"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither." Benjamin Franklin

[kpete]

US Senator Ron Wyden and Congressman Earl Blumenauer
Date: August 23, 2013 - 12:15pm to 1:15pm
Speaker(s): Senator Ron Wyden; Congressman Earl Blumenauer

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither. As useful technology expands, so do the threats to individual privacy and liberties brought about by the misuse of that technology. Recent revelations about the National Security Agency - how it collects information and from who - has raised serious concerns about whether we are protecting our liberties while ensuring security. Join us for a unique City Club event on August 23 when Oregon Senator Ron Wyden and Congressman Earl Blumenauer will share their perspectives on privacy and surveillance in the age of the internet.

http://www.pdxcityclub.org/node/6617

[hlthe2b]

1. Ought to be permanently pinned on this discussion site...

given that a very vociferous few seem to have forgotten that concept.

[Blue Owl]

2. Today's version: "Anyone who sells liberty for pretend security deserves neither"

n/t

[truebluegreen]

4. I've heard it with the added:

"...and will lose both."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. A fun slogan, but self-evidently complete and utter nonsense if taken literally.

Or are you seriously advocating letting people drive on whichever side of the road they feel like?

[kpete]

6. oh jeez

now even the Fore Fathers are getting flamed...

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. Hell yes.

I have never understood America's veneration for its founding fathers.

Take a look at their actual views on women's rights, gay rights, race, slavery, capital punishment, you name it.

Yes, they were ahead of their time. But they weren't nearly as far ahead of it as we are.

By all means admire them as people who left the world a better place than they found it. But *don't* cite them as authorities in moral or philosophical debate.

[Dreamer Tatum]

10. True that. I was just reading Ben Franklin's treatise on nuclear power

and later I'm going to read John Adams' thoughts on Net Neutrality.

[Historic NY]

77. Poor Richard, is radiating.

[Isoldeblue]

18. 1+ n/t

[truebluegreen]

20. They weren't as far ahead of their time as we are?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. They weren't as far ahead of their time as we are ahead of their time.

Sorry if that wasn't obvious.

[truebluegreen]

29. It was obvious.

I'd just call it nonsensical.

[bluesbassman]

33. Ya think?

Good grief man, that has to be the most inane post I've read all day. Did you train with The Sphinx?

[Half-Century Man]

24. They were ahead of their time, they didn't have to be ahead of ours.

They knew how far enlightenment thinking had gone in their lifetimes, and figured out that trend would continue. They wrote the foundation documents with loose enough language to evolve as the country moved forward.

I also think that there was no overall opinion on slavery, women's rights, gay rights, capital punishment etc. The members of the continental congress each had their own private opinions about these things, some wrote of them.

[truebluegreen]

30. Well said. Especially this part:

"...they wrote the foundation documents with loose enough language to evolve...." (i.e. F.U. Scalia!)

[geek tragedy]

11. The forefathers never said that it's always wrong to trade personal liberty

for security.

Franklin limited it to 'essential liberty.'

Anyhow, they owned slaves, so grain of salt.

[BOG PERSON]

75. good point - slaves were deprived of both liberty AND security

maybe that quote is benjamin franklin indulging in a little victim-blaming

[d06204]

25. Much Respect

[bobGandolf]

32. Come on, you know what he means.

Nobody is referring to literal when using the quote. Anyone who opens their eyes, even half way, can see that many of our rights are being chipped away in the name of security.

[City Lights]

51. Well said!

Welcome to DU, bobGandolf!

[bobGandolf]

73. Thanks ....

I have been a member of DU for quite awhile. I took a year off. I changed my name from bobburgster.

[randome]

7. I thought George Orwell said that.

Seriously, a two century old soundbite does not impress. We give up some aspects of our liberty every single day.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[JoePhilly]

9. Opps, I thought that was going to be about protecting the 2nd Amendment from

gun control laws and a national gun ownership registry.

My bad.

[sarisataka]

15. Mr. Franklin's quote applies to all of the BoR

and many other documents that protect our liberty. Unfortunately some people tend to be choosy about what they would like it to mean. One long lost poster liked to claim it showed how stop and frisk was a wise and fair policy to protect liberty...

[JoePhilly]

42. Exactly ... the OP is applying it to one ... I applied it to another.

If we learned anything, it is that that quote isn't very useful in determining policy.

[sarisataka]

43. I think it should be a guideline...

when we are considering transgressing a liberty, is the benefit worth the cost? As many point out we do surrender many liberties on a daily basis but we agree it is a small price for a great good. When it comes to paying a large price, the good should be recognizable and exponentially better.
Even then, tread with caution as such actions are rarely reversed.

[JoePhilly]

45. Ben's original quote refers to "essential liberty" ... he qualifies "liberty"

with "essential".

Similarly, he qualifies "safety" with "a little temporary".

My interpretation, is that he is describing a balance. Otherwise, he doesn't need the qualifiers in the original quote.

[sarisataka]

49. True, it is not an absolute

though many wish it was. In other places they would be called libertarians

[Just Saying]

52. You make far too much sense

To be posting around here!

