Please Be Brave Enough To Respond To This Poll

[WillyT]

Guns, Drones, and FEAR...

I still believe in this...

AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

QUOTATION: Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Link: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1056.html

How about you ?

28 votes, 5 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes... I am afraid enough to give up some liberties to have the government protect me.
	2 (7%)
	No... I believe there is a better, more mature way, to solve the things we may feel threaten us.
	26 (93%)
	Obligitory Other.
	0 (0%)
	5 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. I voted "pass" on your poll.

I generally agree with Franklin's sentiments, but I wasn't comfortable with the way you phrased the "yes" response.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

2. I agree...

Which liberties?

The freedom to walk onto a commercial airliner without having to take off my shoes? Meh....No biggie.

[WillyT]

5. The Right To Either Be Felt-Up Or Photographed Nude In Order To Travel...

The right to have your e-mails and phone calls monitored.

The right to have the police gas and beat the shit out of you if you protest.

The right to a speedy trial, and to see the evidence, and to know your accuser...

To name a few.

Yeah... No Biggee...

Americans have become such cowards.

[jaysunb]

23. Very interesting reminder of the reality of what

we've already given up.

I've long held, that in some ways, the people that did 911 actually won the war. We've succumb to fear and paranoia, and now, every one of our enemies know how to terrorize us.While we can't be defeated by conventional means, when we give up the very freedoms that THEY supposedly hate..the freedoms that supposedly make us the greatest nation on earth, that's lose lose.

I'ts a cowardly surrender.

[WillyT]

28. Yep... It Was Predicted By A Guy Who Is At The Bottom Of The Ocean...

He lost, we lost...

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

41. Perhaps if you'd stated it as such in your poll...

I could have responded appropriately. Don't blame me if you can't express yourself clearly.

[grantcart]

13. When was the last time you saw a poll at DU that was not an embarassing push poll?

Once very intersting they have now degenerated to the level of Ed Shultz's nightly text poll.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

42. Yes. I could do without Ed's nightly poll (nt)

[white_wolf]

3. I haven't replied to your poll yet and I'll explain why below:

In terms of the Patriot Act, drone strikes, and all of the other current issues involving security vs liberty I firmly stand on the side of liberty and oppose all of those measures and I do not propose trading liberty for security. However, I would like to point out that anyone who believes in government is willing to trade some liberty for security. After all, isn't that the whole reason for government in the first place? I'm not sure I agree full with his sentiment, but I think Lenin was at least in the right direction when he wrote "Where the State exists there can be no freedom. Where there is freedom there is no State." Perhaps Lenin went too far in that statement, but I think it is something worth considering at the very least. Can we be free while there is a state? If we can, how do we do that and if we can't then what liberties are we willing to give up to be secure?

Sorry, I know this probably wasn't the intent of your post, but I just felt like getting philosophical for a moment.

[2naSalit]

6. Perhaps if one views "the state"

as a social compact or contract through which we agree to behave among ourselves as a society, would that be the same as forfeiting one's freedom? Just wondering.

[white_wolf]

11. I would think so because...

we agree not to do certain things as part of that social contract. We agree not to steal from one another or trespass on someone else's property for instance. I think the trespassing one is a better example, because we agree that certain parts of the earth belong to another person and we aren't allowed there. In the "state of nature" (as the Enlightenment philosophers called it) we would be wholly free and no one would own the earth. Of course then you get into Hobbs's idea that the life in the state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. Of course, Hobbs was a bit of a pessimist and proponent of absolute monarchy so I don't recommend taking his ideas to heart.

[2naSalit]

14. Indeed

I was wondering if the state of nature concepts would come up... And I agree with you on those points.

Well stated.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

36. Totally disagree

The state in the cases you cited is guaranteeing that the stuff you fairly acquired is yours to use and dispose of and pass onto your heirs as you wish. In that case the state is guaranteeing your freedom. We recognize immediately when an injustice is done when the state takes someone's private property away via eminent domain for some purpose that isn't really a pressing public need. We recognize that because we realize that that person's freedom has been infringed upon without a compensating large enough public good arising from that infringement.

