Hope I didn't sound like I was arguing for a totally open government. That would obviously never work. I'm arguing for a "well-enough" informed electorate. Informed enough to strategically make choices about choosing representatives.
Abusing mentally ill citizens, performing experiments on the poor and destitute, gathering records on citizenry forever -- these are things that an informed electorate would shut down if given the chance. These are things that the constitution would forbid if it were foreseen.
Nobody's arguing that secrets can't be had. The argument is that those employed by the voters are actively acting long-term in ways neither the voters nor the constitution would approve of. Short term bend any kind of rules you think the system will allow. Long-term? This has got to stop. (Perhaps you do that by a constitutional amendment sunsetting any secrecy classification after 20 years or some such)
Abusing mentally ill citizens, performing experiments on the poor and destitute, gathering records on citizenry forever -- these are things that an informed electorate would shut down if given the chance. These are things that the constitution would forbid if it were foreseen.
Nobody's arguing that secrets can't be had. The argument is that those employed by the voters are actively acting long-term in ways neither the voters nor the constitution would approve of. Short term bend any kind of rules you think the system will allow. Long-term? This has got to stop. (Perhaps you do that by a constitutional amendment sunsetting any secrecy classification after 20 years or some such)