Two broad purposes of America goverment insuring domestic tranquility and securing the blessing of liberty sometimes come into conflict. Considering this Do you agree or disagree with Benjamin Franklin's view " They that give up essencial liberty to obtain a little temporary safery deserve neither liberty nor safety"
2007-10-08 18:00:07 · 10 answers · asked by Patsy B. 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I agree completely. No need in further discussion.
2007-10-08 21:05:18 · answer #1 · answered by John H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There will always be trade-offs between liberty and security.
If we have a completely treacherous enemy that is willing to kill themselves up in order to kill civilians, who hides behind woman and children, and will use any weapon available to punish us for not being Muslim, then we will have to expect some sort of inconvenience in our lives as the government tries to protect us from the enemy.
At the same time we need to maintain our culture of individual freedom so that the government doesn't overstep its bounds and start violating our legitimate rights. But the Democrats have used this argument on political grounds, and once they have the power will REALLY start violating the rights of Americans, such as free speech, self defense, property rights, etc.
2007-10-09 07:54:30 · answer #2 · answered by freedom_vs_slavery 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, i agree with that.
Because once you give up liberty, the government never gives it back. It just opens the door for them a little wider (or sometimes a LOT wider) to keep taking more liberty.
Meanwhile, the safety that you thought you gained has come and gone and is forgotton. But you're still living in a police state and you're safety is now in jeapardy from the cops within rather than the supposed enemy from without.
2007-10-09 01:09:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A noted science fiction author once had one of his characters quip that there is nothing as permanent as "temporary emergency measures." Bureaucratic institutions like government are proof of the laws of inertia. Once government begins moving in a direction, it is hard to get it to stop regardless of the success of government programs.
During my lifetime, we have, on a regular basis, seen new measures designed to guarantee airport security. Each one of these measures was designed to protect us from terrorist on airlines. We still have terrorism on the airlines at about the same rate as before.
2007-10-09 01:36:39 · answer #4 · answered by Tmess2 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do. Security is a TRAP. It locks us IN- with our fears, & isolates us from a World that will pass us by- if we don't keep up with it. Liberty gives us the FREEDOM- to take chances, face challenges, and STAND UP to threats... Franklin believed in protection from WITHIN the Individual- NOT walling off the threat from without....
2007-10-09 01:24:29 · answer #5 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Change the word "safety" to "security" (as in social security) and then you have a modern day argument.
Franklin did not like the idea of any big government, anywhere, interfering with American individuals.
2007-10-09 01:04:33 · answer #6 · answered by Boomer Wisdom 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I totally agree. Its what the Bush administration and Congress has asked all of us to do. That is why we need change.
2007-10-09 12:51:31 · answer #7 · answered by answerman88 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2007-10-09 01:54:24 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes but that depends on how you define "essential".
2007-10-09 02:37:55 · answer #9 · answered by qwert 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes...
2007-10-09 01:17:29 · answer #10 · answered by Born in the USA 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