注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

世界金元货币基金联盟国际货币汇率委员会

汉和世界投资者财富基金股份有限公司全球合作

 
 
 

日志

 
 

乔治敦大学战略、经济学副教授 贾森·布伦南:西方民主制存在一个根本缺陷  

2016-09-14 21:59:32|  分类: 汉和地球村联合国 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

乔治敦大学战略、经济学副教授认为: “民主不是个好东西
贾森·布伦南:应该减少像piachan之类无知选民的权利
发表时间:2016-09-12 17:04:55

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/against-democracy-17605?page=show


贾森·布伦南(乔治敦大学战略、经济学副教授

       汉和文化信仰观察:
      【近几年,随着美国等西方国家屡次陷入政治僵局,“民主实践”在中东溃败,越来越多的西方学者也开始反思西式民主制度,如福山曾提出了“否决政治”的概念。随着民粹主义在欧美抬头,西方的反思似乎也提高了调门。美国《国家利益》杂志近日刊登了乔治敦大学副教授贾森·布伦南的文章《反对民主》,其小标题更为直白,甚至提出“减少最无知者权利”。
      要知道,《国家利益》杂志在美国思想界、学术界具有一定地位;而乔治敦大学是美国国际关系学重镇,被誉为“外交官的摇篮”;布伦南本人则是著述颇丰的青年学者,对民主弊端的更多揭露将在同名新书中推出。这样一篇文章、这样一本书的问世,本身就足够引人思考。】
       乔治敦大学战略、经济学副教授认为: “民主不是个好东西
       20年前,弗朗西斯·福山宣布自由民主制是历史的终结。但是,历史继续前进,揭示民主根子的腐烂。世界各地,从委内瑞拉和希腊的激进左派到美国的特朗普支持者,愤怒的选民在民粹主义煽动者身边摇旗呐喊。民族主义运动风起云涌,让人想起一战前的情况。工人阶级拒绝全球化、移民和经济自由主义。英国投票退出欧盟,其他国家可能很快效仿。在美国,政党的极化程度前所未有。因此,摆在美国面前的是僵局和部落政治而非妥协方案。
       这些运动由见识水平较低的选民和服务他们的政客推动。过去这几十年大概是人类历史上最好的几十年,世界范围内从来没有这么多人摆脱了绝对贫困。但是,很多对社会科学甚至基本政治事实无知的西方选民看到身边发生的种种变化,感觉自己受到冷落和忽视,出于恐惧和憎恨采取行动。
当我们近距离审视选民行为的科学,我们不应对民主偶尔产生糟糕的结果感到惊讶,民主没有导致更糟糕的结果才令人惊讶。
       民主制存在一个根本缺陷。它普遍地分散权利,从而消除单个选民明智使用自己权利的刺激因素。在重要的选举或公投中,单个选民影响最后结果的机会不比中强力球彩票的机会大。他们根本没有任何动机去深入了解有关情况,而很可能放纵自己最糟糕的偏见。民主是民治,却引诱人民作出最差的表现。
         “民主必胜”必被质疑
        如果存在另一种选择呢?我在即将出版的新书《反对民主》中描述了一套称作“智者治国”的政治体制。智者治国的意图是发挥民主的长处而避免民主的短处。
       在民主制里,每个公民自动获得平等的投票权和竞选公职权。多数现代民主制都是共和民主制,有权力制衡、司法审核、宪法限制、多院的立法机构、辩论平台、官僚自治和政治党派等等,这些机构的目的都是为放缓政治进程,阻止多数主义,保护少数群体的利益。
      智者治国保持这样的结构。关键区别在于,在智者治国体制下,投票权在某种程度上根据知识分配。智者治国可能给每个人投票权,但某些票的权重高于其他票;更大的可能性是把某些公民排除在外,除非他们能通过基础的政治能力测试。
       民主是西方官方宗教。但现在到了质疑这种信仰的时候了。
       多数西方人都接受我所说的民主必胜主义。它把民主视为独一无二的公正的社会组织形式。人民享有在根本上平等分享政治权利的基本权利。参与对我们都有益,它给我们赋权,是我们实现所需目标的有用途径,而且会把我们变成更好的人。
        我认为,政治参与对多数人来说无益:它对我们大多数人都没有什么好处,而且往往把我们变得又坏又傻。
       我认为,公民没有投票或竞选公职的基本权利。投票权不同于其他自由权利。言论自由给公民掌控自我的权利,投票权却使其拥有影响他人的权利。
