4 ms·

>US. Government property is publicly/collectively owned by the citizens of the nation, while private property, while coming with certain collectively agreed res

>US. Government property is publicly/collectively owned by the citizens of the nation, while private property, while coming with certain collectively agreed responsibilities (tax, licenses, codes etc), is controlled entirely privately by individuals. Invasion of private property as you say is unambiguously morally wrong, but I don't think the same can be said about collectively owned public property Even if this ridiculous argument is true, Assange was never a US citizen or taxpayer.

sneak 8y ago
The government derives its power from the consent of the governed. The governed cannot consent if they are uninformed. Assange is not relevant here; what matters is that the US government was keeping secrets of war crimes from the very people to whom the government is accountable. There is a strong moral argument to be made that the government has no rights to secrets kept from its citizenry.
- Retra 8y ago
  Has any government that adopted that policy survived the inevitable manipulation and exploitation by foreign powers?
  - mmjaa 8y ago
    Do you honestly think that Americas military secrets prevent its manipulation and exploitation by foreign powers? If anything, the fact of Americas military-industrial-pharmacuetical complex covering up crimes against humanity (torture program) and real war crimes (every twenty minutes) makes American leaders even more susceptible to corruption and influence by non-democratically elected actors, state or otherwise. You'd rather the country be run by shady Blackwater types protected by ultimate state secrecy than have to deal with state diplomacy as its always been? Wikileaks exposed pretty clear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity where the laws and policies and "ethics" of the situation are very well documented, and are very well understood among the sovereign states which ratified them. These are clear crimes we are talking about. The American military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is inconvenienced by these crimes being exposed - not the American people, in whose names these acts are committed, and who bear ultimate responsibility for the actions of their state. Knowing what is being done in your name by your government representatives is a good thing - you cannot be a responsible citizen otherwise.
    - Retra 8y ago
      Firstly, I never said having secrets prevents all manipulation and exploitation. But if someone is going to war with your country, the last thing you want is for all your infrastructure, movements, and communications to become public knowledge. Furthermore, the argument I was responding to failed to allow any nuance or qualification to the reasons the government keeps secrets. Certainly there is a big difference between broad policy decisions or matters of chain of responsibility than there is between tactical information and contextual data collection. I understand government secrecy for the latter, but not the former. I certainly am not going to conflate the two, even as I concede that one is necessary and the distinction hard to enforce.
    - mike10010100 8y ago
      You know, this was really quite the disproportionate reply that in no way answered the poster's question, but I have to say that this line takes the cake. > You'd rather the country be run by shady Blackwater types protected by ultimate state secrecy than have to deal with state diplomacy as its always been? Secrecy has always been a part of state diplomacy. What world do you love in that this is not the case?
      - mmjaa 8y ago
        >Secrecy has always been a part of state diplomacy. And this is why the world is perpetually at war. Those who have the power to stop the war-mongers (The People) don't have any idea what is really going on - thus diplomacy has been usurped from most democracies around the world, and is thus: broken.
        mike10010100 8y ago
        > And this is why the world is perpetually at war. No, that's because we have an entire industrial complex surrounding making war profitable. We had state secrets far before then and there were very long periods of peace.
        mmjaa 8y ago
- eropple 8y ago
  > There is a strong moral argument to be made that the government has no rights to secrets kept from its citizenry. Such arguments don't hold water when the process of classification is determined by a fairly elected representative of that citizenry. Americans could elect somebody who promised to ditch classification altogether, but they wouldn't, because reality is not so clear.
  - primrose 8y ago
    Mob rule doesn't determine morality or even the best way of doing things. Moreover, this is assuming that we are given access to vote for actual candidates with varying positions instead of weeding out ones that don't toe the line. Democracy being the least worst option doesn't absolve it from criticism.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Fair elections require informed voters, though. If government commits human rights violations on their behalf without telling them, I don't think that's particularly informed. Yes, they could still vote to abolish state secrets altogether. But I think knowledge about how secrecy is abused is also very much relevant to an informed vote on such a matter.
    - walterstucco 8y ago
      But is it abused? Secrecy is for secrecy, keeping things secret is not an abuse, the abuse is what they have done, not that it was secret. And anyway the US abuses are just a drop in the ocean when on the other side the abuses are public and used as a display of power. And I'm not even an US supported ...
  - sneak 8y ago
    You cannot give consent if you are not informed about that to which you are consenting.
    - walterstucco 8y ago
      But you can't give consent if the information is biased... WikiLeaks Is not a neutral source of information. It had (has) an agenda What about leaking personal informations of everyone involved in the WL operations? Do you think everyone of them would come out clear?

sneak 8y ago

The government derives its power from the consent of the governed. The governed cannot consent if they are uninformed. Assange is not relevant here; what matters is that the US government was keeping secrets of war crimes from the very people to whom the government is accountable. There is a strong moral argument to be made that the government has no rights to secrets kept from its citizenry.

