"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety...?

Question

...deserve neither liberty nor safety" --Benjamin Franklin

Who agrees with this statement, and can you with the current measures implemented by the Bush administration--measures that appear to limit liberty?

Sorry, the question is a bit loaded, but needs to be asked, especially of all those who think the Patriot Act, phone-tapping and monitoring people's library borrowing habits are good for security.

I should let all the answers know I'm Canadian, and in no way want to intrude n America's politics, although I think it fair that I criticize, because knows now boundaries. It's just that I've always found it interesting that many Americans like to qoute the Founding Fathers yet sometimes they forget other, more important quotes and their meanins.

So far, some good answers!

Answer 1

People like Benjamin Franklin knew much more than they ever revealed. By looking at extracts from speeches made by past presidents, we can see that they are aware of a presence which was attempting to secretly take over government.
Their words were not heeded, and now the government of both USA and England is controlled by the Illuminati, for want of a better name.
By studying the agenda of the Illuminati, it becomes possible not only to understand why things like the Patriot Act are promoted, but also to predict what will happen in the future.

Most definitely liberty will be gradually chipped away until we are all no more than slaves.

It is obvious from other answers that people are not aware of the truth. They are not aware that the people behind the government are actually promoting terrorism in order to keep the people frightened, so that they request a reduction of liberties, because they (falsely) believe that they will be safer.

They obviously do not see that many of those arrested and imprisoned for terrorism are totally innocent. They could very easily be the next one. There are hundreds of examples of totally innocent people being arrested, and under current law being imprisoned with no trial. They should ask themselves why many new detention centres have been built, and are currently awaiting occupants.

One of the best examples of false arrest which I came across was some mail which had been stolen, and the mail bag found.

This was just before Christmas, and the same finger prints were found on several items of the stolen mail. The owner of the finger prints was arrested and imprisoned. He was lucky that the BBC took up his story, and he was released when it was discovered that his prints were on the letters because they were Christmas cards that he had written, stamped and posted. Totally innocent but nevertheless arrested. AND once arrested your DNA and fingerprints go on record, and stay there, even if you are found innocent.

I am sure that the questioner is aware of all this, but wanted someone else to spell it out!!

So, ignore the feeling of temporary safety, and hang on to what little liberty remains.

Answer 2

This is a great quote...

the problem is...(and from here on out i am only speaking my opinion)...we have a scared nation and a government that is taking full advantage.

but the even large problem is that the nation may only think it is scared and that could be at the hands of the very government that has the desire to scale back some of the liberties that used to make America what it once was.

I would say that the BUSH party is guilty of this heinous crime against humanity, but i dare say that the entire trend starts well before you get to Washington.

the true level at which human rights are either upheld or overturned is on the local level, ruled by local jurisdictions.

The locals are using the powers that be to help them decide what is and is not a civil liberty and the basis they are citing is the work of the federal government. It is definitely a hand in hand matter, but i think that the locals are the ones that are making or breaking the deal when they decide how far they really want to press on a given issue.

Basically, as far as my happy *** is concerned, the owners of this fine country, (dare i be speaking of the everyday, common citizen like myself....gasp!) need to step up and tell the federal and local governments to, (for lack of a better word) **** off!

It all depends on the citizens to speak their mind and voting power and let ALL LEVELS of the governing bodies know that they are simply not going to take it!

Answer 3

It depends how you define 'essential liberty'.

The trick, I think, is that this definition is not static; it varies over time. In times of war, chances are the definition of 'essential liberty' is much more restricted than the definition in times of peace.

On the other hand, many people might not know the implications of what they are losing. For example bank details. It shouldn't matter if people know where I spend my money, right? Actually wrong.

There are trends that say make people into criminals sometimes. Many of these trends are quite easy to track. The key is where does the tracking stop? Do we restrict the analysis to spotting people who handle $ for terrorist groups? How about potential gamblers and wife beaters? Should we try and ferret them out too? How about people who commit adultery? Before you think that's not possible, let me tell you it is.

I guess the points should be,

1 How can we ensure that the liberties we give up on today when the definition of 'essential liberty' is narrow will be given back to us when the definition broadens?

2 How can we ensure that the information we are agreeing to share will be used solely for the purpose we are assuming it to be used for?

Answer 4

Has anyone read "1984",
why do we do this to ourselves. It is a govt's actions that instigated the reason for the increasing limit on our liberty.
The worse part is that these measures are not to help protect individuals, if they do it is a by product, it is to protect the Govt.
And so the circle winds.
I would say best of luck, but I might be put on a database somewhere.

Answer 5

A country's government should do whatever is necessary to protect it's people from those who wish to harm them. If that means tightening the reigns ever so slightly on liberty then so be it.

I agree with brinlarr (next post). The only people who should be worried about surveillance by the security services are people with something to hide.

Answer 6

it is a matter of degree, all socities are social contracts, you can not have unrestrained behaviour, so it is just where you draw the line
As i am not doing anything bad its fine with me if they tap my phone or see what i borrow