This House Would Force All Governments to Become Totally Transparent

I will do a point-by-point deconstruction of my opponent's flawed points. 1. It is not an infringement of policy. If I, the taxpayer, am paying for their government pension plan, healthcare plan, dental plan, etc. I have the right to know how much it cost. Naturally there should be exceptions to this where the government does not have access to their information. This could be such situations where the government employee pays out of pocket for a private clinic. This would encourage government employees to more frugal with our money. 2. If one is found innocent, they should have nothing to hide. The truth is that all of us have something to hide, and in a society where secrecy is held above all, leaking any sort of private information can be damaging. However, in a transparent society where truth and openness is held above all, admitting to your own life should not be a scary thing. If one does seek to keep some things private, they are well within their rights. It would merely be advisable that they A. do not commit a crime and B. be honest with the police if accused of committing a crime. Furthermore, this would help to break down inter-judicial barriers that limit police and security services. Right now there is a mess of red tape that bar different services in different jurisdictions from sharing information. If we move forward today, it will help make our streets safer. 3. I do not accept that sharing information from civil decisions will hurt anyone financially. 4. The natural solution to protect young criminals would be to not commit the crime. This would work as an excellent deterrent. 5. I do not accept this point, please elaborate. 6. Great. While I do not suggest we apply similar transparency standards to private business, I think if a company is subject to regulatory action, they have given substantive reason for the investigation. Assuming they are guilty; the market will take care of them. Assuming they are innocent; they will be vindicated. I do not assume, as you do, that businesses still contain special 'trade secrets.' You also forget that the capital flight would be made impossible due to the U.N impose trade embargo I have stipulated. 7. You are speculating. 'Advice' given will be regardless of political correctness, the only difference is that the people will have access to this advice. 8. I never said that the panel would be chaired by countries. I would argue that the U.N secretary general has remained more-or-less impartial, as has the director of WHO. I think that a panel of experts could remain dispassionate as possible. 9. You do not seem to recognize that truth is a 2-way street. If Iran gets plans for America's ICBMs (which I would argue presents an immediate threat to human life, but I will continue regardless) then I would argue that America will know exactly what Iran does with them. This will eliminate this guessing game of foreign policy and allow U.S military decisions be based on concrete fact. Furthermore, dysfunctional nations such as Iran will not be able to survive in this world. The population will not allow the government to continue if they know the nitty gritty details of their authoritarian governments. 10. This is a different situation. If given the choice between transparency and begetting massive trade or secrecy and sparse trade, I imagine most countries will choose the former. 11. Again, if everybody has access to everyone's tax returns; who cares? You can find anyone's phone number, do you advocate destroying telephone books? I would argue that no one cares enough to actually look up another's tax returns. If it is a serious threat, any country may consider other means of protecting citizens' privacy. 12. Or, if one was to be optimistically inclined, commanders would act knowing that they are changing their immediate legacy. I believe you are debating on assumptions, semantics and overextensions. You are ignoring the monumental p