{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01782421634910879, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.334630350194552, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Two-Level Account of Executive Authority

This chapter will consider whether an inhabitant of a liberal state needs to be informed of all her government’s policies in order for that government to have legitimate authority to compel her actions. Another way of putting this question is whether government authority in a liberal state depends on full transparency. Security actors in a liberal state are charged with maintaining a relatively crime-free and peaceful society because such an environment is a necessary precondition for a person’s full enjoyment of her rights over time. State agents should pick consent-worthy tactics indexed to this consent-worthy end. Since efficacious tactics may be in tension with respect for people’s rights, consent-worthy tactics will be those that are the most efficacious, effective, reliable, proportionate, and rights-respecting available. Transparency is not necessary for legitimacy since legitimate government actions are indexed to the hypothetical consent of a generic person rather than the explicit consent of particular people. Transparency is necessary for inhabitants to ensure that state agents do not err or become corrupt in the pursuit of otherwise legitimate aims. Yet the complete disclosure of government actions will compromise some legitimate security-seeking missions. In these cases, the moral need for secrecy trumps the need for disclosure. Liberal governments then can conceal the existence of certain programs without compromising their authority to implement them. Secrecy opens the door to corruption, but thankfully, these parameters apply to few tactics.