        我认为,民主本身不是目的。它的价值跟锤子相似。民主是一个有用的工具,为了产生公正有效的政策,如果我们找到一把更好的锤子,我们就应该使用它。事实上,智者治国可能就是一把更好的锤子。自由共和主义的智者治国可能优于自由共和主义的民主体制。
        选民无知且不理性
       60年来,政治学家、心理学家和经济学家都在研究选民的行为。他们的研究结果基本上一致且令人沮丧。通常来说,选民们愚昧无知,掌握的消息有误,而且带有偏见。但是,这当中存在巨大的差别。说到政治信息,有些人知道很多,多数人一无所知,很多人知道的东西都是错的还不如不知道。
        在选举年,多数公民都分不清本选区的议员候选人。公民通常不知道哪个党控制着国会。问到失业率时,大多数选民猜测的数字比实际高一倍。一般来说,多数国家的选民都知道谁是现任首脑,但除此以外就不知道什么了。
        此类调查夸大公民掌握了多少知识,部分原因在于调查只问简单的问题。但是,民主制要求公民在提供不同政策纲领的政党中进行选择。要评价这些纲领,公民至少需要某些经济和政治学知识。美国选民对经济的看法完全不同于职业经济学家,而这些区别不能用人口因素加以解释。
         公民不仅无知且掌握错误的信息,而且不理性。没几个公民以开放的思维处理信息,多数公民都无视任何与他们意识形态相悖的信息。选民们存在普遍的偏见。
        信息很重要。人们倾向于哪些政策,这在一定程度上取决于他们掌握了多少信息。就算控制性别、种族和收入等因素,掌握充分信息的公民在政策倾向上完全不同于愚昧无知或掌握错误信息的选民。比如,前者支持自由贸易、全球化、移民和公民自由意志论。后者则无论人口构成如何,都支持相反的东西;他们往往支持特朗普的政纲。
       投票违背道德义务
        民主的信仰认为,投票权是一切权利当中最重要的权利。这是一种奇怪的观点。事实上,投票权对你没有任何好处。
       多数人说起这个问题的时候都好像投票权有重要的工具价值。他们说,投票权使你得以认可政府,控制并影响政治结果,保护你自己免受他人主宰。
         但是,这一切都经不起数学的审视。我们作为一个整体如何投票很重要,但我们当中的每个人如何投票不重要。民主给大多数人赋权,但却不给构成这个大多数的个体赋权。
        很多人理解个体的投票无关紧要。他们于是诉诸投票权的象征价值。在西方民主之下,我们把投票权当作尊严与平等的象征。我们给人们灌输投票的平等权,以表示他们是国家完整的平等的成员。
        这种普遍的观点很奇怪。民主是一种政治体制。它是一种方法,用来决定一个声称垄断合法暴力的机构如何或何时展示力量。政府的作用应该是保护和平,提供公共产品,推进正义。政府的首要目标不是提升、维持或管理我们的自尊。
        民主不仅选择国旗颜色或国歌一类普通的东西,而且选择战争与和平,繁荣与贫困,增长与迟滞。
         当民主政体的大多数人选择一项政策,这就相当于你从菜单上选了一款三明治。当大多数人作出选择,那不仅是为这大多数人作出选择,而且为持异见的选民、儿童、外国人、非选民和无权选择但必须承担相应后果的其他人作出选择。
        调查显示,选民们普遍无知、掌握错误信息且不理性。这不仅是一件糟糕的事情,而且可能是一种不公。
        政治决定关系巨大。结果——包括法律、法规、税收、预算支出和战争等等——都自动强加在我们所有人身上。这些决定可能伤害我们,可能剥夺我们的财产、自由甚至生命。初看之下,我们认为选民有道德上的义务,作出负责任的称职选择。但是,看看选民的实际行为,他们似乎系统性地违背这种义务。
        减少最无知者权利
        在民主制度上,每个公民享有同等的基本政治权利。在智者治国的体制下,某些公民的投票权大于其他公民。不同之处在于,智者治国体制减少了最无知者的权利。
        民主普遍分散权力,从而阻止某些公民主宰其他公民。但这要求每个公民几乎拥有同样的权利。只要避免把权力集中在少数人手里,智者治国也可以带来同样的结果。
        不要把智者治国与专家治国相混淆。说到专家治国,人们想的通常是一群专家用政府管理公民,从事大规模社会工程项目。专家治国与其说有关于谁统治,不如说有关他们如何统治,如何行事。
       也不要把智者治国与极权主义相混淆。极权主义的重点不在于谁统治,而在于他们统治什么。极权主义政策干预一切。自由主义政府则把很多问题留在政治谈判桌以外。
        合理的智者治国形式将把权力分散而不是集中。任何合理的形式都将保留共和政体的权力制衡。值得考虑的形式包括:有限选举权,即公民只有在通过基础政治知识考试以后才获得选举权和竞选公职权。

