| Successful negotiation sometimes requires opacity VoorArgument1 #86804
|
|
+Citaten (1)
- CitatenVoeg citaat toeList by: CiterankMapLink[1]
Citerend uit: Clay Shirky
Geciteerd door: David Price 1:31 PM 21 December 2010 GMT
Citerank: (3) 85253Private conversations are essential in negotiation"For negotiation to work, people’s stated positions have to change, but change is seen, almost universally, as weakness. People trying to come to consensus must be able to privately voice opinions they would publicly abjure, and may later abandon. Wikileaks plainly damages those abilities" C. Shirky1198CE71, 85955Secrecy is warranted in some but not all circumstances959C6EF, 86803Extra-judicial US actions will be cited as precedent by other regimesThe US Government's extra-judicial pursuit of Wikileaks will be cited as precedent by other regimes.13EF597B
URL:
|
| Fragment- On the other hand, human systems can’t stand pure transparency. For negotiation to work, people’s stated positions have to change, but change is seen, almost universally, as weakness. People trying to come to consensus must be able to privately voice opinions they would publicly abjure, and may later abandon. Wikileaks plainly damages those abilities. (If Aaron Bady’s analysis is correct, it is the damage and not the oversight that Wikileaks is designed to create.*)
And so we have a tension between two requirements for democratic statecraft, one that can’t be resolved, but can be brought to an acceptable equilibrium. Indeed, like the virtues of equality vs. liberty, or popular will vs. fundamental rights, it has to be brought into such an equilibrium for democratic statecraft not to be wrecked either by too much secrecy or too much transparency. |