> 1. People don't have a right to examine the activities of their government How do you propose to keep things secret while permitting any citizen to examine t

> 1. People don't have a right to examine the activities of their government How do you propose to keep things secret while permitting any citizen to examine them? Do you deny that some things need to be secret, or do you deny that some citizens would reveal things which should remain secret? Or do you have a way to keep things secret and publicise them at the same time? > 2. People don't have a right to speak freely about what has been made public No, people aren't right to do so. There's a difference: I have a right to pour egg whites and sand in my hair, but I'm a lunatic if I do. > 3. People must trust auditors who work in secret Again, what is your proposal which keeps things secret and yet public? > 4. Humble yourself so you can never declare right from wrong No, have a sense of humility. You and I are two people out of about 350 million. I may believe something is wrong, and I could be right; but if everyone says I'm not…I should at least consider the possibility. Likewise, one must recognise that neither the law nor the Constitution mandate all good things, or forbid all bad things: plenty of things I dislike I perfectly constitutional, and plenty of things I like are not mandatory. I don't get a veto over the rest of the nation; neither do you.