7 ms·

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

by xedrac 5y ago

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Without commenting are the article itself: 1. This quote is frequently taken out of context to mean something very different from its original intent. 2. More importantly, we give up a little "Liberty" for a little "Safety" all the time, it's basically a primary purpose for any government. I mean, should I be able to cruise down the highway at 120 MPH as I'm snorting a line of coke? Liberty-vs-safety tradeoffs are nearly all the tough calls in government.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  The phrase says "essential liberty" not "a little Liberty".
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    I mean, "essential" really is in the eye of the beholder, which makes the whole point moot, especially as this quote is often brought up in cases where the "essential-ness" of what is being curtailed is highly debatable. This isn't an academic argument, either. Just look at the gun debate in the US. Many argue that any curtailment of the right to bear arms, from a pistol to a bazooka, is an infringement of essential liberty. Many others strongly disagree that the right of individuals to own high-powered firearms is an essential liberty.
    - ALittleLight 5y ago
      Of course it's in the eye of the beholder. The quote is just one man's subjective opinion. It's a pretty way of stating one person's opinion as to the relative importance of essential liberty and safety which many people agree with. It's a matter for debate what liberties are essential and different people believe different things.
- rzzzt 5y ago
  This particular quote includes two adjectives which I'm not seeing on all occasions it is brought up: "essential Liberty" and "temporary Safety". Operating a vehicle under influence and in an unsafe manner does not fall under "essential" in my view.
- rajin444 5y ago
  His point is still essentially the same, even if the roles have reversed a bit. Replace Penn family with today's government, and the governor with a citizen about to give up his rights. The governor was going to give up the people's right to tax the Penn family in exchange for a one time payment. The governor would be making a short term sacrifice to help those dying on the frontier at the long term expense of the people. That is more or less how most people use the quote today. That being said, I don't think most would consider driving 120 mph while snorting coke an essential liberty. The OP makes a much more reasonable point which you refuse to address.
- raincom 5y ago
  Legitimacy of any government, monopoly on voice by any government is defended on such grounds: different varieties of social contract theorists. As one of the replies suggest, you are picking on "little", whereas the parent poster mentions "essential".
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    Even “essential” liberties were infringed on from the very beginning, and maintained until now. Defamation and free speech being a common example.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  >cruise down the highway at 120 MPH Your example is not one of "liberty", at most can be one of "licence", and surely not of "essential liberty".
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    There's the rub. What is a "license", what is a "liberty", and what is an "essential liberty". People disagree on this.
    - mdp2021 5y ago
      (Sorry for the delay, UncleMeat) While debatability is normal, that in this context of liberty the point of discrimination is "how and how much one's action affects others" - akin to the dialectic between "freedom to vs freedom from" - should be a trivial point, and at the same time is evidently something not clear in many. Categorizing "speedracing under an influence" is not a hard exercise. Edit: I am also seeing - and in the past 18 months the evidence has boomed -, a widespread inability towards the judgement of "why this policy", both in the affected public and the issuing power, including monstrous faults deviating from straight reasoning and display of shallow arguing (not even any more explainable by electorate positioning). I have seen a boost in lack of judgement. This is very ghastly - it is a return to the famed quality/quantity of discrimination in times of witch-hunting.
ineedasername 5y ago
All of civilization is a balance between safety and liberty. It's an agreement to limit certain activities and standardize their consequences. Inequitable societies will prioritize the safety & liberty of some groups above others. People also have different ideas on where the balance should be (well, excluding anarchists) but that is merely a matter of degree, not kind. Of course that oversimplifies things, but this over used & out of context quote ignores that fundamental fact of any minimally organized group of people.
- mikem170 5y ago
  In defence of the quote, it did mention trading essential liberty for a little security. Implying a bad trade. I agree with what you say about these decisions being made as a society, and there being disagreements. I would like to point out that you may misunderstand anarchists. Anarchists understand disagreement over such trade-offs better than most, and work harder than most for compromise and census. Anarchists are fine with large political structures and rules, as long as they are not forced upon anyone. Anarchists prioritize not forcing anything on others [0]. An anarchist might refer to what they have been doing in Switzerland for the last 150 years as a great example of bottom-up direct democracy in action [1], which is basically what political anarchy is. Currently a country of 8.5 million people, Switzerland is split into 26 cantons (they divide into more when needed). Each canton has its own constitution and parliament (averaging ~330k people each). Cantons are divided into municipalities (some large, like Zurich, and some small, with only 2-3k people). A big part of their political culture and the structure of their government is that what can be done locally is done locally, and the people are in charge. People can petition for a vote to not only create new laws and amendments, but to have laws they don't like removed. Many of the problems in the U.S. are due to the fact that the federal government was never meant to be as involved in our lives as it is (10th amendment, powers default to the states) and was not designed to be responsive to the people (technically states vote for president, not people). So now there are 330 million of us arguing about more and more stuff. Even worse we allow rich people and corporations to fund politicians (which is illegal in most civilized countries), to the detriment of most people. The U.S. needs less plutocracy (rule by the rich) and more democracy (rule by the people). Sorry, this has been on my mind lately. I just learned about how much anarchists are into democracy, and about Switzerland's democracy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchists (refer to first sentence) [1] https://wolf-linder.ch/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Swiss-political-system.pdf https://wolf-linder.ch/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Swiss-poli... (page 4 shows how powers are divided)
malwarebytess 5y ago
I modify this instead to, "An increase in Justice leads to a decrease in Freedom; and an increase in Freedom leads to a decrease in Justice."