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/against-democracy-17605?page=show
Democracy has had a good run. But its design is fundamentally flawed.
Jason Brennan
September 6, 2016

Against Democracy
Voting booths in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, for the general election held on November 3, 2015. Flickr/Tim Evanson

Democracy has had a good run. But its design is fundamentally flawed.
Jason Brennan
September 6, 2016
TweetShareShare
Printer-friendly version
Just over twenty years ago Francis Fukuyama declared liberal democracy the end of history. But history marched on, revealing rot in democracy’s roots. Around the world, from radical leftists in Venezuela and Greece to American Trump supporters, bitter voters wave their banners around populist demagogues. Nationalist movements, echoing those that lead to the first world war, are on the rise. The working classes reject globalization, immigration and economic liberalism. The United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, and other countries may soon follow suit. In the United States, the political parties are more polarized than ever before, with the most right-wing Democrat to the left of the most left-wing Republican. As a result, the United States faces gridlock and tribal politics rather than compromise solutions.
These movements are driven by low-information voters and the politicians who serve them. The past few decades have been perhaps the best in human history, with more people around the world rising out of absolute poverty than ever before. But many Western voters, ignorant of the social sciences or even of basic political facts, see change all around them, feel left behind and neglected, and strike out in fear and resentment.

When we take a close look at the science of voter behavior, we should not be surprised to see democracy producing poor results on occasion. What’s surprising is that democracies do not fare even worse.
Democracies contain an essential flaw. By spreading power out widely, they remove any incentive for individual voters to use their power wisely. In a major election or referendum, individual voters have no greater chance of making a difference than they do of winning Powerball. They have no incentive to be well informed. They might as well indulge their worst prejudices. Democracy is the rule of the people, but entices people to be their worst.
What if there were an alternative? In my forthcoming book Against Democracy, I describe a new system of government called epistocracy. Epistocracy is meant to do what democracy does well, but guard against democracy’s downsides.
In a democracy, every citizen automatically receives an equal basic right to vote and run for office. Most modern democracies are republican democracies, containing checks and balances, with judicial review, constitutional constraints, multicameral legislatures, contestatory forums, bureaucratic autonomy, political parties and the like, all intended to slow down politics, prevent majoritarianism and protect minority interests.
Epistocracies retain such structures. The essential difference is that in an epistocracy, the right to vote is apportioned, to some degree, according to knowledge. An epistocracy might grant everyone the right to vote, but weigh some votes more than others, or more might exclude citizens from voting unless they can pass a basic test of political competence.
Democracy is the official religion of the West. Now is as good a time as any to question the faith.
Democratic Triumphalism
Most Westerners, left and right, embrace what I call Democratic Triumphalism. Triumphalism’s slogan is, “Three cheers for democracy!” It holds that democracy is a uniquely just form of social organization. People have a basic right to an equal fundamental share of political power. Participation is good for us—it empowers us, it’s a useful way for us to get what we want and it tends to make us better people.
Against Democracy attacks Triumphalism. Democracy does not deserve at least two of those cheers, and might not deserve the third, either.
I argue that political participation is not valuable for most people: it does most of us little good, and participating in politics tends to make us mean and dumb.
I argue that citizens don’t have any basic right to vote or run for office. The right to vote is not like other liberal rights. A right of free speech gives a citizen power over herself; the right to vote gives her power over others.
Democracy, I argue, is not an end in itself. It has the kind of value a hammer has. It’s just a useful instrument for producing just and efficient policies. If we can find a better hammer, we should use it. Indeed, epistocracy may be a better hammer. Perhaps a liberal republican epistocracy might outperform liberal republican democracy. It’s time to experiment and find out.
A Crash Course in Voter Behavior
Political scientists, psychologists and economists have studied voter behavior for over sixty years. They’ve conducted thousands of studies and amassed a huge amount of data. Their findings are largely uniform and depressing. In general, voters are ignorant, misinformed and biased. But there is tremendous variance. When it comes to political information, some people know a lot, most people know nothing and many people know less than nothing.
During election years, most citizens cannot identify any congressional candidates in their district. Citizens generally don’t know which party controls Congress. During the 2000 U.S. presidential election, while slightly more than half of all Americans knew Gore was more liberal than Bush, significantly less than half knew that Gore was more supportive of abortion rights, more supportive of welfare-state programs, favored a higher degree of aid to blacks or was more supportive of environmental regulation. When asked to guess what the unemployment rate was, the majority of voters tend to guess it is twice as high as the actual rate.
And so on. In general, voters in most countries can identify the incumbent chief executive, but know little else beyond that.
