- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Re: Getting back to the subject

In Reply to: Getting back to the subject posted by Samuel Day Fassbinder on August 31, 1997 at 10:47:47:

: The reason I mentioned the National Security State deserved perhaps a little more elaboration, to keep my discussion of government agencies on topic. The whole point of mentioning the CIA etc. was to illustrate how elite activity could help foster public political apathy in the United States. Since democracy requires an informed citizenry, the National Security State's vast secret-keeping apparatus interferes with the public's right to know, and thus the possibility of public oversight in the operations of the CIA etc. is nullified. The public can't act on what it doesn't know and is furthermore powerless to affect. So as a result, what passes for public opinion about the CIA, the NSA etc. is generally only allowed to be "conspiracy theory," all of it "plausibly deniable" by powerful folks with security clearances.

Agencys in which the people have no real control are no better then those that keep classified information. These agencies are not part of the Republic that our forefathers described, even congress has limited power over them; they must explicitly override things that they wish to do. Additionally the cabinet gives far too much power to the president who should only play a small part in government anyhow. I agree with you fully: we should have no agencies keeping "military" or other secrets, so far as I'm concerned we should have a citizen militia that would require no classification. Just becouse an agency is public does not mean it is supported by the public, and such agencys bad for any Republic/Democracy. I wish the now conservative congress was more libertarian and would support the cause to dismantle such programs which will undoubtedly become magnets for corruption and tyrany, some of them already have.

Follow Ups:

None.