Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temprary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
2006-10-19 04:30:48 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Franklin knew what he was talking about! The biggest crimes are always perpetreated in the name of freedom and god, and always with the best of intentions.
Giving up even a little bit of freedom in exchange for protection only makes sense if you the induvidual did something stupid that would make other people want to hurt you. Giving up freedom to the government because its foreign policy has attracted the rage of other nations and organizations is naive at best. If the government's abroad activities cause a threat to our nation, it is those activities that have to change.
Politicians don't offer us ideology any more, they offer us protecion from obscure threats that we, for our own safety, are not informed about. It's time to wake up!!!
2006-10-19 05:12:10 · answer #1 · answered by Perry G 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Were you going to try to attribute this to a more recent politician?
2006-10-19 11:41:40 · answer #2 · answered by Answergirl 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
fine.. let's just make it so that we don't have safety! let's tell the terrorists that they can call anyone in the U.S. and not worry about anything being overheard... yeah let's just let them plan another attack! so they can kill millions this time! great quote! i think it should read "Those who would not give up a minute liberty to have safety deserve to just die!" oh and by the way.. is having complete privacy on the phone an essential liberty to you? why do you people care so damn much about a silly phone call or website that you go to?!?!
2006-10-19 11:39:24 · answer #3 · answered by comemychildren 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The quote is "right on" and applied to the pre-electronic age. The same individual who made that quote (or something close to it) would also seek to protect the rights of the many by sacrificing the privacy of the few (suspects).
For those who did not know it yet, banks are always looking for suspicious behavior (patterns of account activity), through use of screening software in order to monitor the behavior of account holders in the war against terrorism and money laundering. It has been going on for years and is a fact of life in this new age. Technology is here to stay and will be used in the fight against our enemies (suspected or otherwise) from this time forward.
2006-10-19 13:02:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is an understatement to say that the world is VERY different now than it was in the 1700s. No terrorists strapping bombs to their chest and that of their infant, strolling into a crowded restaurant to blow them up for their "religious beliefs". No one holding Americans hostage for 444 days. No one beheading soldiers, reporters, civilians on TV (wait their was no TV) to "further their cause." NO ONE FLYING PLANES INTO BUILDINGS TO KILL OVER 3,000 AMERICANS. I still have the same freedoms today that I did before the Patriot Act - speech, religion, right of assembly, press, right to bear arms... Wake up people - you are living in a pre-9-11 world that no longer exists. Does a terrorist atrocity actually have to happen to you PERSONALLY for you to get it!
2006-10-19 12:08:32 · answer #5 · answered by Republican Mom 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great quote!
That's why I'm glad we're not giving up essential liberties, unless you count the McCain-Feingold law.
2006-10-19 11:35:40 · answer #6 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with it. Too bad Bush doesn't understand that, he loves eliminating our civil liberties.
2006-10-19 11:34:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Preach it, Brother Ben!
2006-10-19 11:35:47 · answer #8 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Go Ben Go
2006-10-19 11:31:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Amen.
2006-10-19 11:32:40 · answer #10 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