4 ms·

In your opinion, what constitutes "some"? At the end of the day we are still talking about people who have the same basic Constitutional rights as everyone who

In your opinion, what constitutes "some"? At the end of the day we are still talking about people who have the same basic Constitutional rights as everyone who isn't an elected (or appointed) official, right? The moral and ethical scrutinies are certainly higher than they would be for you or I as mere voters, the legal scrutiny is unquestionably higher-this much I am not here to dispute or question. It is this: How do you build a bridge between holding your officials to a high standard and ensuring their ability to conduct the tasks of governing with integrity without ourselves resorting to destroying certain pillars of our legal system-either prescriptively or descriptively to do so? I understand fully this is possibly opening up pandora's box to all sorts of logical conceits and philosophical interrogatives about society, but I also believe this sort of dialogue cannot be had in ernest without doing so.

fghtr 9y ago
I think that an official at least cannot hide what they do with the public money. See also: https://publiccode.eu/ https://publiccode.eu/
mirimir 9y ago
By "some", I meant transparency proportional to power. And what I describe is common in societies like the US. Presidential candidates are expected to release their investments and income tax returns. Federal judges are required to disclose conflicts of interest, including their investments. Political contributions must (in theory) be disclosed. Reporters are free to investigate public officials, and to publish their findings. Even normally private sexual activity is discoverable, as evidence of questionable moral character. Or at least, lying about it implies more general dishonesty. And overall, efforts to frustrate transparency are presumptive evidence of corruption. There is the risk, I admit, that the Constitutional rights of public officials will be violated, beyond requirements of transparency. But arguably that's a risk that one knowingly takes in seeking political office.

fghtr 9y ago

I think that an official at least cannot hide what they do with the public money. See also: https://publiccode.eu/ https://publiccode.eu/

mirimir 9y ago

By "some", I meant transparency proportional to power. And what I describe is common in societies like the US. Presidential candidates are expected to release their investments and income tax returns. Federal judges are required to disclose conflicts of interest, including their investments. Political contributions must (in theory) be disclosed. Reporters are free to investigate public officials, and to publish their findings. Even normally private sexual activity is discoverable, as evidence of questionable moral character. Or at least, lying about it implies more general dishonesty. And overall, efforts to frustrate transparency are presumptive evidence of corruption. There is the risk, I admit, that the Constitutional rights of public officials will be violated, beyond requirements of transparency. But arguably that's a risk that one knowingly takes in seeking political office.