On 7/25/13 10:49 AM, glen wrote:
In particular, this case: 'Harris: Let’s again invoke a deathbed
scene, where the dying person asks, “Did you ever cheat on me in our
marriage?” Let’s say it’s a wife asking her husband. The truthful
answer is that he did cheat on her. However, the truth of their
relationship—now—is that this is completely irrelevant. And yet it is
also true that he took great pains to conceal this betrayal from her
at one point, and he has kept quiet about it ever since. What good
could come from telling the truth in that situation?'
I would say that legislation can be robust to crime or lapses in
individual ethics. Legislation is a qualitatively different thing from
ethical decisions that govern individual behavior. The lie above as
described is compartmentalized and does not impact anyone else. And
revealing the cheating is a catharsis that the husband does not deserve
and should not seek.
The public secret (the thing people know but put out of their minds) is
not at all compartmentalized. It's secret legislation that contradicts
the public law. Among the bad things about it is how arrogant it is:
The idea that the chain of command can be used to keep illegal things
secret even across tens of thousands of employees and contractors.
Even the military only requires that soldiers follow legal orders.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating: If the NSA *could* keep
massive surveillance a secret (e.g. not conspire with other government
agencies), then they'd probably keep the ability to study the minds of
dangerous people. But they failed to, because they failed to persuade
at least one person the mission was a good one.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
