Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!hoxna!houxm!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!bellcore!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Euromissiles in Belgium
Message-ID: <521@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Feb-85 11:48:47 EST
Article-I.D.: fisher.521
Posted: Wed Feb 6 11:48:47 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 9-Feb-85 09:30:43 EST
References: <229@usl.UUCP> <511@fisher.UUCP> <435@mcvax.UUCP> <4816@ukc.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 43
>The people of might want to know some embarrassing
>activities of its secret service via the Press, which is
>also availlable to 's enemies. Is it, therefore, in
>'s interests to reveal all?
If they are embarassing (presumably because they violate the law),
then the answer is yes. While enemies may gain some short-term
comfort from adverse publicity, the greater threat to the nation is
from law-breakers in public positions than from foreign nations.
>I know you readers in th'USA will have had much arguement
>on the Freedom of Information issue.
>Personally, I would say that USA's laws on it would come under
>the 'patently stupid' entry.
>My point is that:
> 's interests do not necessarily equate with
> its people's interests.
The distinction you draw between national and people's interests is
unclear. If you mean the people as a whole, I disagree, as the nation
is precisely the collection of its people. To draw a distinction
between them is semantically arbitrary, at best (unless you have
confused national interest with ruler's interest). If you mean popular
will, then you have confused the interests of the people with their
desires, as they are not unerring judges of their long-term interests.
If you mean personal (i.e. individual interests), you will be disputed
by no one. Individuals' interests often conflict; to equate national
interest with the collection of individual interests leads to
contradiction.
As for the US's laws being "patently stupid", I heartily disagree.
Our primary national interest is to preserve our freedoms. To accept
exemption of certain government agencies from the rule of law is the
surest way to threaten that primary interest. The Freedom of
Information Act is not a naive, self-inflicted wound in the arena of
geopolitics, but rather a rational response to sensible priorities.
>Having said that, I don't want US cruise missiles on British soil.
>-Nige Gale
Do you mean you think it is in violation of the national interest (or
collective interest), national desire (popular will), or personal
interest?
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david