Comment by karmacondon | Hacker News Reader

Comment by karmacondon | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The problem is that there is no clear definition of "the public good".

The current system isn't perfect, but it's more empowering to the common person than incentivizing anyone who has access to any information to sell it to the highest bidder, or to make unilateral decisions that affect everyone in society. At least I get to vote for someone I trust to make the right decisions.

There are plenty of people, especially in red states, who have complete faith in elected and appointed officials to decide what information should be public and what should be private. The personal beliefs of any given government employee aren't any more valid than anyone else's. I don't want to live in a society where any one person gets to decide what's in the public good and what isn't.

If you think the system should be changed so that anyone who has access to classified information can make it public on a whim, then vote for people who will implement that as policy. I don't agree with that idea, but it's a valid political belief and it's at least worthy of debate. But it isn't up to me, you or any other individual to make the final decision. Everyone should get a vote.

That's lovely and all, but the game is rigged. Vote? lol.

Do you want to live in a society where business interests collude with governments behind closed doors to decide what's in the "public" good? Because that's the one we live in.

The balance of power is just amazingly asymmetrical. The status quo is a machine that exists only to preserve itself, not for the public good. How can you honestly believe that it's in our best interests for this deal to remain private? Anyone who would leak it isn't "decid[ing] what's in the public good" at least in terms of actual policy, they're literally just letting the public be aware of what's going on with new policies that affect them (and this is not sensitive military information that might "threaten our national security" if released, so that argument is out).

From the article: "Proponents argue its a debate so fragile that airing the specifics publicly would thwart progress. They say the chapters already published by WikiLeaks, ones on the environment and intellectual property, strained talks by inflaming interest groups."

What the fuck? This is not democracy. "Well you know a bunch of people would probably be unhappy about this massive global policy we're enacting so let's just not tell them about it."

I'm sorry for the rhetoric but this kind of stuff...that society you don't want to live in - I feel like we're already there. It's not one person deciding but it's a group of people and they are continually fucking over everyone else for their own interests. We could do so much better.

> What the fuck? This is not democracy. "Well you know a bunch of people would probably be unhappy about this massive global policy we're enacting so let's just not tell them about it."

That reminds me of this quote found on a Metafilter discussion (http://www.metafilter.com/150141/Its-not-paranoia-if-they-ar...) about the FBI's use of fake companies to hide its operation of a 'civilian air force':

> The FBI asked the AP not to disclose the names of the fake companies it uncovered, saying that would saddle taxpayers with the expense of creating new cover companies to shield the government's involvement ….

EDIT: To be clear, the quote comes not from Metafilter itself, but from the article being discussed on Metafilter. However, I think that the discussion itself is worth reading, particularly for comments by jjwiseman, who was involved in related research (http://www.metafilter.com/150141/Its-not-paranoia-if-they-ar...).

How can we vote on something that the government says we aren't allowed to see?

The vote happens after you're allowed to see it.

No, they have to pass it so that you can find out what's in it! </sarcasm>

You're allowed to see it only after the President has agreed to the terms, and works are greasing the wheels of Congress to update the laws.

One of the problems with this trade deal is that most of our representatives -- the people who are supposed to write legislation -- aren't even allowed to know any more about it than we are. Not only that, the text will stay secret for two years after it has been ratified.

> the decision to keep the text of TPP secret was itself classified as secret

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/first-congress-member...

There's nothing in your link to suggest the treaty will remain secret even after ratification.

Your information is out of date.

According to http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/business/obama-trade-legis... an agreement has been reached between the administration and Congress which requires, among other things, that,

The bill would make any final trade agreement open to public comment for 60 days before the president signs it, and up to four months before Congress votes. If the agreement, negotiated by the United States trade representative, fails to meet the objectives laid out by Congress — on labor, environmental and human rights standards — a 60-vote majority in the Senate could shut off “fast-track” trade rules and open the deal to amendment.

Of course Congress and the administration do not have a history of being particularly responsive to the public. But it does seem that everyone will be able to know what was agreed on before it is signed into law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com