并且它们将受到考验，有时会出现一些问题，我们在遵守这些规范时会遇到很大的困难。

But, if you don't live by them ever, you have a very different system, I would suspect, than if you try to live by them most of the time.

但是，如果你从来不遵循它们，我怀疑你的系统与你大多数时候试图遵循它们的系统截然不同。

Mike Munger: That's why I think the connection with Lord Moulton is right.

迈克·芒格：这就是为什么我认为与莫尔顿勋爵的联系是正确的。

If--people may or may not remember; I suggest that they listen to that podcast after they finish listening to this one, of course.

如果——人们可能记得，也可能不记得；当然，我建议他们听完这个播客后再听那个播客。

The thing about that Lord Moulton said is that there are a bunch of things that are wrong that are not illegal, and we have to do that because people have to be capable of self-control.

莫尔顿勋爵所说的事情是，有很多错误的事情并不违法，我们必须这样做，因为人们必须有自我控制的能力。

Patrick Deneen, in his book--a professor at Notre Dame, in his 2018 Princeton University Press book, The Failure of Liberalism --said that he thinks liberalism is failing because it has come to the view that anything that is not illegal is moral.

巴黎圣母院教授帕特里克·德宁 (Patrick Deneen) 在其 2018 年普林斯顿大学出版社出版的著作《自由主义的失败》中表示，他认为自由主义正在失败，因为它认为任何不违法的都是道德的。

Now, I think he's mistaken about that as a matter of definition, but I think I am uncomfortably close to agreeing with him that there is that potential, because it is possible to say, 'Well, since it's not illegal, you're allowed to do it.' But you still shouldn't do it; and Moulton's example of debate, a free and open debate in the Parliament, I thought was good.

现在，我认为他在定义问题上犯了错误，但我认为我非常接近同意他的观点，即存在这种潜力，因为可以说，“好吧，因为它不违法，所以你可以这样做。”但你仍然不应该这样做；莫尔顿的辩论例子，在议会进行自由公开的辩论，我认为很好。

So, we could have a rule that you can't talk for more than a minute, and if we all vote, we can stop you from talking.

所以，我们可以制定一条规则，你不能说话超过一分钟，如果我们都投票，我们可以阻止你说话。

But, sometimes someone may want to take a position, and I'll learn something from it.

但是，有时有人可能想占据一个位置，我会从中学到一些东西。

I'll be persuaded.

我会被说服的。

And so it's better just to have it as a norm than as a rule.

因此，最好将其作为一种规范，而不是作为规则。

So, to the extent that liberalism has allowed itself to define anything that is legal as moral, it's gotten rid of all of Lord Moulton's middle nation--the middle nation that he talked about.

因此，就自由主义允许自己将任何合法的东西定义为道德而言，它已经摆脱了莫尔顿勋爵的所有中间国家——他谈到的中间国家。

And so--well, we could obviously spend an hour talking about liberalism.

所以——好吧，我们显然可以花一个小时来讨论自由主义。

I do suggest that, if you get a chance, listen to the Lord Moulton episode.

我确实建议，如果有机会，请听听莫尔顿勋爵的剧集。

In the United States, the idea, the definition, of liberalism has become vexed.

在美国，自由主义的理念和定义已经变得令人烦恼。

In most of the world, liberalism is an emphasis on individualism, individual rights--not necessarily ethical individualism, but the rights of individuals to act as they see fit, and an emphasis on emergent rather than imposed norms.

在世界上大多数地方，自由主义强调个人主义、个人权利——不一定是道德个人主义，而是个人按照自己认为合适的方式行事的权利，并强调自然形成的规范而不是强加的规范。

And so, in the United States, liberalism has come to mean more like progressivism .

因此，在美国，自由主义的含义越来越接近进步主义。

Progressivism, between 1890 and 1920, focused on the idea that people were not actually capable of acting as individuals because they lived in the context of a matrix of forces that were far beyond their capacity to participate, and so the government needed to put a thumb on the scale to equalize the rights and abilities of individuals compared to these giant, shadowy corporations and trusts.

1890年至1920年间，进步主义关注的观点是，人们实际上没有能力作为个人行事，因为他们生活在远远超出他们参与能力的力量矩阵的背景下，因此政府需要在天平上放一个拇指，以平衡个人与这些巨大的、影子般的公司和信托机构相比的权利和能力。

So, liberalism in the United States took that direction.

所以，美国的自由主义就朝这个方向发展。

I would say--and this is probably not quite right--but I would say what Americans call classical liberalism is what, in the rest of the world, is just called liberalism .

我想说——这可能不太正确——但我想说，美国人所说的古典自由主义，在世界其他地方，就是所谓的自由主义。

Classical liberalism is mostly, in the United States, a focus on the thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment, but also Edmund Burke, so a kind of classic conservatism with a concern for limited government and individual rights, but also with a sense of individual responsibility.

在美国，古典自由主义主要关注苏格兰启蒙运动的思想家，也包括埃德蒙·伯克，因此是一种经典保守主义，关注有限的政府和个人权利，但也具有个人责任感。

So, classical liberalism really is a kind of civic republicanism that relies on individuals to create their own meaning and to accept the responsibility for creating their own meaning.

因此，古典自由主义实际上是一种公民共和主义，它依靠个人创造自己的意义并承担创造自己意义的责任。

Whereas liberalism in the United States has been the idea that we need other institutions, and the government in particular, to help us create communities of meaning.

而美国的自由主义一直认为我们需要其他机构，特别是政府来帮助我们创建有意义的社区。

I'm sure people could quarrel with parts of that definition, but the main thing is that, in most of the world--if I'm in South America, if I'm in Europe--and I say someone is a liberal, then they are what, in the United States, I would call a classical liberal.

我相信人们可能会对这个定义的部分内容产生争议，但主要的是，在世界上的大部分地区——如果我在南美，如果我在欧洲——我说某人是自由主义者，那么他们就是在美国我所说的古典自由主义者。

Mike Munger: There's a branch of classical liberalism, although the Venn diagram, it's not entirely contained because there are parts of it that are not part of classical liberalism, that are--they're in the subdiscipline called public choice.

迈克·芒格：古典自由主义有一个分支，尽管维恩图没有完全包含它，因为它的某些部分不属于古典自由主义，它们属于公共选择的子学科。

And, public choice--I'm a past president of the Public Choice Society, I'm a past editor, North American editor of the Journal of Public Choice --and public choice is often called, and it was called this by James Buchanan himself--James Buchanan won the Nobel Prize in 1986 for his work in public choice--James Buchanan said that public choice was 'politics without romance.' In the essays that are up on liberalism.org--notice it's not classicalliberalism.org--we're trying to reclaim liberalism to have the same meaning as in the rest of the world.

而且，公共选择——我是公共选择协会的前任主席，我是《公共选择杂志》的前任编辑，北美编辑——公共选择经常被称为，詹姆斯·布坎南本人就是这样称呼的——詹姆斯·布坎南因其在公共选择方面的工作而于1986年获得诺贝尔奖——詹姆斯·布坎南说公共选择是“没有浪漫的政治”。在liberalism.org 上的文章中——注意它不是classicalliberalism.org——我们试图重新赋予自由主义与世界其他地方相同的含义。

It's aspirational.

这是有抱负的。

That may not work.

那可能行不通。

Mike Munger: Well, some things that are hopeless still happen, so it is worth a shot.

迈克·芒格：嗯，有些无望的事情仍然会发生，所以值得一试。

So, on liberalism.org, I've written a series of essays, and in one of them, I was interested in the kind of romance that public choice is not.

所以，在liberalism.org上，我写了一系列文章，其中一篇，我对公共选择所不具有的那种浪漫感兴趣。

The kind of romance that we're talking about here, we might define--you know that I define this in the essay; let me read it--it's from William Burke--Edmund Burke.

我们在这里谈论的那种浪漫，我们可以定义——你知道我在文章中定义了这一点；让我读一下——它是威廉·伯克——埃德蒙·伯克写的。

Burke claimed that custom and loyalty to nations is what we now think of as a romantic inheritance because these are inherited traditions.

伯克声称，习俗和对国家的忠诚是我们现在认为的浪漫遗产，因为这些都是继承的传统。

Quoting now:

现在引用：

So, Church, Family, State--those are all the same things.

所以，教会、家庭、国家——这些都是一样的东西。

That's romanticism on the conservative side.

这是保守派的浪漫主义。

Now, famously--and this is a quote that may have appeared 10 times on EconTalk, but it maybe can't be said enough--Friedrich Hayek pointed out that we can't really do these--that we have to keep those things separate.

现在，弗里德里希·哈耶克（Friedrich Hayek）著名地指出，我们不能真正做到这些，我们必须将这些事情分开，这句话可能在 EconTalk 上出现了 10 次，但可能说得还不够。

So, Hayek, quoting now:

所以，哈耶克现在引用：

So, pausing the quote for a moment, as Adam Smith said, it is important that we have brotherhood, fellow feeling.

因此，暂停一下这句话，正如亚当·斯密所说，我们拥有兄弟情谊和同胞感情是很重要的。

If I work in a business, it is important that I treat people well.

如果我在企业工作，善待他人很重要。

But that doesn't really work at scale.

但这在规模上并没有真正发挥作用。

Now, going back to--and this is from The Fatal Conceit :

现在，回到——这是来自《致命的自负》：

So, that's the argument against romance.

所以，这就是反对浪漫的论点。

Russ Roberts: Yeah, and I want to pause you on that.

拉斯·罗伯茨：是的，我想暂停一下。

I don't think that quote has been said enough, even close.

我认为这句话说得还不够，甚至不够。

Because, I haven't thought of it in a while, and it has a lot of relevance for this current moment, I think, in domestic policy in the United States and in the Western democracies.

因为，我有一段时间没有想到它了，我认为它与当前时刻有很多相关性，与美国和西方民主国家的国内政策有关。

I just want to try to restate what he's saying because Hayek's prose is sometimes a little--

我只是想尝试重述他所说的话，因为哈耶克的散文有时有点——

Russ Roberts: yeah, is a little prolix, I think is the right word.

拉斯·罗伯茨：是的，有点冗长，我认为这是正确的词。

What he's trying to say is that we have an extraordinary--imperfect, but extraordinary--connection to our family members, our spouse, our children, our parents.

他想说的是，我们与我们的家庭成员、我们的配偶、我们的孩子、我们的父母有着非凡的——不完美，但非凡的——联系。

The extraordinary part of it is there's an emotional connection, and there's an immense amount of information that I have about my kids: what they care about, what they understand, what they might not understand, what they are desperately craving.

它的非凡之处在于有一种情感联系，我有大量关于我的孩子的信息：他们关心什么，他们理解什么，他们可能不理解什么，他们迫切渴望什么。

I know a lot about their preferences, especially when they're little.

我非常了解他们的喜好，尤其是当他们还小的时候。

And I allocate goods to them effortlessly.

我毫不费力地将货物分配给他们。

Many is the time I don't divide things equally because I know that one kid had a harder time than the others that day or are struggling with some issue.

很多时候我不会平均分配事情，因为我知道那天有一个孩子比其他孩子过得更艰难，或者正在为某些问题而苦苦挣扎。

Doesn't matter what the reason is.

原因是什么并不重要。

I am a dictator.

我是一个独裁者。

My wife and I were dictators.

我和我的妻子都是独裁者。

And--

还有——

Mike Munger: But, you're substituting goodness for fairness--

迈克·芒格：但是，你用善良代替了公平——

Mike Munger: because you're in a position of saying, 'This is what is good.' Not some abstract rule of fairness.

迈克·芒格：因为你可以说，“这就是好的。”不是某种抽象的公平规则。

Russ Roberts: And, we cared about them deeply.

拉斯·罗伯茨：而且，我们非常关心他们。

And, to take an example I may have mentioned once on the program before, when I got a note from the governor of Missouri that I needed to vaccinate one of my children--this was when vaccination was not controversial--I was offended .

而且，举个我之前在节目中可能提到过的例子，当我收到密苏里州州长的一张纸条，要求我为我的一个孩子接种疫苗时——当时疫苗接种没有争议——我被冒犯了。

Because the implication was I didn't know my children well enough or love them enough or care for them enough, and the governor of the state had to weigh in and admonish me about my duty as a parent.

