The Couch

Government transparency

Comments on Government transparency

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 02/27/12 - 1:11 PM:
Subject: Government transparency
Is it better for a government to have total transparency (as organizations such as Anonymous and Wikileaks seem to believe), or is some secrecy necessary for national security? Any thoughts?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 02/27/12 - 1:29 PM:

libertygrl wrote:
Is it better for a government to have total transparency (as organizations such as Anonymous and Wikileaks seem to believe), or is some secrecy necessary for national security? Any thoughts?



If Illuminati is controlling the government of USA and affairs of the world at large, as many conspiracy theorists say, there is nothing much going to happen, no matter what you demand in the name of transparency. Illuminati uses secrecy as the biggest weapon in their game.




OTOH the question is very intriguing. But secrets do more harm than good in my opinion. Why?


1. Most of what is secret for common man is known to elite and even biggest secrets are known to spies from foreign countries. This does not mean that you should put a big banner on national border and write down each and every plan you're going to implement in future on it in capital letters. My opinion is that secrecy doesn't really work in such matters; though it does work if some very powerful elite is controlling it. You still don't know who really assassinated JFK. Such secrets are secrets because powers behind them are very powerful powers.


2. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Common man is exploited in the name of maintaining secrecy. The Laws are used as secret rites to cast spells on common man by the powerful.

Bramhins who were very near to ruling class in India at once used this secrecy to rule and it did much harm to others as well as to them.

Secrecy and democracy don't go together in my opinion.

On the other hand, it's not true that there are no secrets. History is filled with secrets and any corrupt politician, since he is powerful and has many secrets, would prefer to vote in favor of secrecy in the name of national security, with an intention of keeping his belongings and secrets safe in the heart of his hearts.


Illuminati wants one world government and one world order, therefore there will not be a problem of national security but that of slavery and freedom from it.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 02/28/12 - 9:30 AM:

As long as we're talking about 'governance' instead of 'proxies', it's irrelevant to talk about 'transparency'.

Governance, by the very nature of the activity, involves secrets and layers of secrets.

Those who rule will lie and mislead (so as to continue ruling); those who work for you (for no other reason than to keep their jobs) will be honest and open.
thedoc
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2011

Total Topics: 41
Total Comments: 982
Avatar thedoc
Posted 02/28/12 - 4:23 PM:

henry quirk wrote:
As long as we're talking about 'governance' instead of 'proxies', it's irrelevant to talk about 'transparency'.

Governance, by the very nature of the activity, involves secrets and layers of secrets.

Those who rule will lie and mislead (so as to continue ruling); those who work for you (for no other reason than to keep their jobs) will be honest and open.


Or those who work for you will lie and decieve to keep their jobs at the expense of someone elses job, Been there, been done to. I worked for a few months for a company making printed circut boards. I had a college degree in Industrial Arts and the 'Production Manager' BS'd his way into the job. Not sure if he finished HS but he bragged about how he BS'd his way into other jobs. There were 4 of us, the owner, production manager, and 2 workers, so I had to go, with my education I was too much of a threat.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
Posted 02/29/12 - 9:26 AM:

"Or those who work for you will lie and decieve to keep their jobs at the expense of someone elses job"

Yeah...what I should have posted was, 'Those who rule will GENERALLY lie and mislead (so as to continue ruling); those who work for you (for no other reason than to keep their jobs) will GENERALLY be honest and open'.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 03/06/12 - 8:55 PM:

what i'm wondering, though, is whether total transparency is a hindrance at all to national security. what do you guys think? let us assume, for a moment, that all people in government were capable of being honest and forthright at all times. (a stretch, i realize. to be honest, i believe that some degree of secrecy is inevitable in almost all aspects of life, not just government.) but if it were possible, would it be ideal for a government to keep nothing secret?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 03/07/12 - 2:25 PM:

Total transparency.

This is an absolute requirement.

Who is the 'government' in a free democratic republic?? It is only a select few PEOPLE from among the population who are tasked to run the daily operation of law for a limited term.

What 'secrets' can there be? In fact, there should be no secrets, as the entire population ought to be involved or at least informed of what they, as a society, are doing, and what their chosen representatives are up to in running law during their limited terms.

Now a corporation keeping proprietary secrets I can understand.

What is a government doing keeping such???

The question is who is keeping the secret and from whom.

There is not such thing as 'national security' that can be preserved through secrecy. And in an increasingly global world, secrecy can only be seen as old power structures desperately hanging on to their shreds of control.

Secrets create layers that remove the act of governing from the people and place it in the hands of 'authorities'. Which means for every secret kept the people loose power over their own fate and fate of their republic. Slowly then quickly the whole thing slips into an authoritarian regime and pretty soon we are no better off than in the time of the divine right of kings.

Those with secrets and keepers of secrets believe they and they alone have the right to rule the sheep.

We can't and should NOT allow this.

But this is the was of our world. At least we can be aware that this is happening.

thumb down
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
Posted 03/07/12 - 3:15 PM:

Monk wrote:
There is not such thing as 'national security' that can be preserved through secrecy.

how about weaponry that is being developed by a government for its military?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 03/07/12 - 7:43 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

how about weaponry that is being developed by a government for its military?


Well, once you let them make a secret, there's no end to it, and the power class arises again and again, layer upon layer.

A better solution would be to take governments out of the weapons business and back into the business of political affairs. That is, weapons, like everything else, should be developed by independent contractors. Thus the only role government would have is making decisions which ones to buy.

In that case, private corporations can employ all the secrecy they want for their proprietary devices. But, should someone get hold of the secrets, it would be more of a blow to the company and not the nation, who could, for instance, buy weapons elsewhere or from the guy who just stole the secrets. That is, the market can decide the weapon's value.

This is already done to a great degree anyway. There needs to be more separation between government and the contractors they make purchases from. Our government, like ourselves, should be an informed consumer. And our political moves like chess--everything is visible on the board.

8)
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/07/12 - 8:43 PM:

i'm totally in favor of transparency to the greatest extent possible. was just wondering if there were any good arguments against it.

Monk wrote:
Our government, like ourselves, should be an informed consumer.

absolutely. libertarians advocate taking the power away from government and putting it in the hands of the people. but government is, ideally, merely a contract between some people and some other people. at least in a truly democratic government.
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.