Should a government ever lie to its citizens?

[km2_33]

I’ve mentioned Leo Strauss a couple of times re the philosophy of lying but will again because he’s pertinent when it comes to deceit.

Leo Stauss was political philosopher who taught Paul Wolfowitz (ex Deputy Defence Secretary now World Bank President) when he was at the University of Chicago in the 1970’s.

Strauss was a German Jew who became the darling of the American NeoCON/ Zionist cabal (Wolfowitz, Perl, Kristol, Abraham, Libby, Flleischer, Feith, Wurmser, Frumm etc ) who, later with the Xtian NeoCONS, have joined together to become the puppet masters for Bush (and future presidents).

In essence, Stauss’ political philosophy is based upon a hierarchical society divided into the elite and the masses where the elite have no need for (or believe in) ethical values (such as truth), democracy or liberty etc in themselves. These, along with religion, are only valuable as tools to manipulate and control the masses – not for the elite to live by.

Apart from policies of aggressive nationalism (might makes right / superior have a natural right to rule over the weak) and the cynical use of religion as the moral glue, deception plays a key role in making and keeping this social structure. Deception, in Stauss’ view is not only OK to use on the masses, but necessary.

If you’re interested in studying the Philosophy of Mendacity (Deception), Leo Stauss presents an extreme view which is being used today.

“By way of deception, thou shalt do war” Mossad’s slogan
.

[tentative]

km,

I’m familiar with some of his writings as well as the work of his acolytes. Yes, it is simply a glossed over policy of amorality. Unfortunately, my reading of history, and having lived a little bit of it suggests that in those circumstances where the manipulated masses overturn the manipulators, the same policies are kept in place. Collectively, we don’t seem to be able to practice our ideals very well. I’m waiting to see the first successful utopia. I’m not going to hold my breath.

[Phaedrus]

Perhaps a more relevent & timely question is: under what circumstances must a government tell the truth to its subjects?

[yopele]

@GateControlTheory

If so, why and under what circumstances?
Yes, anytime it is required.

Also, can a government be truly democratic and persist in lies?
No, when every person is voting on every issue every piece of pertinent information should be conveyed without distortion, omission or lies. When some or all of the people are electing representatives distortions, omissions and lies once again become acceptable and sometimes necessary.

Is there something about the nature of democracy that requires untruth in order for it to function?
No. Unless it is a representative democracy.

[/b]

[aspacia]

@JennyHeart

Politicians lie for the same reason little children do: they have discovered it to be a quick and easy way to get what they want.

Fortunately many children mature into a respect for the truth.

Those who don’t … become politicians … or lawyers … which accounts for why so many politicians are lawyers (pardon my amusing purposeful error in traditional logic).

The truth is our presentation of reality that matches reality.

It is always good to tell the truth, good for one’s self, and good for others.

Arguably, the first line draw must be about saving lives.

Politicians know this. So many of their lies are erroneously rationalized with respect to saving lives.

A famous example of this kind of lie is America’s invasion of Iraq.

Most everyone thought Saddam had WMD’s. It was only Blix who didn’t, and the weapons still may be found in Syria.

America invaded Iraq solely to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights when Saddam had threatened to divert America’s share of Iraqi crude to China once the sanctions lifted when Iraq would then be free to choose its own trading partners.

It would be cheaper to purchase the oil than invade. Bush had a grudge.

Bush and the gang knew an invasion of Iraq would indeed result in the slaughter of scores of thousands of Iraqi civilians, which is what indeed came to pass.

Bush has esp??? Get real.

First, because lying is wrong, period.

Omitting well known facts is also considered a lie.

Second, because by lying he cost innocent people their one and only precious life, and he prevented us from doing the right and humane thing by all: working all that much harder to develop safe alternative energy sources/consumption.

Granted on the alternative energy claim.

[aspacia]

@Bessy

Lying is wrong. Withholding the truth is not the same as lying, and withholding the truth is a necessary evil… Mayhem isn’t pleasant.