因为这意味着我不够了解我的孩子，不够爱他们，不够关心他们，州长必须权衡并告诫我作为父母的责任。

And, what Hayek is saying there is that the natural impulse to treat the people that I'm not close to--that I know almost nothing about--is very--the natural impulse to treat them the way I treat the people close to me because it's very powerful and wonderful is very destructive.

而且，哈耶克所说的是，对待那些与我不亲近的人——我几乎一无所知——的自然冲动是非常强烈的——以对待我亲近的人的方式对待他们，因为它非常强大和美妙，并且具有很强的破坏性。

In a piece that my wife forbade me from publishing, I invited the governor to come babysit for our kids so he could learn their names.

在我妻子禁止我发表的一篇文章中，我邀请州长来照顾我们的孩子，这样他就能知道他们的名字。

It would be a good starting point.

这将是一个很好的起点。

I suggested--so I never ran that piece, but--

我建议——所以我从来没有跑过那篇文章，但是——

Russ Roberts: But that's what Hayek is saying.

拉斯·罗伯茨：但这就是哈耶克所说的。

He's saying that you cannot treat the world writ large like a family, even though there's a very natural impulse to do so.

他说你不能像对待一个家庭一样对待这个世界，尽管有一种非常自然的冲动这样做。

And then, the reverse: You can't treat your family like a firm, like a business, where you're maximizing profit.

然后，相反：你不能像对待一家公司一样对待你的家人，就像一家企业一样，在那里你可以实现利润最大化。

It's like, 'Oh, profit's good.

就像，‘哦，利润很好。

I should charge my children for their rent, for their rooms.'

我应该向我的孩子们收取房租和房间费用。

Mike Munger: Again, a frequent theme on EconTalk: If one were to give one's spouse a gift card to Best Buy for their birthday, obviously that means they can buy whatever they want.

迈克·芒格：同样，EconTalk 上的一个常见主题是：如果一个人给自己的配偶一张百思买礼品卡作为生日礼物，显然这意味着他们可以买任何他们想要的东西。

If I guess--

如果我猜——

Russ Roberts: That has to be better--at best, I would pick the gift they would want.

拉斯·罗伯茨：那必须更好——充其量，我会挑选他们想要的礼物。

But I might not.

但我可能不会。

So then this gives them a chance to pick something they'd want even more than what I would pick.

这样一来，他们就有机会选择比我更想要的东西。

It has--

它有——

Mike Munger: I can draw the indifference curves and the budget set and prove this definitively.

迈克·芒格：我可以画出无差异曲线和预算集并明确地证明这一点。

It is always better or at least no worse for me to give the gift card.

对我来说，赠送礼品卡总是更好，或者至少不会更糟。

And yet--a raised eyebrow at least, and probably worse, would be the result if I were to give that to my spouse.

然而，如果我把它交给我的配偶，结果至少会引起人们的注意，甚至可能更糟。

Because, we can't take the rules and understandings of the larger commercial extended order and bring them down to the family.

因为，我们不能将更大的商业扩展订单的规则和理解带到家庭中。

So, there has to be some sort of understanding that we live in several worlds at once.

因此，必须有某种理解，我们同时生活在多个世界中。

And liberalism--classical liberalism--is, to me, the idea that we have to, at least as a matter of aspiration, keep those worlds separate.

对我来说，自由主义——古典自由主义——的理念是，我们必须至少从愿望的角度将这些世界分开。

Russ Roberts: That brings us back to romance, because the romance we're talking about is the sweet, emotional comfort that comes from a familiar norm or behavior that works beautifully in one order but not so well in that other order.

拉斯·罗伯茨：这让我们回到了浪漫，因为我们谈论的浪漫是一种甜蜜的、情感上的安慰，它来自于一种熟悉的规范或行为，这种规范或行为在一种秩序中效果很好，但在另一种秩序中则不太好。

Talk about what politics without romance would be, then.

那么，谈谈没有浪漫的政治会是什么样子。

Mike Munger: Well, I was interested in what romance actually is .

迈克·芒格：嗯，我对浪漫到底是什么很感兴趣。

There is our mutual friend, Pete Boettke, who has--Boettke's rule is that we should always understand that in order to understand a theorist, we have to look at who they're arguing against : so, the sort of Cambridge contextualism.

我们共同的朋友皮特·博特克（Pete Boettke）有——博特克的规则是我们应该始终明白，为了理解一个理论家，我们必须看看他们在反对谁：所以，就是剑桥语境主义。

Quentin Skinner came up with the idea of contextualism.

昆汀·斯金纳提出了情境主义的想法。

To understand, I think, you have to understand what they're arguing against; so I had spent some time trying to figure out what is the romance that public choice is not.

我认为，要理解他们的观点，你必须理解他们反对的是什么；所以我花了一些时间试图弄清楚公共选择不浪漫的是什么。

And, the simple version of it is that the romance in public choice--that public choice is against --is: we have a realistic conception of the warts and problems with markets.

而且，它的简单版本是，公共选择中的浪漫——公共选择所反对的——是：我们对市场的缺点和问题有一个现实的概念。

So, in the 1940s and 1950s, there was a theoretical development of what is called the market failure theory: and there are four main failures of markets.

因此，在 20 世纪 40 年代和 1950 年代，出现了所谓的市场失灵理论的理论发展：市场失灵主要有四种。

There's asymmetric information, externalities, public goods, and natural monopolies.

存在信息不对称、外部性、公共物品和自然垄断。

Those are all technical conditions.

这些都是技术条件。

They're real.

它们是真实的。

They are ways that markets might--the functioning of markets alone will result in outcomes that appear improvable.

它们是市场可能的方式——仅市场的运作就会导致看似可以改善的结果。

And then, the romance was to say, 'And, we will take this perfect organization called government that will step in and we'll correct those things.'

然后，浪漫是说，“而且，我们将采取一个称为政府的完美组织介入，我们将纠正这些事情。”

Now, I argue in this essay, a couple places, that all institutions should be understood as 'Seeing with two Is': Information and Incentives.

现在，我在这篇文章中的几个地方提出，所有机构都应该被理解为“以两个是看待”：信息和激励。

And, the problem with saying that the government has the perfect information and the perfect incentives runs afoul of, respectively, Austrian economics--which questions the information that government has, because it doesn't use prices--and public choice--which raises questions about the incentives that government faces, because we can't assume romance.

而且，说政府拥有完美信息和完美激励的问题分别与奥派经济学和公共选择相冲突，奥派经济学对政府拥有的信息提出质疑，因为它不使用价格，而公共选择则对政府面临的激励提出了质疑，因为我们不能假设浪漫。

I've proposed, immodestly, the Munger Test as a way of thinking about public choice.

我毫不谦虚地提出芒格测试作为思考公共选择的一种方式。

The Munger Test is--and this happens all the time, and I've had people get quite angry at me for doing this, which, as you might imagine, happens often.

芒格测试是——这种情况一直在发生，人们对我这样做感到非常生气，正如你可能想象的那样，这种情况经常发生。

They'll say, 'I think the State should be in charge of deciding what people can say on the Internet.' I'll say, 'Wait, stop.

他们会说，“我认为国家应该负责决定人们可以在互联网上说什么。”我会说，‘等等，停下来。

Take out State, because it doesn't exist, and put in Donald Trump and see if you still believe it.' 'Oh, no. No. Absolutely not.' Well, there's no such thing as the State.

去掉国家，因为它不存在，然后放入唐纳德·特朗普，看看你是否仍然相信它。 '哦，不。不，绝对不是。好吧，没有国家这样的东西。

That's a romantic notion.

这是一个浪漫的想法。

The people who run the State are the same people who run corporations.

管理国家的人就是管理公司的人。

Now, they may face different incentives; they may behave differently; but in terms of self-interest and their ability to get information, and the incentives that they face, we have to put them in a context where we're comparing a real market setting with a real government setting, and then see if you believe it.

现在，他们可能面临不同的激励措施；他们的行为可能有所不同；但就自身利益、他们获取信息的能力以及他们面临的激励而言，我们必须将他们置于一个背景下，将真实的市场环境与真实的政府环境进行比较，然后看看你是否相信。

[More to come, 22:33]

[更多内容，22:33]

Russ Roberts: Just a couple clarifying things, reminding listeners that when you talk about markets, you don't mean stock markets.

拉斯·罗伯茨：只是澄清一些事情，提醒听众，当你谈论市场时，你指的并不是股票市场。

You mean the decentralized way that we produce and buy and sell most of the things that rely--

你指的是我们生产、购买和销售大部分依赖的东西的去中心化方式——

Mike Munger: Yeah, I should call it commerce.

迈克·芒格：是的，我应该称之为商业。

Russ Roberts: But, 'markets' is a good shorthand, but that's what it means.

拉斯·罗伯茨：但是，“市场”是一个很好的简写，但这就是它的意思。

Russ Roberts: I want to take your point about the two Is, which--very cute, the Incentives and Information--and bring it back to the family situation.

拉斯·罗伯茨：我想听听你关于两个“是”的观点，这两个“是”非常可爱，即激励和信息，并将其带回家庭情况。

When I'm allocating goods in the family, I have the information because I live with them.

当我在家里分配物品时，我有这些信息，因为我和他们住在一起。

I also have the incentive because I care deeply about them.

我也有动力，因为我非常关心他们。

Now, it's imperfect.

现在，它还不完美。

I may care sometimes about my own desires relative to theirs in a imperfect way.

有时我可能会以一种不完美的方式关心自己的欲望相对于他们的欲望。

But probably better than the governor of the state I'm living in.

但可能比我所居住的州的州长更好。

That's just an application of what you're talking about.

这只是你所说的一个应用。

And now, let's come back to the Munger Test.

现在，让我们回到芒格测试。

It's extraordinary, the romance we do have about government.

我们对政府的浪漫真是非同寻常。

Forget the academic, scholarly market failure/government failure thing--and we'll come back, I'm sure, and talk about it in different ways.

忘记学术上的、学术上的市场失灵/政府失灵的事情吧——我确信我们会回来，并以不同的方式谈论它。

But, many times people can divide the world up between greedy corporations who are out to hurt you and public servants who are there to protect you.

但是，很多时候，人们可以将世界分成两派，一派是想要伤害你的贪婪的公司，另一派是保护你的公务员。

And I think what public choice says is that often we are--public choice says, 'Sure, corporations are run by people who are self-interested and maybe sometimes even selfish.

我认为公共选择所说的是，我们经常——公共选择说，‘当然，公司是由自私的人经营的，有时甚至是自私的。

What protects you from them might be the government.

保护你免受他们侵害的可能是政府。

It also might be competition, other norms, and so on.

也可能是竞争、其他规范等等。

And, the government that's going to protect you from that and intervene in that process is a human being.' You picked Donald Trump, but you could pick--

而且，将保护你免受这种影响并干预这一过程的政府是一个人。”你选择了唐纳德·特朗普，但你可以选择——

Mike Munger: Or I could have picked Nancy Pelosi.

迈克·芒格：或者我可以选择南希·佩洛西。

I'm not trying to make a partisan point.

我并不是想表达党派观点。

Russ Roberts: And, I just want to come back because there is a great richness to the 52 conversations we've had.

Russ Roberts：而且，我只是想回来，因为我们进行的 52 次对话非常丰富。

Recently--a year and a half ago--you used a beautiful metaphor.

最近——一年半前——你使用了一个美丽的比喻。

You said you don't want to forge a sword that you would want to see your opponent wield--

你说过你不想锻造一把你希望看到对手挥舞的剑——

Mike Munger: Right after the next election--

迈克·芒格：下次选举之后——

Russ Roberts: Yeah.

拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。

You might believe that your side is so obviously right--coming back to your opening point--you may be so convinced of your side's righteousness, your view's righteousness, that it will persist forever.

你可能相信你的一方显然是正确的——回到你的开场白——你可能如此确信你的一方是正义的，你的观点是正义的，以至于它将永远持续下去。

But a little bit of empirical evidence suggests that's not the case, and therefore you should be very wary of giving power to people that you will not like.

但一点经验证据表明情况并非如此，因此你应该非常警惕将权力授予你不喜欢的人。

I think--you said there's no such thing as government.

我想——你说过没有政府这样的东西。

People say, 'Well, that's silly.

人们说，‘嗯，这很愚蠢。

Of course there is such a thing.' That's true, there is such a thing, but to use it in a sentence as the subject, 'The government will do X,' is not really quite right.

