Building a Moral Society

John: Let us get to the real issue. What test should be used to define whether secrecy is an attempt to keep others out of the loop or truly protection?

Jason: If the community would not be able to operate then secrecy is okay

John: You must go further, dig deeper. For instance, if the government has massive mismanagement, should this be kept in secrecy, so the people do not riot? Absolutely not, the necessity of secrecy must be used only to prevent mayhem and destruction to the moral state, as it pertains to the safety of its inhabitants' rights and civil liberties. Too many secrets leads to corruption and mistrust amongst the people. 

Jason: Well said, what if this Republic is forced to protect itself against enemy attack, should the people be warned or should planned military action be held in confidence as not to expose our troops?

John: If I told you that someone wanted to steal your apples would you keep an eye of the fruits?

Jason: I believe so.

John: There is a fine line between giving a warning and causing widespread panic. The Government must advise us when other nations or groups plan to possibly alter our way of life. Maybe it will allow your perception to detect suspicious activity, because you are more primed.

Jason: Hold up. This line of thinking is dangerous, because one could easy fall into the trap of seeking out people that fit a certain profile or religion.

John: Yes, however look only at the behavior, remember it is our objective to achieve the real truth, relying less on our flawed perception which pieces together gray areas.

Jason: Ok, but what about military action?

John: Where and when the troops will be stationed should be held in secrecy, except when in this Republic, unless the operation involves a meeting or is in the public best interests.

Jason:  I can live with that answer. It makes perfect logic.