5 ms·

“Some argue that, to achieve at best a slight incremental improvement in security, it is worth imposing a massive cost on society in the form of degraded safety

“Some argue that, to achieve at best a slight incremental improvement in security, it is worth imposing a massive cost on society in the form of degraded safety,” he (U.S. attorney general William Barr) said Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

mrguyorama 7y ago
As much as I disagree with Barr and I've repeated that quote countless times, I can't help but think it's utterly stupid. Did Ben Franklin really think we should throw out things like the rule of law and the police? They are an explicit trade of Liberty for Safety. Was he some sort of fundamentalist anarchist?
- mikestew 7y ago
  Keywords being "essential" and "temporary" in the original quote. Granted, that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but Franklin was not advocating doing away with, for example, law enforcement. Though I would agree it's a quote of triteness and "just so" convenience that gets massively abused.
  - mrguyorama 7y ago
    I wonder how Benjamin Franklin would feel about its common usage nowadays. For specific context I used to use this quote in relation to my dislike of the PATRIOT act and similar, and I never really took any introspection as to whether I was truly defending my position through the use/abuse of the quote. Granted I was literally in middle school at the time, so maybe my lack of a more nuanced position could be forgiven, but a quote is not an argument.
- coderzach 7y ago
  "All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." He also didn't think much of private property. [1] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12....
  - shsh 7y ago
    You are intentionally misinterpreting his quote. He doesn't think much of excessive property. Yes, you probably don't need a 3rd home while other people have no homes...
    - liability 7y ago
      The point should be obvious from the context, that Franklin was very far from any sort of anarcho-capitalist/libertarian extremist. > Was he some sort of fundamentalist anarchist? The quote plainly refutes that idea.
    - ska 7y ago
      His bar for "excessive" is pretty low though. We aren't talking 3rd home, plausibly we aren't even talking 1 home.
      - 1000units 7y ago
        Indeed it isn't even one. He says right there, "temporary Cabin".
      - nybble41 7y ago
        Yes, and the distinction is completely artificial. Worse, he gets the relationship between property and law exactly backwards. Property rights, even for what some here are calling "excessive" property, were not created "by the public" (meaning by legislators) through the passage of laws. Rather, property rights existed first and laws were passed to rationalize the abridgement of those rights when they proved inconvenient to those in power. If you take someone else's property for your own use by force without their permission, they are perfectly justified in using force to take your property without your permission. That is the fundamental natural law which underlies property rights, as well as all other natural rights: reciprocation. It doesn't matter who the property belongs to, how much other property they have, or who is doing the taking.
        ska 7y ago
anbop 7y ago
That’s not a logical argument by Franklin, it’s his opinion. There’s no axiomatic reason why Ben Franklin’s opinion is more correct than anyone else’s, even William Barr’s.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  Correct, I just roll my eyes whenever this is quoted But if people disagree they can go ride a bike without a helmet, people in the transplant list will thank you.
  - dang 7y ago
    If you keep posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait here we are going to ban you. I don't want to do that, because you've also posted good comments. Would you please fix this? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - raverbashing 7y ago
      Agreed, I could have expressed my concerns with that quote differently.
- tbirrell 7y ago
  Benjamin Franklin is a Founding Father and has been generally accepted as an authority for more than 200 years, especially on the subject of freedoms and rights. He was a renown political theorist, politician, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat in his own day, not to mention the fact his reputation has stood the test of time. William Barr is none of these thing.
  - EpicEng 7y ago
    So... Appeal to authority then?
    - noja 7y ago
tzs 7y ago
The context when Franklin said that is interesting. Pennsylvania was having trouble on the western frontier due to the French and Indian War, and the legislature wanted to put a tax on land to raise money for arms for defense. The governor was blocking this, because the Penn family, which owned a lot of Pennsylvania land, objected. The Penn family did recognize the need for defense (although they were largely absentee landlords so not in personal danger), and offered to donate a lump sum for the arms if the legislator would agree that it did not have the power to tax Penn land. Franklin's quote was in a letter he wrote to the governor arguing for rejection of this offer. The "essential Liberty" he was referring to was the liberty of the legislature to legislate how it saw fit, including taxing Penn land to pay for security, and the "purchase a little temporary Safety" was the one time lump sum for arms. That was in 1755. He did re-use the phrase 20 years later in 1775 in a more general context, closer to what people quote it for nowadays.
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  Thanks. A little context goes a long way!
pavel_lishin 7y ago
I was confused by your quotation, because I thought surely Barr wouldn't be arguing against his own point. But it turns out that his opinion of what constitutes security and safety is completely opposite my own.
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  Same exact reaction here. Had to re-read it several times. For anyone else confused: I think by "security" he's referring to infosec and by "safety" he's referring to physical safety. (As opposed to my initial reading, where I thought "security" meant physical security and "safety" meant online safety.)
yongjik 7y ago
But, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes." - Obi-Wan Kenobi I don't think opinions of people who were born before telegraphs matter much in today's political discourse. Basically, it boils down to, "I found a quote I agree with, and when I attach $(some famous dead person)'s name on to it, it sounds really great and authoritative."
- vermilingua 7y ago
  If you really think that we aren’t facing the same problems today, that didn’t exist 300 years ago; you need to take a far harder look at the problems.
  - yongjik 7y ago
    I kinda agree with you, but quoting Benjamin Franklin as a solution is not exactly "taking a harder look" at the problem. How is it any better than "because the Bible says so!"?
    - mulmen 7y ago
      Well Benjamin Franklin was a founder so his thinking is more relevant in a secular nation than the stories in a religious text.
Tomte 7y ago
Benjamin Franklin did say (or rather write) this, but it meant something else than you think: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said#.Uu6o5vldXAE https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said#.U...

