">> "since [Government institutions] are neither alive nor sentient, transparency cannot cause the institution any distress." ...... um .....
... um ... what?"
You can't see how that doesn't follow, and so is a non-sequitor? It's like saying "The sun is hot, therefore Celtic will win the european cup". There is no connection between the assertions.
An institution does not need to be "alive" or "sentient" to be "distressed" by events. If I hack RBS, the institution will be, to put it mildly, distressed. Can you not see how obvious that is?
">> "Governmen agencies are fictional entities" .... well, no, they're not fictional, are they?
Yes, they are fictional. All corporations are legal fictions. They exist because we agree they exist. If we decided en-mass to stop believing and honouring these fictions, they would be as defunct as the British Empire, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, et al."
This is not what "fictional" means. You need to invest in a dictionary. You've read that somewhere, and it sounds clever, but is actually just sound and fury signifying fuck all. You also don't know what "legal fiction" means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction) or indeed what "natural obligation" means, as evidenced by the following reply. You appear to think "natural obligation" means "i will hit you with a stick". It actually doesn't.
">> "Other human beings are alive and sentient. They have no natural obligations to us other than to respect our existence just as much as we respect theirs" .... who says they have that "natural obligation"? You?
Actually yes. In the absence of any other restraint; me and my stick say "Don't interfere in my life". Just like you and your stick tell me not to interfere in yours. You can't get any more natural that a smack on the head."
It's painful reading this nonsense.