3 ms·

> The government may keep secrets to the extent that doing so does not erode its net good and properness. This seems tautological. Can you elaborate, please?

jerf 16y ago
Words have changed over the past couple hundred years. It probably wasn't tautological then, though I wouldn't care to try to translate it to modern terms as I am not familiar enough with Jefferson's thought to have more than a sketchy clue from reading other works of the time.
- troutwine 16y ago
  I understand the words and intent well enough, but taken out of context the statement would have been deemed slim pickings even 240 years ago. What acts must a government and people do, etc. are not even hinted at. I can guess at Alex's intent--assume he's read similar things to me, has a roughly similar education and so forth--but the ambiguity impedes a well founded conversation.
Alex3917 16y ago
So in Rosen's book he argues that full transparency will never work because A) people have a short attention span so the majority will never work to understand the context that our actions take place in and B) good ideas often take several years to come up with, and full transparency would open us up to ostracism or punishment based on a work on progress or something that we are just exploring and don't even fully believe. In general I think secrets are good when they protect us from others, as Rosen shows is necessary, and bad when they are used to exert power over others. (Which seems to be how secrets are used to hide corruption.) I have no problem with the government analyzing foreign policy in secret, but I have a big problem with them killing people without producing any evidence to justify it. It would take more effort to come up with a litmus test or working definition so that's the best I can do for right now.

3 ms·

> The government may keep secrets to the extent that doing so does not erode its net good and properness. This seems tautological. Can you elaborate, please?

by troutwine 16y ago

jerf 16y ago
Words have changed over the past couple hundred years. It probably wasn't tautological then, though I wouldn't care to try to translate it to modern terms as I am not familiar enough with Jefferson's thought to have more than a sketchy clue from reading other works of the time.
- troutwine 16y ago
  I understand the words and intent well enough, but taken out of context the statement would have been deemed slim pickings even 240 years ago. What acts must a government and people do, etc. are not even hinted at. I can guess at Alex's intent--assume he's read similar things to me, has a roughly similar education and so forth--but the ambiguity impedes a well founded conversation.
Alex3917 16y ago
So in Rosen's book he argues that full transparency will never work because A) people have a short attention span so the majority will never work to understand the context that our actions take place in and B) good ideas often take several years to come up with, and full transparency would open us up to ostracism or punishment based on a work on progress or something that we are just exploring and don't even fully believe. In general I think secrets are good when they protect us from others, as Rosen shows is necessary, and bad when they are used to exert power over others. (Which seems to be how secrets are used to hide corruption.) I have no problem with the government analyzing foreign policy in secret, but I have a big problem with them killing people without producing any evidence to justify it. It would take more effort to come up with a litmus test or working definition so that's the best I can do for right now.