Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Said by Benjamin Franklin.
What did he mean?
Why would society loose the very thing it strives to achieve if it gives up libery to get there?
What did he mean?
Why would society loose the very thing it strives to achieve if it gives up libery to get there?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
stumbled onto this which gives aot of Ben Franklin quotes and you can search famous quotes of anyone.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benjamin_franklin.html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/benjamin_franklin.html
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
>You do not deserve freedom because you're willing to give that up and allow someone to control you, and you do not deserve safety because you are too afraid to care of yourself.
That's in the right direction, but why would what be?
Even if we assume that "You do not deserve freedom because you're willing to give that up" is a universal truth (for a human society?), I'd still like "Why?" that is, discussed.
And if it isn't "true", then there should be empirical experience that shows that it can be true.
>some will give up security to GAIN freedom
Does that imply that integrity/freedom demands giving up security? Not saying that you said so it that it is so, just asking your opinion.
>Just because Benjamin Franklin said that does not mean it's always a good idea..
That very true :) Which is why I'm asking for opinions in the matter.
>Also think post 9/11
Even with all the attention given to the 9/11 events, I'm not sure how that changes things, could you give me an example?
I found this quite interesting: http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/info.html
It about how video surveillance is supposed to create safety, but instead only compromises integrity and doesn't seem achieve much. Which I feel supports Franklins statement.
That's in the right direction, but why would what be?
Even if we assume that "You do not deserve freedom because you're willing to give that up" is a universal truth (for a human society?), I'd still like "Why?" that is, discussed.
And if it isn't "true", then there should be empirical experience that shows that it can be true.
>some will give up security to GAIN freedom
Does that imply that integrity/freedom demands giving up security? Not saying that you said so it that it is so, just asking your opinion.
>Just because Benjamin Franklin said that does not mean it's always a good idea..
That very true :) Which is why I'm asking for opinions in the matter.
>Also think post 9/11
Even with all the attention given to the 9/11 events, I'm not sure how that changes things, could you give me an example?
I found this quite interesting: http://www.appliedautonomy.com/isee/info.html
It about how video surveillance is supposed to create safety, but instead only compromises integrity and doesn't seem achieve much. Which I feel supports Franklins statement.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
ASKER
While that isn't stated explicitly, I fell that WaterStreet argues against my qoute from Franklin, while BigRat for.
WaterStreet. You mention three examples where limiting of freedom might be useful.
What I'd like ask then is, are there examples of where such measures has/could have actually mattered.
Has anyone "falsely shouted fire in a theater", and killed people? While lying is ofcourse not a good thing, has it really caused damages that can be compared to say the mentioned 55´000 traffic deaths each year?
I have seen estimates that hundreds of thousands of people haved died the war in Iraq during the past six years, and while horrifying, few seem to take note that as many people have died while routinely driving their car.
While this doesn't prove Franklins statement, the failure of cameras in london to prevent crime (which I have read of previously) and the example with the RAF terrorists, seems to indicate that giving up integrity for security atleast doesn't work.
What arguments are there to the contrary?
WaterStreet. You mention three examples where limiting of freedom might be useful.
What I'd like ask then is, are there examples of where such measures has/could have actually mattered.
Has anyone "falsely shouted fire in a theater", and killed people? While lying is ofcourse not a good thing, has it really caused damages that can be compared to say the mentioned 55´000 traffic deaths each year?
I have seen estimates that hundreds of thousands of people haved died the war in Iraq during the past six years, and while horrifying, few seem to take note that as many people have died while routinely driving their car.
While this doesn't prove Franklins statement, the failure of cameras in london to prevent crime (which I have read of previously) and the example with the RAF terrorists, seems to indicate that giving up integrity for security atleast doesn't work.
What arguments are there to the contrary?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Sorry, had to add this:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo_5
So the government is going to force the parents of a 13-year old to authorize a "traditional medicine" treatment. The "child" is not asking for it (in earlier days, he'd have been considered and adult).
Seriously, what "greater good" does this serve? Why is the government deciding this, and spending all of this money and effort to "save" one child, supposedly, from his parents? Meanwhile, how many other starving, underprivileged children could have been "saved" with these resources instead? Who's protecting them?
Well, championing their cause doesn't win the government more power, so why bother...
(Sorry, wore my cynical pants today.)
We can't save them all, but in trying, we doom them anyway -- he might be safe from cancer, but not from the government. That's what Franklin was saying. And we lose a little more freedom every day...
(Sorry, wore my pessimist shirt, too.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo_5
So the government is going to force the parents of a 13-year old to authorize a "traditional medicine" treatment. The "child" is not asking for it (in earlier days, he'd have been considered and adult).
Seriously, what "greater good" does this serve? Why is the government deciding this, and spending all of this money and effort to "save" one child, supposedly, from his parents? Meanwhile, how many other starving, underprivileged children could have been "saved" with these resources instead? Who's protecting them?
Well, championing their cause doesn't win the government more power, so why bother...
(Sorry, wore my cynical pants today.)
We can't save them all, but in trying, we doom them anyway -- he might be safe from cancer, but not from the government. That's what Franklin was saying. And we lose a little more freedom every day...
(Sorry, wore my pessimist shirt, too.)
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
WaterStreet:
> During Ben Franklin's time, I don't think anybody thought it would be necessary to limit someone's freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
I can imagine that "fire/theatre" is a near relative to 'inciting to riot' or to a type of civil disorder. While the _exact_ case of "fire/theatre" might not have been explicitly legally described (and I'm not sure that it is today), there's not much doubt that the concept was well known at that time.
