Should Governments Keep Secrets?

[Tarquelne]

The fundamental question is "What should government do?" (ie - raise a military, tax, regulate commerce, welfare, etc. etc. etc.)

A government should keep secrets as-necessary to fulfill it's legitimate tasks. No more, no less.

 

[Traitorfish]

The government has no right to keep information from the people from who it supposedly derives its legitimacy. How can legitimacy be conferred in a meaningful man, if the people are not acting with full knowledge? It amounts to little more than fraud. However, it is functionally necessary that it do so, for the reasons that have been listed above. A state cannot function if everything is made public. This is an intrinsic contradiction of the democratic state; its resolution, the only resolution, is the abolition of the state as such. So the most accurate answer I can give is "none of the above".

Of course, that doesn't happen just by wishing it, so I voted "No", indicating that I think we should demand that the state make all information public, because it's necessary to push the contradictions of the state to the point of untenability to make this resolution possible. Partisan, yes, but I never claimed to be a functionalist.

 

[downtown]

So we have a right to every public employee's medical information? Their grades?

 

[Traitorfish]

I would draw a distinction between "secrets" and "private information". Wouldn't you?

 

[Tarquelne]

The government has no right to keep information from the people from who it supposedly derives its legitimacy.

Other than axiomatically, can you justify that statement? (I'm focusing mainly on the greatly-overworked word "right.")

How can legitimacy be conferred in a meaningful man, if the people are not acting with full knowledge?

(man = manner?)

By accepting that "legitimacy" does not require full knowledge.

(Given your previous statement I'm guessing your definition of "legitimate (non?)state" doesn't allow for secrecy. ie, none is necessary for any of its functions.)

A state cannot function if everything is made public.

I don't think that's true... err... depending on exactly what you mean by function.

OTOH, I'll grant that no present, modern, state could adequately perform all it's legitimate roles (as defined by it's explicitly avowed purposes and principles) without secrecy.

This is an intrinsic contradiction of the democratic state; its resolution, the only resolution, is the abolition of the state as such. So the most accurate answer I can give is "none of the above".

If we each had a week free we could discuss "as such".

... so I voted "No", indicating that I think we should demand that the state make all information public... Partisan, yes, but I never claimed to be a functionalist.

(Perfectly reasonable given the above.)

 

[Traitorfish]

Other than axiomatically, can you justify that statement? (I'm focusing mainly on the greatly-overworked word "right.")
...
(man = manner?)

By accepting that "legitimacy" does not require full knowledge.

(Given your previous statement I'm guessing your definition of "legitimate (non?)state" doesn't allow for secrecy. ie, none is necessary for any of its functions.)

(Yeah, "manner, sorry". )

Democratic government is generally understood, at least in the liberal and socialist traditions, as deriving its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. A government which governs without consent is an oppressive government, and thus an illegitimate government. For consent to be authentic, it has to be informed, otherwise it is merely the form of consent. If this was not so, then we would permit fraud. So a people that are asked to consent to government without being permitted the full understanding of what that "government" entails cannot be considered to be giving authentic consent. Government thus lacks consent and is, even if only to a limited extent, oppressive. It is therefore illegitimate.

(There's room for certain mutually agreed upon areas of ignorance, but that has pretty strict limits. It would mean things like, to take Downtown's example, the health records of public employees, things of people know the existence, just not the details, rather than things which people are simply not permitted to know full stop.)

 

[Commodore]

(Yeah, "manner, sorry". )

Democratic government is generally understood, at least in the liberal and socialist traditions, as deriving its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. A government which governs without consent is an oppressive government, and thus an illegitimate government. For consent to be authentic, it has to be informed, otherwise it is merely the form of consent. If this was not so, then we would permit fraud. So a people that are asked to consent to government without being permitted the full understanding of what that "government" entails cannot be considered to be giving authentic consent. Government thus lacks consent and is, even if only to a limited extent, oppressive. It is therefore illegitimate.

(There's room for certain mutually agreed upon areas of ignorance, but that has pretty strict limits. It would mean things like, to take Downtown's example, the health records of public employees, things of people know the existence, just not the details, rather than things which people are simply not permitted to know full stop.)

Just to throw little curveball in here: What if the people don't know they are having information withheld from them? Does that still make the government illegitimate? Because if that is the case, then for all they know they have all the facts and are making the best choice.

Another question: Would you agree that one of government's functions is to maintain order and stability? If so, if there were information that could potentially cause widespread instability, wouldn't it be the responsibility of the government to ensure that information never saw the light of day?

 

[Traitorfish]

Just to throw little curveball in here: What if the people don't know they are having information withheld from them? Does that still make the government illegitimate?

That's what I addressed in the last paragraph. Hypothetically, it's possible for people to agree to remain in ignorance, but I am highly sceptical that this can extend past a very limited range of information- of which the type and breadth of the information is itself known, e.g. medical records of public employees- and certainly not to the sort of examples which you suggested in the OP.