Retra 8y ago
Has any government that adopted that policy survived the inevitable manipulation and exploitation by foreign powers?
- mmjaa 8y ago
  Do you honestly think that Americas military secrets prevent its manipulation and exploitation by foreign powers? If anything, the fact of Americas military-industrial-pharmacuetical complex covering up crimes against humanity (torture program) and real war crimes (every twenty minutes) makes American leaders even more susceptible to corruption and influence by non-democratically elected actors, state or otherwise. You'd rather the country be run by shady Blackwater types protected by ultimate state secrecy than have to deal with state diplomacy as its always been? Wikileaks exposed pretty clear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity where the laws and policies and "ethics" of the situation are very well documented, and are very well understood among the sovereign states which ratified them. These are clear crimes we are talking about. The American military-industrial-pharmaceutical complex is inconvenienced by these crimes being exposed - not the American people, in whose names these acts are committed, and who bear ultimate responsibility for the actions of their state. Knowing what is being done in your name by your government representatives is a good thing - you cannot be a responsible citizen otherwise.
  - Retra 8y ago
    Firstly, I never said having secrets prevents all manipulation and exploitation. But if someone is going to war with your country, the last thing you want is for all your infrastructure, movements, and communications to become public knowledge. Furthermore, the argument I was responding to failed to allow any nuance or qualification to the reasons the government keeps secrets. Certainly there is a big difference between broad policy decisions or matters of chain of responsibility than there is between tactical information and contextual data collection. I understand government secrecy for the latter, but not the former. I certainly am not going to conflate the two, even as I concede that one is necessary and the distinction hard to enforce.
  - mike10010100 8y ago
    You know, this was really quite the disproportionate reply that in no way answered the poster's question, but I have to say that this line takes the cake. > You'd rather the country be run by shady Blackwater types protected by ultimate state secrecy than have to deal with state diplomacy as its always been? Secrecy has always been a part of state diplomacy. What world do you love in that this is not the case?
    - mmjaa 8y ago
      >Secrecy has always been a part of state diplomacy. And this is why the world is perpetually at war. Those who have the power to stop the war-mongers (The People) don't have any idea what is really going on - thus diplomacy has been usurped from most democracies around the world, and is thus: broken.
      - mike10010100 8y ago
        > And this is why the world is perpetually at war. No, that's because we have an entire industrial complex surrounding making war profitable. We had state secrets far before then and there were very long periods of peace.
        mmjaa 8y ago
eropple 8y ago
> There is a strong moral argument to be made that the government has no rights to secrets kept from its citizenry. Such arguments don't hold water when the process of classification is determined by a fairly elected representative of that citizenry. Americans could elect somebody who promised to ditch classification altogether, but they wouldn't, because reality is not so clear.
- primrose 8y ago
  Mob rule doesn't determine morality or even the best way of doing things. Moreover, this is assuming that we are given access to vote for actual candidates with varying positions instead of weeding out ones that don't toe the line. Democracy being the least worst option doesn't absolve it from criticism.
- int_19h 8y ago
  Fair elections require informed voters, though. If government commits human rights violations on their behalf without telling them, I don't think that's particularly informed. Yes, they could still vote to abolish state secrets altogether. But I think knowledge about how secrecy is abused is also very much relevant to an informed vote on such a matter.
  - walterstucco 8y ago
    But is it abused? Secrecy is for secrecy, keeping things secret is not an abuse, the abuse is what they have done, not that it was secret. And anyway the US abuses are just a drop in the ocean when on the other side the abuses are public and used as a display of power. And I'm not even an US supported ...
- sneak 8y ago
  You cannot give consent if you are not informed about that to which you are consenting.
  - walterstucco 8y ago
    But you can't give consent if the information is biased... WikiLeaks Is not a neutral source of information. It had (has) an agenda What about leaking personal informations of everyone involved in the WL operations? Do you think everyone of them would come out clear?