An example wording, from ( http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Riot ):
In New York State, for example, the term 'riot' is not defined explicitly, but under § 240.08 of the N.Y. Penal Law, A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm.
Riots themselves certainly have history:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yq74VlJNyQoC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=Boston+Brothel+Riot&source=bl&ots=rtKOTDQXtP&sig=fvVGfpA0a45sfsHwTm6-fT1ksoI&hl=en&ei=X6QUSsfPAajmtgOGj_GzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA81,M1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots
Personally, I don't think that "fire/theatre" in itself should be a crime, assuming that it is. Rather, the consequences should carry the accountability. A separate 'crime' for the shouting itself seems odd.
> During Ben Franklin's time, it was unimaginable to think that someone in a large crowd would destroy himself so that he would kill many people around him. For example, by detonating a hidden barrel of gunpowder...
Maybe true; but still, Guy Fawkes? There are a few others. The idea in general certainly wouldn't have been unfamiliar to Franklin.
> During Ben Franklin's time, nobody thought it would be necessary to make laws for checking or monitoring banking and purchase records regarding explosives.
Now that's quite possibly true. That is, it's probably true that no laws allowed for monitoring such records merely in the hope that evidence would come to light before any actual crime was committed.
I'm not sure at all that there weren't laws about examining records in the investigation of a crime. That's part of what warrants were specifically authorized for in the Constitution. How could it get included without prior thought?
Which brings me closer to the 'Franklin quote'...
Reviewing records once a crime has been committed seems reasonable. But watching records on the chance that a potential crime might be committed is an example of what the quote warns against. It's what causes statements like "We WILL NOT compromise our freedom for anything" to be so troublesome. I hope the writer meant that such governmental actions will be soundly repulsed or that there was sarcastic intent.
Tom
> During Ben Franklin's time, I don't think anybody thought it would be necessary to limit someone's freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
I can imagine that "fire/theatre" is a near relative to 'inciting to riot' or to a type of civil disorder. While the _exact_ case of "fire/theatre" might not have been explicitly legally described (and I'm not sure that it is today), there's not much doubt that the concept was well known at that time.
An example wording, from ( http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Riot ):
In New York State, for example, the term 'riot' is not defined explicitly, but under § 240.08 of the N.Y. Penal Law, A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he urges ten or more persons to engage in tumultuous and violent conduct of a kind likely to create public alarm.
Riots themselves certainly have history:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yq74VlJNyQoC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=Boston+Brothel+Riot&source=bl&ots=rtKOTDQXtP&sig=fvVGfpA0a45sfsHwTm6-fT1ksoI&hl=en&ei=X6QUSsfPAajmtgOGj_GzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA81,M1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots
Personally, I don't think that "fire/theatre" in itself should be a crime, assuming that it is. Rather, the consequences should carry the accountability. A separate 'crime' for the shouting itself seems odd.
> During Ben Franklin's time, it was unimaginable to think that someone in a large crowd would destroy himself so that he would kill many people around him. For example, by detonating a hidden barrel of gunpowder...
Maybe true; but still, Guy Fawkes? There are a few others. The idea in general certainly wouldn't have been unfamiliar to Franklin.
> During Ben Franklin's time, nobody thought it would be necessary to make laws for checking or monitoring banking and purchase records regarding explosives.
Now that's quite possibly true. That is, it's probably true that no laws allowed for monitoring such records merely in the hope that evidence would come to light before any actual crime was committed.
I'm not sure at all that there weren't laws about examining records in the investigation of a crime. That's part of what warrants were specifically authorized for in the Constitution. How could it get included without prior thought?
Which brings me closer to the 'Franklin quote'...
Reviewing records once a crime has been committed seems reasonable. But watching records on the chance that a potential crime might be committed is an example of what the quote warns against. It's what causes statements like "We WILL NOT compromise our freedom for anything" to be so troublesome. I hope the writer meant that such governmental actions will be soundly repulsed or that there was sarcastic intent.
Tom
ASKER
Wow, thanks everyone :)
I think I've had my question answered. Very interesting discussion.
Equal split?
I think I've had my question answered. Very interesting discussion.
Equal split?
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Dan, I like your thought in focusing on the connotations of "deserve". I think a way to extend that is to consider how "deserve" may mean that your are entitled to something, or have a right to it.
Which means, again to paraphrase the quote, those who will barter with some liberties have no right to claim any liberties.
So, if one starts to treat liberty as a form of currency, something that can be voluntarily traded in exchange for something else, then one has no true concept of liberty and will eventually "spend" it all (because very little is more valuable than liberty, meaning you could "buy" a lot with it!).
It's like with children and real money - you can't give it to them (i.e. they don't deserve it) until they have show they can be responsible with it and spend it wisely.
Hah - that's an interesting metaphor for the decline of liberty in the Bush era: a very irresponsible child with a very large allowance. ;-)
Which means, again to paraphrase the quote, those who will barter with some liberties have no right to claim any liberties.
So, if one starts to treat liberty as a form of currency, something that can be voluntarily traded in exchange for something else, then one has no true concept of liberty and will eventually "spend" it all (because very little is more valuable than liberty, meaning you could "buy" a lot with it!).
It's like with children and real money - you can't give it to them (i.e. they don't deserve it) until they have show they can be responsible with it and spend it wisely.
Hah - that's an interesting metaphor for the decline of liberty in the Bush era: a very irresponsible child with a very large allowance. ;-)
ASKER
Awesome answers everyone :)
Thank you very much for a enlightening discussion.
Thank you very much for a enlightening discussion.
An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack (1738): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power." Similar quote.