You could duplicate the system - so you have something like "White House 2" and "anti-White House 2" - try to get each group to focus on getting their ideas / facts / opinions organised rather than on sinking each other ships.<p>It'd potentially stop each of them from polluting the other, although you'd probably have to have somewhere designated as middle ground for those that want to debate things.<p>There are other ways to partition the two groups, but having a way for them to come together as well would be interesting. If as well as "Endorse / Oppose" you had "Thought provoking / not" then you potentially slip the more thought provoking ideas from one area across to the other (tagged as having come across from the other side).<p>You might have to start a new set of comments when it moves across so the old discussion doesn't get derailed, but at least it lobs various ideas over the fence.
I think the example provided is quite flawed. No one wants government to fail.<p>The argument is: What is the purpose of government and there are multiple views and perspectives on that. The question, is then how do we work together when we disagree on the purpose and final goals.<p>In general the best way to do that is through a federalist process, where thing that all agree to bubble up to provide uniformity, where people feel strongly and are in disagreement allow them to self-segregate and then agree in their local area.<p>The problem with the government example is that by definition you are pointing a gun at someones head to make them do what you want; whereas competitor's are competing for mindshare of voluntary actors.
That's a good question, Jim.<p>Instead of going with your example, which could get partisan in a hurry, take a look at IT projects. Ever been on an IT project that shouldn't exist? Say something that's not going to help anybody, probably won't even be released, and is going to waste a lot of time and money?<p>What do you do? How do you have a rational conversation about making something good when there is a legitimate view that it shouldn't exist at all?<p>I think you get it out in the open, talk it out, and rhetorically have at it. Then you put it away and leave it alone. Perhaps you could have a special section of the site for "why do this at all?" posts. People who kept venturing into that no-man's land could be directed there, instead of rehashing the same debate over and over again.<p>I'm with your competitors: government is a necessary evil and I do not wish it to successfully intrude into all areas of my personal life. But I can see your point too -- if we're going to do something, we can't make progress if some don't want <i>anything</i> to work.<p>So I say respect the dissenters, let them have their say, but don't let them ruin your momentum.
There's a huge difference between someone who doesn't want govt to succeed and someone who doesn't want your vision of govt to succeed.<p>> Many view government as competition to private industry and their own freedoms, so a failed government is a good thing.<p>And then there are the folks who view your vision of govt as a threat to their liberties and so on.<p>There are two reasons why someone might "confuse" those two groups. I wonder which one applies here?