Posted on 07/04/2018 4:18:10 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
What does this quote mean? It doesn't mean anything, when it is disconnected with the full of its author's words. Franklin wrote this in his Reply to the Governor in 1755, but how many people even know that? His letter is less than 2000 words, so it is not a long read. I recommend everybody read the full letter, because that is to the detriment of progressivism.
So, what does this quote mean? It only, only means what Franklin himself meant at the time he wrote it. It does not mean anything else. Here is a large part of what Franklin wrote to the Governor, in 1755:
Our Assemblies have of late had so many Supply Bills, and of such different Kinds, rejected on various Pretences; Some for not complying with obsolete occasional Instructions (tho’ other Acts exactly of the same Tenor had been past since those Instructions, and received the Royal Assent;) Some for being inconsistent with the supposed Spirit of an Act of Parliament, when the Act itself did not any way affect us, being made expresly for other Colonies; Some for being, as the Governor was pleased to say, “of an extraordinary Nature,” without informing us wherein that extraordinary Nature consisted; and others for disagreeing with new discovered Meanings, and forced Constructions of a Clause in the Proprietary Commission; that we are now really at a Loss to divine what Bill can possibly pass. The proprietary Instructions are Secrets to us; and we may spend much Time, and much of the Publick Money, in preparing and framing Bills for Supply, which, after all, must, from those Instructions, prove abortive. If we are thus to be driven from Bill to Bill, without one solid Reason afforded us; and can raise no Money for the King’s Service, and Relief or Security of our Country, till we fortunately hit on the only Bill the Governor is allowed to pass, or till we consent to make such as the Governor or Proprietaries direct us to make, we see little Use of Assemblies in this Particular; and think we might as well leave it to the Governor or Proprietaries to make for us what Supply Laws they please, and save ourselves and the Country the Expence and Trouble. All Debates and all Reasonings are vain, where Proprietary Instructions, just or unjust, right or wrong, must inviolably be observed. We have only to find out, if we can, what they are, and then submit and obey. But surely the Proprietaries Conduct, whether as Fathers of their Country, or Subjects to their King, must appear extraordinary, when it is considered that they have not only formally refused to bear any Part of our yearly heavy Expences in cultivating and maintaining Friendship with the Indians, tho’ they reap such immense Advantages by that Friendship; but they now, by their Lieutenant, refuse to contribute any Part towards resisting an Invasion of the King’s Colony, committed to their Care; or to submit their Claim of Exemption to the Decision of their Sovereign.In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Such as were inclined to defend themselves, but unable to purchase Arms and Ammunition, have, as we are informed, been supplied with both, as far as Arms could be procured, out of Monies given by the last Assembly for the King’s Use; and the large Supply of Money offered by this Bill, might enable the Governor to do every Thing else that should be judged necessary for their farther Security, if he shall think fit to accept it.
So, what is he talking about?
He is talking about wealth redistribution, in the context of the legislation itself. What was the Pennsylvania legislature doing at the time? Franklin describes how they were putting together "Supply bills". Supplying what, exactly? It was appropriating money and handing out guns to people who seemingly needed them to fight against the invading British. But as Franklin made clear, the people in question not only left the responsibility to others to procure their guns, but they also left the responsibility of actively defending themselves to others.
Now I know a lot of you are going to be shocked to learn that an American government was using wealth redistribution as a means to hand out guns to some of the citizens, but Franklin makes it clear that they were not exactly bitter clingers here. They weren't interested in lifting a finger for themselves in this context. And we shouldn't have a government that redistributes money for guns. Franklin is correct here. Wealth redistribution is evil, and the object sought is completely irrelevant.
He does have a different context for this quote as well, it should be stated. He also means a reference to these people who were beneficiaries of the new colonies, but would not help defend those colonies. They sought safety and security instead with the British crown. But because the King did not represent Liberty and was not offering it either, these people deserved neither safety nor liberty. In this context its actually quite brilliant. To use a word, these people were punks. But I digress.
Let's compare the Patriot Act with Obamacare.
Does the Patriot Act redistribute wealth? No, it does not.
Does Obamacare redistribute wealth? Yes, it does.
