[freeeee]

There are instances when lies are justifiable--only in the circumstances, not as a general rule. And as much as equality-loving citizens may chafe at it, sometimes leaders do know better (i.e., more knowledge and/or more brains) than we do, and thus will want to do things that average joe thinks is unnecessary or foolish. Of course such a power will be abused by the wicked, but what necessary or good thing do the evil not f*** up for everyone else?

Whatever type of system of government you're describing, it isn't representative government. This issue stikes at the very heart of where just government derives its powers: from the 'Consent of the Governed'.

That isn't what the American people signed up for when they entered into the contract known as the Constitution.

[uncbob]

That isn't what the American people signed up for when they entered into the contract known as the Constitution.

It's what the signed up for when they decided the government should be big brother and provide retirement systems, medical care etc etc

[Pistias]

There are some things representative governments do well, and some things they do poorly. By their nature, they make tactical decisions poorly because--obvioulsy--you can't run a war by votes and win. That's why we have an executive--to balance the awkward Congress (and conversely, the Congress is slow to balance the rashness of the executive). In certain instances, the preservation of the nation and the free dissemation of information will come at odds. Hypothetically, which would you prefer, to be told the absolute and complete truth and thereby allow an enemy to know enough of your plans to defeat you, or to be lied to and win the war?