Anonymous Corollary...

The debate about the advantages of anonymity reminds me of
the debate over Hillary's Health Care Committee which is
a nameless group of individuals who have all signed a secrecy
pledge. Many are not part of the government and can't be held
accountable or even fired. The Wall Street Journal was able
to get the list of the people involved and published it along
with a reminiscence of the good old days when studying who
was in power in the Kremlin involved watching the cars to 
see who was coming and going and meeting in the baths at
the same time. There never was any dependable list of who
was in power at the Kremlin back then. 

Now, in response to the WSJ's coup de fax, the Clintonians
say that they'll release the list as soon as it has been
prepared. 

The point: the government has a relentless desire to document
and assign accountability for everything. It's bred in their
bones. Even the President can avoid it. 

-Peter

Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1993 14:08:05 -0500
   From: Peter Wayner <pcw@access.digex.com>

   The point: the government has a relentless desire to document
   and assign accountability for everything. It's bred in their
   bones. Even the President can avoid it. 

There is an interesting quote reportedly made by Stephen Wolfe, head of
the NSF, when someone was amazed about the incredible inefficiency of
some of the government purchasing procedures ---- ``The people don't
want efficient goverment; they want an accountable government --- and
there's a difference.''

Given the distrust voiced by many people when Dr. Demming's proposal was
brought forth, anonymity is probably a bad thing when it comes to
goverment officials performing official actions in the line of duty.
Given how petty, vicious, and evil (tm) government bureaucrats are(*), it's
probably a good thing that they have to be held strictly accountable for
everything they do, and for all of that to be documented.  Would you
like to give all sorts of powers to the likes of Ollie North, and then
give them license to work anonymously?

Now, this line of reasoning only applies to government officials ---
what standards should apply to private citizens are of course completely
different.  In the case of Hillary's Health Care Committee, it isn't
clear whether or not the names listed were merely private citizens
giving "testimony" or "evidence" to feed into the process as input, or
whether they're people who are making policy decisions.  If they're
people making policy decisions, even if they are not officially
governmente employees, the Wall Street Journal's decision to publish
their names is emminently justifiable.  The last thing a democracy needs
is a secret cabal making all the decisions in a back room.

						- Ted

(*) or at least how evil(tm) it is widely believed them to be....