January 25, 2006
Essential Liberties
Jay at Stop the ACLU points us to an important post by Michelle Malkin exposing the radical Left's hijacking of Benjamin Franklin's famous, and always mangled, quote: 
The missing word, "essential" is, well, essential to understanding Franklin's quote.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.In this photo, you see one of the most popular variations of Ben's words.
The missing word, "essential" is, well, essential to understanding Franklin's quote.
Others:
The Conservative Cat
Junkyard Blog
Rightwing Nuthouse
Newslinker
Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.
Posted by: Bluto at
11:33 AM
| Comments (26)
| Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I've got one by Jefferson that says, "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither".
That being said the NSA search for information to prevent an attack during a time of war I find entirely reasonable. This info is not used for prosecution just for military protection of the US. Now I'm sure 99% turns out useless but then again they have no idea just where good info will come from. You have to have evidence to take to the judge if you want a warrant not much but at least a smidgen so you could go after acceptable evidence that could be used in criminal prosecution. I would imagine that being around here that my communications are monitored. Gee I sure feel sorry for that guy his job really sucks he must be bored beyond comprehension. So I'm all for liberty and don't really like the Patriot act much I'd rather just fight them. But the NSA stuff don't bother me it's reasonable to me. If the NSA did not look and there was an attack they would blab on about how we should have been looking. Dem-ned if you do and Dem-ned if you don't.
Posted by: Howie at January 25, 2006 12:00 PM (D3+20)
2
It always kills me how they never plan ahead for their home-made posters. They always have to squeeze in the last few letters and often have to squeeze a forgotten letter into the middle somewhere.
Posted by: Oyster at January 25, 2006 12:12 PM (osKlJ)
3
Oh well, the blanket seems about the same as the original quote, or close enough to be used in propaganda.
Well, anyways, I was going through some oldies, and I noticed many people threatening me with viruses and giving out my server infos, and the other Baber tried to Nemesis some pic to me but apparently N. doesn't support umlauts so blaah blaah blaah....
The actual point was to say how very public commenting actually seems to be. Despite threats being seemingly pointless as they certainly haven't shown any actual activity (except some floodbot for MSN Messenger, which I don't even use and probably some e-mail viruses I never read due to hotmails "all in the trash"-option (last time I read my e-mail: spring 2005 or autumn 2004)), I'm shocked at how easy it is to get info just by asking or checking my own temp. files and such with a rather unstable omni-reader.
I strongly support selfcensorship, as the Internet is not a private place thanks to "terrorism" and "international security" laws that allow pretty much anyone to gather info on pretty much anything if it seems even remotely anti-system or near-criminal. Especially if you're using a non-Windows-system, you can't even blend in with the mass then.
They can even keep a track of what you search if they have even the slightest excuse to do so. So you can't search for porn. =F So see ya, I'm off the Canuck, Brit, Arab and Yankee sites, they're the ones under Big Brothers allseeing eye already. They are after Google now, goodbye freedom to search for "weapons of mass destruction", "Allah kill president" and anthrax.
Posted by: A Finn at January 25, 2006 12:32 PM (lGolT)
4
After reading her comments on DOWDIFYING BEN FRANKLIN, it seems to me Ms. Malkin's largest complaint is not with civil liberty absolutists or Maureen Dowd; it is with the intellectually lazy.
The quote generally attributed to Benjamin Franklin--though sometimes attributed to author Richard Jackson--has surely been mangled by the left in their efforts to voice displeasure with the Bush administrations’ recent eavesdropping revelations. But why be selfish; political discourse is littered with miquotations of this line. As Richard Minsky has stated in researching his upcoming, The Bill of Rights, (www.futureofthebook.com), the phrase has been widely misquoted by “libertarians, conservatives, neo-Nazis, and and every imaginable mainstream and fringe group.” Sorry, but all in all, her wriitng is a pretty disingenuous --and intellectually lazy--piece.
Posted by: Drew at January 25, 2006 12:37 PM (UHKaK)
5
Of course they miss the irony that the original statement was made regarding capitulating to an aggressor for the sake of peace. Or maybe they don't?
Every argument they've made since time immemorial has basically been a version of why we should either pay the Danegeld or surrender outright without putting up even pretense of a fight in either case. Liberals are cowards and traitors and should be treated with all due and proper contempt.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 25, 2006 12:51 PM (0yYS2)
6
Also missed is the fact that the original 1755 writing became most famous for its use in a 1759 book written solely for the purpose of ... you got it; propaganda.