mrguyorama 7y ago

As much as I disagree with Barr and I've repeated that quote countless times, I can't help but think it's utterly stupid. Did Ben Franklin really think we should throw out things like the rule of law and the police? They are an explicit trade of Liberty for Safety. Was he some sort of fundamentalist anarchist?

mikestew 7y ago
Keywords being "essential" and "temporary" in the original quote. Granted, that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, but Franklin was not advocating doing away with, for example, law enforcement. Though I would agree it's a quote of triteness and "just so" convenience that gets massively abused.
- mrguyorama 7y ago
  I wonder how Benjamin Franklin would feel about its common usage nowadays. For specific context I used to use this quote in relation to my dislike of the PATRIOT act and similar, and I never really took any introspection as to whether I was truly defending my position through the use/abuse of the quote. Granted I was literally in middle school at the time, so maybe my lack of a more nuanced position could be forgiven, but a quote is not an argument.
coderzach 7y ago
"All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." He also didn't think much of private property. [1] http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12.html http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s12....
- shsh 7y ago
  You are intentionally misinterpreting his quote. He doesn't think much of excessive property. Yes, you probably don't need a 3rd home while other people have no homes...
  - liability 7y ago
    The point should be obvious from the context, that Franklin was very far from any sort of anarcho-capitalist/libertarian extremist. > Was he some sort of fundamentalist anarchist? The quote plainly refutes that idea.
  - ska 7y ago
    His bar for "excessive" is pretty low though. We aren't talking 3rd home, plausibly we aren't even talking 1 home.
    - 1000units 7y ago
      Indeed it isn't even one. He says right there, "temporary Cabin".
    - nybble41 7y ago
      Yes, and the distinction is completely artificial. Worse, he gets the relationship between property and law exactly backwards. Property rights, even for what some here are calling "excessive" property, were not created "by the public" (meaning by legislators) through the passage of laws. Rather, property rights existed first and laws were passed to rationalize the abridgement of those rights when they proved inconvenient to those in power. If you take someone else's property for your own use by force without their permission, they are perfectly justified in using force to take your property without your permission. That is the fundamental natural law which underlies property rights, as well as all other natural rights: reciprocation. It doesn't matter who the property belongs to, how much other property they have, or who is doing the taking.
      - ska 7y ago

anbop 7y ago

That’s not a logical argument by Franklin, it’s his opinion. There’s no axiomatic reason why Ben Franklin’s opinion is more correct than anyone else’s, even William Barr’s.

raverbashing 7y ago
Correct, I just roll my eyes whenever this is quoted But if people disagree they can go ride a bike without a helmet, people in the transplant list will thank you.
- dang 7y ago
  If you keep posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait here we are going to ban you. I don't want to do that, because you've also posted good comments. Would you please fix this? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - raverbashing 7y ago
    Agreed, I could have expressed my concerns with that quote differently.
tbirrell 7y ago
Benjamin Franklin is a Founding Father and has been generally accepted as an authority for more than 200 years, especially on the subject of freedoms and rights. He was a renown political theorist, politician, civic activist, statesman, and diplomat in his own day, not to mention the fact his reputation has stood the test of time. William Barr is none of these thing.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  So... Appeal to authority then?
  - noja 7y ago

tzs 7y ago

The context when Franklin said that is interesting. Pennsylvania was having trouble on the western frontier due to the French and Indian War, and the legislature wanted to put a tax on land to raise money for arms for defense. The governor was blocking this, because the Penn family, which owned a lot of Pennsylvania land, objected. The Penn family did recognize the need for defense (although they were largely absentee landlords so not in personal danger), and offered to donate a lump sum for the arms if the legislator would agree that it did not have the power to tax Penn land. Franklin's quote was in a letter he wrote to the governor arguing for rejection of this offer. The "essential Liberty" he was referring to was the liberty of the legislature to legislate how it saw fit, including taxing Penn land to pay for security, and the "purchase a little temporary Safety" was the one time lump sum for arms. That was in 1755. He did re-use the phrase 20 years later in 1775 in a more general context, closer to what people quote it for nowadays.

cmroanirgo 7y ago
Thanks. A little context goes a long way!

pavel_lishin 7y ago

I was confused by your quotation, because I thought surely Barr wouldn't be arguing against his own point. But it turns out that his opinion of what constitutes security and safety is completely opposite my own.

mehrdadn 7y ago
Same exact reaction here. Had to re-read it several times. For anyone else confused: I think by "security" he's referring to infosec and by "safety" he's referring to physical safety. (As opposed to my initial reading, where I thought "security" meant physical security and "safety" meant online safety.)

yongjik 7y ago

But, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes." - Obi-Wan Kenobi I don't think opinions of people who were born before telegraphs matter much in today's political discourse. Basically, it boils down to, "I found a quote I agree with, and when I attach $(some famous dead person)'s name on to it, it sounds really great and authoritative."

vermilingua 7y ago
If you really think that we aren’t facing the same problems today, that didn’t exist 300 years ago; you need to take a far harder look at the problems.
- yongjik 7y ago
  I kinda agree with you, but quoting Benjamin Franklin as a solution is not exactly "taking a harder look" at the problem. How is it any better than "because the Bible says so!"?
  - mulmen 7y ago
    Well Benjamin Franklin was a founder so his thinking is more relevant in a secular nation than the stories in a religious text.

Tomte 7y ago

Benjamin Franklin did say (or rather write) this, but it meant something else than you think: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said#.Uu6o5vldXAE https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said#.U...