> Why could the government not operate without lying, except for extreme situations like war? Cynically? Because if you do that, then all the lies the governme

> Why could the government not operate without lying, except for extreme situations like war? Cynically? Because if you do that, then all the lies the government wants to tell get justified with war. Let's say you want to limit your lying to extremely narrow issues like "Ruritania wants to invade, so let's mis-state our defensive strength on the border". Now if Senator Jones wants to send some pork to his district, he can arrange to buy overpriced military radar for the border, since that part of the budget won't be scrutinized. If a presidential candidate wants to scare people, he can announce a widget gap at the border, knowing that the real number of widgets is a secret. That's a bit extreme, but I think the reality is a slightly broader version of the same. Governments conceal or lie about who they surveil so the suspects won't find out, which creates opportunities to surveil dissidents and political enemies. Governments lie about their mechanisms of surveillance so they won't be circumvented, which lets them conceal the use of unethical methods. Governments lie about their trade positions and economic confidence to negotiate better deals and avoid market panics, which lets them lie about who they're negotiating to benefit and how strong their economic planning is. We could probably have governments that lie less, perhaps we could decide that total economic openness is a net benefit. But the underlying problem remains: both secrecy and lying are antithetical to oversight, so any ugly intention will get channeled through whatever narrow categories we decide to allow.