When should lying be tolerated by the government?

TomCollins · #1 11-01-2005, 06:02 PM

I got into an interesting debate with a friend about the role of lying in politics.

He had the belief that lying is a natural part of politics, and is perfectly permissible if the ends justify the means. An extreme example is if you believe that stopping illegal immigration is a key priority, making up false intelligence that terrorists are planning to cross the border, so we need to build walls with electric wire and deploy the army.

I tend to believe that lying should only be used in extreme cases, such as immediate national security, protecting foreign agents, etc... I can't really put up a good litmus test, but would prefer my government lie to me only when it absolutely must (if a girl asks me if she looks fat in a dress, I'm certainly going to tell her no).

On the other end, some may argue that no lying is ever appropriate.

Is there any kind of litmus test you can apply to when it is acceptable for a goverment to lie? Of course, this is all subjective and personal opinion.

#2 11-02-2005, 09:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any kind of litmus test you can apply to when it is acceptable for a goverment to lie? Of course, this is all subjective and personal opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that for the vast majority of people, the test is "when my side is in power, any lie by the government is justified because they know best, and when the other side is in power, any lie should be punishiable by firing squad because those people are evil". See, e.g., any Felix, BGC or El Barto post. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Arnfinn Madsen · #3 11-02-2005, 10:11 AM

It is a necessity sometimes, but much of politics (domestically and foreign) is based on cooperation. Cooperation is based on trust. Look at GWB, his (intentional or not) lying has created a situation where it is only his followers that believe him (a catastrophe for US interests in the world).

elwoodblues · #4 11-02-2005, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Look at GWB, his (intentional or not) lying...

[/ QUOTE ]

Lying is, definitionally, intentional. If it wasn't intentional, it wasn't a lie.

Arnfinn Madsen · #5 11-02-2005, 10:36 AM

Yes, you are right. It is not always easy to know if somebody is lying or simply uninformed [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img].

etgryphon · #6 11-02-2005, 10:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any kind of litmus test you can apply to when it is acceptable for a goverment to lie? Of course, this is all subjective and personal opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect that for the vast majority of people, the test is "when my side is in power, any lie by the government is justified because they know best, and when the other side is in power, any lie should be punishiable by firing squad because those people are evil". See, e.g., any Felix, BGC or El Barto post. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Ziiiiinnnngggg....

Elliot, Felix, BGC, and El Barto have never thought that Bush lied. The Dems are the only one operating on the second part of your post...

Bush didn't lie, he might have been overeager with the intelligence community that has been wasting way since the early 90s. But remember, Clinton(s), Kerry, the UK, The French, Germans, Egypt, Israel etc all thought that Iraq had WDMs.

And before you argue, as Zippy the Clown says, "I know things about stuff..."

-Gryph

#7 11-02-2005, 10:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect that for the vast majority of people, the test is "when my side is in power, any lie by the government is justified because they know best, and when the other side is in power, any lie should be punishiable by firing squad because those people are evil". See, e.g., any Felix, BGC or El Barto post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what I think is your intent: "Depends on who's ox is getting gored."

I'm not so sure about the "vast majority" part. If GWB is knowingly lying about Iraq he deserves a nut-kicking. I know a lot of his supporters agree. If he's just been mis-led and he's covering that up, it's nut-kicking time and I'm not alone there, either. (Iraq is just one example) The firing squad part might be just a tad extreme.

I wish your "list of 3" had included the Democrat sycophants running around this forum. Come on, Elliot, fair is fair. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Arnfinn Madsen · #8 11-02-2005, 10:59 AM

To discuss the actual question [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]:

Lying is necessary, especially in foreign policy. All the quarrels/shouting at international meetings, border incidents etc. is systematically downplayed to avoid conflicts or escalation of conflicts. I.e. during the Cold War, a Russian soldier fired shots when standing on Norwegian soil. It was an invasion and should have meant that NATO and Russia would be at war. Systematically denieing all such reports and claiming to have good border cooperation was much more sensible.

Darryl_P · #9 11-02-2005, 12:31 PM

A good illustration of lying in politics comes from the Simpsons episode in which Bart tries to rally his friends to go to war with the local bullies. He gave a speech and said "I can't promise you victory. I can't promise you good times. But..." And then the kids grumbled and started to leave to which Bart shouted "OK, OK, I promise you victory! I promise you good times!" And then they all cheered and accept Bart as their leader.

Moral of the story:

The leaders say what the public wants to hear and often that involves lying.

theweatherman · #10 11-02-2005, 01:06 PM

In an open democracy lying should never be allowed. The government is supposed to be run by the people, but if the people are not informed as to what the government is doing then they cannot make good decisions on how it should be changed.

Obviously thegovernment lies all the time, but when it is caught it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. Even if just to keep up the ruse that we live in a republic.