You could. However, it would be more informative (although, admittedly, less 'fun') if you explained your opposition to the generally held claim that government secrecy is a bad thing.
Remember that governments are entrusted to manage our environment, using our money, in order to allow us to live our lives. Governments need to be held accountable for their actions, otherwise we will not be sufficiently informed to determine whether or not to kick them out at the next election. By keeping our governments in check and under scrutiny, we encourage them to perform better for the benefit of the entire population, rather than just for those with the most financial clout.
Claiming secrecy is a prerequisite for this is fine, but unfortunately secrecy is also very open to abuse. Are we really in a good position by allowing the winner of a popularity contest (that's basically what an election is!) to decide what to keep secret from us?
This isn't about "convenience and curiosity", as you put it. The "agenda", which you keep bleating on about, is to keep us all informed about our world.
Your move, bru.
I honestly have very little problem with what you said, and am mostly in agreement.
The only point of departure is to say that it is impossible for the government to practice full disclosure and total transparency at every turn. What you are asking for, is logistically and practically impossible.
Let's take an example.
We would all love to see the tendering process be a totally transparent process. But a government department (at least an ethical and incorruptible one) actually wants the companies doing the tendering to compete against each other. Otherwise, what is the point of tendering if there is no competition in quality and price. But if this system was totally open to all public scrutiny each company would know exactly which other companies are tendering and exactly what their proposals contain. This would then result in ten companies proposing the same price and the same plan. Not feasible. So the government department keeps the lid on the whole process until it is complete. Only then after the fact, should it be willing to make the other tender applications public for scrutiny after the fact.
Another example, a country wants to form a strategic alliance. It begins negotiations with several countries on a sub-continent. It asks its own diplomats for their opinions on the leaders and strengths of each country. It asks each of those countries what they can bring to the table in terms of an alliance. but once again, the opinions of those diplomats and the proposals of each country, cannot become a matter of public record since it would then scupper the process. If country B finds out that we are also talking to country A at the same time, they might pull out of the process and in fact turn against us out of paranoia. or the leader finds out that the diplomat labeled him as weak and ineffective, but leading a well organised and powerful military. We might be willing to form an alliance with such a country, but not if he finds out what we really think of him personally.
Scenario 3, a country gets some information that a certain widely used drug may in fact have some unwanted side effects. More research is needed, and because of the danger of panic or misinformation, the government decides to complete the research speedily and then announce the findings as soon as possible. Temporary measures are put in place to curtail sales of the drug until the research is in. When the research is completed the findings are made known and adjustments are made to the formula. The new form of the drug is fed into the system seamlessly and without much panic. But if the results of the initial research had been made known, without further confirmation, it might have sparked panic, lawsuits, or for the producing company to go bankrupt. Instead, the process was controlled and effortless.
There are a million other examples and scenarios, but hopefully the person with any common sense will get the gist. It is not always in the public interest to let them know everything at every stage of the game. yes, we are all tax payers, but no, we are not all parliamentarians, ministers, or presidents.
