I wanted to see your argument on this because I had hoped you would catch it, but DD's analogy re: contractors for each position on a football team is particularly humorous--since on pro football teams, that is EXACTLY what happens today. Every player is a contractor. The general manager is a contractor. The head coach is a contractor. Each private actor does his best to achieve for himself and for the good of the team, where he perceives each of those positives to accrue to his interest.
Viewed that way, how does Doug's analogy demonstrate defense cannot function outside of a central authority utilizing force to compel that defense to act in a unified manner? One might ask the Steelers, I suppose, but the short answer is that it doesn't.
Awesome catch! I totally missed it.
"Viewed that way, how does Doug's analogy demonstrate defense cannot function outside of a central authority utilizing force to compel that defense to act in a unified manner? One might ask the Steelers, I suppose, but the short answer is that it doesn't."
You need to go back and read my analogy. I wasn't arguing against paid athletes performing these functions. My analogy addressed how the players were selected. Do you really think the Steelers would let 11 different outside agencies independently select their starting lineup? Do you think such a selection process would produce an effective defense?
Suppose one contractor thought linebackers should emphasize speed rather than strength? Sure you can build a defensive concept aroung speedy but light linebackers by compensating at the other positions. But without a central coordinating authority, how do you ensure that these compensations are considered by the other contractors?