As we near the end of the course it is time to put many of the elements of the American political system together in order to discuss some of the most important policy issues and debates in a more complete manner. We will frame many of these final issues through the lenses of civil liberties and civil rights. One of the most important and enduring debates was perhaps most famously expressed by Ben Franklin when he said:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin (1755)
- Benjamin Franklin (1755)
The balance between security and liberty is especially difficult during times of crisis or physical threat. Examples include Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War and the PATRIOT Act and the use of warrantless wiretapping after 9/11 along with dozens of examples in between. For this week, interpret Ben Franklin’s quote above and weigh in on how to best balance liberty and security in America. Does the proper balance change during times of crisis? Is there really any balance at all or is one clearly more dominant? Can we maximize both at the same time? This should help prepare us for a great discussion next class.
Since the creation of the constitution there has been an issue on the power of the government and its extent. Its incredible that a quote 255 years old can still fit into todays situation. I absolutely agree with Benjamin Franklin when he says that those who want safety over liberty deserve none.
ReplyDeleteAny concious American can obviously see that our rights are slowly being taken away such as Posse Comitatus, and freedom of speech. It is because we are in a "state of war" that the government can "legally" take away our rights.
The government uses a very interesting way of stripping us of our rights such as- Problem, Reaction, Solution. In P-R-S there is a problem that somehow arises and insome cases is created(9/11), after that the people ask for help and are willing to give up their rights to privacy which is the reaction. A solution is then offered (PATRIOT ACT, Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010).
So yeah totally agree with Benjamin Franklin there!!
People make stupid decisions in times of crisis, but I'm more concerned about the dumb things we do when there's no crisis at all. I am going to take a deep breath and scream this as loud as I can: THE NANNY STATE IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO AMERICAN FREEDOM SINCE JIM CROW. The Mayor has eviscerated 2nd Amendment rights, not just in his jurisdiction but all over the country, and is threatening to ban SALT for crying out loud. The President is in the process of defying an FCC ban on government regulation of the Internet, to go along with all kinds of major civil rights violations during his tenure. Sen. Lieberman, that darling of the Neo-Cons, has introduced legislation that would essentially give the gov't the power to issue Bills of Attainder.
ReplyDeleteBills of Attainder. In America. A--MER--I--CA. The very abuses we rebelled against are happily accepted by the most obsequious generation in the nation's history.
Where is the ACLU, you ask? Don't get me started. The ACLU is controlled by anti-Constitutional Progressives who couldn't care less about the loss of liberty unless it affects one of their Communist buddies. Call those clowns when there's a REAL threat--like when someone puts up a Nativity Scene in a public park.
I agree with Ben Franklin's quote and I think it does pertain to what is happening today. Why can't we have both safety and liberty? It isn't one or the other. If people who work for the FBI, homeland security etc. cannot catch terrorists or criminals without violating the privacy and freedom of speech rights of Americans then they should be fired and their jobs given to more capable individuals.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat safety can we truly achieve if we are relinquishing our liberties? By having safety in place of liberty it does seem obvious that we will have neither safety nor liberty. Ben Franklin was “on the money” with that statement. Daily we see how such compromises affect us and it seems to be that the people have lost. The continued warnings of terror only serve to create a society that lives in fear. It’s accepted and ok for “policing” to be done at intense levels; officers walking around with assault weapons always seemed strange to me. Who are they protecting? I would hate to be around if they had to fire. Talk about collateral damage. There has to be a better way to protect the citizens of the nation. As Courtney said if all those charged with the “gate-keeping” for our nation – did their jobs – communicated with each other – there would not be such a need for the rights of private citizens to be so infringed upon.
ReplyDeleteI do not necessary agree with Benjamin Franklin because many people abuse their rights and become very uncivilized thinking that they can do anything because they are protected by the bill of rights. I would rather see a safer environment where people can be "regulated" harshly said rather than live in a chaos. I have seen many situations where people behave kindly said like " animals" , thinking that it is a zoo they are in by trying to entertain other's by their inapropriate public behavior. Sometimes the things that people say are irrelevant and simply dumb during war time so I do not mind government officials keeping some kind of order ...