当然有这样的事。确实如此，确实有这样的事情，但用它作为句子的主语“政府将做 X”，其实不太正确。

It's a group of people.

这是一群人。

Mike Munger: The government wants something, the government will do something.

迈克·芒格：政府想要某事，政府就会做某事。

Treating it as an organic, unitary actor is the mistake.

将其视为一个有机的、单一的参与者是错误的。

You're right--

你是对的——

Mike Munger: there is a thing called government--

迈克·芒格：有一种东西叫做政府——

Russ Roberts: and lastly, the other piece of this romance, which I think it's important to put on the table, is that the romance we have about democracy, whichever system we're in--you're living in a republic, I'm living in a parliamentary democracy here in Israel--it's very easy to remember some of the flaws of these two systems, but I think the conceptual thing to focus on is that what government does does not represent the will of the people.

拉斯·罗伯茨：最后，这段浪漫的另一部分，我认为重要的是要摆在桌面上，那就是我们对民主的浪漫，无论我们处于哪种制度——你生活在共和国，我生活在以色列的议会民主制——很容易记住这两种制度的一些缺陷，但我认为需要关注的概念性问题是，政府所做的并不代表人民的意愿。

It is the outcome of a complex set of institutions and norms and the incentives that the individuals inside those institutions and norms face, and there's no reason to think that it will reflect what people want.

它是一系列复杂的制度和规范以及这些制度和规范内的个人所面临的激励的结果，没有理由认为它会反映人们的需求。

And, even more strongly, people almost always want more than--they don't want the same thing.

而且，更强烈的是，人们几乎总是想要更多的东西——他们不想要同样的东西。

So, what could it possibly mean to say it reflects the will of the people?

那么，说它反映了人民的意志又意味着什么呢？

What it does is it reflects an imperfect, by definition, process by which group decisions are going to have to get made.

它的作用是，根据定义，它反映了一个不完美的群体决策制定过程。

Having said all that--and then I'll let you respond--having said all that, this doesn't mean that government intervention is a bad thing; it doesn't mean the market is always right; it doesn't mean capitalism is perfect or should be left to run amok or run free or whatever way you want to describe it.

说了这么多——然后我会让你做出回应——说了这么多，这并不意味着政府干预是一件坏事；相反，政府干预是一个坏事。这并不意味着市场永远是对的；这并不意味着资本主义是完美的，也不意味着资本主义应该任其胡作非为、自由运行或任何你想描述的方式。

To me , all public choice does is take the romance out.

对我来说，公共选择所做的一切就是消除浪漫。

I think it's really important.

我认为这非常重要。

It just says, 'Be realistic.

它只是说，‘要现实一点。

Don't be romantic.'

别浪漫了。

Mike Munger: But, it is well said that public choice--another thing people say that public choice is , is politics as exchange.

迈克·芒格：但是，有句话说得好，公共选择——人们所说的公共选择的另一件事——是作为交换的政治。

So, it is something we participate in as a group because it makes it all better off.

所以，这是我们作为一个团队参与的事情，因为它让一切变得更好。

In the essay, I talk about--I don't know if you'd call it a metaphor or an example--but suppose we all wanted to go to lunch.

在这篇文章中，我谈到——我不知道你会称其为隐喻还是例子——但假设我们都想去吃午饭。

And notice I said we all want to go to lunch, not I want to go to lunch, you want to go to lunch, you want to go to lunch--because each of us individually is hungry, so that's the individualist part of this.

请注意，我说我们都想去吃午饭，而不是我想去吃午饭，你想去吃午饭，你想去吃午饭——因为我们每个人都饿了，所以这就是个人主义的部分。

But, generally, I would prefer to go to lunch with a group of people whose company I enjoy, even if we go to a restaurant that is not my favorite.

但是，一般来说，我更愿意与一群我喜欢陪伴的人一起去吃午餐，即使我们去的餐厅不是我最喜欢的。

It's good enough; but, I have a favorite restaurant, and I would like to go to lunch with everyone at that restaurant.

已经足够好了；但是，我有一家最喜欢的餐厅，我想和大家一起去那家餐厅吃午餐。

You would like to go to lunch with everyone at your favorite restaurant, and we disagree about the restaurant.

您想和大家一起去您最喜欢的餐厅吃午餐，但我们对餐厅的看法存在分歧。

One possibility is we all go to lunch by ourselves.

一种可能性是我们都自己去吃午饭。

That's not the way groups work.

这不是团体的工作方式。

Usually what happens is we all want to go to lunch together, but then we have to make some sort of decision about where it's going to be.

通常发生的情况是我们都想一起去吃午饭，但随后我们必须做出某种决定去哪里。

And usually what happens is we don't formally vote, but we will make arguments: 'Oh, the line is too long there.

通常发生的情况是我们不会正式投票，但我们会提出论点：‘哦，那里的队伍太长了。

That's too far.

那太远了。

That's too expensive.' And we'll come to some kind of consensus.

那太贵了。我们会达成某种共识。

So, that's politics as exchange.

所以，这就是作为交换的政治。

There's a shared--there's a goal that we all agree on: We'd like to go to lunch together.

我们有一个共同的目标：我们想一起去吃午饭。

And then we have a process of revealing information about what each of us believes and wants, and we all have the incentive to come to an agreement because we have a shared goal, and that is we want to go to lunch together.

然后我们有一个过程来揭示我们每个人的信念和愿望的信息，我们都有动力达成协议，因为我们有一个共同的目标，那就是我们想一起去吃午餐。

So then, maybe we notice that it's important that each of us has the exit option.

那么，也许我们注意到，我们每个人都有退出选择，这一点很重要。

We decide we want to go to some place that I just hate, and I say, 'Well, heck with you.

我们决定去一个我讨厌的地方，然后我说，‘好吧，管你呢。

I'm going to go by myself.' And I go get takeout, and I go to my office, and like Achilles in his tent, I pout in my office and eat my takeout with my plastic fork--maybe not exactly like Achilles, but I wanted to get in an Odyssey --well, I wanted to get a--

我自己去吧。我去叫外卖，然后去我的办公室，就像阿基里斯在他的帐篷里一样，我在办公室撅起嘴，用塑料叉子吃外卖——也许不完全像阿基里斯，但我想进入奥德赛——嗯，我想要——

Mike Munger: an Iliad reference in here somewhere.

迈克·芒格（Mike Munger）：这里某处引用了《伊利亚特》。

So, we get to the restaurant.

于是，我们就到了餐厅。

And, how do we decide what each of us is going to eat?

而且，我们如何决定我们每个人要吃什么？

We could--each person could look at the menu and make a proposal.

我们可以——每个人都可以查看菜单并提出建议。

We could discuss the merits of the different dishes, and then we could vote about which of those all of us will order.

我们可以讨论不同菜肴的优点，然后我们可以投票决定我们所有人都会点哪一个。

So, then [inaudible 00:30:07]--

那么，[听不清 00:30:07]--

Russ Roberts: And then, share them equally, very carefully parceling out to each person their share.

拉斯·罗伯茨：然后，平等地分享它们，非常小心地将自己的份额分配给每个人。

And of course, no one has ever--well, economists might have a meal like this sometimes, but real human beings don't eat this way, right?

当然，没有人曾经——好吧，经济学家有时可能会吃这样的一顿饭，但真正的人类不会这样吃，对吧？

So, carry on.

所以，继续吧。

Mike Munger: But, the question is why?

迈克·芒格：但是，问题是为什么？

It's not obvious that you wouldn't.

不明显你不会。

After all, you're a group.

毕竟你们是一个团体。

And so, the big problem that public choice focuses on is an informed, unromantic choice between what is mine and what is ours.

因此，公共选择关注的大问题是在“我的”和“我们的”之间做出明智的、不浪漫的选择。

Not between what is mine and what is yours.

不在我的和你的之间。

This is not a property rights question.

这不是产权问题。

This is a negotiation that we, as a group, are going to make.

这是我们作为一个团体将要进行的谈判。

So, the 'ours' part is what restaurant will we go to?

那么，“我们的”部分是我们要去哪家餐厅？

The 'mine' part of it is each of us gets to order what we want off the menu.

其中“我的”部分是我们每个人都可以从菜单上点我们想要的东西。

And we may have different things.

我们可能有不同的事情。

And so the line--

所以这条线——

Russ Roberts: But, we may also decide we're going to share today, and we're going to have to decide which dishes to order.

拉斯·罗伯茨：但是，我们也可能决定今天要分享，并且我们必须决定点哪些菜。

And as the group gets bigger, this gets unwieldy, and it's difficult, and--but as you said, I might decide I don't really like raw tomatoes, but I know most people in the group like salad with tomatoes in it, not on the side, and so we order a salad.

随着团队规模的扩大，这会变得笨拙，而且很困难，而且——但正如你所说，我可能决定我不太喜欢生西红柿，但我知道团队中的大多数人喜欢里面有西红柿的沙拉，而不是旁边的沙拉，所以我们点了一份沙拉。

I kind of pick around it, or I don't eat the salad that day, and I get, quote, "taken advantage of." But it's worth it because the whole group is happy; and I like eating; and they're my friends.

我有点挑剔，或者那天我不吃沙拉，引用的话，我得到了“利用”。但这是值得的，因为整个团队都很高兴；我喜欢吃；他们是我的朋友。

I'm happy to see their happiness.

看到他们的幸福我很开心。

Russ Roberts: This is where the--by the way, sorry to take your example and run off the rails with it.

拉斯·罗伯茨：顺便说一句，很抱歉以你的例子为例，但它却偏离了轨道。

This is one of the problems, is the example, which is trying to get at how politics involves horse trading, compromise--

这是问题之一，就是这个例子，它试图了解政治如何涉及讨价还价、妥协——

Russ Roberts: exchange, and sometimes allowing people to exit.

Russ Roberts：交换，有时允许人们退出。

By definition, this very example of five people sitting around a table at lunch has some romance about it because we actually like each other.

根据定义，这个五个人围坐在桌子旁吃午餐的例子有一些浪漫，因为我们实际上彼此喜欢。

In the political process, many of the people at the table, I can't see them.

在政治过程中，很多人在桌子上，我看不到他们。

And some of them I don't like.

其中一些我不喜欢。

Mike Munger: You raise an important point, so let me say two things about that.

迈克·芒格：你提出了一个重要的观点，所以让我对此说两件事。

One is: we're still having to deal with the problem of information and incentives.

一是：我们仍然需要处理信息和激励问题。

We have solved the incentive problem here because this is a microcosmos problem.

我们在这里解决了激励问题，因为这是一个微观问题。

We all like each other, and so that means that we're solicitous of it.

我们都喜欢对方，这意味着我们很关心对方。

If you tell me you're allergic to tomatoes, for example, then I'm probably going to say, 'All right, we're not going to choose a dish where you have to eat that or have nothing.'

例如，如果你告诉我你对西红柿过敏，那么我可能会说，“好吧，我们不会选择你必须吃西红柿或什么都不吃的菜。”

The other thing is, though, that this is an information problem.

但另一件事是，这是一个信息问题。

So, if we see with two Is--it's information and incentives--suppose we go to an ethnic restaurant that I have no experience--or a tapas restaurant--and I don't know the dishes, but one person is a regular.

所以，如果我们看到两个“Is”——信息和激励——假设我们去一家我没有经验的民族餐厅——或者一家小吃餐厅——我不知道菜品，但有一个人是常客。

I might very well put myself in that person's hand: 'You choose the--.' Some of the best meals I've ever had have been with someone who really knows that cuisine and say, 'Why don't you order for all of us?' And then we all share, and those are terrific.

我很可能将自己置于那个人的手中：“你选择——”。我吃过的一些最美味的饭菜是和一个真正了解美食的人一起吃的，他会说：“你为什么不为我们所有人点餐呢？”然后我们大家一起分享，这真是太棒了。

So, all of those things are negotiable in this little setting of five people.

因此，在这个只有五个人的小环境中，所有这些事情都是可以协商的。

But, that is an example of politics as exchange.

但是，这是政治作为交换的一个例子。

Question is, does it scale up?

问题是，它能扩大规模吗？

And, generally, the answer is going to be no, because we don't have the same incentives, and we don't have enough information.

一般来说，答案是否定的，因为我们没有相同的激励措施，而且我们没有足够的信息。

So, saying that that example works at the micro level, you would want a different set of institutions, and you might be skeptical.

