BF2S Forums Julian Paul Assange arrested in the UK

dayarath wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good points...  in hindsight, transparency in government tends to hinder effectiveness.  He never should have campaigned on that to begin with, because it's a joke and honestly not something you really want much of if you plan to accomplish much.

Disagree, transparancy up to a certain point should be possible and everyone would ultimately benefit - a happier public, more support for the government, making them capable of doing more. I'm not saying the gov. should open up it's doors for all to see - diplomatic engagements should still remain classified to protect trust and so on.

I would argue only the illusion of transparency is needed.  For most of our existence, this illusion has remained intact.  Obviously, more recently, this illusion has been dismantled, but it would be the same if wikileaks had gotten ahold of a massive data dump from any country.  I'm sure even a country like Canada engages in shady shit behind closed doors.

All that matters is that these things stay under wraps.  The public only needs to believe things aren't corrupt, because if they knew the truth about our government (or any government for that matter), they'd probably be too paranoid to function anymore.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Or the government could... I dunno... stop engaging in corrupt practices.

You're a libertarian -- you, of all people, should know that governments will always be corrupt.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Disagree, transparancy up to a certain point should be possible and everyone would ultimately benefit - a happier public, more support for the government, making them capable of doing more. I'm not saying the gov. should open up it's doors for all to see - diplomatic engagements should still remain classified to protect trust and so on.

I would argue only the illusion of transparency is needed.  For most of our existence, this illusion has remained intact.  Obviously, more recently, this illusion has been dismantled, but it would be the same if wikileaks had gotten ahold of a massive data dump from any country.  I'm sure even a country like Canada engages in shady shit behind closed doors.

All that matters is that these things stay under wraps.  The public only needs to believe things aren't corrupt, because if they knew the truth about our government (or any government for that matter), they'd probably be too paranoid to function anymore.

Or the government could... I dunno... stop engaging in corrupt practices.

Well that's just a steaming pile of boring... im here to liberate your mind dontcha know

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Or the government could... I dunno... stop engaging in corrupt practices.

You're a libertarian -- you, of all people, should know that governments will always be corrupt.

Smaller government would suggest more transparency.


Edit.. oh shit.. ccccccomboo breaker

Turquoise wrote:

dayarath wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good points...  in hindsight, transparency in government tends to hinder effectiveness.  He never should have campaigned on that to begin with, because it's a joke and honestly not something you really want much of if you plan to accomplish much.

Disagree, transparancy up to a certain point should be possible and everyone would ultimately benefit - a happier public, more support for the government, making them capable of doing more. I'm not saying the gov. should open up it's doors for all to see - diplomatic engagements should still remain classified to protect trust and so on.

I would argue only the illusion of transparency is needed.  For most of our existence, this illusion has remained intact.  Obviously, more recently, this illusion has been dismantled, but it would be the same if wikileaks had gotten ahold of a massive data dump from any country.  I'm sure even a country like Canada engages in shady shit behind closed doors.

All that matters is that these things stay under wraps.  The public only needs to believe things aren't corrupt, because if they knew the truth about our government (or any government for that matter), they'd probably be too paranoid to function anymore.

The public as in you too I presume.

Turquoise wrote:

I would argue only the illusion of transparency is needed.  For most of our existence, this illusion has remained intact.  Obviously, more recently, this illusion has been dismantled, but it would be the same if wikileaks had gotten ahold of a massive data dump from any country.  I'm sure even a country like Canada engages in shady shit behind closed doors.

All that matters is that these things stay under wraps.  The public only needs to believe things aren't corrupt, because if they knew the truth about our government (or any government for that matter), they'd probably be too paranoid to function anymore.

The corruptness of western government is exaggerated. (F.ex. leaks topping almost a million documents and only a handful of shady dealings, none of which except for the UN spying indicate corrupt government.).

I do however recognize that the rest of the world doesn't play by our rules and values and as such you will have to engage in activities deemed unacceptable by those values to get stuff done there. These dealings have to remain classified, in this case the government has to keep itself in check and not make the mistakes of going overboard such as the support for insurgent groups during the cold war.

dayarath wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I would argue only the illusion of transparency is needed.  For most of our existence, this illusion has remained intact.  Obviously, more recently, this illusion has been dismantled, but it would be the same if wikileaks had gotten ahold of a massive data dump from any country.  I'm sure even a country like Canada engages in shady shit behind closed doors.

All that matters is that these things stay under wraps.  The public only needs to believe things aren't corrupt, because if they knew the truth about our government (or any government for that matter), they'd probably be too paranoid to function anymore.

The corruptness of western government is exaggerated. (F.ex. leaks topping almost a million documents and only a handful of shady dealings, none of which except for the UN spying indicate corrupt government.).

I do however recognize that the rest of the world doesn't play by our rules and values and as such you will have to engage in activities deemed unacceptable by those values to get stuff done there. These dealings have to remain classified, in this case the government has to keep itself in check and not make the mistakes of going overboard such as the support for insurgent groups during the cold war.

