During debates on the U.S.A. Patriot Act in 2001, one senator invoked a founding father: "As Ben Franklin once noted, 'if we surrender our liberty in the name of security, we shall have neither".' In fact Franklin's words were more nuanced: "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
Franklin wrote the following to the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1755: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
But too often, giving up essential liberty for temporary safety seems an easy call for him.
And is protection from terrorism just "a little temporary safety," or something more crucial?
We see the effects of warming on land: the floods, the droughts, the refugees headed towards temporary safety.
Benjamin Franklin once famously stated: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither".
Some benefits, notably for the unemployed, have changed character, from temporary safety net to permanent support, thus discouraging self-help.
For the vast majority of the unemployed, the dole is a temporary safety net, not a "lifestyle choice".
The article provides the following quotation from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential freedoms to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither".
They believe you are too frightened, too cowardly, to face the truth – and that you think liberty is much less important than temporary safety.
Why does the article include the following quotation from Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential freedoms to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither"?