Not only that, but a large portion of the arguments surrounding Obamacare are rooted in safety and security. The arguments sound a little like this:
"My family ...... safety and security ...... in times of job loss ...... "
"The evil corporations ........ keep raising their prices ...... we need to be safe from them ......"
We have heard them all and we have heard others as well. There's the constant caterwauling about people who can never afford any kind of healthcare, and are thus insecure. And then there's this: Gallup and other polling agencies are out there running polls from time to time about "healthcare insecurity"!
Well guess what Gallup. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
So then at the end of the day, by definition, Franklin could not have been referring to something like the Patriot Act. To claim as such, is taking him out of context.
Ping.............
In reality, any scheme of wealth redistribution fits in with Franklin’s 1755 letter. But Obamacare in particular was strongly tied in with arguments of safety and security.
I think he would find both reprehensible.
Preciously
Even if you are right, the Patriot Act IS a textbook example of how Americans sacrificed liberty for (perceived) security.
Surely you must realize that it chipped away, year after year, of our rights and liberties.
As for our ‘security’, the fact the borders have been wide open for 15 years, millions who overstayed visas are not pursued, and we’re fighting wars with those who had nothing to do with 9/11.
...tells me the government has little concern for our ‘safety from terrorists’.
Wow, he may have a point with the wealth redistribution argument but he is way off in his historical perspective.
The Revolutionary War was still a ways off. Pennsylvania was still a loyal British colony even if there were tensions.
The invasion spoken of were the French and their Indian allies in the lead up to the French and Indians War.
Wow.
Yeah, I was thinking 1775 and not 1755 for that particular part. Thank you for pointing that out.
No problem.
Everybody needs a proof reader.
We all make mistakes.
"[I]nvading British" In a letter of 1755??? Methinks the reference was for the frontier defenses against the FRENCH and their American Aborigine (Indian) allies during the French And Indian War (1754-63).
Other than that, I agree with the argument on the whole.
“As for our ‘security’, the fact the borders have been wide open for 15 years, millions who overstayed visas are not pursued, and we’re fighting wars with those who had nothing to do with 9/11”
It would help if 1/2 the country wasn’t asleep or brainwashed.
However the political leaders known exactly what they are doing.
Actually, he meant both of those, as well as the WOD and about 95% of the modern feral goobermint.
No colonist was fighting the British in 1755. Braddock’s force had just been routed at the Forks of the Ohio. Pennsylvania was supplying its Scots Irish frontier settlers with weapons to defend the pacifist Quaker business interests. He is referring to those same Scots Irish who are willing and with proper suppliea able to defendcthemselves against the tribes and yet do not wish the arrival of the King’s or the Colony’s forces as they believe it could compromise their frontier Liberty.
“It would help if 1/2 the country wasn’t asleep or brainwashed.”
True, but that doesn’t give Congress the right to be derelict in their sworn duty. Or the Executive Branch or the courts for that matter.
Seems to me a MINIMUM of 50% of the country is either sleeping or brainwashed. Methinks you’re being too generous.
“Seems to me a MINIMUM of 50% of the country is either sleeping or brainwashed. Methinks you’re being too generous.”
Well Trump did get elected... and hopefully more people have woken up.
The Left is so extreme now that no amount of propaganda can blind normal people.
Context can mean a lot - I keep telling that to folks who try to use the Bible for their personal agenda and it is certainly important when citing those who envisioned this Nation.
FWIW, I strongly suggest that folks who have the time go to the link and read the entire letter.
Awhile ago I was reading about the “Powder Alarm”. It was about 6 months before the first shots at Lexington/Concord. The Redcoats had marched on a town and confiscated it’s powder. (Near Concord - or maybe it WAS Concord).
Anyway, after that is when the militia voted to go from being British to being American. They started training, the Minutemen were created, etc.
The Constitutional Congress was meeting down in Philly and heard about it, and suggested that the various colonies support the militia with guns and powder for those men in the militia that could not afford them.
I’m not sure this is as much of a “redistribution of wealth”, as it is supporting those that help defend your “country” (or neighborhood or colony) against Indians, French or the Redcoats.
I know if my neighbor Bob is willing to stand at a barricade for our cul-de-sac, I’ll be out there and he can borrow one of my guns.
I agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.