4 ms·

I'm open to your disagreement just also quite confused on what you specifically mean. > The arguments in that source are pretty poor. Which arguments are poor

I'm open to your disagreement just also quite confused on what you specifically mean. > The arguments in that source are pretty poor. Which arguments are poor and why? > They offer no objective evidence to support their position. Which positions do you think lack objective support? > They even claim that all sorts of social ills were lower during the period of secrecy and suppose they must be related. I agree that it may overstate the causation where it might just be correlation. At the same time, do you think that it's not worthy to investigate further? That many of at least the political ills could be strongly correlated with the increase in transparency? > For example, given the number of people who die from medical mistakes, people absolutely should be taking more of a role in their own care. I'm not sure if this is an example they mention or you were providing an analogy. I agree people should be taking more of a role in their medical care, I think the authors would agree as well. But do you think the patient should watch the surgeon's every move to make sure the surgeon is doing it exactly how the patient wanted it? At what point should the patient let go and trust the surgeon to do their job?

giantg2 4y ago
"While a number of scholars claim that a lack of citizen engagement is a fatal problem, significant data suggests otherwise" They make claims about significant data supporting thus, but don't provide it. "And because lobbyists for the powerful appear to be the main consumers of transparent government, the evidence (below) suggests that governments function even better without a fully informed citizenry." This doesn't logically follow. One could make lobbying reforms to curtail the problems associated with that while still allowing transparency for the citizens. "This is because a republic works in much the same way as one might hire a plumber, roofer, surgeon or a mechanic. Indeed, when citizens choose to hire doctors or mechanics, the evidence is pretty clear that even when it comes to possible life threatening outcomes, few of us choose to become as informed as we likely should." People still need to be vigilant and I formed when dealing with these professions so they don't get ripped off. People should be educating themselves enough to ask intelligent medical questions. People should seek second opinions. People should educate themselves to know the terminology and basic function of a car so they aren't getting ripped off by a mechanic. To People who view the whole situation and know the details, their example is actually an argument against the point they are making. "By publishing just the final floor votes, the active citizens can still correlate votes to candidates, but by closing the doors of committees, the lobbyists and other extreme demanders are kept in check." How did they reach this conclusion that lobbyists would be kept in check? Wouldn't lobbyists still be able to see the floor votes? I see no reason would affect the ability of lobbyists to continue their influence. Most of the rest of the content are quotes, fluff, and supposition about inequality being related to a lack of secrecy. There's no objective data or links to studies.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  I appreciate you taking the time to write these out. I want to research it a bit more before replying and also share what you wrote with one of the authors of that site who is a friend of mine, as I think that more evidence may be there just not so directly connected to that one article. Regardless, for now, thank you.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    In looking more at it, I agree with you that that page itself doesn't provide those clear links to studies or citations to back up some of the claims. I hope they add those links in the future because they have a lot of evidence that they've collected on the Citations section of their page. You can find citations/studies related to Transparency Benefits Lobbyists[0], Transparency Drives Partisanship[1], Transparency is Weaponized[2], Citizens Do Not Monitor Congress[3], Perverse Accountability[4], The Secret Ballot & the Gilded Age[5], The Politics of Intimidation[6], Bad Democracy[7], and a testimony before US Congress in 2019 called "Congressional Transparency: A Word of Caution"[8]. I put the links there just because right now I don't have the time to dig through them to find ones that connect directly to your concerns, but as I said, I hope the authors do illuminate those connections more and in the meantime, I hope you or others may read through some of the evidence behind the more abstracted summaries on the 7 myths page. EDIT: One quote from that testimony which I just found and think is relevant: > As I will discuss below, transparency burdens deliberation in two key ways: (1) it empowers organized groups to press their demands in the legislative process; (2) it tends to divert congressional discourse outward toward messaging rather than toward problem solving. [0]: https://congressionalresearch.org/Citations.html https://congressionalresearch.org/Citations.html [1]: https://congressionalresearch.org/PartisanshipCitations.html https://congressionalresearch.org/PartisanshipCitations.html [2]: https://congressionalresearch.org/WeaponizedTransparencyCitations.html https://congressionalresearch.org/WeaponizedTransparencyCita... [3]: https://congressionalresearch.org/CitizensDoNot.html https://congressionalresearch.org/CitizensDoNot.html [4]: https://congressionalresearch.org/PerverseAccountability.html https://congressionalresearch.org/PerverseAccountability.htm... [5]: https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html [6]: https://congressionalresearch.org/BruberyCitations.html https://congressionalresearch.org/BruberyCitations.html [7]: https://congressionalresearch.org/BadDemocracy.html https://congressionalresearch.org/BadDemocracy.html [8]: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190510/109468/HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-LeeF-20190510-U2.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190510/109468/HHRG...