These kinds of surveys overstate how much knowledge citizens have, in part because they only ask easy questions, such as who the incumbents are or whether crime is falling. But democracies ask citizens to choose among political parties offering different policy platforms. To evaluate these platforms, citizens need at least some grasp of economics and political science. There’s little reason to think they are informed about these things. On the contrary, American voters, both left and right, have systematically different beliefs about the economy from professional economists, and these differences are not explained by demographic factors.
Citizens aren’t just ignorant or misinformed, but irrational. Few citizens process information with an open mind; most citizens disregard any information that contradicts their current ideology. Voters suffer from a wide range of biases, including confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias, motivated reasoning, intergroup bias, availability bias and prior attitude effects.
It’s no surprise that most voters are ignorant, misinformed and biased. Our individual votes make no difference. When it comes to politics, smart doesn’t pay, and dumb doesn’t hurt.
An individual vote for the worst possible candidate produces the same results as a vote for the best possible candidate. Abstaining from voting produces the same results as voting. A well-informed vote produces the same results as a badly informed, misinformed or irrational vote. An individual vote after careful deliberation produces the same results as voting after flipping a coin or dropping acid.
Information matters. Which policies people prefer depends in part on how informed they are. Even controlling for the influence of sex, race and income, highly informed citizens have systematically different policy preferences from ignorant or misinformed voters. For instance, high-information voters favor free trade, globalization, immigration and civil libertarianism. Low-information voters, regardless of their demographics, favor the opposite: they tend to favor Trump’s platform.
Political Liberty: Who Needs It?
The democratic faith holds that the right to vote is the most important right of all. On reflection, it’s a strange view. Consider: your rights to choose an occupation, to control your sex life, to choose what and when to eat, or to buy and sell as you desire, give you significant control and autonomy over your own life. In contrast, your right to vote does you little good.
Most people talk as if the right to vote has major instrumental value. They say your right to vote allows you to consent to government, to control and shape political outcomes, and to protect yourself from being dominated by others.
But none of this withstands mathematical scrutiny. How we vote matters; how any one of us votes does not. Casting an individual vote has roughly the same power over political outcomes as praying to Jupiter or blowing one’s nose. Democracy empowers the majority, but it does not empower any of the individuals who form that majority.
The probability that your individual vote will change the outcome of a major election or referendum is roughly on the order of the probability you will win the Powerball. Winning the lottery is worth hundreds of millions, but it still doesn’t make sense to buy a ticket. So it goes with voting. Imagine Trump promises to pay you $10 million if he’s elected. Though his victory would net you $10 million, it’s not worth the effort to vote for him, any more than it’s worth buying a Powerball ticket.
Many people understand that individual votes matter little. They instead invoke the symbolic value of the right to vote. In Western democracies, we treat the right to vote as a metaphorical badge of dignity and equality. We imbue people with the equal right to vote in order to express that they are full and equal members of the national club. Many philosophers believe that democracy necessarily expresses that all citizens have equal worth.
This widely held view is odd. Democracy is not a poem or a painting. Democracy is a political system. It is a method for deciding how and when an institution claiming a monopoly on legitimate violence will flex its muscles. Government is supposed to protect the peace, provide public goods and advance justice. It’s not in the first instance an institution intended to boost, maintain or regulate our self-esteem.
Political theorist and British MP Auberon Herbert said, “The instinct of worship is still so strong upon us that, having nearly worn out our capacity for treating kings and such kind of persons as sacred, we are ready to invest a majority of our own selves with the same kind of reverence.” In feudal times, we regarded the king, in virtue of holding power, as possessing a kind of majesty. In a democracy, we instead imagine every voter, in virtue of sharing what was the king’s power, as possessing that same majesty. But there’s no obvious reason why we should think that way.
Instead of viewing a president or prime minister as majestic, we could just regard her as the chief public-goods administrator. Instead of viewing the right to vote as signaling that a person is an equal and valued member of society, we could regard it as possessing no more status than a plumbing or hairdressing license. Or instead of considering that such rights signify membership in the national club, people could just regard these rights as licenses—no different from driving, hairdressing or plumbing licenses.
Here’s the dilemma: suppose epistocracy tends to perform better—to produce better, more just, more efficient outcomes—than democracy. We could conclude that, nevertheless, epistocracy “expresses” contempt, and so have deal with suboptimal government in order to protect people’s feelings. Or we could conclude that treating the right to vote as a badge of dignity is silly, and instead pick the system that works better.
Trending Offers and Articles
Ads by Adblade
 
