A couple of days ago, Avalaun was confronted by an issue called “Guns or Butter” which I’m sure that many of you have also had to deal with. I have been stringing it along in my inbox, rather than dismissing it, because I do want to face the issue, but I’m not sure what to do as I’m not certain of the consequences of my choice.
Guns or Butter wrote:The Issue
After years of costly military build-up, the military now has a state of readiness capable of responding to all threats, both foreign and domestic. There is extensive debate among government officials, the military, and the average citizen over what, if anything, should be done with this powerful asset.
The Debate
1. "No one even thinks to look at us funny now," says Field Marshall Lionel Mandrake as he taps a swagger stick against his hip. "So think about how they'd act when the military is in proper charge of the country? We'd say jump, and they'd jump, by jingo. Oh, and if you don't agree with me, consider this a coup."
2. "There's no point in having a military this size when our closest adversary has a water pistol strapped to a scooter and calls it an armoured brigade," says noted economist Hack Gutenberg. "Besides, the military's been getting uppity with all its funding anyway. Slash its budget, sell off its surplus, and put the money into tax relief and... of course... maintaining all those contractors. Sure, they won't make tanks anymore but they can sure make plenty of commemorative plates with all that money!"
3. "The military is too powerful!" cries famous peacenik Elvis Gandhi, smelling of petrol and holding a Zippo in one hand. "All those tanks and bombs threaten us and the environment - we're number one, and someone's gonna try and take us down because of it! The people are tired of eating grass soup so the army can get another stealth ICBM launching flamethrower tank. Cut military funding and rebuild our schools, hospitals, welfare, and environment... or else!" Upon which he flips open the lid of the lighter threateningly.
4. "Everyone's got it all wrong," says Abraham Broadside, leader of the Avalaun Libertarian Party. "We need the military now to support our economy but we can't let it get out of control. I say we privatise it and divvy it up between several corporations, and make it self funding... it sounds radical but taxes will drop, the people will be happy, and we get to keep our military strength to show Johnny Foreigner what's what! Everyone wins! As long it's in the corporations' best interests to protect the country though, I suppose..."
So this is my difficulty. Avalaun has a strong military with a large budget and universal conscription. That is the way I want the nation to stay. Both option 2.) and 3.) seem to require that I reduce the size of military expenditure, which I don’t wish to do, and there appears no real reason to do so. (I think I can dismiss the rantings of a suicidal radical “peacenik” about people eating grass; Avalaun has an extensive social safety net and compassionate government programs; I instituted them.) I think that privatising the military (policy alternative 4.)) is a ludicrous option.
Unfortunately I have a problem with option 1.) I want to keep my military at its current size and state of readiness. I like the idea that “No one even thinks to look at us funny now”, but it appears that the Marshal is suggesting a coup and a military government. What I can’t tell for certain, however, is whether choosing option 1.) automatically institutes a coup, or whether a coup only takes place if I choose option 1.) and reduce military funding.
I won’t tolerate a coup, or even insubordination, and I intend Avalaun to maintain its democracy, but I also don’t intend to reduce either the military budget nor the military’s state of readiness.So the question is what should I do. I am open to advice, and I would like some clarification from those who have already grappled with this issue of how selecting option 1.) actually effects the nation. If option 1.) does force a military putsch, then I would like to request of the issue framers to rewrite this issue to give a fifth choice which allows a nation to maintain its military preparedness without submitting to a military take-over. Thanks for your time and input.
I suppose the correct response to this is, “have you ever tried to fire a bullet from a lump of butter?” 
I always think that issues should have a spectrum of reasonable to extreme, not just extreme consequences, but extreme or, at least, odd outcomes seem to appeal to Max, and its his game.
And, just as a thought, can anybody name one RW nation in the last hundred years that has 
