3 ms·

Step in the right direction. Get this passed first, then later we can move to a spot where the government is _never allowed to lie_ to its citizens.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
"Never" seems like a bad standard
- g-b-r 2y ago
  You'd have to make at most extremely limited exceptions (for example, no, a generic "national security" concern would not be a limited exception). I'm convinced that the benefits of such a norm would far outweigh the downsides.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    I'm willing to allow much, much more lying than that. Especially for national security concerns.
mjevans 2y ago
We live an in imperfect world. Some state secrets probably are for public benefit. Government lies should be strongly regulated and see multiple layers of check and oversight. Re-review by new agents should be a frequent event. Lies should be expensive, they should have weight, and they should be only when strictly necessary for the good of the people. As an example, 'fake' terrorists. Those who only rise to that level because someone in the government offered to sell (fake) explosives, etc. I believe that's more harm than good. However I'd also like real terrorists who would eventually figure out how to do bad things to get caught. Review, oversight, lies being expensive.
- Doxin 2y ago
  > Some state secrets probably are for public benefit. You can have secrets without having lies. Observe: "What is the top speed of an F-16 fighter jet?" "That information is classified." I'm not entirely convinced there's any case where lying is required.
  - rincebrain 2y ago
    The problem becomes that not everything can be feasibly boiled down to purely true or false accuracy. If you ask me how much is in my bank account, and I tell you it was $50 last time I checked, but I knew a $2000 deposit was coming, did I lie? If you ask me about whether UFOs are real, and I tell you I've never seen one or met someone who credibly has, but I know we have a classified "Earth-Vulcan Treaty Negotiation" committee, did I lie? If you ask me about the existence of programs to assassinate a dozen foreign leaders, and I answer 10 of them don't exist and say the answer to 2 are classified, but I know all 12 don't exist, did I lie? It all goes down a rabbit hole of agency, intent, provability, and expected perception of what you communicated.

ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago

"Never" seems like a bad standard

g-b-r 2y ago
You'd have to make at most extremely limited exceptions (for example, no, a generic "national security" concern would not be a limited exception). I'm convinced that the benefits of such a norm would far outweigh the downsides.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  I'm willing to allow much, much more lying than that. Especially for national security concerns.

mjevans 2y ago

We live an in imperfect world. Some state secrets probably are for public benefit. Government lies should be strongly regulated and see multiple layers of check and oversight. Re-review by new agents should be a frequent event. Lies should be expensive, they should have weight, and they should be only when strictly necessary for the good of the people. As an example, 'fake' terrorists. Those who only rise to that level because someone in the government offered to sell (fake) explosives, etc. I believe that's more harm than good. However I'd also like real terrorists who would eventually figure out how to do bad things to get caught. Review, oversight, lies being expensive.

Doxin 2y ago
> Some state secrets probably are for public benefit. You can have secrets without having lies. Observe: "What is the top speed of an F-16 fighter jet?" "That information is classified." I'm not entirely convinced there's any case where lying is required.
- rincebrain 2y ago
  The problem becomes that not everything can be feasibly boiled down to purely true or false accuracy. If you ask me how much is in my bank account, and I tell you it was $50 last time I checked, but I knew a $2000 deposit was coming, did I lie? If you ask me about whether UFOs are real, and I tell you I've never seen one or met someone who credibly has, but I know we have a classified "Earth-Vulcan Treaty Negotiation" committee, did I lie? If you ask me about the existence of programs to assassinate a dozen foreign leaders, and I answer 10 of them don't exist and say the answer to 2 are classified, but I know all 12 don't exist, did I lie? It all goes down a rabbit hole of agency, intent, provability, and expected perception of what you communicated.