[white_wolf]

37. We are going to firmly disagree, but that's fine.

I made my post hoping to spark conversations like this.

"We recognize immediately when an injustice is done when the state takes someone's private property away via eminent domain for some purpose that isn't really a pressing public need."

We don't immediately recognized at least not naturally. Our society tells us this is an injustice so the majority think it is. However, economic rights such as private property, capitalism, etc. are not universally recognized.

We, of course, have the Marxist and other socialist critiques of those, but they aren't the only ones. John Rawls, who is widely considered the most important political philosopher of the 20th century, did not count economic rights such as private property to be among his fundamental rights of people. In fact, in Justice as Fairness Rawls says that both modern capitalist societies, a pure libertarian free market and a well-fare state violate the principle of justice as fairness.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

43. For now....

...I'll refrain from contending this ground with you, because I'd have to go read John Rawls first. He sounds intriguing.
Which I will.
I'll start a thread when I'm done, watch out for it.

[white_wolf]

45. I suggest Justice as Fairness: A Restatment

A Theory of Justice is his original work but I think Justice as Fairness is a bit easier to read and explains his ideas better.

[Katashi_itto]

4. Spoons are awesome

[EastKYLiberal]

7. Those who think something as abstract as liberty should trump safety...

Deserve neither.

[WillyT]

10. Oh Wow... That Does It... Between You And Ben Franklin ???

I'll take Ben, thank you very much.

Ya see... Ben's calling you out for what you are...

[patrice]

26. K&R

[Egalitarian Thug]

8. Franklin's statement was subtle, nuanced. Your poll is not. n/t

[ScreamingMeemie]

9. ^^^This.

[WillyT]

12. Gotta Admit... It Wasn't Intended To Be... But...

I will say this...

I find the NUANCE in JUSTIFYING the MURDER of INNOCENTS...

Extremely tiresome, depressing, and... ultimately cowardly... and Un-American.

So no... it was NOT nuanced.

[Egalitarian Thug]

21. Now I'm really confused. Are you saying that Benjamin Franklin favored mass-murder?

Really, I don't get what point you're trying to make here.

[WillyT]

25. Just Curious... How Did You Come To THAT Supposition ???

Mass Murder ???

[Egalitarian Thug]

32. Your reply led me to believe that your intention in this poll has something to do with guns.

From your reply: "I find the NUANCE in JUSTIFYING the MURDER of INNOCENTS...
Extremely tiresome, depressing, and... ultimately cowardly... and Un-American."

I've been conscientiously avoiding the invasion of the gungeon in GD for what seems like months, primarily because my opinion pisses everybody off. However, Benjamin Franklin has been a person of interest to me for most of my life and consequently I've learned quite a bit about him and the times he lived in.

The quotation you used in the poll is best understood, IMO, in the context of this exchange at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787; When queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation, A lady asked Dr. Franklin "Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it." We didn't.

Since that time we have long since turned away from the nation Dr. Franklin and the other "radical terrorists" envisioned, and became, from what I gathered from decades of research, a sad and pathetic imitation of what they first proposed we reject. We replaced a King with a class, a thoroughly corrupt Parliament with a thoroughly corrupt Congress, and instead of embracing the ideal of individual, secular liberty, we deified what they did accomplish and smothered it under the superstitious idiocy of divine intervention.

So you see, I think that trying to apply what he wrote then with what we have now is not really applicable.

Thus, my avoidance of this latest exercise in mental masturbation and distraction.

[WillyT]

33. No... My Poll Has To Do With Fear...

And the things we are willing to accept, and the rights we are willing to give away, when we are afraid.