Posted by: Drew at January 25, 2006 01:10 PM (UHKaK)
7
Quotation aside - the entire basis for using it is the left's "what if" exaggerated and hysterical arguement and fears of AMERIKA THE POLICE STATE. This is part and parcel of their core fundamental belief systems - the current NSA flap is simply being incorporated into it - they've had these beliefs long before it - and will retain them long afterwards.
I don't buy or accept their "what if" arguements or opinion of AMERIKA. I also know the the majority of Americans don't either. That's why I'm not interested in playing this "NSA Debate Game Thing".
I know where their heads are at - thats what matters - they need to sell their hysteria and fears to the general population - and they've never been any good at that.
What they are good at is alienating the uncommitted bystanders with their idiotic antics, "performance art", and ideological baggage which they invariably drag along. Go to an anti-war protest and what you will see are banners - Free Mumia, Pro-Abortion, Gay Rights, Save The Rainforrest, etc etc etc and a few actually about the War (but often twisted to their own Anti-Amerika rant).
They have no clue about presentation or salesmenship! They couldn't sell a bottle a water to a thirty man in the middle of the desert without first giving him a 2 hour speech on the logic of one of the causes - and not notice that he's already moved on to look for water somewhere else!
Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 01:20 PM (3aakz)
8
So successes in politics are just really good sell jobs?
Posted by: wavygravy at January 25, 2006 04:07 PM (UHKaK)
9
Er, Yes wavygravy! That is a BIG part of it - and thankfully - you didn't know that!
You can't do jack till your actually sitting in the big seat first!
So wavygravy! Go sit on the floor in yoga fashion and hum.
Posted by: hondo at January 25, 2006 05:10 PM (3aakz)
10
A Finn: (1) doesn't sound like you. Have you reached puberty at last?
(2) Do you have a point?
Posted by: greyrooster at January 25, 2006 07:06 PM (YjVDY)
11
Thanks for clarifying Hondo. I was under the mistaken assumption that public policy was based upon the merits of said policy,its stated goals, whether or not it served the interests of the public and actually required their input. I should have been more cynical, realizing it was all about who's the better "salesman." Works for cars and furniture, why not public policy, right?
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 08:32 AM (UHKaK)
12
Pompous and pretentious, aren't you? Keep on hummin' and chantin'.
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 01:13 PM (3aakz)
13
Not really; it just seems that way to the ignorant and the ill-mannered. And you keep on sellin'
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 03:13 PM (UHKaK)
14
"I was under the mistaken assumption that public policy was based upon the merits of said policy, its stated goals, whether or not it served the interests of the public and actually required their input".
The problem, wavy, is that most of us can't agree on the merits of said policy. What you might think is meritorious I might think is downright stupid, such as welfare. I'm not trying to put words in hondo's mouth, but perhaps he was referring to an attempt to get other people to see your side of the argument. And I just used welfare as an example, and I'm not saying I oppose it. j/s
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 04:36 PM (rUyw4)
15
Sure, I see the point he was making about the necessity of persuasion, i.e. "selling", in policy making and who does it better, but that's what's so maddening---that's almost all it is today. Hondo's sentiments are dead-on with the way vast swaths of the public thinks about government policy in general; he or she who packages the "truth" best and then sells it to the most people is the winner and should be. I like to think there more to defining a policy's merit that that.
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 05:02 PM (UHKaK)
16
Public policy is based on debate, arguement and functional concensus - you have to talk to people and convince them ...
You have to sell your arguement - you have to market your position - anyone who can't see the functional analogy with salesmenship - is a disillusioned fool.
When they lose - they look everywhere for an explanation, someone or something to blame - but never self-examination - never themselves.
The public is stupid - ergo - they are smarter - which gives them solice. that's cool - I can live with that - I am an illiterate backwoods racist sexist yahoo living in a trailer park with a truck outside parked up on concrete blocks - if that makes you feel better wavygravy (love the handle) - that's absolutely fine with me!
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 06:45 PM (3aakz)
17
"I was under the mistaken assumption that public policy ..... whether or not it served the interests of the public and actually required their imput."
WOW! Did you even read what you wrote? - Classic Meritocracy is also Classic Elitism! You spelled it out so beautifully! Others (who are worthy) will decide what serves and whether public imput is required - all for their own good of course!
And for a moment, I thought you were smart! You just "advertised" your strongest belief - and greatest weakness!
Way to go wavy - I love it!
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 06:58 PM (3aakz)
18
The full quote still applies to this situation.
I don't know about you guys, but I consider the 4th Amendment to the Bill of Rights to be an "essential liberty" and I also think the NSA warrantess wiretapping qualifies as providing "temporary safety".
