"Any one who will trade freedom for security deserves neither" what do you think this quote means?

Question

This quote attributed to Ben Franklin is used so often by those who condemn the US anti-terror efforts.

I see the meaning as very different. I believe it means those of us not willing to take a stand and fight, with risk of death, our oppressors our enemy are trading freedom for security.

What do you think?

kevw25 I know so pick one and answer the question.

Many paraphrased variants derived from this saying have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
"He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither"

Answer 1

Well the quote refers to "essential liberty." To this I must ask what "essential liberties" have been sacrificed in the name of security?

The right to not have your phone conversation listened to is not an essential liberty.

Really, what essential liberties have been infringed?

What ever happened to the social contract? You can't get security, or really government at all, without giving up SOME small liberties.

Answer 2

Ben Franklin Security Quote

Answer 3

Anyone who would be willing to give up their freedoms (privacy, ability to travel where and when they want, etc.) in order to be "safer" all around doesn't deserve the freedom they have or the security they get from trading it in.

I think you're right to a point. It's more those willing to put up a fight against the government being more intrusive and present in our every day lives. It's anti "big brother". Read the book "The Giver" by Lowis Lowry. That's an extreme example of one path that can be taken when security is placed above freedom. Also, an awesome book!

In the context of terrorism today, it is very poignant. I'm a conservative and feel like there should definately be greater controls on a lot of things, but at the same time, it's been shown time after time that when you give "them" an inch, they take a mile. Look at the illegal wire tapping and such. No, I don't have anything to hide, but if the wire tapping was made legal, what will the next cover up operation be? I'm more worried about the future if these trends don't stop than where things are now.

Answer 4

Give Up Freedom For Security

Answer 5

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
"Any one who will trade freedom for security deserves neither" what do you think this quote means?
This quote attributed to Ben Franklin is used so often by those who condemn the US anti-terror efforts.

I see the meaning as very different. I believe it means those of us not willing to take a stand and fight, with risk of death, our oppressors our enemy are trading freedom for...

Answer 6

As kevw25 said, it's pretty much self-explanatory. There is NO way you can spin this to support a pro-war/anti-terror position. No way.

But I'll break it down for ya.

People who spout things like,"let the government snoop wherever and however they want; I've got nothing to hide..." are fools. The fourth amendment was put in place to PROTECT our privacy, and Bush has done all but steamroll it.

And there is no such thing as complete, total security. Any reasonable person knows that. What are you going to do, live in a concrete bunker with a bank of outside security cams?

If you think it's OK for the government to have access to your library borrowing records, that's just sad. Something like a public library should be next to sacred. That is the very essence of freedom ~ being able to read what you want without the fear of Big Brother looking over your shoulder.

Answer 7

Believe it or not, terrorists are NOT the first national security threats the United States has faced. I would argue that in the time that Ben Franklin lived, the new country was facing just as serious of problems as we are now. America was a brand new country, not supported by the country where we came from, and not expected to survive. I'm sure there were lots of very different ideas on how to run things and who should run things. Also, I don't think we were "safe" from other countries. If anything, we were the most vulnerable when Ben Franklin lived than at any other time in our history. No one seriously thinks that the terrorists are going to bring down America. But they couldn't take that for granted then. The argument that because Ben Franklin didn't imagine terrorists is mute; they had other, just as serious, problems. Don't be so narcissistic to think our problems are bigger and badder then any other age has faced.

That said, I think his quote needs to be taken at face value, and not contrived to mean what you would have it mean: any version of it!

"Any one who will trade" as in exchange

"freedom for security" that means you get either freedom or security, not both

"deserves neither" you can't have both.

I used this in one of my answers earlier, and I think this is where you got it from. I was using it in reference to the ILLEGAL wiretapping program that Bush promotes because it expresses my thoughts very concisely.

I would rather die in a terrorist attack then live in a country where freedom is not protected and where the Bill of Rights is void.

I am not saying this to make a political point. I am saying this because this is what I believe.

There are things that are worth dying for. There are things that are worth standing up for. These things are freedom and basic civil liberties and universal human rights. I will not sacrifice these things. These things are what makes America the great country that it is. If these things are sacrificed in the pursuit of security, there will be no America to protect.

Answer 8

It means we need a new country to which we can send all the cut and run libs who think every random cultural strain is equal, and therefore deserves access to America, so they can proceed to destroy it.

The rest of us can happily coexist and defend our individual rights, guaranteed by a Constitution which the aforementioned libs are in the process of redefining through activist judges. And we'll defend these rights both from within and from the outside. That includes REAL borders, the right to an armed citizenry for protection against any elitist wannabe ruling class, and freedom from taxes used to fund worthless and failed social projects.

Answer 9

If you are consistently fretted about exactly what can occur to your household, to your kids? Everybody intend to really feel secure and the very best way to have this safety is learning the self-defence throw this site https://tr.im/SVJwt
By blending steps of various self-controls and making alterations based upon clinical study, the Patriot Self Defense system offers you an arsenal of moves to confuse and overwhelm also the most hardened road ruffians.
Do not throw away any more time and learn the best ways to secure yourself and your passion ones with the Patriot Self Defense system.

Answer 10

It means don't give up your liberties, any of them, just to keep the boogy man away. Stand firm, stand tall and defend your rights and the Constitution. When we have to give up privacy rights just so the government can go after suspected terrorists without a warrant or anything or when someone can be declared an enemy combatant at the say so of the president and get no trial or attorney to talk to that is giving up rights just so our military can fight over there rather than patrolling our borders and our nation over her to prevent another 9/11.

Dr. Franklin had the uncanny ability to see into the souls of humans and know the treachery that is possible. He saw it in the British King and leaders of the Parliament and anticipated it could happen here. The checks and balances that are in our Constitution are designed to prevent that sort of thing.

Answer 11

Those that are opposed to the Patriot Act that use that line are stating that when we give up individual liberties, such as having our person searched, NOT by the commercial enterprise, but by the government itself, when boarding a plane, are giving up a freedom we are granted by God for the sense of security we think it brings from the government. There are those that read that differently, especially that think our freedoms are derived form government, and they are not. So when we give up our god-given freedoms, and place that in the hands of the government, we are no longer consenting to be governed, but consenting to the government to do things. We see this more and more in our society, where people look to government for permission, and fine when it is not granted. It should be the other way around.

Too many are willing to let the government do for them what they themselves should be responsible, and those that do do not deserve the freedom that they were born with. Unfortunately, we cannot ship these people to France.