In this context, by "cause of transparency" we are not asking "what causes transparency?" Rather, we are identifying transparency as a cause, which is to say, something worth fighting for.
lorraine lee may be a rebel, but not a rebel without a cause.
Organizations exist for this purpose, such as, for example, Transparency International. Their mission appears (to me anyway) to be political transparency. The question remains how one can advance the cause of economic transparency, which is to say market transparency. The way in which I propose to do this is with a multi-pronged strategy. The plan includes adding prongs from volunteers other than myself. So far, the tines on my conceptual fork include the following:
- solve the information asymmetry problem
- solve the disinformation problem
- solve the problem of factions
I keep coming up with more, so you may (or may not) want to check this page occasionally for changes.
The question of what causes transparency is of course also a valid question and is also a subject that is of central interest to the open content movement (or cause). This is because the main objective is precisely that... to cause tranparency!
These are hard times for the cause of transparency. The post 9/11 insanity continues, and the role of secrecy in government continues to grow like a cancer. If that's not bad enough, the empirical evidence that information doesn't want to be free keeps mounting. Academia's share of the economic pie is still shrinking, and competition over what's left of scholarly career opportunities is brutal.
Fortunately, the open systems movement still enjoys widespread popularity. File sharing is still a force to be reckoned with. Now is as good a time as any to step forward as an information volunteer!
Sometimes it seems transparency is a lost cause.
From the perspective of those for whom transparency is an important cause, these must be seen as dark times indeed. Perhaps the most famous name associated with the cause of transparency is David Brin. I regard him rather as a partisan of the cause of panopticism. The controversy over terminology owes, as usual, to my own biases, hence...
(begin first person singular mode)
I am of the opinion that the major philosophical disease of our time is the (usually) rightist insistence on attributing everything about the humyn experience to the supposed dichotomy between the public sector and the private sector. I prefer to draw the battle lines between individuals and institutions, regarding the former dichotomy as false. For the purpose of this discussion, I view individuals as humyn organisms, and institutions as legal, social or economic entities that are not individuals. The latter includes the categories "business," "nation state," "political subdivision of nation state," "nonprofit organization," "ecclesiastical organization" and "family." It may include other types of institutions. My use of "institution" is virtually synonymous with that of "group entity" by some self-identified anarchists. I prefer "institution," of course, due to its generally impersonal and inorganic connotations. I am undecided to which (if either) category artificial intelligences belong. I guess it would depend on what they might "decide" to do with "my" personal information. :-) If it quacks like a duck...
I am of the view that the cause of transparency is a worthy cause only to the extent that it works both ways.