Werewolf game - Round III

[Damocles]

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople

That's kinda vague aint it? I mean...who the hell know what just the right amount to get the job done is?

I mean there are variables involved.

But this is the reality Damo. When it comes to the Government doing it's job you have three choices.

#1. They can do the job right.
#2. They can do the job fast.
#3. They can do the job cheaply.

The problem is, we only get to choose two of those.

We can have them do the job right and fast...but it won't be cheap.

or We can have them do the job cheap and fast but it won't be done right

or we can have them do the job right and cheap....but it won't be done fast.

Those are your choices Damo. Which one do you want?

No, that isn't our only three choices.

If there is a way to get the job done without involving government other than in a regulative capacity that is the way it should be done. Government is a necessary evil, and should not be used as a solution unless it is absolutely the only way to get something done.

[Mott the Hoople]

Originally Posted by Damocles

No, that isn't our only three choices.

If there is a way to get the job done without involving government other than in a regulative capacity that is the way it should be done. Government is a necessary evil, and should not be used as a solution unless it is absolutely the only way to get something done.

and why is that? What if government is (or has) the most affective solution?

You're on the verge of paranoia because you're making a generalization that Government can never implement solutions to problems. Which is, like all generalizations, wrong. Even if the private sector has a solution to big problems, Government is sometimes still a more affective means of addressing a solution to a problem then the private sector because they can manage the problem more affectively. Not always and vice versa.

National Defense is a good example of that. It isn't absolutely necessary for us to defend our selves with a nationalized military. We can certainly do it with a private one. The resources and the market are certainly there.

So why do we have a nationalized military then?

[Damocles]

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople

and why is that? What if government is (or has) the most affective solution?

You're on the verge of paranoia because you're making a generalization that Government can never implement solutions to problems. Which is, like all generalizations, wrong. Even if the private sector has a solution to big problems, Government is sometimes still a more affective means of addressing a solution to a problem then the private sector because they can manage the problem more affectively. Not always and vice versa.

National Defense is a good example of that. It isn't absolutely necessary for us to defend our selves with a nationalized military. We can certainly do it with a private one. The resources and the market are certainly there.

So why do we have a nationalized military then?

Because government is a means of force.

The most effective means isn't necessarily the one that guarantees the most freedom of the individual. If that was the measure then we'd not have chosen our form of government as it is not the "most effective" means of government.

[Mott the Hoople]

Originally Posted by Damocles

Because government is a means of force.

The most effective means isn't necessarily the one that guarantees the most freedom of the individual. If that was the measure then we'd not have chosen our form of government as it is not the "most effective" means of government.

NO. Government can be a means of force. All governments are coercive. That's why we have a constitution that places limits and checks on those powers. That does not mean that Government cannot be an affective medium for the public good.

You're vision of government is niave and impractical. Government would get nothing done and the nation would suffer as a result.

Having said that, I think we should move this discussion elsewhere before we are lynched by villagers or ate by wolfs.

[Damocles]

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople

NO. Government can be a means of force. All governments are coercive. That's why we have a constitution that places limits and checks on those powers. That does not mean that Government cannot be an affective medium for the public good.

You're vision of government is niave and impractical. Government would get nothing done and the nation would suffer as a result.

Having said that, I think we should move this discussion elsewhere before we are lynched by villagers or ate by wolfs.

Yes. Government is a means of force. And again effective is not the measure we should use if that was the measure the most effective means of government would have much fewer branches.

[Threedee]

Right, Mott has his chicken fettish. How could I forget?