ReplyDeleteThe balance between liberty and security is so complex of an issue and so relevant today that no definite true solution can be reached. Liberty and risk are two sides of the same coin. Security and servitude are the two sides of another coin. In other words, One cannot enjoy the blessings of liberty without enduring risk; likewise one cannot enjoy the comforts of government provided security without giving up liberty. You can't have your cake and eat it too !!!
ReplyDeleteIn considering the coexistence of liberty and security, it is liberty that first commands our attention. Human security may be the precondition to liberty, but it should not be valued above liberty because it is capable of destroying liberty. A society that exaggerates its security requirements can corrupt the values it cherishes. Wiretaping, spying, torture and even genocide have been rationalized in the name of security. It's insane what is going on these days in terms of abusing personal liberties.
Benjamin Franklin had a special perspective on liberty. He understood the need for freedom for political, economic, historic, and academic reasons. Today, the affinity of the American people for liberty is not as strong as it once was. Spooked by a single bad day of three terrorist attacks, the American mindset has moved toward a desperate grab of safety, holding onto what's "ours", in what is no longer regarded so much as a "nation" but as a "homeland", a piece of territory stripped of the liberal values that were at the core of the founding of the United States of America. There's a reason that Benjamin Franklin talked about the choice being between essential liberty and temporary safety. The truth is that safety cannot be bought. It might be borrowed for a time, but there is no such thing as PERMANENT safety. That's what makes the Homeland Security regime such a foolish choice for America. The gain of security will be TEMPORARY, but the loss of liberty will be all too PERMANENT. It's difficult for America, in these dark times, to remember that being an American once stood for something much more proud than it does today. Wake up people !
As an American citizen it is my right to express myself freely, its called freedom of speech, of course that means that what I say may be perceived as "dumb" but if that was used as a reason to shut me up, then this would have become a fascist state.
ReplyDeleteIn the cases of wiretapping, racial profiling, and the PATRIOT act, the safety that the government is most concerned with is their own. They gave themselves the freedom and safety to grossly undermine the safety and liberty of civilians.
I don't know where this "mike" comes from..that's my blog and it was supposed to say "hassan"
ReplyDeletehassan
“Total freedom is a jungle, total security is dictatorship – the only balance is in the Government.”
ReplyDeleteI took this quote from a recent article about the Stockholm’s program that argues for changing Europe into a territory of freedom, assurance and justice of its citizens.
Courtney , at the end of the day if the safety of the citizens or people in general is at danger , who will be blamed ? The government ... So if we let everyone run free and there are no rules or regulations and everyone wants their freedom then how about we blame ourselves for all of the terrorist attacks and man slaughter ?!? I would love to believe that all of the people are good and want the best for their country and their peers but unfortunatly that is not the case. I do belive that everyone should have their rights protected and treated equally with respect but so many people abuse their rights that it's kind of a wild house out there .
ReplyDeleteThis quote by Benjamin Franklin was the first thing I wrote in the first blog we had... and for a reason.
ReplyDeleteSpain, France, The Netherlands, and even England understand that relegating their own authority to the government in exchange for freedom defeats the purpose of any western government, hence the phrase: "Britain soldiers on!"
If we abrogate 4th, the 14th, the 1st amendment, it does more damage than any bomb or combination of fireworks. MAKE NO MISTAKE - THIS is the intent of terrorism.
I was on the handball team in high school, and one of the tricks we would sometimes use is hitting the other person with the ball full force, as though by accident. The sheer pain of the rubber ball hitting the other person in the back kept the opponent fearful even though he knew the maneuver could not be repeated. But still, the opponent would calm up, take an overly defensive stance and lose.
If our government is a body of people, a fluid, living organism, then its liberties and personal freedoms are its life source. To protect that life source, we must indeed give some of it up - it is the social contract, however the more you stress the organism, the more adrenaline you pump into the system, the more digestion and pathogen break down is ignored in favor of defense, the organism comes ever closer to death.
Robert Sapolsky made such a parallel when describing how stress can and does kill thousands everyday, by setting the body into emergency mode needlessly for too long, depleting its resources.