Another question: Would you agree that one of government's functions is to maintain order and stability? If so, if there were information that could potentially cause widespread instability, wouldn't it be the responsibility of the government to ensure that information never saw the light of day?

Yes, exactly. And to do that, it must acting in a oppressive manner. So to maintain its legitimacy, it must negate its legitimacy. Hence "intrinsic contradictions".

 

[bombshoo]

I understand the need for secrets, but I think the required time for government files to be declassified should be drastically reduced. None of this crap where they are just now getting around to declassify intelligence files from the First World War almost a hundred years later.

 

[MantaRevan]

If your government ISN'T keeping secrets from you, then you're living in northern Greenland.

 

[Tarquelne]

For consent to be authentic, it has to be informed, otherwise it is merely the form of consent.

Sure. But "informed" doesn't require "knows everything."

Government thus lacks consent and is, even if only to a limited extent, oppressive. It is therefore illegitimate. ...

That looks like a demand for perfection - that a government containing any element of oppression *cannot* be legitimate. I think that works only if legitimacy requires perfection. In common usage it certainly does not. And I don't think it should.

I'm puzzled by your qualification below:

(There's room for certain mutually agreed upon areas of ignorance, but that has pretty strict limits.)

So... isn't that just quibbling what should and should-not be secret rather than arguing that secrecy must negate legitimacy? (Or, put another way: It's simply a matter of degree and/or circumstance.) The previous posts were arguing from basic principles, not opening up a discussion about what should and should-not be secret.

Hypothetically, it's possible for people to agree to remain in ignorance, but I am highly sceptical that this can extend past a very limited range of information

I disagree. I believe most people do agree to remain in ignorance as much as necessary, and that there's enough broad-agreement on what's necessary for governments to rather easily be "legitimate", as it's usually understood. (ie, most of the largely apathetic public is OK with how things are going.)

That's not to say that at all existing governments don't routinely go too far with secrecy. But I think that just takes us back to imperfection - they aren't, generally speaking, too secretive to lose consent. (This seems more a problem with human fallibility than government form. Though gov. reform could be a huge help.)

 

[Traitorfish]

Sure. But "informed" doesn't require "knows everything."

You need to know what it is you actually consenting to. If certain information is peripheral to that, then it may not be necessary, but there's a great deal of information that is both necessary to that, and that modern states cannot make public and continue to function, or, at the very least, function as they do now.

That looks like a demand for perfection - that a government containing any element of oppression *cannot* be legitimate. I think that works only if legitimaticy requires perfection. In common usage it certainly dores not. And I don't think it should.

It's "perfection" insofar as its taking liberal philosophy to its logical conclusion. If it turns out that liberalism only works when you ignore great big chunks of it, then I really have to wonder if it was any good in the first place.

I mean, sure, you could take the Burkean route and say that liberal democracy is to be advocated insofar as it is convenient, but I doubt that's popular. It's certainly not what the democratic state itself is going to tell you.

I'm puzzled by your qualification below:

(There's room for certain mutually agreed upon areas of ignorance, but that has pretty strict limits.)

So... isn't that just quibbling what should and should-not be secret rather than arguing that secrecy negates legitimacy? The previous posts were arguing from basic principles, not opening up a discussion about what should and should-not be secret.

What I'm suggesting is that it's possible to voluntarily remain ignorant about certain information, but that for this to be legitimate it demands that a certain amount is already known about the information. We can agree that we don't need to know a public employee's medical records, because we know the type of information and what it's for, so we agree to remain ignorant. Put simply, we know what we don't know. That's not something we know of all information, though, because in many cases we lack the basis to make an informed judgement as to the nature, importance or function of this information. We may not even know that the information exists. This is a case of not knowing what you don't know, of being denied knowledge of what you don't know. That isn't just a quantitative change, a shift from less to more ignorance, but a qualitative one, a shift from "I don't need to know this" and "I don't know if I need to know this", and even "I am not permitted to know this, whether I need to or not". And in that, in the move from us agreeing as freely associating individuals to keep certain things private to being told by an external entity that we are not permitted to know what is being kept private constitutes a movement into oppression and thus into illegitimacy.

A legitimate government is an accountable government, a modifiable government, and, if necessary, a removable government. The modern state does not permit this, because it denies us the information necessary to hold it to account, to modify it, or indeed to know what we are modifying. So that leaves us with one option.

 

[CaptainF]

As long as the government keeps secrets, there is no real "government of the people".

 

[Silurian]

I would draw a distinction between "secrets" and "private information". Wouldn't you?

Who and how do you decide what is "private information".

Should the names of people in government reports be private if they could reflect badly on them.

What about commercial information, is that private.

 

[emzie]

I think there's a difference between should the government keep secrets and should the government keep secrets from me.

