Would humanity be better off if everyone had to take a lie detector test once a year?

The idea of mandatory annual lie detector tests for all citizens taps into long-standing tensions between truth, surveillance, and personal freedom. Lie detectors, or polygraphs, measure physiological responses—like heart rate and perspiration—based on the assumption that lying triggers stress. Developed in the early 20th century, the polygraph became a popular tool in law enforcement and intelligence, especially during the Cold War when rooting out espionage and disloyalty was a national priority. Yet despite their widespread use, polygraphs have never been scientifically foolproof or legally definitive—most courts do not accept them as reliable evidence. The proposal to require yearly lie detector tests suggests a radical shift in how societies view privacy, trust, and state authority. It evokes the logic of preemptive control: that a transparent society is a safer, more orderly one. But this notion aligns closely with authoritarian models where citizens are treated as suspects rather than participants in democracy. Historically, societies that embraced mass surveillance—East Germany under the Stasi, for example—did so under the guise of order but at the cost of personal liberty and social cohesion. This debate forces us to confront how much truth can or should be enforced by the state, what level of intrusion is acceptable in the name of honesty, and whether such a system would reduce deception or simply encourage new forms of resistance, fear, and mistrust.