3 ms·
I think the security/liberty tradeoff is actually often a false promise. You can end up trading away liberty for nothing at all. I don't like buying into this,
by roywiggins 8mo ago
I think the security/liberty tradeoff is actually often a false promise. You can end up trading away liberty for nothing at all. I don't like buying into this, even to say "liberty is better, we should do that instead" because it implicitly concedes that you would really get the security on the other side of the bargain.
And if you don't get the security you were promised, it's too late to do anything about it.
- zugi 8mo ago> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" -- Benjamin Franklin The key phrase is "a little temporary safety". 250 years ago people understood that the "security" gains were small and fleeting, but the loss of liberty was massive and permanent.
- weaksauce 8mo agobasically the patriot act was a big piece of temporary safety that never produced any.
- roywiggins 8mo agoWell, quite. And in an American Revolution context it's not like the colonies were notably less secure places to live after they gained independence.
- Terr_ 8mo agoAside, the original meaning of Franklin's words are less-inspiring but perhaps more-interesting. He's saying the local democratic legislature must not give up its "freedom" to pass laws taxing the powerful Penn dynasty which almost owns Pennsylvania. He wants to reject a deal offered by the Penns: A big lump of money for temporary military security now, in exchange for an agreement that they can never be taxed ever again.
- mathgradthrow 8mo agoThat's not an aside. The quote is pernicious because of its attribution to Ben. People invoke it without ever asking themselves if its true because they think of it as the hard won wisdom of a great man.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- bigbadfeline 8mo ago> The quote is pernicious because of its attribution to Ben. It's not pernicious for any reason because it's absolutely true in general, Franklin was simply using a general piece of wisdom to justify particular government actions. Yes, using it that way was an improvisation and a bit of a stretch, but the real issue here is why he needed to resort to it - that's a rabbit hole that pretty much goes to the bottom of today's problems which we're handling in a much worse manner than him back then.
- mathgradthrow 8mo agoWhat do you consider "absolutely true" or "in general" to mean?
- superb_dev 8mo agoI don’t find that to be less inspiring
- js2 8mo agoFWIW, the context of the Franklin quote is him defending the ability of the legislature to tax a family that was trying to bribe/lobby the governor to do otherwise. The quote is in defense of the government: WITTES: 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...
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- BobbyTables2 8mo agoToo bad Franklin didn’t just quote Spock: “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…” (/s) Thanks for educating us!
- b00ty4breakfast 8mo agothe phrase fits the modern usage, even if it's been decontextualized. kinda like "who watches the watchmen?" originally being about cheating wives bribing the folks keeping her locked up in the house.
- Der_Einzige 8mo agoThis dynamic always happens with quotes and attempts to deploy the founding fathers in arguments. Most of the founding fathers (except Thomas Paine) were terrible, horrible, no good people. I’d have been a loyalist in that era.
- nathan_compton 8mo agoMaybe I'm just America Pilled but I'll support almost anyone against a hereditary monarchy. The idea should be fundamentally disgusting to any self-respecting human being.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- gcanyon 8mo agoIf you assume that the security side of the equation is a false promise, then you are not making a decision at all: choosing between liberty with no security, or no liberty plus no security (because it's fake). And for me, it seems somewhat disingenuous to imply that a decision is being made when your premise belies that.
- roywiggins 8mo agoIt's not that security is fake, it's that giving up liberty doesn't naturally produce more security, and pursuing greater liberty doesn't necessarily erode security either. It's not like pre-Revolutionary America was a notably secure place that inevitably see-sawed into a freer but insecure place afterwards.
- gcanyon 8mo agoAs I said to the other respondent, I think it's important to justify the idea that both security and liberty can be achieved simultaneously.
- roywiggins 8mo agoEqually, the idea that there is a tradeoff in some particular situation is frequently asserted without evidence. The quote from the article is "It is always the case that there are benefits available from relinquishing core civil liberties." That is 1) presented without evidence and 2) almost certainly false. It is not always the case.
- foxyv 8mo agoIt's a false dichotomy. There are 4 options: 1. Don't give up liberty, give up security. 2. Give up liberty, give up security. 3. Give up liberty, don't give up security. 4. Don't give up liberty, don't give up security. Number 4 is completely possible. It's just that people in power don't like it because it means they have less power. They want to pretend that only options 1 and 3 are available and ignore that they are actually offering option 2.
- nkrisc 8mo agoWhen you've given up all liberty, there's nothing left to stop the security being used against you.