I have to reluctantly acknowledge that as much as I want to know everything, I can't have that privileged without giving it to people I might consider less trust worthy.

 

[Tarquelne]

but there's a great deal of information that is both necessary to that, and that modern states cannot make public and continue to function, or, at the very least, function as they do now.

Such as...? (Though I'll grant almost any amount of "function as they do now." But I suggest the difference between "as they do now." and how they would function is "not as dysfunctional." (ie, information that needs to be "legitimately" released would improve the functioning of the state, not destroy it.)

It's "perfection" insofar as its taking liberal philosophy to its logical conclusion. If it turns out that liberalism only works when you ignore great big chunks of it,

So far as I know such a demand for perfection isn't a chunk of liberal philosophy. It's an ideal, not an absolute and inviolable requirement.

(And I think a better characterization is "to it's logical extreme" rather than "logical conclusion." Logical, but not realistic.)

I mean, sure, you could take the Burkean route and say that liberal democracy is to be advocated insofar as it is convenient,

Convenient? No. Practical and possible, yes.

What I'm suggesting is that it's possible to voluntarily remain ignorant about certain information, but that for this to be legitimate it demands that a certain amount is already known about the information.

Ok...

/snip/...
That isn't just a quantitative change, a shift from less to more ignorance, but a qualitative one, a shift from "I don't need to know this" and "I don't know if I need to know this", and even "I am not permitted to know this, whether I need to or not".

I'll grant that qualitative change only if the missing/unknown information is sufficiently important and/or pervasive.

I don't see any reason to assume the unknown information reaches that level.

Maybe I'm just cynical. Note that expectations seems to play an essential role in your "secrecy = illegitamacy" argument.

An extreme example: If someone assumes that all politicians are not just financially corrupt but secretly eating human fetuses, organizing the NWO and are really Fabians, too... and this person recognizes the the governments legitimacy anyway!... just what might you tell him that'll change that consent?

I think many people are generally more or less aware of all the cruddy stuff that goes on, but don't see that as a legitimate reason to de-legitimize the government. (I'd say a majority of the people simply don't care - they're not going to withdraw consent unless a secret obviously and directly impacts them in a negative manner. "Useful fools." For them the secrecy isn't really an issue.)

A legitimate government is an accountable government, a modifiable government, and, if necessary, a removable government. The modern state does not permit this, because it denies us the information necessary to hold it to account, to modify it, or indeed to know what we are modifying. So that leaves us with one option.

Huh. IMO the modern state is accountable - to some degree, is modifiable - to some degree, and is removable - to the extent I think realistic given the our global society's current overall level of development. (ie, after you pry the reigns of power out of the "power elites" cold dead fingers.)

And I think that's as good as we can realistically expect at this point. That's no reason not to work for better. We could do far, far, far better. But I don't see how the failure to be at that pinnacle of achievement de-legitimizes current governments.

As the masters of cynicism say: The perfect is the enemy of the good.

It's also true of the mediocre.

Completely changing the subject: This has been a good discussion (it *is* possible!) and I'm sure I'll want to continue it, but this's my last post.

 

[Commodore]

That's what I addressed in the last paragraph. Hypothetically, it's possible for people to agree to remain in ignorance, but I am highly sceptical that this can extend past a very limited range of information- of which the type and breadth of the information is itself known, e.g. medical records of public employees- and certainly not to the sort of examples which you suggested in the OP.

What you spoke about in that post was mutually agreed ignorance. What I was asking was a scenario where a government presents information as absolutely everything there is to know on a particular issue, even though they are withholding information without the people's knowledge. So the people feel like they are getting the full story and thus view their government as honest and legitimate even though this is not the case.

I guess the basic question I'm asking is: If the people perceive the government as legitimate, does that make said government legitimate even if from an objective point of view it may not be?

Keep in mind that I am not trying to argue with you I am just trying to get a deeper understanding of your perspective.

 

[Mad Man]

Anyone who votes no deserves to have there social security stolen.

 

[GoodGame]

Who decides what should be kept secret though?

I'd say military defense secrets should be kept secret though.

 

[Traitorfish]

Who and how do you decide what is "private information".

People, generally. "Democracy" and all that.

Should the names of people in government reports be private if they could reflect badly on them.

Nah.

What about commercial information, is that private.

What do you mean by "commercial information".

What you spoke about in that post was mutually agreed ignorance. What I was asking was a scenario where a government presents information as absolutely everything there is to know on a particular issue, even though they are withholding information without the people's knowledge. So the people feel like they are getting the full story and thus view their government as honest and legitimate even though this is not the case.

I guess the basic question I'm asking is: If the people perceive the government as legitimate, does that make said government legitimate even if from an objective point of view it may not be?

Keep in mind that I am not trying to argue with you I am just trying to get a deeper understanding of your perspective.

I wouldn't think it does, no. We don't regard fraudulent contracts as legitimate in our private affairs, so why should we make an exception here?