Ben Franklin (not Thomas Jefferson) said:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
So do you think that we should give up rights in order to be "safe," or is having individual rights more important?
2006-09-01 09:46:05 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
An admirable sentiment. Franklin was one of the greatest political thinkers the world has ever seen "The times they be a changing" is rubbish - did the secret police in Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR or 1950's America make people safer? No - it made them more SCARED, which meant they were even MORE willing to give up rights.
What is the point in defending the land of the free if the land is no longer free?
2006-09-01 09:51:56 · answer #1 · answered by Mordent 7 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Everyone acts as if this is the first time ever that our government has asked us to give up some liberties for the good of the country. What would you call a draft in time of war? What would you call rationing in time of war? What would you call FBI agents listening in at Army Depots, train depots and anywhere else military personel congregate to hear if they are talking too much? What would you call declaring martial law in the capital? What would you call instituting a new tax to pay for a war?
Sometimes its necessary for our government to do things that under normal circumstances we would be against and resist but in times of war we should accept in order that our government be given all the tools necessary to win a conflict against a dangersous and extremely devious enemy.
For those of you who just hate Bush so much that you can't see anything clearly try to forget about the War in Iraq for one minute and remember that there is still and will continue to be for quite some time, a very deadly and real war that exist between us and extremist Muslims whose sole goal is to kill Americans whenever and where ever they can. Our government must be allowed to use all the tools available to us to confront and defeat this threat.
How can any of you possibly even begin to compare what is going on with the Patriot Act to what happened in Nazi Germany and Communist countries??? Are you truly that naive? Adolph Hitler abolished the German parliment, he built two new private police forces made up of his private hencemen from his own political party and then set them lose on the people. He abolished elections and all other poilitcal parties, all free speech and backed up his decrees with his own personal secret police from which he later constituted his own military arm from. Did you know that the SS was the Military arm of the Nazi party? That it wasn't even part of the German regular Army? Have you seen ANYTHING even closely resembling any of the conditions I've commented on above?? Not hardly, so please stop making such ludicrous comparisons, its a poor argument and it reeks of fear mongering.
2006-09-01 16:57:36 · answer #2 · answered by Tower of T 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Who is giving up essential liberty? Where are our rights being trampled on? It isn't happening.
Who cares if the government listens to your phone calls, you still have the right to make the phone call. We have the right to drive cars too. Are you going to say that a speed limit, or stop signs is taking away your rights too? Putting limits on some things for public safety is not stealing rights. It's using common sense to protect us all.
2006-09-01 16:55:59 · answer #3 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Great question -- and, as Patrick Henry said, 'Give me liberty or give me death!' I'll take the rights any day and be responsible for my OWN safety, thank you very much! Don't need the police; don't need the military. Just me and the Second Amendment, thank you.
2006-09-01 16:54:30 · answer #4 · answered by Lonnie P 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Ask Germans from the 30s and 40s, especially Jews and Catholics, if they felt "safer" after giving up their freedoms for Hitlers "protection" of Germany. It's tempting to think that giving the government more power over you won't result in abuse of that power but the weight of history seems to suggest otherwise.
2006-09-01 16:53:30 · answer #5 · answered by rcrespo@sbcglobal.net 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I believe that rights are important, but I would rather be safe than worry about whether I can speak my mind. Words can only do so much when a foreign army is on your soil. Look at Hobbes' Leviathan - he has an interesting justification, saying that a government has lost legitimacy only when it cannot provide safety for its people.
2006-09-01 16:50:10 · answer #6 · answered by USAUSAUDA 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Freedom and liberty are far more important to me. Your gonna have to take my life before you take my freedom.
2006-09-01 16:58:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think we can have rights and safety...we just have to be realistic and practical. I am willing to be scrutinized a little closer if it means I won't be blown up on my next flight, and the only thing I gave up was a little convenience and time.
2006-09-01 16:53:40 · answer #8 · answered by TigerLilly 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I haven't lost any rights. If the President needs to wire tap international calls from abroad to protect this country then so be it! I could care less if foreigners calling into our country are being listened to. they don't have OUR rights and if they are foreigners in this country they don't have the same rights as us!
Why don't you people let the man do his job, Can you imagine what shape this country would be in if kerry was elected?? Lord help us!
2006-09-01 16:54:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
the key words ,, essential,,purchase,, temporary,,,
2006-09-01 16:51:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