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

by xedrac 5y ago

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

Without commenting are the article itself: 1. This quote is frequently taken out of context to mean something very different from its original intent. 2. More importantly, we give up a little "Liberty" for a little "Safety" all the time, it's basically a primary purpose for any government. I mean, should I be able to cruise down the highway at 120 MPH as I'm snorting a line of coke? Liberty-vs-safety tradeoffs are nearly all the tough calls in government.

ALittleLight 5y ago
The phrase says "essential liberty" not "a little Liberty".
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  I mean, "essential" really is in the eye of the beholder, which makes the whole point moot, especially as this quote is often brought up in cases where the "essential-ness" of what is being curtailed is highly debatable. This isn't an academic argument, either. Just look at the gun debate in the US. Many argue that any curtailment of the right to bear arms, from a pistol to a bazooka, is an infringement of essential liberty. Many others strongly disagree that the right of individuals to own high-powered firearms is an essential liberty.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    Of course it's in the eye of the beholder. The quote is just one man's subjective opinion. It's a pretty way of stating one person's opinion as to the relative importance of essential liberty and safety which many people agree with. It's a matter for debate what liberties are essential and different people believe different things.
rzzzt 5y ago
This particular quote includes two adjectives which I'm not seeing on all occasions it is brought up: "essential Liberty" and "temporary Safety". Operating a vehicle under influence and in an unsafe manner does not fall under "essential" in my view.
rajin444 5y ago
His point is still essentially the same, even if the roles have reversed a bit. Replace Penn family with today's government, and the governor with a citizen about to give up his rights. The governor was going to give up the people's right to tax the Penn family in exchange for a one time payment. The governor would be making a short term sacrifice to help those dying on the frontier at the long term expense of the people. That is more or less how most people use the quote today. That being said, I don't think most would consider driving 120 mph while snorting coke an essential liberty. The OP makes a much more reasonable point which you refuse to address.
raincom 5y ago
Legitimacy of any government, monopoly on voice by any government is defended on such grounds: different varieties of social contract theorists. As one of the replies suggest, you are picking on "little", whereas the parent poster mentions "essential".
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  Even “essential” liberties were infringed on from the very beginning, and maintained until now. Defamation and free speech being a common example.
mdp2021 5y ago
>cruise down the highway at 120 MPH Your example is not one of "liberty", at most can be one of "licence", and surely not of "essential liberty".
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  There's the rub. What is a "license", what is a "liberty", and what is an "essential liberty". People disagree on this.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    (Sorry for the delay, UncleMeat) While debatability is normal, that in this context of liberty the point of discrimination is "how and how much one's action affects others" - akin to the dialectic between "freedom to vs freedom from" - should be a trivial point, and at the same time is evidently something not clear in many. Categorizing "speedracing under an influence" is not a hard exercise. Edit: I am also seeing - and in the past 18 months the evidence has boomed -, a widespread inability towards the judgement of "why this policy", both in the affected public and the issuing power, including monstrous faults deviating from straight reasoning and display of shallow arguing (not even any more explainable by electorate positioning). I have seen a boost in lack of judgement. This is very ghastly - it is a return to the famed quality/quantity of discrimination in times of witch-hunting.

ineedasername 5y ago

All of civilization is a balance between safety and liberty. It's an agreement to limit certain activities and standardize their consequences. Inequitable societies will prioritize the safety & liberty of some groups above others. People also have different ideas on where the balance should be (well, excluding anarchists) but that is merely a matter of degree, not kind. Of course that oversimplifies things, but this over used & out of context quote ignores that fundamental fact of any minimally organized group of people.

mikem170 5y ago
In defence of the quote, it did mention trading essential liberty for a little security. Implying a bad trade. I agree with what you say about these decisions being made as a society, and there being disagreements. I would like to point out that you may misunderstand anarchists. Anarchists understand disagreement over such trade-offs better than most, and work harder than most for compromise and census. Anarchists are fine with large political structures and rules, as long as they are not forced upon anyone. Anarchists prioritize not forcing anything on others [0]. An anarchist might refer to what they have been doing in Switzerland for the last 150 years as a great example of bottom-up direct democracy in action [1], which is basically what political anarchy is. Currently a country of 8.5 million people, Switzerland is split into 26 cantons (they divide into more when needed). Each canton has its own constitution and parliament (averaging ~330k people each). Cantons are divided into municipalities (some large, like Zurich, and some small, with only 2-3k people). A big part of their political culture and the structure of their government is that what can be done locally is done locally, and the people are in charge. People can petition for a vote to not only create new laws and amendments, but to have laws they don't like removed. Many of the problems in the U.S. are due to the fact that the federal government was never meant to be as involved in our lives as it is (10th amendment, powers default to the states) and was not designed to be responsive to the people (technically states vote for president, not people). So now there are 330 million of us arguing about more and more stuff. Even worse we allow rich people and corporations to fund politicians (which is illegal in most civilized countries), to the detriment of most people. The U.S. needs less plutocracy (rule by the rich) and more democracy (rule by the people). Sorry, this has been on my mind lately. I just learned about how much anarchists are into democracy, and about Switzerland's democracy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchists (refer to first sentence) [1] https://wolf-linder.ch/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Swiss-political-system.pdf https://wolf-linder.ch/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Swiss-poli... (page 4 shows how powers are divided)

malwarebytess 5y ago

I modify this instead to, "An increase in Justice leads to a decrease in Freedom; and an increase in Freedom leads to a decrease in Justice."