What On Earth Were These Russians Thinking??
 
Father and Son Take the Same Photo For 27 Years -- The Last One Will Make You Cry
 
20+ Disaster Captured During and After Tragic Moments
The Injustice of Incompetent Government
Democracies do not just choose mundane things like flag colors or national anthems. They decide matters of peace and war, prosperity and poverty, growth or stagnation.
When a democratic majority picks a policy, this is not akin to you picking a sandwich from a menu. When the majority chooses, it chooses not only for itself, but for dissenting voters, children, foreigners, nonvoters and others who have no choice but to bear the consequences.
Ample empirical research shows that voters are systematically ignorant, misinformed and irrational. That’s not just a bad thing. It might be an injustice.
As an analogy, suppose a jury were deciding a capital murder case. But suppose instead of carefully considering the evidence, the jury found the defendant guilty out of caprice or malice. Suppose a third of jurors paid no attention to the evidence, and just decided, by coin flip, to call the defendant guilty. Suppose another third decided to find the defendant guilty because they dislike his skin color. Suppose the final third paid attention to the evidence, but found the defendant guilty not because the evidence suggested he was, but because they subscribed to a bizarre conspiracy theory.
If we knew a jury behaved that way, we’d demand a retrial. The defendant’s property, welfare, liberty and possibly life are at stake. The jury owes the defendant and the rest of us to take proper care in making its decision. It should decide competently and in good faith.
This line of reasoning applies even more strongly to the electorate as a whole. Political decisions are high stakes. The outcomes—including all ensuing laws, regulations, taxes, budget expenditures, wars, and so on—are imposed upon us involuntarily. These decisions can and so harm us, and can and do deprive many of us of property, liberty and even life. At first glance, we should think that voters, like jurors, have a moral obligation to vote in a competent and morally reasonable way. But when we look at actual voter behavior, it seems like they systematically violate this obligation.
Forms of Epistocracy
In a democracy, every citizen receives an equal basic share of political power. It’s a small share indeed. In an epistocracy, some citizens have greater voting power than others. Each individual citizen at most receives only small share. What makes epistocracy different—and why it might perform better—is that it reduces the power of the least informed.
Democracy tends to prevent citizens from dominating one another because it spreads out power widely. But this requires that literally every citizen have equal power. An epistocracy could produce the same results so long as it avoids concentrating power in just a few hands.
Don’t confuse epistocracy with technocracy. When people talk about technocracy, what they usually have in mind is a cadre of experts who use government to manage the citizens and engage in massive social engineering projects. Technocracy is not so much about who rules but about how they rule and what they do. Many democrats advocate technocracy, and an epistocrat can reject it.
Don’t confuse epistocracy with totalitarianism. Totalitarianism isn’t about who rules, but what they rule. Totalitarian governments stick their noses in everything. Liberal governments leave many issues off the political bargaining table.
Any reasonable form of epistocracy will spread power out among rather than concentrate it. Any reasonable form will retain all the republican checks and balances. No modern epistocrat advocates the rule of philosopher-kings. Instead, the reasonable forms of epistocracy, those worth considering, include:
Restricted Suffrage: Citizens may acquire the legal right to vote and run for office only if they pass a test of basic political knowledge.