giantg2 4y ago

"While a number of scholars claim that a lack of citizen engagement is a fatal problem, significant data suggests otherwise" They make claims about significant data supporting thus, but don't provide it. "And because lobbyists for the powerful appear to be the main consumers of transparent government, the evidence (below) suggests that governments function even better without a fully informed citizenry." This doesn't logically follow. One could make lobbying reforms to curtail the problems associated with that while still allowing transparency for the citizens. "This is because a republic works in much the same way as one might hire a plumber, roofer, surgeon or a mechanic. Indeed, when citizens choose to hire doctors or mechanics, the evidence is pretty clear that even when it comes to possible life threatening outcomes, few of us choose to become as informed as we likely should." People still need to be vigilant and I formed when dealing with these professions so they don't get ripped off. People should be educating themselves enough to ask intelligent medical questions. People should seek second opinions. People should educate themselves to know the terminology and basic function of a car so they aren't getting ripped off by a mechanic. To People who view the whole situation and know the details, their example is actually an argument against the point they are making. "By publishing just the final floor votes, the active citizens can still correlate votes to candidates, but by closing the doors of committees, the lobbyists and other extreme demanders are kept in check." How did they reach this conclusion that lobbyists would be kept in check? Wouldn't lobbyists still be able to see the floor votes? I see no reason would affect the ability of lobbyists to continue their influence. Most of the rest of the content are quotes, fluff, and supposition about inequality being related to a lack of secrecy. There's no objective data or links to studies.

jimkleiber 4y ago
I appreciate you taking the time to write these out. I want to research it a bit more before replying and also share what you wrote with one of the authors of that site who is a friend of mine, as I think that more evidence may be there just not so directly connected to that one article. Regardless, for now, thank you.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  In looking more at it, I agree with you that that page itself doesn't provide those clear links to studies or citations to back up some of the claims. I hope they add those links in the future because they have a lot of evidence that they've collected on the Citations section of their page. You can find citations/studies related to Transparency Benefits Lobbyists[0], Transparency Drives Partisanship[1], Transparency is Weaponized[2], Citizens Do Not Monitor Congress[3], Perverse Accountability[4], The Secret Ballot & the Gilded Age[5], The Politics of Intimidation[6], Bad Democracy[7], and a testimony before US Congress in 2019 called "Congressional Transparency: A Word of Caution"[8]. I put the links there just because right now I don't have the time to dig through them to find ones that connect directly to your concerns, but as I said, I hope the authors do illuminate those connections more and in the meantime, I hope you or others may read through some of the evidence behind the more abstracted summaries on the 7 myths page. EDIT: One quote from that testimony which I just found and think is relevant: > As I will discuss below, transparency burdens deliberation in two key ways: (1) it empowers organized groups to press their demands in the legislative process; (2) it tends to divert congressional discourse outward toward messaging rather than toward problem solving. [0]: https://congressionalresearch.org/Citations.html https://congressionalresearch.org/Citations.html [1]: https://congressionalresearch.org/PartisanshipCitations.html https://congressionalresearch.org/PartisanshipCitations.html [2]: https://congressionalresearch.org/WeaponizedTransparencyCitations.html https://congressionalresearch.org/WeaponizedTransparencyCita... [3]: https://congressionalresearch.org/CitizensDoNot.html https://congressionalresearch.org/CitizensDoNot.html [4]: https://congressionalresearch.org/PerverseAccountability.html https://congressionalresearch.org/PerverseAccountability.htm... [5]: https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html https://congressionalresearch.org/SecretBallot.html [6]: https://congressionalresearch.org/BruberyCitations.html https://congressionalresearch.org/BruberyCitations.html [7]: https://congressionalresearch.org/BadDemocracy.html https://congressionalresearch.org/BadDemocracy.html [8]: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190510/109468/HHRG-116-MH00-Wstate-LeeF-20190510-U2.pdf https://docs.house.gov/meetings/MH/MH00/20190510/109468/HHRG...