Safety in exchange for liberty

[babyblues]

What do you think of this quote?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin, 1759

[go Yankees]

What do you think of this quote?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin, 1759

I ran across this and thought it was extremely thought provoking with all the hubub over tapped phone lines and the government keeping phone records and such. It seems that we as a people have become willing to sacrifice our liberty (that our forefathers fought so hard to gain) in exchange for safety.

I'll address this as a political science major. I didn't study as much pol. theory (where this would lie), I was more into comparative politics, but here's my $.02

Politicians in our system have to be elected, and as a result, they constantly have to respect the wishes (and sometimes whims) of their constituents...so yes, on occassion you will see them do strange things, or espouse strange (to you) viewpoints.

National security has provoked many knee-jerk reactions, and has turned into an interesting topic around the last two presidential elections. The vulnerability of the United States, all of a sudden, is real and tangible, though I would argue that it is neither.

In a way, we've already sacrificed many liberties on the road to national security, from getting our bags x-rayed before we board planes, requiring background checks if you want a handgun (or to live in Rado's gated community). I'm not endorsing the phone wiretapping, but consider that.

Also, remember this quote is 240 years old; yes, many things in the Constitution, like the Bible, are timeless, but many also need to be interpreted and read through the lens of time. This is one of those quotes, and you will ALWAYS see an ideological difference in what people believe between those who follow a strict vs. a loose interpretation of quotes like that.

[babyblues]

In a way, we've already sacrificed many liberties on the road to national security, from getting our bags x-rayed before we board planes, requiring background checks if you want a handgun (or to live in Rado's gated community). I'm not endorsing the phone wiretapping, but consider that.

I deleted the last part of my post because it actually came out sounding the opposite of what I intended. Personally, I don't think I'm giving up any liberty because of the things you mentioned above. I'm glad for them. In fact, they give me the liberty to live my life without the fear of being blown up or shot. To me, that's liberty.

[Control]

I think it's bullshit that we passed a law requiring a grown adult to wear a seatbelt. We basically sold out for cheaper insurance rates.

[ROCKILLER]

I never noticed a change in insurance, whats worse is we sold out for a promise that wasnt really kept. I wear a seatbelt anyway but thats not the point.

[babyblues]

I wonder how much of that is influenced by the insurance companies. Seatbelt laws are state laws not federal laws. It wouldn't surprise me if there was some kind of kickback to the state from the insurance companies in return for passing laws that allow them to rape us. If we must to have car insurance by law or we can't drive, the insurance companies can charge what they want. They can work together to increase revenue. State governments can pass laws mandating seatbelts and assess fines for those who don't and insurance companies can butter everyone up by promising to lower rates because wearing seatbelts lowers the company's risk. Of course I don't have proof of that, but you can bet your pornstar's titties that money speaks louder than anything to our government and corporate America.

[go Yankees]

I think it's bullshit that we passed a law requiring a grown adult to wear a seatbelt. We basically sold out for cheaper insurance rates.

in American jurisprudence, that's considered a "paternalistic law" It's a little strange now that I think about it, but the logic behind it is something along the lines of the state protecting you in the instance of your own bad judgement...I'll look up such laws in my philosophy of law text...if I can find it...

[babyblues]

in American jurisprudence, that's considered a "paternalistic law" It's a little strange now that I think about it, but the logic behind it is something along the lines of the state protecting you in the instance of your own bad judgement...I'll look up such laws in my philosophy of law text...if I can find it...

I wonder who protects us from the state's bad judgement.

[Control]

I wonder who protects us from the state's bad judgement.

Exactly. I'm still trying to figure out why weed is illegall and alcohol is celebrated more than God in our country....

[go Yankees]

I wonder who protects us from the state's bad judgement.

well babyblues, that's the trick...we have the right to alter and abolish government, but I don't think opposition to a seat-belt law means government is doing a bad job...we can vote officials out of office, lobby for other laws...stuff like that

[babyblues]

well babyblues, that's the trick...we have the right to alter and abolish government, but I don't think opposition to a seat-belt law means government is doing a bad job...we can vote officials out of office, lobby for other laws...stuff like that

Oh, I'm not arguing against seatbelt laws, I'm just wondering. We can vote officials out of office, but only when they're term is up. Right now Maine has a governor that has made it clear that he doesn't care what the people of this state want. He's got an agenda that he's going to accomplish with or without our approval. He signed a bill that we voted down. And he came out and said that he was going to do it regardless of our vote. If the people of the state that elected you make their wishes known, don't just use your power to go over their heads. In that situation, I think we should be able to pull the plug. There obviously needs to be some very stringent rules surrounding that to prevent mahem and anarchy, but that's not exactly government protecting me from myself.

Now, I understand that the government should be watching out for us, but what happens when it becomes clear that they're not watching out for us at all, but just playing politics and pushing their agenda? We shouldn't have to chose between people's pre-established agendas. Officials are supposed to be representing us. They're supposed to be our voice in government. Yes, there are some things that people aren't going to want to do that the government needs to mandate. And there should be laws against behavior that will jeopardize another person's well being. But there has to be some balance between legislation and personal responsibility. If the people don't have the ability to make radical changes in the way the government operates, than we WILL evolve into a socialistic society. (I see that this is what you were saying) We went to WAR to change the way we were governed, to have the right to govern ourselves, and we've gone to WAR many times since then to keep it that way. That's how important it is.

[slipshady]

"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Who watches the watchmen?"

-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347