因此，如果说这个例子在微观层面有效，你可能会想要一组不同的机构，并且你可能会持怀疑态度。

So, there's more to public choice than just politics as exchange, and the politics without romance part says that we're going to have to add some other aspects.

因此，公共选择不仅仅是作为交换的政治，而没有浪漫部分的政治表明我们将不得不添加一些其他方面。

And, those might include--and I'll run through them very quickly--for public choice, it's methodological individualism and behavioral symmetry .

而且，这些可能包括——我会很快地浏览它们——对于公共选择，它是方法论上的个人主义和行为对称性。

Methodological individualism means that we have to assume that the locus of choice and the locus of enjoyment or disappointment is the individual.

方法论个人主义意味着我们必须假设选择的根源以及享受或失望的根源是个人。

We can't say, 'The government acts.

我们不能说，‘政府采取行动。

The government thinks.' What the government is, is a collection of people who come up with some aggregate process where we look at the information that people have.

政府认为。政府是一群人的集合，他们提出了一些汇总流程，我们在其中查看人们拥有的信息。

And, often we do this through voting.

而且，我们通常通过投票来做到这一点。

We might do it in a bureaucracy by gathering information, looking at the rules, maybe getting public comment, but the--methodological individualism means that, as a matter of constraint, we can't just assume that a group of individuals can be treated as an organism.

在官僚机构中，我们可能会通过收集信息、查看规则、也许获得公众评论来做到这一点，但方法论个人主义意味着，作为一种约束，我们不能仅仅假设一群个体可以被视为一个有机体。

Russ Roberts: Before you go on to the behavioral symmetry, I just want to try to get at that a little deeper.

拉斯·罗伯茨：在继续讨论行为对称性之前，我只想尝试更深入地了解这一点。

We will say after that lunch to someone who wasn't there and asks, 'How was it?' I'll say, 'We had a great time.' But, what I mean by that is each of us individually enjoyed ourselves.

午餐后，我们会问不在场的人，“怎么样？”我会说，‘我们度过了一段美好的时光。’但是，我的意思是我们每个人都享受自己。

If there was a person who had a allergic attack but was only one of the group, the rest of the people thought it was one of the best meals they've ever had, it would be bizarre to tell the questioner, 'Yeah, we had a great time.

如果有一个人过敏，但只是小组中的一个人，其他人都认为这是他们吃过的最好的饭菜之一，那么告诉提问者“是的，我们度过了愉快的时光”就会很奇怪。

Well, that one guy had to go to the hospital, but'--

好吧，那家伙必须去医院，但是'--

Mike Munger: Yes.

迈克·芒格：是的。

It's [inaudible 00:35:21]--

这是[听不清 00:35:21]--

Russ Roberts: but we --whatever that--my point is it doesn't mean anything in that particular example.

拉斯·罗伯茨：但我们——无论如何——我的观点是，在那个特定的例子中它没有任何意义。

If we're all alike, which would be, in a way, the essence of that individualism approach, is to say: We're never alike.

如果我们都相似，那么在某种程度上，个人主义方法的本质就是说：我们从来都不相同。

We're all different.

我们都是不同的。

Whether it's our preferences, our opportunities, our aspirations, our moods, we're all different.

无论是我们的偏好、我们的机会、我们的愿望、我们的心情，我们都是不同的。

And so to say, 'We all had a good time,' is a generalization that presumes that most of us individually had a pleasant experience.

因此，“我们都度过了愉快的时光”是一种概括，假设我们大多数人都拥有愉快的经历。

If that wasn't the case, it would be absurd--this part says--to say we had a good time, because I'm just going to aggregate over all of us.

如果情况并非如此，那么说我们度过了愉快的时光就太荒谬了，因为我只是要汇总我们所有人。

That would be strange.

那会很奇怪。

Mike Munger: One of the reasons that what you just said is important is that it actually rules out ethical individualism.

迈克·芒格：你刚才所说的很重要的原因之一是它实际上排除了道德个人主义。

Methodological individualism does not imply ethical individualism.

方法论个人主义并不意味着伦理个人主义。

Ethical individualism means if you ask, 'How was it for the group?' and it was good for me, I just get to say, 'Well, it was great,' because it was good for me .

道德个人主义意味着如果你问“这个团体怎么样？”这对我有好处，我只能说，‘嗯，这太棒了，’因为这对我有好处。

So, there is an entity--Buchanan called them clubs.

所以，有一个实体——布坎南称之为俱乐部。

One of the things that's mentioned in the Nobel Prize announcement was that there are these voluntary, maybe evanescent, groups called clubs, and you can exit; but I participate in this group, and we can talk about the quality of the experience that people have in the club.

诺贝尔奖公告中提到的一件事是，有一些自愿的、可能转瞬即逝的团体，称为俱乐部，你可以退出；但我参加了这个小组，我们可以谈论人们在俱乐部的体验质量。

It is not necessarily ethical individualism, where all I care about is myself.

这不一定是道德个人主义，我只关心我自己。

I might very well care about the other individuals.

我可能很关心其他人。

But we are acting as individuals in a group, and that group is constituted with a small 'c'.

但我们是作为一个群体中的个体行事，而这个群体是由一个小“c”构成的。

That small-'c' constitution is: we invite people who we like.

那条小“c”宪法是：我们邀请我们喜欢的人。

Maybe someone else shows up, and we roll our eyes and say, 'Okay, yeah, sure, you can come along.' But, the way that these groups form is kind of spontaneous.

也许其他人出现了，我们翻白眼说：“好吧，是的，当然，你可以一起去。”但是，这些团体的形成方式是自发的。

They are voluntary associations, but even though we're assuming methodological individualism, we're not assuming ethical individualism.

它们是自愿协会，但即使我们假设方法论个人主义，我们也没有假设道德个人主义。

Russ Roberts: I think it's really important because I think a lot of times when people talk about, say, classical liberalism, they presume it means every man for himself.

拉斯·罗伯茨：我认为这非常重要，因为我认为很多时候，当人们谈论古典自由主义时，他们认为这意味着每个人都为了自己。

Or every woman for herself.

或者每个女人都为了自己。

I don't know how to improve that.

我不知道如何改进。

But, the expression 'Every man for himself' is: I care about me.

但是，“每个人都为自己”这句话是：我关心我自己。

So, if I had a good time, it was a good choice.

所以，如果我玩得开心，这是一个不错的选择。

That's bizarre.

这很奇怪。

Most human beings don't feel that way.

大多数人没有这种感觉。

There are certain settings where it's appropriate, but in general, just because we're making these claims that we've been making about the importance of individuals and the limits on what we can say about the group as a whole does not mean that we are atomistic or that we can't join together, that we can't ally ourselves with people with similar preferences or causes or organizations that are trying to solve a problem we care about.

在某些情况下这是合适的，但总的来说，仅仅因为我们对个人的重要性做出了这些主张，并且对我们对整个群体的言论进行了限制，并不意味着我们是原子论的，或者我们不能团结在一起，我们不能与具有相似偏好或事业的人或试图解决我们关心的问题的组织结盟。

But it's almost the opposite.

但事实几乎相反。

We're going to associate with other individuals and create something larger than ourselves, but we're going to limit what we say and how we describe that thing we create together, and we're not going to be romantic about it.

我们将与其他人交往并创造出比我们自己更大的东西，但我们将限制我们所说的话以及我们如何描述我们共同创造的东西，而且我们不会对此感到浪漫。

We might be--when we're laying in the dark before we go to sleep, we might get great satisfaction that our Little League team played well today, but the point is it's not all about me.

我们可能——当我们在睡觉前躺在黑暗中时，我们可能会因为我们的少年棒球联盟队今天表现出色而感到非常满意，但问题是这不全是关于我的。

This allows for altruism and love and the freedom to associate with people who care about the things you care about to do those things even better than you can do them on your own.

这允许利他主义和爱，以及与关心你关心的事情的人交往的自由，甚至比你自己做的更好。

That begins to open a question about what is the scope of our activities as in groups, either in voluntary groups or in political groups, and the choices we make to what we put under public policy's purview is then crucial, and it recognizes that because the groups don't always work as well as we might like doesn't mean we should do everything in a group; and we certainly shouldn't do everything alone.

这就开始提出一个问题，即我们在团体中的活动范围是什么，无论是在志愿团体还是在政治团体中，以及我们对公共政策权限范围内的活动所做的选择至关重要，并且它认识到，因为团体并不总是像我们希望的那样运作，并不意味着我们应该在团体中做所有事情;我们当然不应该独自完成所有事情。

Mike Munger: The reason we're spending so much time on this--listeners may think you're arguing about a tiny point--that is usually the claim that is made about public choice, is that: You're saying that people are selfish.

迈克·芒格：我们花这么多时间在这个问题上——听众可能认为你在争论一个小问题——通常是关于公共选择的主张，原因是：你说人们是自私的。

What we're saying is that they're self-interested, and that that self-interest often contains an important social aspect and the participation in groups that are larger than myself.

我们所说的是，他们是自私的，而自私往往包含重要的社会方面以及参与比我更大的群体。

Now, calling it 'politics as exchange' might be rather odd because maybe it's politics as cooperation or politics of choosing in groups, so the reason that my Cambridge book was titled Choosing in Groups was I wanted to look at the analytics of how people choose collectively.

现在，称其为“作为交换的政治”可能相当奇怪，因为它可能是作为合作的政治或群体选择的政治，所以我的剑桥书名为《群体选择》的原因是我想研究人们如何集体选择的分析。

But, I've actually come to think that politics as exchange means that I want to participate in this group with you, and I want you to be in it because I think we will both be better off as a result, and that's kind of just the essence of exchange.

但是，我实际上开始认为，政治作为交换意味着我想和你一起参与这个团体，我希望你加入其中，因为我认为我们都会因此而变得更好，而这正是交换的本质。

The question is: How do those institutions work that is different?

问题是：这些不同的机构如何运作？

So you said: Don't be romantic about it.

所以你说：别浪漫了。

And I went to look at what romanticism means.

我去看看浪漫主义意味着什么。

Because, romanticism is--it was a philosophical movement, particularly German idealism, and, above all, Hegel.

因为，浪漫主义是一种哲学运动，特别是德国唯心主义，尤其是黑格尔。

So, in 1821, Friedrich Hegel published a book, The Philosophy of Right , and he advanced a--we don't have time to say much about it, but he advanced a doctrine that in German is Sittlichkeit , which is ethical life, ethical customness, even the march of God in the world.

因此，弗里德里希·黑格尔在 1821 年出版了《法哲学》一书，他提出了一个——我们没有时间多说，但他提出了一个学说，在德语中是 Sittlichkeit ，即伦理生活、伦理习俗，甚至是上帝在世界上的行进。

And his claim is that, as human beings develop, the State has a will and purpose of its own.

他的主张是，随着人类的发展，国家有自己的意志和目的。

And it's irreducible to individual wills.

而且它无法简化为个人意愿。

And so, romanticism would say that the State is an organic entity that we should--and that's actually the highest purpose.

因此，浪漫主义会说国家是一个有机实体，我们应该这样做——这实际上是最高目的。

And what's interesting is that Edmund Burke thought that also.

有趣的是埃德蒙·伯克也这么认为。

So, Hegel is an essentially conservative religious view, where you have a combination of the volksgeist --the spirit of the people--and it is embodied in the State.

因此，黑格尔本质上是一种保守的宗教观点，其中有民族精神（人民精神）的结合，它体现在国家中。

And so what we need to do is create better and better institutions.

因此，我们需要做的是创建越来越好的机构。

So we start with the family; we move to civil society; but ultimately the State.

所以我们从家庭开始；我们走向公民社会；但最终是国家。

And the State is not a contract among preexisting individuals: the State is the actualization of freedom itself.

国家并不是先前存在的个人之间的契约：国家是自由本身的实现。

The State is, according to Hegel, an ethical substance with its own rational structure, and so, again, he uses the phrase, 'The march of God' in the world.

根据黑格尔的说法，国家是一种具有自身理性结构的伦理实体，因此，他再次使用了“上帝在世界上的行进”这个短语。

So, that idea of romance--if the State is Sittlichkeit actualized--the concrete, historically developed, ethical substance of the people rather than a set of offices held by ambitious, budget-maximizing, vote-seeking individuals--then you can talk about what the State would will.

