More WikiLeaks Surprises: Putin Applauds, Hitchens Derides « Failed Empire
And such is undoubtedly the case with most observers: disciples of authentic democracy and freedom respect and uphold the WikiLeaks agenda, while those who despise democracy abhor it.
Here's where I always get confused in the whole WikiLeaks discussion (if one call anything where both sides are so far over the top a discussion - shouting match, more like): How is WikiLeaks a champion of democracy? I don't recall an election with Assange's name on the ballot. I don't recall voting for any WikiLeaks thing, or against it. I don't recall any elected official appointing anybody at WikiLeaks to decide what should be secret and what not, or illegal or not, or whatever. What's so democratic here?
5 comments:
Democracy is impossible with an educated and informed population. Government secrecy, by its very nature, negates the possibility of democracy. Wholly transparent government is a fundamental prerequisite for a functioning democracy, and WikiLeaks is helping to create such transparency.
Sorry, that should say "Democracy is impossible withOUT an educated and informed population."
Right. That's the standard argument, and well said.
So you agree then the nuclear launch codes should be public knowledge?
How about the details of your income tax return? I might find that useful in deciding who to vote for.
Who decides, and do I get a democratic vote on that?
I think nuclear weapons shouldn't even exist, and they likely wouldn't - at least in such massive quantities - if populations had been fully aware of and able to influence the actions of their governments.
I fail to see the connection between WikiLeaks and my personal tax return. The amount of taxes I pay has virtually nothing to do with the specific actions of any particular government official.
I am not suggesting that there be no such thing as personal privacy. I am contending that there should be absolutely no secrecy regarding the actions of my government.
It would be nice if nuclear weapons didn't exist but I certainly disagree with your first point. I remember a lot of people who were gung ho to build bigger and better nukes in the 50's and it was JFK who ran successfully on the perception of a "missile gap" (the missiles in question weren't snowballs).
I don't know what particular government official you have in mind with reference to WikiLeaks but your (and my) tax returns, social security information, Medicare or Medicaid records are all government documents and if you believe so strongly in transparency it's difficult for me to see how you can decide which documents should be public and which should not. (And how you decide which documents I will be allowed to see, and which not.)
(Also it might be mentioned that every government I've ever heard of, in every age, made strenuous efforts to secure the secrecy of diplomatic communications and certain military information - "loose lips sink ships" - not just the U.S. and not just in the 21st Century. I grant this does not necessarily mean it was right to do so, but it's pretty clear a lot of people thought it was.)
All this notwithstanding, I think the reaction of both sides in this affair is way, way over the top. I don't think the material involved is very damaging to the government at all and I also don't think we are talking about any great contribution on the part of WikiLeaks to freedom or democracy or any other such high-sounding principle.
Alas, the result of all this will be (as it always has been) a more defensive and more secretive government than ever before. If you think that's a bad thing, we agree.
Post a Comment