"Doing everything to survive" is a good way to ensure that you don't. Trying to stop terror by more and more security is a folly. "Show me a 10 foot fence, and I'll show you a 11 foot ladder" - it will be no different here.
Pasha is right, the weapon is no longer the sword, but the liberties we have come to agree upon have not- and will not change - I refuse to back away from what took progressives centuries to claw away from those that would not mind to see people without them...
I kind of leaning towards Benjamin Franklin qoute. I think that giving up any amount of liberty for security goes against the founding fathers' ideas. Also I believe a balance between liberty and security can be struck, and liberty without security sounds more like anarchy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that we are slowly becoming a police state. We have long ago agreed to give up safety for freedom. That's why we have so many laws that protect us from ourselves, such as seatbelt laws. If I want to die in a fire laiden car crash that's my business. If we were so concerned with terrorism maybe we should stop supplying weapons to countries we have a certain interest in when they are in the midst of war. We should also stop testing bombs on innocent people. but somehow thats just unreasonable, we should be allowed to disrespect the entire world without fear of vengance. What we are really afraid of is the fact that there are people out there that are so fed up they are willing to give up their life, and meanwhile we cant even give up 1 day of television. We need to improve our foreign relations and make the rest of the world feel less alienated. thats the only way to actually stop terrorism.
ReplyDelete@ Cameron, last I read the bill is supported and proposed by both Mccain and Lieberman. Is it really surprising that an far right winger and an orthodox Jew would propose a bill that is aimed to limit the rights of Muslims? The ACLU has spoken out about this and has said that it is unconstitutional.
The next fact thats left out of your diatribe is that the bill is not actually a bill of attainder. Its a propsal to strip suspected terrorists of citizenship.
Please refrain from comparing your views of the government to the struggles of African americans. The supposed "nanny state" you refer to is what helped us (to a certain point) get free of Jim crow. Jim Crow laws were'nt an American problem, it was an African American problem. The rest of the country enjoyed their liberties to the fullest extent. And many achievements that we as a people have accomplished were expidited, assisted, and brought to a national forefront by the ACLU. A nativity scene in a PUBLIC park is an ACLU issue. If you dont agree either stop paying taxes, or allow every religion to post whatever they please in public places. we could have some beautiful islamic art scenes from the qur'an, maybe some polytheistic scenes from hinduism and a sprinkle of rastafarian music. Then let's see how many tea partiers would be up in protest.
I don’t agree with the idea the quote. There has to be a balance between the two. Everyone wants to feel safe as well as have liberty but it is getting to the point where our liberty is being stripped from us just so we can feel safe. The government has their methods and ways of slowly replacing liberty with their rules and regulations. Every time there is a threat to the country there are more restrictions. When it comes to traveling there is so much you have to go through for safety and at the same time they still mess it up. We can have liberty and a bit of safety if there is no corruption along with it.
ReplyDeleteThis quote is most definitely out of place in modern America. Franklin could not even imagine the extend of terrorism that we are now experiencing. I agree with Pasha and Diana, we can't just allow too much freedom to those who abuse it and harm innocent people.
ReplyDeleteThere has to be a balance, for example, the right to bear arms: criminals will still get them anyways, so can we at least exercise that rigth to protect ourselves?
Now, C. Rice and president W. Bush were imposing torture while interrogating the terrorists in Iraq justifying it by the fact that it was happening not on the American soil or to those who were NOT American citizen. One can say :"but this is against all our American principles!". I say: "It's not!" Terrorists should not be treated as Americans simply cos they are not.
Survellance, tapping into the internet and phones-too bad, those who have nothing to hide, why should it bother you?
Profiling needs improvement, but again, even if you are unlawfully detained (for 24 days)but got nothing to hide, so be it! (You sue the NYPD, get your $10,000-big deal).
Even stripping the suspected terrorists off of their citizenships is worth it if you are saving the lifes or milllions of Americans. Terrorists naturalized citizens, operating within our borderes, are using exactly those rigths and liberties to their advantage!!! As a result we have Jihad Janes and that psycho shooter from the Fort Hood.
Bottom line: by strengthening security, we are not denying our own rights in anyway if we've got nothing to hide.
@Cameron-you make me cry from laughter!
XOXOXO