4 ms·
There's a difference between an individual and an organization that intends to have an impact on the society. The society can't, or shouldn't demand that I give
by V-2 8y ago
There's a difference between an individual and an organization that intends to have an impact on the society. The society can't, or shouldn't demand that I give up privacy of my inherently private matters.
But it is very reasonable for the society to expect a basic degree of transparency from an NGO or a political party - insofar as the actions in question are meant to have public impact. It's a two-way street, to me.
Note that I'm not even entering the subject of legal obligations here. Whether or how to enforce this approach is a separate discussion (quite a few democratic constitutions do forbid political organizations of clandestine structures and membership). I'm only referring to common sense, and what feels justified.
Is it a private matter if someone held on trial is the judge's boss in a secret organization they both belong to?
- wl 8y agoThese kinds of organizations generally don't exist to have a public impact. They exist to transform individuals. > Is it a private matter if someone held on trial is the judge's boss in a secret organization they both belong to? A judge has an obligation to recuse where there's a conflict of interest, regardless of the nature of that conflict. This is not a good argument against private societies, unless you want to start banning any situation that could at some point lead to a conflict of interest.