5 ms·

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I will not

by eloff 5y ago

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I will not sacrifice free speech for added protection from terrorists.

sbuk 5y ago
This quote is taken out of context - see https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century?t=1626633566782 https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
- eloff 5y ago
  Interesting. So he wasn't saying what people today think he was saying. Let me fix it: Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security will eventually lose both and deserve neither. - me, 2021 Doesn't quite carry the same weight with my name behind it, but I stand by it nonetheless.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    I suppose it is somewhat natural that “abolish the police” would be a stance a freedom-lover such as yourself would take.
  - sbuk 5y ago
    I agree with your sentiment, in part, but I see this quote used in this context so often, that I felt that it's worth pointing out.
    - eloff 5y ago
      Yes, it was interesting to read about the historical context, thanks for pointing it out. I also think the contemporary interpretation of literature, or a quote in this case, often matters more than what the author originally intended - it can take on a life of its own.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  I have read all of these explanations multiple times and have always had trouble reconciling everything here. What do the words “liberty”, “purchase”, and “security” mean in this quotation? As best as I can tell: - liberty: the right to be sovereign and able to defend oneself - security: safety from having taxes levied - purchase: the guys being taxed said instead “look, we’ll give you money this one time instead but we don’t want you to have the right to levy taxes” Okay, I guess that makes sense.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    I wouldn’t necessarily assume that purchase means with taxes. I think there’s an interpretation this is a non-monetary cost.
    - renewiltord 5y ago
      If you don't mind, can you kindly explain?
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  Franklin used that line in more than one context. He also said "The Massachusetts must suffer all the Hazards and Mischiefs of War, rather than admit the Alteration of their Charters and Laws by Parliament. They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." https://franklinpapers.org/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=21&page=497b https://franklinpapers.org/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=21&page=497... I think less important than the nuance of what Franklin meant in any specific statement, is that what most people mean when they use that quote is its literal meaning, and that if you look at Franklin's life and body of work he was clearly a staunch defender of the idea that Liberty is a God-given (or inherent) right of mankind, and one worth defending.
hindsightbias 5y ago
Not that context ever matters to extremist: “It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.” https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...
- eloff 5y ago
  > Not that context ever matters to extremist: Are you calling me an extremist?
- giantg2 5y ago
  Isn't it the same concept (giving up freedom/power in a shortsighted way), just a different population (government liberties vs individual liberties)?
betterunix2 5y ago
Free speech absolutism has not worked very well. Usenet was overrun by neonazis and all the interested discussions moved to moderated newsgroups/mailing lists/forums. A genocidal terrorist organization made effective us of various social media platforms to recruit large numbers of people to their cause and the world is a better place now that they have been banned. Right now we are missing one of our best chances to end the COVID pandemic -- widespread vaccination -- because too many people are spreading lies about the vaccine on social media. There is plenty of room for legitimate political debate, where people passionately advocate their preferred policies on various issues, without having to give a platform to people who are not arguing in good faith and whose real purpose is to advance a violent agenda. The cost of "free speech" is not "giving terrorists a platform to recruit and spread propaganda" and the politicians of Ben Franklin's generation actually did understand that (shortly after his death Congress passed the Sedition Act, which banned false statements about the US government to prevent foreign agents from destabilizing the newly formed country).
- TheFalun 5y ago
  And how many people did those neonazis actually effect? How many more people saw that and immediately criticized the neonazis who wouldn't have seen them before?
  - betterunix2 5y ago
    The argument that we should let neonazis/etc. parade their ideas around in public so that the world can see them for who they really are has become a lot less convincing because neonazis have refined their tactics (see e.g. "boots for suits"). They are not parading their hatred. Today they start with softer language, focusing on the supposed struggle of white people in America, how non-white people seem to be getting a leg up at the expense of white people, etc. Once they have drawn someone in, someone who for whatever reason found that the "great replacement" or "white genocide" theory resonated with them, they start to give the "explanation" for all the problems -- out of sight, away from people who might criticize them.
  - cartoonworld 5y ago