Guns, Drones, Patriot Act, Warrant-less Wire-Tapping, Un-Provoked War, Torture, Guantanamo, Secret Rendition, etc. etc. etc.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. Well we are the most unjustifiably terrified nation on earth, and consequently becoming

the least free. The Fascists have won the war, and most Americans aren't even aware that they are slaves.

[WillyT]

35. Word !!!

[DevonRex]

15. There is much more to this complicated issue. Too much

for an over-simplified poll. Franklin was brilliant. No doubt. I would first have to find out how he defined essential and a little. Then I would have to figure out exactly how you mean this to apply in the present day. Does every security measure, like airline security, mean giving up an essential liberty to you? Or does this only apply to ones that affect due process, for example? Without knowing these things, I cannot answer the poll question.

[badtoworse]

16. Franklin had it exactly right...

and by the way, it's not a matter of fear, as much as it is one of trust.

[Whisp]

17. are you a coward scaredy cat or a mature and wise person?

[undeterred]

18. Is this about GUNS?

[WillyT]

20. No... It's About Fear...

In which guns is a subset.

[patrice]

19. I think your thread title is manipulative crap & I think your poll is too abstract to mean anything.

People can SAY anything, but most of them don't really know what they'll do under whatever circumstances.

What. exactly. are. you. proposing. that. people. should. do.?

Regarding doing things: BF was referring to a specific and DIFFERENT set of circumstances from whatever (????) you're asking us about "purchasing".

But however anyone sees the terms of this message (what is supposed to be done and for what effect upon "liberty'), if you don't walk right out the front door this very minute and go wherever would be a good location to send this behavioral message about whatever "Liberty" is and do whatever it is that you think shows whatever it is that it is supposed to show, for whatever purpose/effect, if you don't do that right this minute, you have made the same kind of deal anyone else has made, just in your own terms, for your own payoff.

(And may I refer you to one example set by certain self immolating Buddhist monks as an example of the type of commitment that would actually mean something other than the pure ideology in your abstractions.)

If you aren't going to go out and manifest in absolute terms your translation of the words of BF in your actions right this very minute, you ARE claiming a right to your terms for that deal, and, unless you have fascistic tendencies, SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE have a right to their own terms for the same deal.

Terms of deals:
- Guns? I know what those are and a few things going on with them.
- Drones? I know what those are and somewhat fewer things going on with them.
- give up? WHAT? What are you specifically referring to? Concrete examples please.
- essential? What are the criteria here? Who defined them for me? What degrees of non-essential are there before something becomes what YOU say is essential? . . . and, honey, that's just for starters on the whole notion of what might and might not be "essential".
- Liberty? perhaps you'll pardon me if I don't assume that just anyone has ANY kind of a right to define that word for me, especially in an oppressed culture like our own in which people have not recognized the oppressor in THEMSELVES and, yet, claim some ABSURD right to free me. Pardon, the fuck, me, I'll free myself, thank you very much and I resent this pressure to characterize anyone who wants to do that as a coward. That characterization REEEEKS of fascistic oppression.
- little? By whose measure? Whose life is this anyway? What about my own personal measures that grows out of my own experience? Are our experiences ir-relevant?
- temporary? In case you haven't noticed, IT'S ALL TEMPORARY. To pretend otherwise, or to pretend permanence is possible is a lie. We can create degrees of stability out of our own empirically grounded individual personal lives and experiences, anything else is of the oppressor.
- Safety? We may be able to come to some terms on that in as much as safety has a lot to do with more collective traits, but those terms will be the result of asking one another what PRECISELY is required to be safe and being honest about the costs of those requirements and not pretending that there are no risks. Recognize the risks and either accept or reject them AND ALLOW OTHERS TO HAVE THE SAME CHOICES.
- deserve??? That's the fucking bomb right there. Who the hell is anyone to say that about anyone else when none of the terms (as observed above) of what makes one, hack, cough, choke, "worthy" to others are even on the table and, even if they were on the table, if I refuse those terms and accept the consequences for doing so, WHY DON'T I HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT IN YOUR UNIVERSE??? Answer to that question: because your universe has fascistic tendencies and REFUSES TO ADMIT IT.