[pnwmom]

55. (self-delete)

[meow2u3]

12. Whoever sells out freedom for the illusion of safety deserves neither

[OldEurope]

14. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. (Janis Joplin, or someone)

I think there must be a balance between liberty and security. You can't be free without any protection. Except, perhaps you are a literary character in an Ayn Rand novel.

[Isoldeblue]

17. Well put!

If it means the safety of my family, children and grandchildren, I am willing to give up some privacy. This false patriotism and supposed pride of privacy can be taken too far. None is very realistic, just as John Galt is an idealistic fallacy.

[truebluegreen]

22. I fear the question is, safety from whom?

[progressoid]

26. Are you really that afraid of some terrorist attack?

No one is pushing some Galt fantasy. But the time, energy and money spent on keeping us safe from evildoers is ridiculous.



– You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

– You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

— You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

— You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

–You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

— You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

– You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack

–You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

–You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

–You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

–You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

– You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-not-going-to-be-killed-by-terrorists.html

[OldEurope]

31. It's not about some terrorists.

It's about those absurd statements on freedom or security. You need both, a certain level of security and as much freedom as possible.

[randome]

34. Why do YOU keep pushing the fantasy that terrorism is all the NSA does?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[progressoid]

38. I keep doing that?

Gosh, let me check my posting history....

....checking....

....checking....

....checking....


I can't seem to find any other time I "pushed that fantasy"

[Isoldeblue]

39. Your remarks are an insult to all

who died on 9/11 and to their loved ones!! You make it appear as if it's impossible for another terrorist to succeed in attacking us.

I am NOT in fear of any of those things that could kill me or my family. I don't live that way. But I'm not an ostrich either, with my head in the sand.

I love my family and children more than I love my privacy. What part of that don't you get? If I were to think the way you do, then I'm saying it's ok to have my grandchildren killed by a terrorist, just so you and I can have total privacy.

I do feel there are limits to what the feds should be allowed to do. I just want to see some balance.

[progressoid]

41. OK

Here's the thing. It's not impossible for another terrorist attack to succeed. In fact, it's quite likely we will have another one. The question is how much do we spend to prevent it. I would rather we spend more resources protecting our children from domestic assaults and more resources educating them.

I never said it's OK for anyone to get killed by a terrorist. Nor did I say I want total privacy. I agree we need a balance - privacy and safety. But where is that balance? The scales are tipped toward an NSA runs virtually unchecked. The growth of our spy agencies isn't making us any stronger. It makes us look like we live in fear.

[Isoldeblue]

68. I totally agree with everything you've

said. But what I'm reading here @DU is that our privacy is the "be all, end all" and that is just not right. The essence of the message I'm reading from many here, is saying that if people don't die in the name of privacy, then our liberty is worthless.

We most definitely warrant and deserve to have the NSA tightly monitored, at all times. I know that human nature sucks. And those that work in intelligence, love the the power and control at the most and curiosity at the least, they have at their fingertips. So I don't trust anyone to respect our privacy.

I don't have the knowledge of what has to be dealt with in keeping us relatively safe. But we need to find that balance and then insure it with whatever means to keep it within bounds. Hopefully, legislatures like Grayson or Sanders can guide us better in that direction. I can't think of any others I'd trust...

As far as the part of living in fear, I believe that is up to each individual. Each feels the way they do, from their own personal experiences.
For instance, my husband is much more fearful of things going wrong than I am. I always figure, what's the worst that can happen and what will in matter in 6 months from now?

Here's the background on us - He came from an ideal childhood with loving, stable, parents. He is a Nam vet; but even before Nam, he was still opposite of me about fear and worry. So other than being USAF at DaNang AF base, doing AC repair, he has never had any trauma or had really bad things happen to him.

My childhood was horrendous; with two whacko parents who beat and abused me and my brothers, in most every way one can dream up. So for me, the worst has happened and I survived it. But I am always on the alert around my grandchildren and very protective, in a store or anywhere.... But not that anyone would really notice and nearly unconsciously, on my part.

See the difference? In all matters of personal wants and desires, we need to
consider the fact that not everyone values the same things, equally.

I'm grateful that we understand each other better. That's what we need on this grave matter. Some serious dialogue.

[progressoid]

69. ...

I didn't mean to belittle your situation. This is been a stressful time.

Hoping that it starts getting better for all of us.

[Isoldeblue]

70. I didn't think that at all

I'm sorry for your stress.

It's fine to agree to disagree sometimes. As long as we take the time to listen to each other

Take care.

[Rex]

40. Wow, you made people mad over simple facts!

How dare you!

[progressoid]

61. Oops.

Here's a cat instead...

[truebluegreen]

21. fyi Kris Kristofferson

[OldEurope]

23. Thank you, will keep in mind. nft

[99th_Monkey]

16. Woot! I'll tune in and listen on NPR

as I live in Portland and my local NPR station broadcasts the City Club Events.

[DeSwiss]

19. K&R

[kpete]

28. can't get there fast enough...

mho
kp

and peace

[lcordero2]

35. I don't respect that

Benjamin Franklin was a piece of shit.
People didn't pick up that when the constitution was created it only benefitted white landowners(6% OF THE POPULATION). They conned the average person into fighting their wars.
A self-preservatory instinct is their for a reason. Too many people malign instinct and doing that isn't very smart.
I don't trust the state however for surveillance.

