> The key difference between what he meant in the quote and how the quote is used is that liberty refers not to individual liberty but the liberty of the state

> The key difference between what he meant in the quote and how the quote is used is that liberty refers not to individual liberty but the liberty of the state to impose on the individual to further collective security. He wasn't talking about "liberty of the state". He was talking about individual liberty, as protected and empowered by the state. The debate is on (potentially) trading short-term security for long-term security and the individual liberty that security protects. And so, in less bombastic terms, it seems Franklin's meaning is that trading a small measure of short-term safety at the cost of long-term security (from threats of any source-- external, domestic, or from the state itself) and liberty is a recipe for disaster. Franklin says here that being willing to trade short-term safety at the cost of longer-term security (and therefore liberty) is fretful and unwise and means you will ultimately forfeit actual liberty. One can question whether or not such a trade-off truly exists with respect to the current encryption debate. But it seems fallacious to draw a dichotomy between this quote's original meaning and it's meaning as used in the debate today.