I'm sorry I disagree, governments shouldn't be "better at keeping secrets", they ought to be upfront with their constituents. The line I draw, and where I would have thought most so called libertarians would draw the line if not earlier, is at private conversations.
Government transparency requires the highest level of disclosure possible. This includes conversations that are had behind closed doors, government documents and everything else. If governments are to be 'upfront with their constituents', then those constituents are entitled to the reasonable expectation that they will be told the whole truth. If, as is indeed the case, the content of 'private' conversations differs from what the public are actually being told, it is clear that there is a gap between rhetoric and reality that is less than acceptable in a society that values political openness. Herein lies the value of an organisation such as WikiLeaks: it forcibly increases government disclosure in a way that is uncomfortable for those who were keeping quiet.
Let me ask you this, if all the governments conduct in in synch with the official position and all the individuals professional conduct is in synch with the official position, what possible business of mine or yours is it if Kevin Rudd has a dumb nickname for Ban Ki Moon? Contrary to what you lot may like to think, one does not forfeit his admission ticket to the human race when one enters professional politics. Or if a liberal party frontbencher thinks the coalitions stop the boats policy is cheap, lazy scaremongering?
lol what possible business of mine is it if government is making misrepresentations to its citizens? Why are you trivialising leaks that have, in some cases, been very illuminating?
Faultless logic.
Because in many other cases they have been silly gossip which upon leakage only served to distract and undermine these powerful men and women who carry in their hands this nation and other nations future prosperities. As for "making misrepresentations", you clearly understood what I said so there was no need to paraphrase. So what business of yours is it if Krudd call moon "Spanky Banky" to his private staff?
I could hardly care less what Rudd calls Ban Ki-Moon. What I do care about are his actual thoughts on, say, the war in Afghanistan. As I said, you're trivialising the leaks in general.
Well you may well care but it's still none of your business.
doesn't this contradict what you said earlier about the information about the shell oil company's doings in nigeria being very important?
Yeah Kind of... I get carried away with stuff sometimes and lose the structure of my argument.
Why do you say the leak was fabricated? For heaven sake Gillard didn't even deny it, it was just a grumpy cabinet member, probably Rudd, getting their own back for the spill. It wasn't a "hatred for the elderly" either it was that Gillard opposed raised the aged care pension because the budget was already in deficit.
Governmental officials don't have an inherent right to privacy in the actions that they perform on our behalf.
It is inalienable, you either believe in their privacy or pronounce yourself a hypocrite most foul. Like any tory you flaunt your belief in freedom when it suits but when individuals you dislike are concerned you make excuses to sacrifice it.
What are you talking about? Why are you referring to 'individuals' here? We are dealing with an institution here (government), not an individual.
Beneath the cold exterior of the government, within it's every individual, beats a human heart.
I did, I said you were wrong remember.
They are operating in the capacity of a person in a monopolistic position granted by fiat with the undertones of the barrel of a gun if you don't accept it.
I cannot even fathom how rotted and decrepit your mind is to make such a wholly baseless and vacuous link.
They have a right to private opinions and conversations. They should be held mercilessly accountable for their decisions, not for what they say behind closed doors in confidence. Most of these leaked "diplomatic cables" have yielded worthless gossip which has only served to embarrass individuals the leakers don't like. It has prised a freedom(inalienable or not) from the grasp of law abiding citizens without yielding a tangible benefit and deny it though you might, you are defending it because the victims have such staunchly different political ideologies to your own.
For the love of yahweh, please give everybody some sort of logical justification for your position that goes beyond a completely unfounded assertion that such a right is 'inalienable'. This 'right to privacy in government' nonsense has been attacked numerous times, yet you stubbornly insist on restating it and simply accuse the other interlocutor of being 'wrong'. This cycle has already repeated itself several times over in this thread. Remedy this or gtfo.