by eloff 5y ago

sbuk 5y ago

This quote is taken out of context - see https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century?t=1626633566782 https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

eloff 5y ago
Interesting. So he wasn't saying what people today think he was saying. Let me fix it: Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security will eventually lose both and deserve neither. - me, 2021 Doesn't quite carry the same weight with my name behind it, but I stand by it nonetheless.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  I suppose it is somewhat natural that “abolish the police” would be a stance a freedom-lover such as yourself would take.
- sbuk 5y ago
  I agree with your sentiment, in part, but I see this quote used in this context so often, that I felt that it's worth pointing out.
  - eloff 5y ago
    Yes, it was interesting to read about the historical context, thanks for pointing it out. I also think the contemporary interpretation of literature, or a quote in this case, often matters more than what the author originally intended - it can take on a life of its own.
renewiltord 5y ago
I have read all of these explanations multiple times and have always had trouble reconciling everything here. What do the words “liberty”, “purchase”, and “security” mean in this quotation? As best as I can tell: - liberty: the right to be sovereign and able to defend oneself - security: safety from having taxes levied - purchase: the guys being taxed said instead “look, we’ll give you money this one time instead but we don’t want you to have the right to levy taxes” Okay, I guess that makes sense.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  I wouldn’t necessarily assume that purchase means with taxes. I think there’s an interpretation this is a non-monetary cost.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    If you don't mind, can you kindly explain?
throwawayboise 5y ago
Franklin used that line in more than one context. He also said "The Massachusetts must suffer all the Hazards and Mischiefs of War, rather than admit the Alteration of their Charters and Laws by Parliament. They who can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." https://franklinpapers.org/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=21&page=497b https://franklinpapers.org/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=21&page=497... I think less important than the nuance of what Franklin meant in any specific statement, is that what most people mean when they use that quote is its literal meaning, and that if you look at Franklin's life and body of work he was clearly a staunch defender of the idea that Liberty is a God-given (or inherent) right of mankind, and one worth defending.

hindsightbias 5y ago

Not that context ever matters to extremist: “It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.” https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famou...

eloff 5y ago
> Not that context ever matters to extremist: Are you calling me an extremist?
giantg2 5y ago
Isn't it the same concept (giving up freedom/power in a shortsighted way), just a different population (government liberties vs individual liberties)?

betterunix2 5y ago

Free speech absolutism has not worked very well. Usenet was overrun by neonazis and all the interested discussions moved to moderated newsgroups/mailing lists/forums. A genocidal terrorist organization made effective us of various social media platforms to recruit large numbers of people to their cause and the world is a better place now that they have been banned. Right now we are missing one of our best chances to end the COVID pandemic -- widespread vaccination -- because too many people are spreading lies about the vaccine on social media. There is plenty of room for legitimate political debate, where people passionately advocate their preferred policies on various issues, without having to give a platform to people who are not arguing in good faith and whose real purpose is to advance a violent agenda. The cost of "free speech" is not "giving terrorists a platform to recruit and spread propaganda" and the politicians of Ben Franklin's generation actually did understand that (shortly after his death Congress passed the Sedition Act, which banned false statements about the US government to prevent foreign agents from destabilizing the newly formed country).

TheFalun 5y ago
And how many people did those neonazis actually effect? How many more people saw that and immediately criticized the neonazis who wouldn't have seen them before?
- betterunix2 5y ago
  The argument that we should let neonazis/etc. parade their ideas around in public so that the world can see them for who they really are has become a lot less convincing because neonazis have refined their tactics (see e.g. "boots for suits"). They are not parading their hatred. Today they start with softer language, focusing on the supposed struggle of white people in America, how non-white people seem to be getting a leg up at the expense of white people, etc. Once they have drawn someone in, someone who for whatever reason found that the "great replacement" or "white genocide" theory resonated with them, they start to give the "explanation" for all the problems -- out of sight, away from people who might criticize them.
- cartoonworld 5y ago