I think there are a lot of people who need to ask themselves if this Better dead than ________________________ ideological warp isn't tyranny itself.

[WillyT]

22. You Seem... Upset...

You gonna be alright ?

[patrice]

27. "deserve"

[WillyT]

29. It's A Statement Of Philosophy From One Of The Guys That Put THIER Lives On The Line For Us All...

After breaking with, then fighting, and then defeating the world's greatest super-power at the time, Great Britain, I'm sure all of our Founding Fathers felt this way.

They risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor...

And they probably knew that following generations might be compelled to do the same.

Here's another example:

AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

QUOTATION: (Woman) “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

Franklin: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

ATTRIBUTION: The response is attributed to BENJAMIN FRANKLIN—at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention.

Link: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

[patrice]

31. I believe I mentioned it's relevance within it's own context a DIFFERENT time & set of circumstances

I'm not disputing that, but your question was about now, was it not?

My point about "deserve" stands.

[msanthrope]

24. "It is absurd, the pretending to be lovers of liberty while they grudge paying for

the defense of it."

Your venting of griefs reminded me of this other Franklin work....

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=470

[geckosfeet]

30. In general I disagree with this libertarian claptrap. Howevr I do think that one

who makes a devils bargain or sells out to save their own butt deserves to be scorned. I don't think they forfeit their liberty or safety.

Two scenarios.

Hiding the jews in eastern Europe during WWII, or an equivalent circumstance.

Standing up for your beliefs in the face of popular or powerful oppostion.

You gotta do what you need to do, to live or live with yourself.

[Skip Intro]

38. I agree with Franklin's statement. It was a big hit on DU in 2002

and for a few years later. You could find it quoted everywhere here.

Why the lack of outrage here in 2012?

Whatever, I still think Americans moreso than not value and hold dear their freedoms - our freedoms, and this constant encroachment by the government into our personal lives and the endless erosion of our Constitutional freedoms has led to a few amicable conversations between me and a couple of libertarian friends.

[Rowdyboy]

39. Way too vague to vote anything but "other" ..."Guns, Drones, FEAR"?

Give me a valid question and I'll take a stand.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. We as a society can be "afraid" of lots of things, from pot to plutonium.

In some cases, like that of pot, the societal fear is far greater than the (negligible) danger, and as such has led to disproportionate assaults on liberty.

Plutonium, OTOH, should not be lightly fucked around with.

[WillyT]

44. Last Chance...

[reformist2]

46. He was - and is - right, within reason.

[geek tragedy]

47. Poll doesn't match the quote. nt

[WillyT]

48. A Majority Disagrees...

[geek tragedy]

49. No, quite literally the language in the poll choices does not match

the trade-off Franklin described.

Franklin described "essential liberty" and "little temporary safety."

The poll language discusses "some liberty." Most DUers voted that it wasn't acceptable to trade "some liberties" for government protections.

I guess most DUers voting in that poll agree with Ron Paul that the loss of economic liberty is not worth the government protecting against hunger and disease. And they would agree with Wayne Lapierre that the liberty to own an assault rifle with a 50 round magazine is more important than the government protecting us against gun violence. And they would disagree with sacrificing the liberty to carry said assault rifle on an airliner.

That is how they voted, but I doubt they considered the meaning of the language.

[WillyT]

50. Ah... The Parsing Of Future Generations... Of The Founding Language...

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This was a quite clear challenge to the progeny of 1776/1787...

I DO NOT need to parse it, qualify it... or frankly, explain it.

That's for the molders of the fucked up future to do.

[geek tragedy]

51. I would vote to agree with Franklin while also agreeing that part of living in a civilized

progressive and safe society requires the curtailment of some liberties.

[patrice]

52. wow.

[mwrguy]

53. Real liberty? Or fake liberty

like the imagined "right" to tote a gun everywhere.