因此，浪漫的想法——如果国家是现实的——具体的、历史发展的、人民的道德实质，而不是由雄心勃勃、预算最大化、寻求选票的个人担任的一组办公室——那么你就可以谈论国家会做什么。

So, that is literally the kind of romance that Buchanan is arguing against.

所以，这实际上就是布坎南所反对的那种浪漫。

And it's actually obscure.

而它实际上是晦涩难懂的。

I realize--

我意识到——

Mike Munger: Well, the State is the concrete, historically developed, ethical substance of the people.

迈克·芒格：嗯，国家是人民具体的、历史发展的、道德的实体。

So the State actually is the embodiment of the people.

所以国家实际上是人民的体现。

It's not a set of offices that are held by ambitious, budget-maximizing, vote-seeking individuals.

它不是由雄心勃勃、预算最大化、寻求选票的个人担任的一组办公室。

So, the State is, and quoting, although it's English, not German: it is 'the actualization of freedom itself.' The State is an ethical substance with its own rational structure.

因此，国家是，并引用，尽管它是英语，而不是德语：它是“自由本身的实现”。国家是一个具有自身理性结构的伦理实体。

It is prior to and higher than the individuals who compose it.

它先于并高于组成它的个人。

Mike Munger: That is a paraphrase of Hegel.

迈克·芒格：这是黑格尔的释义。

Russ Roberts: A recent episode hasn't aired yet, so you would not have heard it.

拉斯·罗伯茨：最近的一集还没有播出，所以你不会听说过。

I mentioned reading the Radetzky March by Joseph Roth, and it's hard to read that book and maintain much romance about the state.

我提到过读约瑟夫·罗斯的《拉德茨基进行曲》，读完这本书并保持对国家的浪漫是很困难的。

It's a portrait of Austria-Hungary and the Emperor Franz Joseph.

这是奥匈帝国和弗朗茨·约瑟夫皇帝的肖像。

They're in the background--it's actually about the lives of a family--but in the background, ever-present is the State.

他们在幕后——这实际上是关于一个家庭的生活——但在幕后，永远存在的是国家。

The father is a bureaucrat, the son is a soldier, and the grandfather, the father's father, was a soldier; and so they are entangled emotionally, practically, in all kinds of ways with the Emperor and with the regime, the empire.

父亲是官僚，儿子是军人，祖父，父亲的父亲，是军人；因此，他们在情感上、实际上、以各种方式与皇帝、政权、帝国纠缠在一起。

And they have a lot of romance about it.

他们对此有很多浪漫的经历。

What--

什么——

Mike Munger: It's a family.

迈克·芒格：这是一个家庭。

It is a family sort of metaphor--

这是一个家庭的隐喻——

Russ Roberts: and what that book is about, I'm just realizing it now to some extent, is the loss of romance, the inevitable loss of romance, when the illusions that the people have about the State have been shattered.

拉斯·罗伯茨：我现在才在某种程度上意识到，这本书的主题是浪漫的丧失，当人们对国家的幻想破灭时，浪漫不可避免的丧失。

I want to say one other thing.

我还想说一件事。

I want to give a different example of romance that also might be helpful.

我想举一个不同的浪漫例子，也许也会有所帮助。

Listeners know I'm a Patriots fan.

听众都知道我是爱国者队的球迷。

So, I have a lot of romance, and most people do, about their sports teams.

所以，我和大多数人一样，对他们的运动队有很多浪漫的感情。

Tom Brady was accused of inflating the footballs against the regulations.

汤姆·布雷迪被指控违反规定给足球充气。

I know that was wrong because Tom Brady would never do anything wrong, and I believe deeply in my heart that if Tom Brady were sitting in my office with me, he'd be a swell fellow.

我知道这是错误的，因为汤姆·布雷迪永远不会做任何错事，而且我内心深处相信，如果汤姆·布雷迪和我一起坐在我的办公室里，他会是一个好人。

And he might be.

他可能是。

I don't know.

我不知道。

He might actually be .

他实际上可能是。

But by definition almost, franchises, sports teams, traffic in romance, they create the aw-shucks charm of Tom Brady's successor, Drake Maye, who 'is just a good guy.

但根据定义，特许经营权、运动队、浪漫的交通，它们创造了汤姆·布雷迪的继任者德雷克·梅耶的魅力，他“只是一个好人”。

I can tell.' We have this about our movie stars and our pop stars often.

我看得出来。我们经常有这样的事情发生在我们的电影明星和流行歌星身上。

When they fall--when we find out they have feet of clay--we're very disillusioned.

当他们倒下时——当我们发现他们的脚如泥时——我们的幻想破灭了。

But, it's pretty harmless to believe that your sports team could do no wrong and that its players care about you or that--and I'll say, by the way, 'Hey, we won this weekend,' to my brother who is also a--

但是，相信你的运动队不会做错，并且它的球员关心你或其他事情，这是无害的——顺便说一句，我会对我的兄弟说，“嘿，我们这个周末赢了”，他也是——

Russ Roberts: How weird is that?

拉斯·罗伯茨：这有多奇怪？

We didn't play.

我们没有玩。

'What a great game we played,' I'll say to him.

“我们打了一场多么精彩的比赛啊，”我会对他说。

So, we have a romance that we are part of this collective that is clearly irrational, and it's a harmless irrationality.

所以，我们有一种浪漫，我们是这个集体的一部分，这显然是非理性的，而且是一种无害的非理性。

It adds a richness to life that's delightful.

它为生活增添了令人愉快的丰富性。

It's not healthy to do it about politics.

出于政治目的这样做是不健康的。

Mike Munger: Why?

迈克·芒格：为什么？

Why is it not?

为什么不是呢？

Human beings are literally evolved to feel embedded.

人类的进化确实是为了感觉融入其中。

The reason that you can take advantage of sports teams is that we are evolved to feel like part of something larger than ourselves, so the Dunbar--

你可以利用运动队的原因是，我们在进化中感觉自己是比我们自己更大的事物的一部分，所以邓巴——

Russ Roberts: That's Hayek's point.

拉斯·罗伯茨：这就是哈耶克的观点。

We're taking our--

我们正在带着我们的——

Russ Roberts: my parents would never do anything to hurt me, and 'neither would Tom Brady or Bill Belichick.'

拉斯·罗伯茨：我的父母永远不会做任何伤害我的事情，“汤姆·布雷迪或比尔·贝利切克也不会。”

Mike Munger: Well, but notice the--and Hayek calls this an atavism.

迈克·芒格：嗯，但请注意——哈耶克称之为返祖现象。

An atavism is a vestigial element of something that was once adaptive.

返祖现象是曾经具有适应性的事物的残余元素。

So, the Dunbar number is something like 150.

所以，邓巴数大约是 150。

That's the number of people who can live together in a hierarchically flat society and keep track of reputations.

这是能够在一个等级森严的扁平社会中共同生活并保持声誉的人数。

So, hunter-gatherer societies, clans, they could go up to about 150 people, and if you were to act badly, I could keep track of it.

所以，狩猎采集社会、氏族，最多可以有150人左右，如果你表现不好，我可以跟踪。

One of the reasons that human beings like to gossip is that--so we actually get pleasure from gossiping because that allows us to keep track of the reputations of other people in our clan.

人类喜欢八卦的原因之一是——所以我们实际上从八卦中获得乐趣，因为这使我们能够了解我们家族中其他人的声誉。

If you act badly, if you don't say, 'Oh, we won,' or be sad that we lost, you get put outside the wall, and there's big animals out there.

如果你表现不好，如果你不说“哦，我们赢了”，或者为我们输了而感到难过，你就会被赶到墙外，外面就会有大动物。

You won't last long by yourself.

你一个人坚持不了多久。

So, the people who did that, they went away, and their--

所以，那些这么做的人，他们离开了，然后他们——

Mike Munger: That's not an evolutionarily successful--so we have a brain architecture that makes us want to be part of teams, and sports teams are a harmless and, in fact, I would say, a healthy way of having that attachment.

迈克·芒格：这在进化上并不是成功的——所以我们的大脑结构让我们想要成为团队的一部分，而运动队是一种无害的，事实上，我想说，这是一种产生这种依恋的健康方式。

But when that becomes an attachment to the state as if it were an organism--so at the Patriots game, maybe at the first game of the year, there's a flyover of a bunch of Delta Airlines jets--no, wait, those are U.S. Air Force jets--and my throat swells, and I am pleased to be part of something larger than myself.

但当它成为对国家的依恋，就好像它是一个有机体一样——所以在爱国者队的比赛中，也许在今年的第一场比赛中，有一群达美航空公司的喷气式飞机飞过——不，等等，那些是美国空军的喷气式飞机——我的喉咙肿胀，我很高兴能成为比我自己更大的事情的一部分。

This militaristic, jingoistic display makes me happy.

这种军国主义、沙文主义的表现让我很高兴。

And so--maybe he said this, maybe he didn't--Napoleon Bonaparte said that his particular military genius was his ability to make men die for little pieces of ribbon, and that if he had had more ribbon, he could have won more battles.

所以——也许他这么说，也许他没有——拿破仑·波拿巴说，他独特的军事天才在于他有能力让人们为小丝带而死，如果他有更多的丝带，他就能赢得更多的战斗。

Geez, that's cynical.

哎呀，这太愤世嫉俗了。

In Theory of Moral Sentiments , Adam Smith talks about the fact that the soldier, when he imagines his death and funeral, thinks about the applause that he will receive because people will be--and he won't be there.

亚当·斯密在《道德情操论》中谈到了这样一个事实：士兵在想象自己的死亡和葬礼时，会想到他将收到的掌声，因为人们会在那里，而他不会在那里。

But we have this ability to say we want to be part of something larger than ourselves.

但我们有能力说我们想成为比我们自己更伟大的事物的一部分。

That's all great.

这一切都很棒。

However, we have to have a society that recognizes the importance of individuals rather than saying you have to subsume your interests and self to the volksgeist --to the larger.

然而，我们必须有一个认识到个人重要性的社会，而不是说你必须将你的利益和自我纳入大众精神——更大的范围。

I'm not trying to make a Nazi point here.

我并不是想在这里提出纳粹观点。

The point is that most of idealism, German idealism, is a reaction of Marx to Hegel; and so all of the words, all of the technical words that we use to describe this, but this long predates, and there have been many other nationalistic expressions, and it's quite possible that the United States is now guilty of that.

关键是，大多数唯心主义，即德国唯心主义，是马克思对黑格尔的反应；因此，我们用来描述这一点的所有词语、所有技术词语，但这早在很久之前，并且已经有许多其他民族主义表达方式，而且美国现在很可能对此感到内疚。

We've talked a fair amount about what public choice is, and I have given some definitions of the parts of public choice.

我们已经讨论了相当多的关于什么是公共选择的问题，并且我对公共选择的各个部分给出了一些定义。

In the essay on liberalism--

在关于自由主义的文章中——

Russ Roberts: Well, you didn't get--I'm sorry.

拉斯·罗伯茨：好吧，你没有明白——我很抱歉。

Do you want to say something about behavioral symmetry?

你想谈谈行为对称性吗？

We went off into a rather lengthy tangent.

我们进入了一个相当长的切线。

Before you go on, do you want to add anything about that?

在继续之前，您想补充什么吗？

Russ Roberts: I don't remember what that is.

拉斯·罗伯茨：我不记得那是什么了。

Mike Munger: Right.

迈克·芒格：对。

Behavioral symmetry is--in another way, it is a key aspect of public choice that we can't do without, and it is an obvious--Alistair Cooke, when he was talking about the Nobel Prize in Economics on BBC Four [British Broacasting Corporation 4], said that public choice is, after all, the rather homely observation that politicians are just like you and me.

行为对称性——换句话说，它是公共选择的一个关键方面，我们离不开它，而且这是显而易见的——阿利斯泰尔·库克（Alistair Cooke）在 BBC 四台 [英国广播公司 4] 上谈论诺贝尔经济学奖时说，公共选择毕竟是一种相当朴素的观察，政治家就像你我一样。

Well, they actually aren't like you and me; they are you and me.

嗯，他们实际上并不像你我；他们是你和我。

There's this difference, but they're basically like us.

虽然有这个区别，但他们基本上和我们一样。

They're us.

