That Benjamin Franklin quote about liberty and security

Benjamin Franklin is one of my personal heroes as well as Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Patrick Henry but that's just me.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

I would like to further play with the Franklin quote by pointing out that liberty is irrelevant without security: if a human being's basic needs are in danger of not being met or already not being met, rectifying that solution is going to take primacy over everything because you can't enjoy the liberty you have if you have to struggle to survive.

Out of Context Theater: Mike K "'Bloody Pussies' cracked me up"

This post was thumped by the Shillelagh of Whackingness

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

Thumped for taking troll bait. Feeding a troll. Bad idea.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Thumped for taking troll bait. Feeding a troll. Bad idea.

Kill all math nerds

Thumped for taking troll bait. Feeding a troll. Bad idea.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"

Thumped for taking troll bait. Feeding a troll. Bad idea.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Thumped for taking troll bait. Feeding a troll. Bad idea.

Out of Context Theater: Mike K "'Bloody Pussies' cracked me up"

Maybe you would, but there was plenty of security under the British. We wanted Liberty, when Security becomes too oppressive, rebellion tends to be the only way to get more liberty and less security. A balance is required.

Personally, I'd trade less security for more liberty any day, I can defend myself, and would prefer to do such instead of being protected from myself.

I find that a little rebellione very now and then is a good thing. I'm rather discontented with just one revolution.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

@Silent Reverence:

All right, so your proposed solution to that particular issue would perhaps be along the lines of "smoking is permitted, but the concentration of tobacco smoke in workplace should not exceed a certain threshold". Now, who gets to choose what this threshold is? And how should this requirement be upheld?

Along the same lines, one could say that parties should permitted at all hours, but that noise during night-time should not exceed a certain threshold; but again, who gets to decide what this threshold is?

For any passably comprehensive choice of basic rights, you are going to get tens of thousands of little dilemmas like these, plus a good number of not-so-little ones. And wow, this does look quite similar to a law code, don't you think? :)

Also, whatever set of rulings you would care to choose to mediate between these contrasting rights, I'll bet you that there will be sizable chunks of your country's population who

• Feel that some specific ruling is entirely unacceptable, and a gross violation of their freedoms, or
• do not consider themselves bound by these rulings, because they disagree with the method with which they have been picked, or
• will loudly clamor that one specific right trumps another when it is convenient to them, only to clamor equally loudly for the exact opposite interpretation when it is not, or of course
• will outright ignore other people's rights whenever they feel like doing so.

As people knifing each other over loud parties does not strike me as a desirable arrangement, I propose than any acceptable model of society should provide some system to resolve these contrasts with a minimum of unpleasantness.

If someone has other suggestions than something akin to a law code, a judiciary system and some sort of police, I am willing to take them in consideration.

edited 6th Apr '11 7:06:55 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

^

I'm a smoker, and even I don't agree with being able to smoke in the workplace. It's inconsiderate.

Now, what I don't like is that whole stigma with getting up and excusing yourself for a smoke. It's like everybody is eying you as you leave and judging you, then they say you take too long to smoke, even if they sit around the office bullshitting people for twice the time.

Ok. But my main point was not really about smoking, I only used it as an example for arguing that Savage Heathen's statement

does not really tell me anything about how a society should be organized, or about which rights should trump which liberties under which circumstances.

edited 6th Apr '11 7:12:42 PM by Carciofus

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Guys? the quote? I have a thread on freedom in general oryou can go to the natural rights thread.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Oh, yes, well on my side of the scale I would rather have the opportunity to defend myself properly in a more dangerous world than be in a safer world with no opportunity to defend myself properly.

That's how I feel as an individual. I don't trust other people to protect me, I like the added layer of security that brings, but at the end of the day my ability to protect myself is the layer that I rely on most for my personal safety.

I like to remind people that we have a 2nd ammendment for a reason and to stop being so scared of guns.

edited 6th Apr '11 7:30:36 PM by tnu1138

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

I mean nearly anything, and more in the legal right. The right to use lethal self-defense against someone trying to fuck with my stuff or harm me, or the threat of harming me if I don't let them fuck with said stuff.

I agree with Great Lich that those aren't qualifiers; rather I would say Franklin thought that the liberty his political opponents was talking about was essential, and the security they were purchasing by it was temporary.

He definitely wasn't saying that liberty is okay to give up if it isn't essential, or that permanent security is worth giving up essential liberty for. It's just a turn of phrase.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

I disagree with the idea that every single liberty is worth dying for. I mean, my right to an education, that's worth dying for. But something as trivial as, I don't know, my right to eat chocolate? No.

That's not to say I'd accept a law against chocolate, I'd argue, sign petitions, etc etc. But I wouldn't risk my life over it.

Be not afraid...

I would but that's me

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

I'd risk my life over the right to defend myself. To me, that's worth fighting for.

Yes, and to me that right makes a lot more sense than other rights that people claim we should be willing to die for.

Be not afraid...

Every right is worth dying for. Give me liberty or give me death. I'm content iwth either honestly.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

I seriously doubt every possible right is worth dying for in and of itself, but that's more a matter of how have we built our world than a matter of design of rights itself. However I see something special in being able to go die for the right to eat chocolate.

As for the whole thing above on smoking, at no point did I ever proposed that my right to b ehealthy is equal to your right to poison both yourself and me. They are nowhere early at the same level, and, under some conditions, I wouldn't ever call the second a right. As for who gets to choose, the answer is simple: someone apt.

Fanfic Recs orwellianretcon'd: cutlocked for committee or for Google?