Governments figured out in WW2 that the best way to get an enemy govt to believe a lie, was to release the lie into your own population. This scammy practice has continued into present day.
It might be worth it to put it straight into the constitution that the government cannot tell lies publicly. And the govt person that tells the lie should be charged with a criminal offense. Even if it is the spokesperson and they are reading something prepared by others, they are still criminally charged. This will set the precedent that any spokesperson must do their own due diligence and make sure what they are reading is correct. The days of blindly trusting background authority figures should be over.
In the business world, I suppose this is normally covered under fraud laws, but it seems to be that governments think that nothing they do is ever fraudulent, so it seems fitting to specifically cover govt lying under its own law.
I have debated the whole “no national security secret keeping” issue inwardly with myself for a while. Because you could say, well what if another country is waging some type of covert warfare on Liberland, wouldn’t you want to respond with covert warfare of your own?
I think ultimately, after running thru the scenarios in my head, I would agree with you Martin. Most small nations have been fine without militaries or other means to do very much covert anything. And the best modern option is usually to shine the media spotlight on what the offending nation is doing and pursue legal and economic paths.
But this leads into something else: should it be illegal for LL government to keep secrets of any kind? Secrets are kind of like lies-of-omission. Should there be like a 1 month reporting window, as in any relevant info should be disclosed to the public within a month?
Of course this would be much harder to prove wrongdoing than lying to the public, so I see a bunch of grey areas popping up…
Your logic is spot on Murf but I think the bigger issue here is how do we the citizen and general public know that there are no omissions occurring this is something I have fought with mentally for some time there has to be a way to audit the government to make sure there are no secrets but as of now I do not know what method is.
Yes true, perhaps it can be a law in-name-only because it is too hard to enforce. But then even laws in-name-only can be good for the populace because it gives us a common belief structure. At least everyone would be on the same page that secrecy and lies-of-omission should not be part of the govt.
One thing I have noticed with the recent trend of politicians going on podcasts is that you get a much better idea of who the politicians is when he goes on a 3 hour unedited podcast. They can fake who they are for a short edited interview or a cable news argumentative segment, but when they go on Joe Rogan’s show, we can start to tell what a scumbag they are. It’s very hard to keep your own lies straight in your head for a 3 hour show. I think it should be mandatory for the PM/congressmen to do a long-form interview every so often, maybe once every month or two.
Also, to add to the ban lying by the govt topic, I want to add that false flags should also be made illegal. Maybe this should also be in the LL constitution and I think punishment for running or participating in a false flag should be equivalent to treason. I realize some people might debate the existence of false flags, to which I could respond with an overwhelming amount of evidence they do exist, but even if we could agree that they have not existed in the past, they could exist in the at any point in the future, so just make them illegal.
I have not as of yet seen there congress debates but maybe depending on the format it can be utilized in some way. A long form interview I think is a great way to know the people that are to be representing Liberland!
I think we need to do these interviews in a more neutral setting looking at the discussion from a few days ago well clips anyway of it I didn’t see any hardball questions. Look at the LP presidential debates for reference.