他们就是我们。

[inaudible 00:51:09]--

[听不清 00:51:09]--

Russ Roberts: Yeah.

拉斯·罗伯茨：是的。

Gorillas are like you and me.

大猩猩就像你和我。

Mike Munger: Yes.

迈克·芒格：是的。

They have important similarities.

它们有重要的相似之处。

Mike Munger: So, if a corporate CEO [Chief Executive Officer] becomes a U.S. senator, they don't have a new soul implanted; they're basically the same person.

迈克·芒格：所以，如果一个企业首席执行官[首席执行官]成为美国参议员，他们并没有被植入新的灵魂；而是被植入了新的灵魂。他们基本上是同一个人。

If a consumer who is too dumb to know what size Coke they're going to buy in New York at the 7-Eleven walks into the voting booth, they don't become a genius and now understand the niceties of foreign policy.

如果一个笨到不知道自己要在纽约 7-11 便利店购买多大尺寸可乐的消费者走进投票站，他们不会成为天才，也不会了解外交政策的微妙之处。

These are the consumers, and voters are the same people, and economic leaders and political leaders are the same people.

这些是消费者，选民是同一群人，经济领袖和政治领袖也是同一群人。

Now, I wrote a piece with Geoffrey Brennan and Cameron Tilley about behavioral symmetry, where we argued that maybe it should be called motivational symmetry.

现在，我与杰弗里·布伦南（Geoffrey Brennan）和卡梅伦·蒂利（Cameron Tilley）写了一篇关于行为对称性的文章，我们认为也许应该将其称为动机对称性。

Because, behavioral symmetry doesn't mean--economics doesn't say that people act the same in all situations.

因为，行为对称并不意味着——经济学并没有说人们在所有情况下都会采取相同的行为。

In fact, what economics says is that people act differently according to the incentives.

事实上，经济学所说的是，人们根据激励的不同采取不同的行为。

It may be that, in politics, the incentives are quite different than they are in commercial settings, and so my behavior might be different.

也许在政治中，激励措施与商业环境中的激励措施有很大不同，所以我的行为可能会有所不同。

So, we don't have behavioral symmetry; what we really have is motivational symmetry.

所以，我们没有行为对称性；我们真正拥有的是动机对称性。

However, I am motivated by self-interest, and that self-interest might include concern for others.

然而，我的动机是自利，而自利可能包括对他人的关心。

So the behavioral symmetry might say, 'You know, in markets, we should recognize the fact that people might have concern for others.

因此，行为对称性可能会说，‘你知道，在市场中，我们应该认识到人们可能会关心他人的事实。

They're not narrowly self-interested.' And in politics, they're like that.

他们并不是狭隘的自私自利。在政治上，他们就是这样。

But, in both cases, we need to make the same assumptions about human motivation.

但是，在这两种情况下，我们都需要对人类动机做出相同的假设。

That's all the claim is.

这就是所有的主张。

Russ Roberts: In another episode that hasn't aired yet, with Adam Mastroianni, he makes the claim that incentives are for losers, and by that, what he means--and I want to apply it now to this example you just gave--you just recognized the reality that a corporate individual who goes into politics doesn't get a soul implant or a brain surgery.

拉斯·罗伯茨：在另一集尚未播出的亚当·马斯楚安尼的节目中，他声称激励措施是针对失败者的，他的意思是——我现在想将其应用到你刚才举的这个例子中——你刚刚认识到一个现实，即进入政界的企业个人不会接受灵魂植入或脑部手术。

They're the same person.

他们是同一个人。

But what economists like to point out--correctly--is that the incentives for good decision making--both those Is, the information that person has and the incentives they have to do something--might be very different.

但经济学家喜欢指出的——正确的——是，做出良好决策的激励因素——包括人们拥有的信息和他们必须做某事的激励因素——可能非常不同。

Public choice tends to emphasize that it's not so important who is in the job: it's more important about what the incentives are.

公共选择往往强调，谁担任这份工作并不那么重要：更重要的是激励措施是什么。

What Adam was pointing out in that episode is that you don't have to follow the incentives.

亚当在那集中指出的是，你不必遵循激励措施。

And the romance we might have--I'm not suggesting Adam has it--the romance we might have about politics is believing that once you become a U.S. senator or a representative or president of the United States, while the incentives might be the same, you can--for whoever else could have won--you are free as an individual to make the choice that you think is to do the right thing.

我们可能拥有的浪漫——我并不是说亚当拥有——我们对政治可能拥有的浪漫是相信，一旦你成为美国参议员、众议员或美国总统，虽然激励可能是相同的，但你可以——无论其他人可能获胜——作为个人，你可以自由地做出你认为做正确事情的选择。

And I think the clash between public choice and what we might call the street view of politics is that the street view of politics tends to assume that people will rise above the incentives, and the public choice view tends to say, 'No, they're going to be enslaved by the incentives.'

我认为公共选择与我们所谓的街头政治观之间的冲突在于，街头政治观倾向于假设人们会超越激励措施，而公共选择观点则倾向于说，“不，他们将受到激励措施的奴役。”

I think the truth is in between.

我认为真相介于两者之间。

I think believing that incentives are the only thing that matters is not a bad starting place.

我认为相信激励是唯一重要的事情并不是一个糟糕的起点。

It's not a good finishing place.

这不是一个好的终点站。

But I think that distinction of the two extremes that, 'No, people will do the right thing because they're public servants,' versus, 'No, they're going to serve their own self-interest like they would if they were in the corporate CEO, the C-suite.'

但我认为这两个极端之间的区别是，“不，人们会做正确的事，因为他们是公务员”，而“不，他们会像在公司首席执行官、最高管理层中那样服务于自己的利益”。

So I think the reality is somewhere in between.

所以我认为现实介于两者之间。

We like the idea that politics selects for people who are good-hearted and good-spirited, and we're tempted to believe that business selects for people who are rapacious and greedy.

我们喜欢这样的想法：政治会选择善良、有精神的人，而我们很容易相信商业会选择贪婪和贪婪的人。

I think neither is true.

我认为两者都不是真的。

I think the truth is in between, and what makes a society successful are the norms and the regulations, both the enforceable laws, legislation, and the unenforceable norms that affect how people behave in those different situations.

我认为事实介于两者之间，社会成功的关键是规范和法规，包括可执行的法律、立法和影响人们在不同情况下行为方式的不可执行的规范。

And they're not exactly the same.

而且它们并不完全相同。

The norms are different in politics versus business, but they emerge from culture and time passing and so on.

政治和商业中的规范是不同的，但它们是从文化和时间流逝等中产生的。

And if they're good norms, you tend to have effective political outcomes and good marketplace/commerce outcomes, and if they're not, you're in trouble.

如果它们是良好的规范，那么您往往会获得有效的政治结果和良好的市场/商业结果，如果不是，您就会遇到麻烦。

Mike Munger: That is nicely done because it does set up the--in my view--crushing counterpunch that public choice has to that argument.

迈克·芒格：这做得很好，因为在我看来，它确实对公共选择对这一论点进行了强有力的反击。

Mike Munger: So, Knut Wicksell is, in some ways, the ur-text of public choice because James Buchanan, in the famous incident of serendipity, found Knut Wicksell's dissertation on the shelf at the University of Chicago.

迈克·芒格：所以，从某些方面来说，克努特·威克塞尔是公众选择的原始文本，因为詹姆斯·布坎南在著名的机缘巧合事件中发现了克努特·威克塞尔的论文在芝加哥大学的书架上。

And he could read German, and so he finds it, he takes it down, and a big part of what Wicksell is talking about is that economists have generally taken the view that they should advise the state as if whoever is in charge is an omniscient, benevolent dictator that knows everything and wants the right thing.

他能读懂德语，所以他找到了它，他把它记下来，维克塞尔所说的很大一部分内容是经济学家普遍认为他们应该向国家提供建议，就好像无论谁掌权都是一个无所不知、仁慈的独裁者，他知道一切并想要正确的事情。

Now, let's suppose that there is a king, and the king doesn't have to answer to anyone.

现在，我们假设有一个国王，而国王不必对任何人负责。

That means that the king is free to do the right thing.

这意味着国王可以自由地做正确的事。

Do you think a U.S. senator is free to do the right thing?

您认为美国参议员可以自由地做正确的事吗？

What disciplines corporations?

企业用什么来约束？

Well, the answer is competition.

嗯，答案是竞争。

What disciplines U.S. senators?

美国参议员受到什么纪律约束？

The need to seek reelection.

需要寻求连任。

There is no way in hell--

地狱里没有路——

Mike Munger: And it is competition; and there is no way in hell that a senator gets to do the right thing, because the senator lives in a world where political power is exercised by concentrated interests.

迈克·芒格：这就是竞争；参议员根本不可能做正确的事，因为参议员生活在一个政治权力由集中利益行使的世界里。

Most people in the United States cannot name even one senator.

大多数美国人连一位参议员的名字都叫不出来。

They don't know very much, and that's actually rational.

他们知道的不多，但这实际上是合理的。

They're responding to incentives.

他们正在对激励做出反应。

So the lack of information is rational.

所以信息的缺乏是合理的。

If I'm a U.S. senator, I have to seek reelection, and I'm going to seek reelection in a system that's dominated by organized interests, where most people don't have much information.

如果我是美国参议员，我必须寻求连任，而我将在一个由有组织利益主导的体系中寻求连任，而大多数人没有太多信息。

And, our mutual friend, Bryan Caplan, has talked about the fact that this means that people can have irrational beliefs.

而且，我们共同的朋友布莱恩·卡普兰（Bryan Caplan）谈到了这样一个事实：这意味着人们可能会有非理性的信念。

And, I'm going to substitute the word 'romantic.' I can have romantic beliefs about what candidates for senator say they're going to do.

而且，我将用“浪漫”这个词来代替。我可以对参议员候选人所说的要做的事情抱有浪漫的信念。

And so, if I buy a car and it's a bad car, I have a bad car.

所以，如果我买了一辆车，但它是一辆坏车，那么我的车就是一辆坏车。

I have reasons to do research.

我有理由进行研究。

Russ Roberts: I may have romance about the backseat being big enough for my family of six, but reality will hit me in the face.

拉斯·罗伯茨：我可能会浪漫地认为后座足够大，可以容纳我一家六口，但现实会打我的脸。

Mike Munger: There is some immediate feedback for making bad choices.

迈克·芒格：做出错误的选择会立即得到一些反馈。

And I get to make the choice about what car I'm going to buy.

我可以选择要买什么车。

When it comes to a U.S. senate race, then there are--most states, millions of other people that are also going to vote.

当谈到美国参议员竞选时，大多数州以及数以百万计的其他人也会投票。

There is no chance of my vote influencing the outcome.

我的投票不可能影响结果。

So, politics and elections are dominated by organized interests that are able to influence, in disproportionate way, the outcome.

因此，政治和选举是由有组织的利益集团主导的，这些利益集团能够以不成比例的方式影响结果。

There is an alternative for this, and we said before that Edmund Burke was a romantic.

还有一个替代方案，我们之前说过埃德蒙·伯克是一个浪漫的人。

In his "Speech to the Bristol Electors"--and I hope you'll put up a link to the "Speech to the Bristol Electors"--Edmund Burke talks about the fact that what a elected official owes to the people is his judgment, not just simple compliance with their wishes, and, in fact, if the elected official believes that the right thing to do is different from what the voters want, he should do the thing that is right, not what voters want.

埃德蒙·伯克在他的《对布里斯托尔选举人的演讲》中——我希望你们能把《对布里斯托尔选举人的演讲》的链接贴出来——谈到这样一个事实：当选官员对人民的责任是他的判断，而不仅仅是简单地遵守他们的意愿，事实上，如果当选官员认为正确的做法与选民想要的不同，他应该做正确的事情，而不是选民想要的。

That's basically the claim that we often hear--the romantic claim--and what's important is that--an historical detail--in that election, Burke lost.

这基本上就是我们经常听到的说法——浪漫的说法——重要的是——一个历史细节——在那次选举中，伯克输了。

He was taken out.

他被带了出去。

So, he makes this famous argument that people cite in--and they're trying to use it as a defense of the romantic claim that: I'm hoping that the legislator will do the right thing.

因此，他提出了人们引用的著名论点——他们试图用它来捍卫浪漫的主张：我希望立法者会做正确的事。

He lost that election.

