Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
the right does not view information as important and an informed polity as decisive for a functioning democracy--they do not like democracy; they view not filtered information as subversive and view the public as a manegement problem.
|
I don't think it is particularly helpful to talk about the opinions of "the right", as there is no such monolithic entity. I consider myself to be a political centrist, although I would wager that, in your black and white political spectrum, I too would be sucked into "the right".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
the question at the outset of the thread was perhaps too broad: it includes raison d'etat, and opens up the space for the move that politcophile made, which was to substitute questions that center on lying to the public about such trivia as war in iraq with the need for secrecy at various administrative levels within the state itself. presumably, if you can justify secrecy as an administrative requirement, you can also justify lying to the public about the reasons for war.
|
The last sentence, which completes your slippery slope, is where one finds the gap in your reasoning. I would not presume that administrative secrecy leads to lying about the Iraq war and would be interested in knowing how you derive the latter from the former. Moreover, what do you think about the specific examples I presented?
I suggest you pick up a copy of
The Future of Freedom by Fareed Zakaria. In it, you will find some interesting thoughts on the importance of secrecy in liberal democracies, among other things. It comes very highly recommended from me.