3 ms·

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. All citizens deserve to know what their politicians are saying behind closed doors.

koolba 7y ago
That type of blanket statement is a great example of theory vs. practice. In theory you’d want everything to be public in the interest of informing your populace. In practice that’s nonsense. There’s genuine national security concerns, forthright debate of alternatives by advisors, and discussions of limits on negotiating positions. Earring on the side of transparency is a good idea but there’s a whole lot in government that should never, and will never, be public.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  How can the public take informed decisions if the reasoned debate is always assumed to be held in secret? OK, national security and foreign negotiation is a special topic where secrecy can be warranted. But if the government of a country or union of countries is considering, say, pay cuts, why on earth would the population not be entitled to hearing all sides of the argument?
  - tgv 7y ago
    How can politicians take responsible measures if they can be called out on any nonsensical thing? Not that I'm against transparency, but there really are two sides to this. In the best case, politicians act in the interest of the people, which makes publication of their private dealings unwanted. In the worst case, they act against the interest of the people, which can only be dealt with by complete openness and independent justice. In practice, there's a balance between the two. And it's worse if the decision makers are judged by people that are only partially affected, such as in EU decisions.
    - tsimionescu 7y ago
      I disagree completely. If there were real transparency, the public can also, in time, grow together with their politicians, and understand why certain decisions must be taken, and can help the public take a more active and measured role in their own government. Controlling the actions of politicians who explicitly act against the public interest is at best a minor win. Open and honest dialog is the much more important aspect of this. And the best case of this is - a politician working for the public interest convinces people to be mindful of their long term goals even when it contradicts their short term goals.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - koolba 7y ago
    > But if the government of a country or union of countries is considering, say, pay cuts, why on earth would the population not be entitled to hearing all sides of the argument? Deliberations are not arguments. Arguments are delivered after deliberation is complete. If you consider a group of advisors acting as an extension of the chief executive, it’s no different than asking for the chief executives private thoughts which is ludicrous.
    - tsimionescu 7y ago
      Per your argument, parliament discussions should also be secret, because otherwise it would be like asking for the private thoughts of the head of parliament. But being more serious, deliberation is normally done between friendly parties before a negotiation, and perhaps it is usually fair to keep it private, especially before the actual negotiation has taken place. But the actual negotiation is an excersie in arguments and offers and counter offers, it is no longer a private affair. If the negotiation is over, you can no longer trust the parties to accurately tell a story of the real arguments that took place, since the arguments they tell everyone may well have been a result of the negotiation.
- leto_ii 7y ago
  I really don't think in this case there would be any national security issues.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > but there’s a whole lot in government that should never, and will never, be public. Such governments should be destroyed. Everything in government should be made public sooner or later. Everything in government is public property and belongs to the public. There may be short term national security issues that may warrant secrecy, but even those in the long term needs to be released to the public. It's so strange that people actually believe " there’s a whole lot in government that should never, and will never, be public." And this is why so many people distrust the EU and its supporters.

That type of blanket statement is a great example of theory vs. practice. In theory you’d want everything to be public in the interest of informing your populace. In practice that’s nonsense. There’s genuine national security concerns, forthright debate of alternatives by advisors, and discussions of limits on negotiating positions. Earring on the side of transparency is a good idea but there’s a whole lot in government that should never, and will never, be public.

tsimionescu 7y ago
How can the public take informed decisions if the reasoned debate is always assumed to be held in secret? OK, national security and foreign negotiation is a special topic where secrecy can be warranted. But if the government of a country or union of countries is considering, say, pay cuts, why on earth would the population not be entitled to hearing all sides of the argument?
- tgv 7y ago
  How can politicians take responsible measures if they can be called out on any nonsensical thing? Not that I'm against transparency, but there really are two sides to this. In the best case, politicians act in the interest of the people, which makes publication of their private dealings unwanted. In the worst case, they act against the interest of the people, which can only be dealt with by complete openness and independent justice. In practice, there's a balance between the two. And it's worse if the decision makers are judged by people that are only partially affected, such as in EU decisions.
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    I disagree completely. If there were real transparency, the public can also, in time, grow together with their politicians, and understand why certain decisions must be taken, and can help the public take a more active and measured role in their own government. Controlling the actions of politicians who explicitly act against the public interest is at best a minor win. Open and honest dialog is the much more important aspect of this. And the best case of this is - a politician working for the public interest convinces people to be mindful of their long term goals even when it contradicts their short term goals.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- koolba 7y ago
  > But if the government of a country or union of countries is considering, say, pay cuts, why on earth would the population not be entitled to hearing all sides of the argument? Deliberations are not arguments. Arguments are delivered after deliberation is complete. If you consider a group of advisors acting as an extension of the chief executive, it’s no different than asking for the chief executives private thoughts which is ludicrous.
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    Per your argument, parliament discussions should also be secret, because otherwise it would be like asking for the private thoughts of the head of parliament. But being more serious, deliberation is normally done between friendly parties before a negotiation, and perhaps it is usually fair to keep it private, especially before the actual negotiation has taken place. But the actual negotiation is an excersie in arguments and offers and counter offers, it is no longer a private affair. If the negotiation is over, you can no longer trust the parties to accurately tell a story of the real arguments that took place, since the arguments they tell everyone may well have been a result of the negotiation.
leto_ii 7y ago
I really don't think in this case there would be any national security issues.
dntbnmpls 7y ago
> but there’s a whole lot in government that should never, and will never, be public. Such governments should be destroyed. Everything in government should be made public sooner or later. Everything in government is public property and belongs to the public. There may be short term national security issues that may warrant secrecy, but even those in the long term needs to be released to the public. It's so strange that people actually believe " there’s a whole lot in government that should never, and will never, be public." And this is why so many people distrust the EU and its supporters.