他输掉了那次选举。

So, it is simply not true that people in government are free.

因此，政府官员自由的说法根本不正确。

They may be less free than corporate CEOs.

他们可能不如企业首席执行官那么自由。

A corporate CEO, if they want a new product, they say, 'Well, we're going to do this,' and people will say, 'Yes, sir.

一个公司的首席执行官，如果他们想要一款新产品，他们会说，‘好吧，我们要做这个’，人们会说，‘是的，先生。

We'll borrow money, and we'll start doing it.' If I'm a senator and I have a good idea, it won't pass the Senate.

我们会借钱，然后开始做。如果我是参议员并且我有一个好主意，它就不会在参议院获得通过。

And if it does, it won't pass the House.

如果确实如此，它就不会在众议院获得通过。

And if it passes that, the President will veto the bill.

如果通过，总统将否决该法案。

So, the ability of individuals in government to do the right thing is less, not more, even if they wanted to.

因此，政府中的个人做正确事情的能力是更少，而不是更多，即使他们愿意。

Which they don't, because people who are active are going to become corporate CEOs, not senators.

但他们没有这样做，因为积极主动的人将成为公司首席执行官，而不是参议员。

The people who become senators are the ones who like to spout nonsense to cameras, in my personal opinion, because the incentives reward that kind of behavior.

在我个人看来，成为参议员的人都是那些喜欢在镜头前胡言乱语的人，因为激励措施会奖励这种行为。

The main thing is that you have to get reelected, so the public choice insight here is: Yes, behavioral symmetry means we're going to get different behaviors given the difference in incentives, but the incentives in politics are pathological.

最主要的是你必须再次当选，所以这里的公共选择见解是：是的，行为对称意味着鉴于激励的差异，我们将得到不同的行为，但政治中的激励是病态的。

They actually rule out the romantic notion that officials want to do the right thing.

他们实际上排除了官员想要做正确事情的浪漫想法。

Russ Roberts: I'm going to disagree with you, which is really uncomfortable, but such is life.

拉斯·罗伯茨：我不同意你的观点，这真的很不舒服，但这就是生活。

If I want to get reelected, I deal with the will of the people.

如果我想连任，我就得顺应人民的意愿。

Now, you're suggesting sometimes the people might want unethical things.

现在，你建议有时人们可能想要不道德的东西。

I would argue, as I did earlier, that there's no such thing as the will of the people.

正如我之前所做的那样，我认为不存在人民意志这样的东西。

There's some people who want one thing.

有些人想要一件事。

To take one of our favorite examples, if you're a senator from Florida or South Dakota, strangely enough, you're going to be persuaded that it's really an unhealthy thing to have sugar coming into the United States.

举一个我们最喜欢的例子，如果你是来自佛罗里达州或南达科他州的参议员，奇怪的是，你会被说服，让糖进入美国确实是一件不健康的事情。

Sure, you can take it from other places because the sugar cane and the sugar beets grow in Florida, and they grow in South Dakota, and as you suggested in passing a few minutes ago, the people who grow those sugar cane and grow the sugar beets are really focused on the foreign sugar coming in and keeping it out.

当然，你可以从其他地方获取，因为甘蔗和甜菜生长在佛罗里达州，而它们生长在南达科他州，正如你几分钟前顺便建议的那样，种植这些甘蔗和甜菜的人真正关注的是外来糖的进入并阻止其进入。

And the average consumer who pays 10, 25, whatever it is, percent more for their products; they're getting sugar, aren't paying so much attention.

普通消费者为他们的产品多支付 10%、25%（无论是多少）；他们正在吃糖，却没有那么关注。

There's no incentive for them to pay the amount of attention they need to pay to do something about it, and so we get restrictions on imports of sugar in the United States.

他们没有动力去付出足够的关注来采取行动，因此我们对美国的糖进口进行了限制。

And it enriches a very small group of people, and it impoverishes a very large group of people a small amount.

它使一小部分人富裕起来，同时又使一大群人少量陷入贫困。

So, senators, yes: they often will do those things to protect certain groups, and there's no will of the people that they're failing to respond to.

所以，参议员们，是的：他们经常会做这些事情来保护某些群体，并且他们没有未能回应人民的意愿。

What they're failing to respond to is the majority of their people; they might be failing to respond to a utilitarian case.

他们未能回应的是大多数人民；他们可能无法对功利主义案例做出反应。

But I'm talking about just their effectiveness on the job.

但我谈论的只是他们在工作中的效率。

You're making out like they're clowns who enjoy preening in front of the camera and being popular.

你亲热的样子就像他们是小丑，喜欢在镜头前打扮自己并受到欢迎。

Well, there's some of that, of course; we're all human beings.

嗯，当然有一些；我们都是人类。

But, do you really want to argue--and I don't think you do, because I know you pretty well--do you really want to argue that all of political outcomes are a cesspool of failure because of the horrible incentives and the ability of politicians to exploit the imperfect information and incentives of their constituents--the two Is?

但是，你真的想争辩吗——我认为你不想这么做，因为我很了解你——你真的想争辩说，所有的政治结果都是失败的污水坑，因为政治家有可怕的动机和利用选民不完美信息和动机的能力——这两者是吗？

Mike Munger: I don't think they're exploiting the information; I think they are facing the fact that they can't get around the ignorance of voters.

迈克·芒格：我不认为他们在利用这些信息；他们只是在利用这些信息。我认为他们面临的事实是他们无法回避选民的无知。

I'm convinced a lot of senators would like to pass legislation that they think is needed by the country.

我相信很多参议员都希望通过他们认为国家需要的立法。

In the last close-to 10 years, there has been very little legislation passed by the U.

在过去近 10 年里，美国通过的立法非常少。

S.

S。

Congress.

国会。

We are more and more ruled by executive order, and that was true under Obama, that was true under Trump 1, Biden, and under Trump 2; and the reason is the incentives that now face the U.

我们越来越受到行政命令的统治，在奥巴马统治下是这样，在特朗普一号、拜登和特朗普二号统治下也是如此；原因是美国现在面临的激励措施。

S.

S。

Senate and the U.

参议院和美国。

S.

S。

House are so pathological.

房子太病态了。

Most of them, if they were to take a principled position, would lose the primary because the parties are so extreme.

他们中的大多数人，如果采取原则立场，就会输掉初选，因为政党是如此极端。

Voters have very little information; there is no way for me to inform voters, and as you said, the idea of the will of the people is nonsense.

选民掌握的信息很少；我没有办法告诉选民，正如你所说，民意的想法是无稽之谈。

But this is not even a majority of citizens.

但这甚至还不是大多数公民。

In primaries, maybe 15 or 20% of the population turns out, and they are the, in some ways, least informed and most ideological.

在初选中，可能有 15% 或 20% 的人参加，从某些方面来说，他们是知识最少、意识形态最多的人。

And so I have to win the primary, and then I have to win the general election.

所以我必须赢得初选，然后我必须赢得大选。

So, sure, there are individual politicians that are principled.

所以，当然，有些政治家是有原则的。

You talked to Ben Sasse a couple of weeks ago.

几周前你和本·萨斯谈过。

It just came out recently, the time that we're now recording this.

它最近刚刚发布，我们现在正在录制它。

There are some great people.

有一些伟大的人。

They don't last.

它们不会持久。

They get frustrated because of their inability to act.

他们因为无法采取行动而感到沮丧。

So, I'm convinced that many people who stay in the Senate, the ones who stay in the Senate for a long time, are the ones who are interested in power, not in the ones who are interested in being effective.

所以，我确信，许多留在参议院的人，那些长期留在参议院的人，都是对权力感兴趣的人，而不是对效率感兴趣的人。

Russ Roberts: I'm going to give you my summary take, and then I'm going to invite you to give yours, unless you want to lay some more groundwork.

拉斯·罗伯茨：我将向您提供我的总结，然后我将邀请您提供您的总结，除非您想奠定更多基础。

Do you have other groundwork you want to lay?

您还有其他想要打下的基础吗？

Russ Roberts: Okay.

拉斯·罗伯茨：好的。

So, I have no romance about politics.

所以，我对政治没有任何浪漫。

That's the product of my economics education, my interest in this field that we're talking about called public choice, but I'm not so cynical.

这是我的经济学教育的产物，我对我们正在谈论的这个领域的兴趣称为公共选择，但我并不那么愤世嫉俗。

I don't rule out the possibility of people in politics who are, say, let's call it, public spirited; and all I get from that is what our friend Dan Klein called, when talking about Adam Smith, a presumption of liberty.

我不排除政界人士具有公益性的可能性。我从中得到的就是我们的朋友丹·克莱因在谈论亚当·斯密时所说的自由的推定。

It means the default should be give people the freedom to make their own choices, which includes what they buy, where they work, and it also includes their ability to give to charity; it includes their ability to start nonprofits that would help people who are struggling.

这意味着默认应该让人们有做出自己选择的自由，其中包括他们购买什么、在哪里工作，还包括他们向慈善机构捐款的能力；它包括他们创办非营利组织来帮助陷入困境的人们的能力。

It is not a dog-eat-dog, free-market-capitalist free for all, which is the parody, the caricature, excuse me, of those of us who like liberty a little more than other things.

这不是一个人人自由的自相残杀的自由市场资本主义，对不起，这是对我们这些热爱自由胜过其他事物的人的模仿和讽刺。

At the other end, I understand that there are some times when government involvement makes the world a better place, at least as I would define it; and while I'm skeptical about its ability to do it regularly, for the reasons we've been talking about, I don't look on the political world and the outcomes with the disdain that I used to have when I was younger.

另一方面，我明白，有时政府的参与会让世界变得更美好，至少按照我的定义是这样；虽然我对它定期这样做的能力持怀疑态度，但出于我们一直在谈论的原因，我不再像年轻时那样轻蔑地看待政治世界和结果。

I'm a little more--I don't know, I don't know what the right word would be--tolerant, accepting.

我更多的是——我不知道，我不知道正确的词应该是什么——宽容、接受。

I do think--I have a presumption of liberty: I think that's the default, but I would not say that public choice by definition pushes you to leave almost no role for the state other than, say, the night watchman role of security, national defense, and, say, police.

我确实认为——我有一个自由的假设：我认为这是默认的，但我不会说公共选择的定义迫使你除了安全、国防和警察的守夜人角色之外几乎不给国家留下任何角色。

Mike Munger: That's certainly fair, and I have elided two things, so you are right to call me out on that.

迈克·芒格：这当然是公平的，而且我忽略了两件事，所以你对我的批评是正确的。

There is nothing inherent in public choice that would say it is not possible for the state to make good choices and improve things.

公共选择并不意味着国家不可能做出好的选择并改善现状。

Russ Roberts: You've said that many times on the program, which is why--

拉斯·罗伯茨：你在节目中说过很多次了，这就是为什么——

Mike Munger: There is nothing in public choice that makes that--however, in the current situation in the United States, I think it has become impossible.

迈克·芒格：公共选择并不能做到这一点——然而，在美国目前的情况下，我认为这已经变得不可能了。

And maybe a dialectic process means that there will be a response.

也许辩证的过程意味着会有回应。

But, I mean, I know we don't want to name specific people, this is not a politics podcast, but in the current round of elections, several people who were the sort of person that you're talking about--who believed in limited government, who thought about individuals and emergent institutions--have lost in primaries because the current situation in the United States, and so this is the two things I was--there's nothing inherent in public choice.

但是，我的意思是，我知道我们不想点名具体的人，这不是一个政治播客，但在本轮选举中，有几个人就是你所说的那种人——他们相信有限政府，考虑个人和新兴机构——在初选中失败了，因为美国目前的情况，所以这就是我的两件事——公共选择没有任何固有的东西。

The current incentives do, in fact--and I would double down--current incentives do, in fact, rule out anyone winning an election who has the point of view that you and I think is the correct approach to politics.

事实上，目前的激励措施确实——我会加倍努力——事实上，当前的激励措施确实排除了任何持有你我认为正确的政治方针的观点的人赢得选举。

Now, I've run for office many times, and I will run again.

现在，我已经竞选过很多次了，我还会再次竞选。

I actually switched my registration to be a member of one of the two State- sponsored parties, so that now, instead of getting 3%, I might get 30%.