Then again, I actually care about the Constitution. Maybe that is my problem?
Posted by: The Disenfranchised Voter at January 26, 2006 07:18 PM (agR1e)
19
Hondo: Yeah, I didn't put that well; the "whether or not" was only meant for the part about serving the public interest, not the part about public input--that is ALWAYS required and not to be left to the leaders to decide.
And....I think you're reading way too much into it what I've been saying. Your original post above was something to the effect of Dems being lousy at selling their ideas, that they couldn't sell water to a guy dying of thirst and that's the biggest reason why their ideas never gain traction.
My retort was to say that there is a lot more to putting good policy in place then being good at selling it--or at least there should be.
Yes, you must get people on your side and yes, you must persuade. But the ideas have to be good ideas in the first place and THAT is what's missing.
I think these days some real crap is being well-marketed by politicos of all stripes and either too many people paying too little attention are letting this stuff slip past them or they're letting their partisan loyalties suspend their critical thinking --conservative, liberal and everything in between.
The idea that a well-marketed but poorly conceived idea deserves its place in public policy--which I took your original statement to say-- is just bad government.
If that's not your position, then I stand corrected.
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 07:46 PM (oxMjD)
20
What is good - is by its very nature - open to subjective interpretation. I would never advocate (sell) something I did not thing is "good". I do believe in what I say and think (its not an act or con) - You can disagree - fine - but the simple act of disagreement doesn't make my "good" bad - save your own personal interpretation.
You still have to convince (sell) others - as I/we must continuously convince same.
Things aren't going your way - self-examination is in order - but you don't do that. Your still looking for ways to dismiss the opposition and critize the others (public) for not seeing things your way.
Not a winning strategy - winning is everything - otherwise your "good" remains nothing more than unfulfilled wishes and dreams.
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 08:21 PM (3aakz)
21
Two points of disagreement: not all "goods" are subjective, some are universal. Examples: policies that do not allow for child exploitation and those that permit any race to vote.
Second, at the governmental level, it's not really a zero-sum game; I think you'll find more "goods" are typically "won" through compromise than not. Otherwise, you make sense.
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 09:00 PM (oxMjD)
22
Yep, wavy, their are some things we can all agree on, that's for sure.
Posted by: jesusland joe at January 26, 2006 09:17 PM (rUyw4)
23
Your smart - and you knew damn well what I meant about "goods". Of course there are agreed universals - but by even bringing up the obvious (which is not in contention) you achieve nothing but mischieviously sidestepping the issue that much of everything else IS SUBJECTIVE!
You want to score a point - fine - but see how meaningless that was - and how the selling (yes! Selling!) of ideas is so extremely important. Would you feel better if I used a thesaurus and used a different word?
Compromise goes hand in hand with selling - it is OBVIOUS! (Hell! There even is a political term called horse-trading!) When you have to - you do - when you don't - you don't. But bear this in mind - on compromise you automatically assume two distinct sides - there are not! There are MANY! Some differing from one another by only degrees. To achieve success/compromise you work with that reality and built the consensus for action.
I understand what your saying - I'm not being confrontational - I'm actually trying to be helpful (in my subjective way).
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 10:06 PM (3aakz)
24
Hondo: yes, I did know what you meant and when you boil it all down, you're right -- without the sell, nothing actually ever gets put into action. Like all of politics, it's a matter of degrees. Set, game, match: Hondo.
Posted by: wavygravy at January 26, 2006 11:24 PM (oxMjD)
25
wavygravy
OK - Oh, welcome to the board if you wish to hang around. You may encounter a few voices who will want to gut you with dull knives and kill all liberals (along with a lot of other things) - but it goes with the territory - take it in stride (and give back and use your head when doing it!). Other than that - join in and try to enjoy - comedy works for me (sometimes satire - there is a difference).
Posted by: hondo at January 26, 2006 11:33 PM (3aakz)
26
Hondo: yeah, I see you've noticed I probably lean a bit further to the left then the typical blogger here. But what the hell, that's why I came, to try and find good political debate--helluva lot more informative than seeking out an echo chamber of my views. So far, so good.
I'll take you up on your offer and drop by now and again. As for those who'll want to hang me, I've found that trying to give their opinions a little respect (when possible of course) goes a long way in disarming even the hardest of the hardcore. And when I'm out-argued, out-foxed or plain out-matched, all the better it be a conservative. Good talking with you.
Posted by: wavygravy at January 27, 2006 12:04 AM (oxMjD)
33kb generated in CPU 0.0211, elapsed 0.1278 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1165 seconds, 262 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.1165 seconds, 262 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