You don't play by your own rules and values period.

Ticia wrote:

You don't play by your own rules and values period.

If those rules and values aren't applicable for the sake of progress you have to adjust your stance.

Ticia wrote:

The public as in you too I presume.

lol...   I'm a cynic, so I'm used to corruption.  I don't support it, but I don't really fight it either.  I function because I vent my frustrations with the system through debates while still being able to distract myself by enjoying the simpler aspects of life.

The average person is probably the same in the latter respect but more naive in the former.  The average person isn't a cynic, but people are generally gullible and sometimes idealistic.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar wrote:

Smaller government would suggest more transparency.

Exactly, which is why I'm such a huge fan of pushing power down to the lowest level. It's much easier to deal with corruption at the local level than it is at the national level. Try pulling off a shady deal in a small town without everyone finding out about it.

Local politicians are easier to buy off.  It's not a matter of less corruption or more, it's a matter of scale.  You can pull off bigger scams on the federal level because of the money and power involved.   However, this is less a measure of character and more a measure of capacity.

Manipulating a local government is easier than manipulating the federal government as a whole.

Disagree. The impacts of corruption are direct and easily deciphered locally. The bigger the government gets the longer the trail is. Why should floridians vote on funding public schools in montana? It make zero sense. .. and don't even get me started on about how easy it is to buyoff washington politicians... for it is they who have to fund massive political campaigns.

Kmar wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Exactly, which is why I'm such a huge fan of pushing power down to the lowest level. It's much easier to deal with corruption at the local level than it is at the national level. Try pulling off a shady deal in a small town without everyone finding out about it.

Local politicians are easier to buy off.  It's not a matter of less corruption or more, it's a matter of scale.  You can pull off bigger scams on the federal level because of the money and power involved.   However, this is less a measure of character and more a measure of capacity.

Manipulating a local government is easier than manipulating the federal government as a whole.

Disagree. The impacts of corruption are direct and easily deciphered locally. The bigger the government gets the longer the trail is. Why should floridians vote on funding public schools in montana? It make zero sense. .. and don't even get me started on about how easy it is to buyoff washington politicians... for it is they who have to fund massive political campaigns.

You're assuming that locals would fight the corruption.   Some cases of corruption have a net benefit for the local population.

For example, the mob had a lot of support (and still somewhat does) up north because organized crime was easier to deal with than a bunch of smaller gangs continually fighting in turf wars.   People were willing to pay protection money if it meant things went smoother on a day to day basis.

We see similar things throughout the world.  A lot of Afghani tribes are willing to negotiate with the Taliban if it means less conflict and death.

In America, things are obviously less extreme, but the principle is the same.  Local governments are no less corrupt than the feds, they just operate differently.   Local politicians are the sort of people you have a much better chance of making a personal connection with, so people are more forgiving of certain character flaws if they know someone on a first name basis or if they know that this person is willing to make the right tax breaks that might bring a company into their area to provide them a decent job.   If the politician gets a kickback in the process, who are they to complain?

JohnG@lt wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Exactly, which is why I'm such a huge fan of pushing power down to the lowest level. It's much easier to deal with corruption at the local level than it is at the national level. Try pulling off a shady deal in a small town without everyone finding out about it.

Local politicians are easier to buy off.  It's not a matter of less corruption or more, it's a matter of scale.  You can pull off bigger scams on the federal level because of the money and power involved.   However, this is less a measure of character and more a measure of capacity.

Manipulating a local government is easier than manipulating the federal government as a whole.

Perhaps, but it's much easier to kick the bastards out when it's discovered. One person can turn the tide against voter apathy in a small election. The same can't be done at a larger level. This is why short of a tea party movement, incumbents have 95% reelection rates at the national level, even though their collective approval rating sits at 18%.

Have you ever considered that it's easier to condemn a collective than a local representative that brings home the bacon to your district?

That's mostly what those ratings mean.  Everyone says they hate pork, but most people still vote in favor of pork for their own areas.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Kmar wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Exactly, which is why I'm such a huge fan of pushing power down to the lowest level. It's much easier to deal with corruption at the local level than it is at the national level. Try pulling off a shady deal in a small town without everyone finding out about it.

Personally. I like the thought of individual soverignty.

..and how the he'll can someone expect transparency when you have a cia watching a tsa watching an fbi? The thought is laughable at best.

Individual sovereignty is great, but you can't go full anarchist. There will always be common issues that we need some form of government to deal with. Like, I wouldn't want to live in the Wild West where the quickest draw is the arbiter of justice. Government has its place, it should just perform many less jobs than it currently tries to handle.

Still, it is a reflection of the people in all ways. People elect politicians expecting them to handle problems that they don't want to deal with themselves. The bigger the government, the lazier the populace becomes even though they could do the job themselves a million times better and more efficiently. The size of government reflects the laziness of the population, nothing more.

I can count on one hand what I need the federal government to do for me. Individual soverignty is not about anarchy.. it is about having authority over yourself.