实际上，我将注册身份更改为两个国家资助政党之一的成员，因此现在我可能会获得 30%，而不是 3%。

And I would be happy to win, and I would be happy to serve, and I'm pretty confident that, if I did, I would last one election, and then I'd lose a primary because the current atmosphere, the current notion of the centralization of power in the executive, and the power of the executive to say, 'I endorse this one, and I do not endorse that one,' means that our system is not capable of--not only is it not the will of the people, it's a tiny majority that are in charge.

我会很高兴获胜，我会很高兴服务，而且我非常有信心，如果我这样做，我会参加一次选举，然后我会输掉一场初选，因为当前的氛围，当前行政权力集中的概念，以及行政部门说“我支持这个，我不支持那个”的权力，意味着我们的制度没有能力——这不仅不是人民的意愿，而是极少数人的意愿。充电。

That's not inherent in public choice, but the United States is facing the problem that we have not been able to maintain my goals of liberalism, which are humility and tolerance.

这不是公共选择所固有的，但美国面临的问题是我们无法维持我的自由主义目标，即谦逊和宽容。

Everybody thinks they're right.

每个人都认为自己是对的。

They have no tolerance for the beliefs of others because they're mistaken.

他们不能容忍别人的信仰，因为他们是错误的。

Russ Roberts: Okay, so let me close with a question.

拉斯·罗伯茨：好的，让我以一个问题作为结束。

When you were talking about how our principles of, say, classical liberalism have no purchase in today's political marketplace--can't get a foothold, can't get a toehold--that's been true almost our whole lifetime.

当你谈到我们的古典自由主义原则如何在当今的政治市场上毫无立足之地，无法立足时，这几乎是我们一生的真实情况。

It's ebbed and flowed how often they get discussed, whether they're on the table in some sense, and I think our side--so to speak, our philosophical approach to government and policy--has to reckon with that, in some sense, that reality.

它们被讨论的频率，无论它们是否在某种意义上被摆在桌面上，都会有起有落，我认为我们这一方——可以说，我们对待政府和政策的哲学方法——必须在某种意义上考虑到这一现实。

It should bring one up short if you were a tolerant, humble person.

如果你是一个宽容、谦虚的人，它应该会让你有所收获。

But, what I would say--I'd say something different on top.

但是，我想说的是——我会说一些不同的东西。

First point is: there's nothing new there, unfortunately or not, but that's just the reality.

第一点是：无论不幸与否，那里都没有什么新东西，但这就是现实。

But, something else has changed--and I want you to react to it--which is: the issues that motivated voters in most of our lifetime aren't what motivates them anymore.

但是，其他一些事情已经发生了变化——我希望你们对此做出反应——那就是：在我们一生的大部分时间里激励选民的问题不再是激励他们的因素。

When I was younger, people cared about--let's just say guns and butter is a silly simplification.

当我年轻的时候，人们关心的是——我们只能说枪支和黄油是一个愚蠢的简化。

Should the defense budget be bigger, or should we pay more attention to consumers and to private consumption?

是应该增加国防预算，还是应该更加关注消费者和私人消费？

These were the kind of issues: what fiscal policy, monetary policy, how much economic freedom there should be, what should the minimum wage be, how deregulated or regulated should transportation be?

这些问题包括：什么样的财政政策、货币政策、应该有多大的经济自由度、最低工资应该是多少、交通运输应该如何放松管制或管制？

These were the big issues that have been in part of the United States' conversation for 60 years.

这些都是美国 60 年来讨论的重大问题。

They're not the big issues anymore.

它们不再是大问题了。

They're not what people care about.

他们不是人们关心的。

And, we're in a world where it's not just that the freedom-oriented perspective that we sometimes care deeply about doesn't win.

而且，我们所处的世界不仅仅是我们有时深切关心的以自由为导向的观点没有获胜。

The other side isn't just doing better: It's radically different.

另一方不仅做得更好：而且完全不同。

Right?

正确的？

We have candidates--at least winning primaries and sometimes elections--who are espousing radical restrictions on economic liberty and socialism and so on.

我们的候选人——至少赢得初选，有时甚至赢得选举——支持对经济自由和社会主义等进行激进的限制。

So, why is that happening?

那么，为什么会发生这种情况呢？

What does public choice have to say about that?

公共选择对此有何看法？

Has the electorate moved to the Left, away from freedom, away toward more control by the government?

选民是否已经转向左翼，远离自由，转向政府更多​​的控制？

Bigger swords?

更大的剑？

What do you personally think we ought to be doing as citizens if you care about those things to deal with them?

如果您关心这些事情来处理它们，您个人认为我们作为公民应该做什么？

Some people would say this is a huge improvement: we're heading toward a much better world finally.

有些人会说这是一个巨大的进步：我们终于走向了一个更加美好的世界。

But I'm curious why.

但我很好奇为什么。

What has happened here?

这里发生了什么？

Mike Munger: That's a great question.

迈克·芒格：这是一个很好的问题。

The sort of, to me, unexpected return--resurrection of romanticism--on the Right is, I think, the result of the abdication of--and I would say people like me, that is academics, people who write about public choice and classical liberalism, who, until recently, simply ignored the moral parts of our life.

对我来说，这种出人意料的回归——浪漫主义的复兴——在右派上，我认为，是像我这样的人，即学者，那些撰写有关公共选择和古典自由主义的人的退位的结果，直到最近，他们只是忽视了我们生活中的道德部分。

We just talked about consequentialism: If we all have markets, you'll all be rich.

我们刚刚谈到了结果主义：如果我们都有市场，你们都会变得富有。

The problem is we didn't make the moral argument.

问题是我们没有做出道德论证。

And, Adam Smith makes both parts of the argument.

而且，亚当·斯密提出了两部分论证。

We, for the most part, if you look at the sort of triumphalism following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the end of history, the idea that liberalism was triumphant, that liberal democracy would always win, we didn't take up the part of the argument that satisfies people's desire for a positive, optimistic vision of the future.

我们，在大多数情况下，如果你看看柏林墙倒塌、历史终结之后的那种必胜主义，以及自由主义胜利了、自由民主总会获胜的想法，我们并没有采取满足人们对未来积极、乐观愿景的愿望的论点。

Not just: you'll have a better microwave and a better cell phone.

不仅仅是：您将拥有更好的微波炉和更好的手机。

So, our abdication of the responsibility to talk about people's hunger for meaning and a yearning for belonging to something larger than themselves has resulted in a kind of atomism.

因此，我们放弃谈论人们对意义的渴望和对比自己更伟大的事物的渴望的责任，导致了一种原子论。

And that's the reason that I cite Patrick Deneen.

这就是我引用 Patrick Deneen 的原因。

I think he has partly correctly diagnosed this problem.

我认为他部分正确地诊断了这个问题。

I, as I had said before, president of the Philadelphia Society; and I have seen something in the past three years that actually has made me much more frightened and much more militant.

正如我之前所说，我是费城协会的主席；在过去的三年里，我所看到的一些事情实际上让我更加害怕，更加好战。

And that's why I think, whereas I used to agree with you and be more optimistic, I'm now pretty pessimistic.

这就是为什么我认为，虽然我过去同意你的观点并且更加乐观，但现在我却相当悲观。

And the difference is this: The young conservative people, 25, 30 years old--and there's dozens and dozens of them in the room, if I sit with them at lunch, if I talk with them, used to be that they would have on a coat and tie.

不同之处在于：年轻的保守派人士，25岁、30岁——房间里有几十个人，如果我和他们一起吃午饭，如果我和他们交谈，过去他们会穿着外套打领带。

And they would have in their pocket the little, red copy of the Cato Constitution.

他们的口袋里会有一本红色的小卡托宪法。

And they would pull it out, and they would be able to talk about it, and they were basically Reagan Republicans.

他们会把它拿出来，他们将能够谈论它，他们基本上是里根共和党人。

Russ Roberts: Yeah, that's the Cato Institute's edition of the--it's the U.S. Constitution.

拉斯·罗伯茨：是的，这是卡托研究所的版本——这是美国宪法。

Mike Munger: Right, and I'm making an analogy to Mao's Little Red Book , and it is an impious one.

迈克·芒格：是的，我正在用毛泽东的红宝书做类比，它是一本不敬虔的书。

But the people had the Little Red Book that they would pull out, but it was the U.S. Constitution.

但人们有一本他们会拿出来的小红书，但它是美国宪法。

And the thing is that the United States is different from other countries.

问题是美国与其他国家不同。

The United States has a liberal tradition.

美国有自由主义传统。

The Bill of Rights in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, that is a liberal tradition.

宪法中的权利法案、独立宣言，那是自由主义传统。

The United States-- in the United States--conservatism used to mean conserving a liberal tradition.

美国——在美国——保守主义过去意味着保留自由主义传统。

Now, all of the young conservatives, they still have on the coat and tie.

现在，所有年轻的保守派，他们仍然穿着外套和领带。

They do not have a copy of the Constitution in their pocket.

他们口袋里没有宪法副本。

In fact, they will say, 'The Constitution is a dead letter.

事实上，他们会说，‘宪法是一纸空文。

We are fighting with one hand behind our back, and what we need to do is take over all of the institutions and centralize power in the hands of a good president.

我们正在背后用一只手进行战斗，我们需要做的是接管所有机构并将权力集中到一位好总统的手中。

And as long as we can continue to do that, we can win, and we can impose the policies that we want.

只要我们能够继续这样做，我们就能获胜，我们就能实施我们想要的政策。

And, what we need to do is to get rid of these restrictions that the Constitution place on our ability to act.'

而且，我们需要做的是摆脱宪法对我们行动能力的这些限制。”

And, what I find frightening about that is, you have already cited, they think they'll win forever because everyone that they talk to agrees with them.

而且，我觉得可怕的是，你已经提到过，他们认为自己会永远获胜，因为与他们交谈的每个人都同意他们的观点。

But, there's a lot of people that don't agree with them, and some time they're going to lose an election.

但是，有很多人不同意他们的观点，有时他们会输掉选举。

Maybe not this time, maybe not next time.

也许不是这一次，也许不是下一次。

But you should never make a sword so large, powerful, and sharp that you don't expect to see it wielded against you--immediately after the next election.

但你永远不应该制造一把如此大、如此强大、如此锋利的剑，以至于你不希望看到它在下一次选举后立即被用来对付你。

So, liberalism is what Thomas Sowell called a constrained vision.

因此，自由主义就是托马斯·索威尔所说的受限愿景。

It means that I want to do good things, and if I could make the government more powerful when I control it, I could do those things.

这意味着我想做好事，如果我能在控制政府时让政府变得更强大，我就可以做这些事情。

I'm going to have to accept the fact that there's some good things I will not be able to do because I want to prevent bad things from being done in the future, and by bad, I mean my own assessment of those things.

我将不得不接受这样一个事实，即有些好事我将无法做，因为我想防止将来发生坏事，而坏事是指我自己对这些事情的评估。

They're not objectively bad, but I disagree with them.

他们客观上并不坏，但我不同意他们的观点。

Instead of wielding power, we're going to have to wield persuasion.

我们必须运用说服力，而不是运用权力。

We're going to have to be humble and believe that maybe I'm wrong, and we're going to have to be tolerant and believe that maybe the other side is right.

我们必须谦虚，相信也许我是错的，我们必须宽容，相信也许对方是对的。

Accommodation and persuasion need to come back.

住宿和说服需要回来。

I think we're moving in the wrong direction, because the young people on the Left and the young people on the Right, who soon will be the middle-aged people on the Left and the middle-aged people on the Right--we're seeing a generational replacement.

我认为我们正朝着错误的方向前进，因为左翼的年轻人和右翼的年轻人，很快就会成为左翼的中年人和右翼的中年人——我们正在看到一代人的更替。

So, the ones who thought that government is a shared enterprise for trying to work out the best compromises that we can for the country, they're disappearing.

因此，那些认为政府是一个共同企业、试图为国家做出最佳妥协的人，他们正在消失。

What's replacing them is people who think that we have to win, and the idea that you have to win is probably going to lead to losing.

取代他们的是那些认为我们必须获胜的人，而“必须获胜”的想法可能会导致失败。

Russ Roberts: My guest today has been Mike Munger.

拉斯·罗伯茨：今天我的客人是迈克·芒格。

Mike, thanks for being part of EconTalk.

迈克，感谢您参与 EconTalk。

Mike Munger: A pleasure as always, Russ.

迈克·芒格：一如既往的荣幸，拉斯。