Plural Voting: As in a democracy, every citizen has a vote. However, some citizens, such those who who pass a test of basic knowledge, or who meet some other criteria correlated with political competence, can acquire additional votes.
Epistocratic Veto: Just as in a democracy, all laws are passed by a democratic legislature elected through universal suffrage. However, an epistocratic body with restricted membership retains the right to veto rules passed by the democratic legislature. Just as judges can veto legislation for being unconstitutional, so, perhaps, a board of economic advisors might have the right to veto legislation (such as protectionist policies) that violate basic economic principles.
Weighted Voting: During the election, every citizen may vote, but must at the same time take a quiz concerning basic political knowledge. Their votes are weighted based on their objective political knowledge, all while statistically controlling for the influence of race, income, sex and/or other demographic factors. With such data (which will be made public), any statistician can then calculate or estimate, with a high degree of certainty, what the public would want if only it were informed. The epistocracy does what the informed public would want, rather than what the uninformed public in fact wants.
The big question, of course, is what counts, and who decides, political competence or basic political knowledge. I’m less troubled by this question than many. We could just use the type of questions we’ve been using on the American National Election Studies. We could use the questions we’ve been using on the American citizenship exam. These are easy, objective, easily verified questions, but we have good grounds to think that the capacity to answer them is correlated with the kind of social scientific knowledge that really matters.
One somewhat paradoxical-sounding, but surprisingly reasonable, idea is that we could use democratic procedures to choose a public definition of political competence, which we in turn use to selected epistocratic voters. For instance, imagine that to vote for president, one must pass a “voter qualifying exam,” but then imagine that this exam itself was selected through a democratic vote. This may seem strange—if democracies are competent to choose a legal definition of competence, why aren’t they also competent to choose a president? But there are two reasons why this is less paradoxical than it sounds. First, the problem with democracy is not that citizens fail to understand, in the abstract, what counts as a good president. Rather, they have good abstract standards, but they are bad at applying their standards, at selecting a person who meets them. Second, the question “What counts as political competence?” is a much easier question than, say, “Should we have free trade or protectionism?” The latter question requires social scientific knowledge most voters lack, but the former question does not.
Conclusion: The Better Hammer
There’s no doubt that in the real world, any epistocratic system would suffer government failures and abuse. But the same goes with democracy. In the real world, special-interest groups would try rig both systems for their benefit at the expense of everyone else. In the real world, both epistocracy and democracy will be imperfect and flawed. The question we should ask is which system would work better
Governments are like hammers, not poems. The point of a government is to produce good outcomes. Democracy has had a good run. But it has an endemic design flaw. It’s time to experiment with a new system, to see if we can improve upon the design.
Jason Brennan is the Robert J. and Elizabeth Flanagan Family Associate Professor of Strategy, Economics, Ethics and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University. This article was adapted from his new book Against Democracy (Princeton University Press), released September 7, 2016.
Image: Voting booths in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, for the general election held on November 3, 2015. Flickr/Tim Evanson

  评论这张
 
阅读(51)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017