Chuckle.

[JennyHeart]

@aspacia

@JennyHeart

Politicians lie for the same reason little children do: they have discovered it to be a quick and easy way to get what they want.

Fortunately many children mature into a respect for the truth.

Those who don’t … become politicians … or lawyers … which accounts for why so many politicians are lawyers (pardon my amusing purposeful error in traditional logic).

The truth is our presentation of reality that matches reality.

It is always good to tell the truth, good for one’s self, and good for others.

Arguably, the first line draw must be about saving lives.

Politicians know this. So many of their lies are erroneously rationalized with respect to saving lives.

A famous example of this kind of lie is America’s invasion of Iraq.

Most everyone thought Saddam had WMD’s. It was only Blix who didn’t, and the weapons still may be found in Syria.

Because Bush and Senate Security Council lied.

They had all the accurate intelligence they needed to conclude that he had nothing, and yet they lied to create a red herring to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights.

People believed the lie then.

Now, they know that lies were told.

The truth remains as I have stated.

And the fantasy of the “missing” weapons is simply that, regardless of where (Syria) the liars fantasize they are.

@aspacia

America invaded Iraq solely to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights when Saddam had threatened to divert America’s share of Iraqi crude to China once the sanctions lifted when Iraq would then be free to choose its own trading partners.

It would be cheaper to purchase the oil than invade.

Purchase it elsewhere from whom?

There is no other available source of the high-demand light sweet crude oil that our refineries are economically geared-for.

If we didn’t want to cut back on production, and on our economy to the degree of depression, then we had to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights to keep on being a “customer”.

Remember, Saddam was going to stop selling to us.

@aspacia

Bush had a grudge.

Whether or not Bush had a grudge on behalf of his father or for any other reason is absolutely irrelevant.

We invaded Iraq solely to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights, and for no other reason.

@aspacia

Bush and the gang knew an invasion of Iraq would indeed result in the slaughter of scores of thousands of Iraqi civilians, which is what indeed came to pass.

Bush has esp??? Get real.

Don’t be so childishly naive.

Pentagon scenarios easily and accurately predicted the loss of life and how it would occur and Rumsfeld “hinted” such would occur without going into detail that would have swung public favor away from Bush’s invasion plans.

@aspacia

First, because lying is wrong, period.

Omitting well known facts is also considered a lie.

Which is what you are doing by denying the reality that we invaded solely to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights.

And Bush, then, lied by not telling us that one true reason, citing red herrings of WMDs, terrorism and “evil dictator”.

@aspacia

Second, because by lying he cost innocent people their one and only precious life, and he prevented us from doing the right and humane thing by all: working all that much harder to develop safe alternative energy sources/consumption.

Granted on the alternative energy claim.

And true on all other counts as well.

I wouldn’t lie to you.

[JrnymnX]

@JennyHeart

Remember, Saddam was going to stop selling to us.

He was going to do even worse. He was going to sell his oil for Euros not Dollars.

[Kriswest]

Gov’ts have to omit or lie. But to do so they must also face the consequences with justice. There are things going on that should I know about them, I could not sleep well. I pay them to not sleep. They screw up, they don’t get paid or they go to jail. I for one do not need to know everything. I can’t afford the medical bills caused by such stress of knowing everything. Lie to me so that I can live, omit telling me things so that I can survive. I have no problems with it, they are paid well enough to suffer sleepless nights and face hatred and anger should they screw up.

[JennyHeart]

@JrnymnX

@JennyHeart

Remember, Saddam was going to stop selling to us.

He was going to do even worse. He was going to sell his oil for Euros not Dollars.

Yes … selectively.

But he had already “promised” to divert our share of his crude to China when the sanctions ended, China who, incidentally, would have paid quite the price: cheap Chinese goods to Russia and Russian arms to Iraq!

