Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Is it ok for the Government to lie to it's people?

roachboy · 10-25-2005, 06:57 AM

1.
in general, i think that the state in a democratic context, even one as weak and superficial as the american, should be extremely reluctant to lie to the public.
in fact i would think that an informed polity could function as a kind of feedback loop for the state, checking its actions/orientations/excesses/failures.
i would have thought that a basic relation between the polity and the administrative or political apparatus it creates.
but as a normative matter, this seems of little interest.
what is theunderlying question?
do you in general prefer to pretend that the state does not lie or the opposite?
that is a matter of individual disposition, a kind of political a priori, which pertains to the peson answering the question, who is asked to consider him or herself in the abstract and think about assumptions that might structure other relations to politics.

the examples given earlier to argue that the state can and should lie to the polity were outlined across particular situations----so it follows that judgements concerning the question of whether the state can or should lie to its public are in fact judgements about situations. the same type of thinking, carried out on behalf of the state, is raison d'etat. introducing that element enables folk to argue that the state should not lie in general, but in an (apparently infinite) set of particular situations--or types of situations--it is ok.
i imagine that an actor within a given state apparatus who was called upon to justify a particular lie issued to the public would say nothing different.
this is what i meant when i responded to politicophile.
who responded in turn by rehearsing the same line back to me as if it was a response.
but that's mostly a function of a lack of clarity in my post--i did not speel out how i was using the phrase raison d'etat and so things followed. mea culpa.

2.
the general features of conservative politics are relevant to this thread whether you like it or not, elphaba, given that the general features of conservative ideology can provide a way into thinking about how a conservative administration--how the bush administration--operates.
the fact is that not all discursive environments outline the same relation to information.

a normative question was posed at the outset of this thread.
like i said earlier in this post, most of the answers move from a general statement to a series of situations.
that means that each respondent is moving from the normative to a way of trying to make the matter concrete.
i simply chose another way to move from the normative to the concrete.
at that level, the move is every bit as legit as any list of situations.
so you do not get to rule it out.

3.
politicophile: i have no idea what your politics are as a human being and i would not presume to speculate about that.
i simply react to your written language and map features of it onto what i see as conservative discourse.
you see that as generating a "black and white world"---i see it as reacting to features that i can know something about (what i read from you in your posts) and not going beyond that.
if you object to this procedure, i could easily substitute an approach predicated on guesses (like yours concerning my "black and white world")
my response to your specific examples is pretty straightforward: if you introduce raison d'etat/that logic into how you think about the question, then your examples make sense and your postion on them does as well.
but i wondered why you would do that--that is make that move at all.
i still wonder about why you do that.
i expect that it is an index for you of some pragmatism, some "realism"--i simply see the move itself as problematic because it dissolves any position from which you can make normative judgements. unless "whatever suits the adminstrative interests of the state is ok with me insofar as secrecy/deception is concerned" is for you a normative position.
in which case we simply disagree.

as for the question of classification of your politically: if you rehearse what i take to be conservative discourse in your posts, it more often than not follows that your thinking follows the same type of path. ideology is like that.

10-25-2005, 06:57 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	1. in general, i think that the state in a democratic context, even one as weak and superficial as the american, should be extremely reluctant to lie to the public. in fact i would think that an informed polity could function as a kind of feedback loop for the state, checking its actions/orientations/excesses/failures. i would have thought that a basic relation between the polity and the administrative or political apparatus it creates. but as a normative matter, this seems of little interest. what is theunderlying question? do you in general prefer to pretend that the state does not lie or the opposite? that is a matter of individual disposition, a kind of political a priori, which pertains to the peson answering the question, who is asked to consider him or herself in the abstract and think about assumptions that might structure other relations to politics. the examples given earlier to argue that the state can and should lie to the polity were outlined across particular situations----so it follows that judgements concerning the question of whether the state can or should lie to its public are in fact judgements about situations. the same type of thinking, carried out on behalf of the state, is raison d'etat. introducing that element enables folk to argue that the state should not lie in general, but in an (apparently infinite) set of particular situations--or types of situations--it is ok. i imagine that an actor within a given state apparatus who was called upon to justify a particular lie issued to the public would say nothing different. this is what i meant when i responded to politicophile. who responded in turn by rehearsing the same line back to me as if it was a response. but that's mostly a function of a lack of clarity in my post--i did not speel out how i was using the phrase raison d'etat and so things followed. mea culpa. 2. the general features of conservative politics are relevant to this thread whether you like it or not, elphaba, given that the general features of conservative ideology can provide a way into thinking about how a conservative administration--how the bush administration--operates. the fact is that not all discursive environments outline the same relation to information. a normative question was posed at the outset of this thread. like i said earlier in this post, most of the answers move from a general statement to a series of situations. that means that each respondent is moving from the normative to a way of trying to make the matter concrete. i simply chose another way to move from the normative to the concrete. at that level, the move is every bit as legit as any list of situations. so you do not get to rule it out. 3. politicophile: i have no idea what your politics are as a human being and i would not presume to speculate about that. i simply react to your written language and map features of it onto what i see as conservative discourse. you see that as generating a "black and white world"---i see it as reacting to features that i can know something about (what i read from you in your posts) and not going beyond that. if you object to this procedure, i could easily substitute an approach predicated on guesses (like yours concerning my "black and white world") my response to your specific examples is pretty straightforward: if you introduce raison d'etat/that logic into how you think about the question, then your examples make sense and your postion on them does as well. but i wondered why you would do that--that is make that move at all. i still wonder about why you do that. i expect that it is an index for you of some pragmatism, some "realism"--i simply see the move itself as problematic because it dissolves any position from which you can make normative judgements. unless "whatever suits the adminstrative interests of the state is ok with me insofar as secrecy/deception is concerned" is for you a normative position. in which case we simply disagree. as for the question of classification of your politically: if you rehearse what i take to be conservative discourse in your posts, it more often than not follows that your thinking follows the same type of path. ideology is like that. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 10-25-2005 at 06:59 AM..