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