[Tom Ripley]

37. +1000

[kpete]

47. oh dear dear dear

I think I will go garden

but peace to you Icordero2
kp

[Phlem]

62. Now one of the Founders that signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution

is a POS.

Wow. That's way off the deep end.

I don't know how you deal with it. Seems a lot of people misinterpreting the post and are purposefully showing their ignorance. Or maybe it's a conscious choice to further muddy the waters around here.

-p

[Glassunion]

36. the quote from the Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The words are quite true. However, those words can be quite inconvenient when they don't fit an agenda.

[JoePhilly]

44. Did you notice how Ben qualified the terms "liberty" and "safety"?

He refers to "essential liberty" and "a little temporary safety" ... and then he contrasts those with "liberty" and "safety", both unqualified.

Clearly by doing so, Ben's statement has significant nuance. He actually creates a BALANCE. If that was not his intent, he would have dropped the qualifiers and simply said ...

"They who can give up liberty to obtain safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But Ben instead uses qualifiers and creates a distinction ... a grey area ... and an implied balance.

[Glassunion]

48. Exactly

He fully understood the death by a thousand cuts and that is, IMO what he was describing.

Basically, I feel that he wants us to think before we leap, because once we do, there is little chance of going back.

[pnwmom]

59. Yes. The actual quote makes him NOT sound like a tea bagger. n/t

[kpete]

46. thanks Glassunion

I am in awe of our Founders:
(mho - I do not put all whistleblowers in the same category, but they represent the "IDEAL&quot

The most famous offenders of the eighteenth-century English treason laws were the American revolutionaries. The Declaration of Independence violated the 3rd law of treason in this statement: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other out Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor“: When John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and other founding fathers signed this statement, they did not sign some empty philosophical statement, they signed their death warrant. This action displayed their dedication to the cause of American independence and the ultimate disloyalty to King George the Third.

- See more at: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/07/31/indeed-whistleblowers-are-traitors-traitors-to-the-traitors/#sthash.qdsYwS8H.dpuf

[pnwmom]

58. The actual quote is much more nuanced than the one in the OP.

It sounds much more reasonable.

[Phlem]

65. +1000000

Thank You. For some unknown reason people can't wrap their grey matter around that simple statement.

-p

[treestar]

74. The OP misstates the quote

Essential Liberty and Temporary Security.

And the context is never mentioned.

[uponit7771]

50. Anyone who leaks US secrets for the sake of a Big Story, and no revelation of wrong, is an asshole

[kpete]

53. NO revelations?

---so what you are saying, is we would be BETTER OFF --- NOT KNOWING THESE THINGS?:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023521363


your welcome
?6b854b

and peace

[Phlem]

56. Don't get started with this one.

it's not worth it.

On a side note there really is 2 DU's, left and right. Both behave accordingly.



-p

[uponit7771]

71. well there's one revelation, you don't know how to read well. No revelations of WRONG DOING

...meaning breaking the freakin law.

Pay attention

[Phlem]

54. K&R!

-p

[pnwmom]

57. If Franklin said that, it was one of the more stupid things he said.

It would mean we shouldn't have any speed limits to make the roads safer.

And we shouldn't have any gun laws, either.

And we shouldn't have any zoning laws.

And we shouldn't have any laws about pollution.

They all interfere with someone's liberty, just to make us safer, healthier, and more secure.

(P.S. It turns out that his actual idea was much more nuanced and reasonable.)

[Livluvgrow]

60. I cant believe

the bullshit I have been reading in this place lately. Some of you folks seem like you would be comfortable living in a full blown dictatorship if that dictator promised that the evildoers wouldn't get you. Your responses tell me that no amount of intrusion into your life is too much. Lastly, the force with which you push your opinion onto others and try to hush dissent is mind numbing. Keep it up many, many people look at this site and if they see that you are the ones defining Democratic party positions I dare to say you will be hurting Democrats' chances. Enjoy your surveillance state people. You obviously desire it.

[kpete]

63. DU-blethinking

“Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word “doublethink” involved the use of doublethink.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/164965-winston-sank-his-arms-to-his-sides-and-slowly-refilled

[AnotherMcIntosh]

64. "Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither." DICK CHENEY

[Glassunion]

66. Right...

[petronius]

67. We had a thread on the origin of that quote a few months back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032806

[Recursion]

72. I hear that quote in the gungeon all the time

[railsback]

76. Dear Sen. Wyden

As technology expands, the threats to our privacy and liberties expand… as do the threats to our securities. Do you actually believe that this is a one sided affair? Do you actually believe that if our founding fathers lived in this day and age, they would write the Constitution in the same 18th century mindset?

Either you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, or you're just fundraising off people's fears.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

78. Internet Man Discounts All Knowledge Gained Before 1997, claiming "things is different now".

[railsback]

79. Yeah, man, they had everything we have now BUT the internets back then

I'll file that one with the Right's 'Global warming has been going for millions of years because dinosaurs farted..'