Indeed, when Bush got wind of the three-way deal between Iraq, China and Russia (brokered by the French – there’s your “Euro” connection as well as the foundation for all those American French-fry jokes), he took it seriously and invaded to protect American oil interests.

[JennyHeart]

@Kriswest

Gov’ts have to omit or lie. But to do so they must also face the consequences with justice. There are things going on that should I know about them, I could not sleep well. I pay them to not sleep. They screw up, they don’t get paid or they go to jail. I for one do not need to know everything. I can’t afford the medical bills caused by such stress of knowing everything. Lie to me so that I can live, omit telling me things so that I can survive. I have no problems with it, they are paid well enough to suffer sleepless nights and face hatred and anger should they screw up.

It is sad that the crazy world requires secrets.

Indeed, the old recovery adage is true: we are as sick as our secrets.

Nevertheless, there are some things that simply do not fall under the category of national security.

Bush lying to Americans about the reason he was about to slaughter scores of thousands of Iraqis is one of them. There was no national security reason he couldn’t have told us the truth, what every world leader knew: that he was invading to steal Iraq’s oil distribution rights so that Saddam wouldn’t divert “our” share of Iraqi crude to China, a diversion Saddam had every right to, considering that he was the owner of that oil.

But Bush lied for reasons of public opinion control, not national security.

He knew that if he had told the truth he would have been impeached for going ahead with such a blood-for-oil slaughter.

True, if we have no power over a matter that is horrendous, ignorance might be bliss.

But in a democracy where we choose our leaders and guiding philosophy, our leaders are honor bound to tell us the truth about, in this case, policy and execution.

Yet Bush didn’t tell the truth. He lied. And he lied because it was a quick and easy way of getting what he wanted. He lied, for the same reason a child lies: to get what he wants … and to save his ass … at the expense of the truth and at detriment, thereby, to others.

[Kriswest]

There may be a politician in the history of humanity that never lied, never hid the truth, heck there may even be two. Not even dictators or kings or emporors tell the truth to their people. There are reasons, some good some bad. Bush is not the first nor is he the worst. Was he wrong to lie? well depends upon which side you are on or if you know all the actual truth. I don’t know all the truth, I doubt that anyone but, those close to the center ring know all the truth. I do know that the opposing political party to the encumbant president will always do their dirtiest and worst to make that president look bad.

Did there have to be a war? Was there provocation to kill? probably not. If USA citizens get killed over there in our embassys well then maybe they should not have been there. Our allys surely don’t deserve our assistance either. And those folks in the towers well perhaps it was an innocent mistake to kill all of them. Perhaps Islamic extremists meant only to destroy the white house, they just had bad directions.

It seems to me that the extremists are killing enough of their own people anyway that we surely don’t have to. so I say we should pull out and let them blow themselves sky high even the kids. that will teach em. Screw trying to help those oppressed women, by golly you get what you ask for. And hey why not let them kill anyone who is not of the correct religious belief. We are trying to oppress other religions here, so lets let them do it to just more violently so that we can feel good about ourselves. I say we seal our borders and let noone in or out. That will teach the world, they won’t have us to kick around anymore.

[Mastriani]

Yes … selectively.

But he had already “promised” to divert our share of his crude to China when the sanctions ended, China who, incidentally, would have paid quite the price: cheap Chinese goods to Russia and Russian arms to Iraq!

Indeed, when Bush got wind of the three-way deal between Iraq, China and Russia (brokered by the French – there’s your “Euro” connection as well as the foundation for all those American French-fry jokes), he took it seriously and invaded to protect American oil interests.

The humorous part of the story is that a friend of mine who is Army Ops, said his first day on the ground in Iraq, (three weeks prior to any news reporting of it), was listening to him recount the sights of French and German cargo planes filling up with equipment and people, and the Russians with their buses and semis doing the same.

I’ve long said this was the reason for the “war against terrorism” … Saddam was still making money on oil, even against the U.N. puppet sanctions. Truly laughable if one thinks about it.