in game theory best result is achieved by two opposing groups helping each other.

Not all problems are games. Setting them up as games results in gamesmanship that is inappropriate.

Run gov't like a business? I think we've heard that before.

Government is becoming a bigger and bigger player in the economy through legislation, regulation, tax policy, and direct involvement in business processes and policies. Since government is taking on these responsibilities, it must discharge them effectively. This requires restructuring and revising government so that it can do so.

Outsourcing the more demanding functions is what is happening now. However, it is ineffective, since the underlying principles and processes of government are incompatible with even effectively managing the outsourced functions.

Bummer, huh?

I've worked in organizations based on conversation and fact finding by a plurality of subgroups until approximate consensus was reached, for example.

As soon as you get to anything where the participants have any kind of interest in the subject, personal or otherwise, antagonistic discourse begins.

Why don't you think it's a good kind of discourse? What's wrong with it?

It is more difficult when there are only two parties involved.

The two party rhetorical contest tends to exclude other solutions which lack advocates but may be better. The solution arrived at may be easy to argue for but difficult or impractical to implement because it ignores reality in favor of hypotheticals.