The Blind Leading the Ignorant:Franklin’s Liberty Quote

It is actually,

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”-Ben Franklin or by a book’s author, which Franklin published.

Keep that in mind as you read this and this.

Don’t forget about this Q and answer thread.

Education has become propaganda and when that propaganda targets the basis for America’s strength and wisdom, this is the kind of stuff you get. It is amazing how shredding a couple of words in Franklin’s quote changes it to mean almost anything you want it to mean. Trading off some liberty for security means I don’t deserve either? Really. So if I trade the liberty of not being able to buy a ticket to SixFlags every time in return for the security of a season ticket, I don’t deserve the season ticket or the one time ticket? Really, how fascist of Franklin.

And that’s the point in the end. Distorting America’s foundations so that it becomes unrecognizable to new generations of Americans does in deed make America fascist. Maybe not now, maybe not this century, but eventually something will break and crumble and people will rise up using Franklin’s quote as justifications for implementing fascist or Shariah or socialist policies.

The main reason I posted this was because this distorted use of Franklin’s quote was used to justify some things in a debate on Book’s blog here.

About these ads
Explore posts in the same categories: History, Politics

Tags: , , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

9 Comments on “The Blind Leading the Ignorant:Franklin’s Liberty Quote”


  1. After having thoroughly read the federalist and Anti Federalist papers then reading your rendition I find it amazing that you could somehow link that quotation to a future of government sanctioned oppression. Indeed, it properly leads one to think that freedom would prevail over fascism or Sharia.

    Or am I misreading you..?

  2. ymarsakar Says:

    EC:And Ben Franklin certainly would have disagreed with the neo-cons’ new balancing of constitutional rights with security, based on his famous quote: “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.”

    Is there something about my rendition of the differences between the real quote and the made up one, that wouldn’t lead to Sharia?

    After all, if you can cut words from people’s quotes, what else can you do to justify policies or attack policies you don’t like? You may be refering to the fact that Sharia hates liberty and would always sacrifice liberty for security, thus it could not be furthered by any form of Benjamin Franklin’s quote. I disagree.

    If you look at the Soviet Union and their successes amongst the CPUSA, Code Pink, ACLU, Saul Alinsky elements here in America, you will have seen that both the words “liberal” and “democracy’ were corrupted to essentially mean “communist” and “socialist” by the KGB actions and various true believers here in the US. How would groups that are working for liberty and democracy also be working for Soviet organizations and ideologies? The same reason why North Korea is called the People’s Republic of Korea.

    Let’s work for democracy sounds great and can get lots of supporters. When “democracy” means “toeing the party line”, then you start to realize what can happen when people use “liberty” as a justification for their ideology independent of what liberty actually is.

  3. ymarsakar Says:

    Indeed, it properly leads one to think that freedom would prevail over fascism or Sharia.

    If people knew what they were talking about, maybe. But they don’t. They also don’t know truth from fiction, either.


  4. Have to agree with you about what has been going on in recent times that you attribute to “neo-cons.”
    As for democracy? here’s another one that you might enjoy; “Democracy, is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. Arm the lamb, and it becomes a discussion.” From memory, so that may be a bit off.*
    “If people knew what they were talking about, maybe. But they don’t. They also don’t know truth from fiction, either.” Sounds an awful lot like the thinking of a distant relative by marriage of mine. An elitist that would make Hillary proud, he was Alexander Hamilton.

  5. ymarsakar Says:

    All democracies are elitist. The more based upon majority rules they are, the more elitist they become.

  6. purpleslog Says:

    It always bothers me when Franklin gets misquoted here. Mostly, I think it is out or ignorance (repeating what other have said) instead of purposfulling misquoting Franklin. The result is the same. When I here it said on the news I usually yell back at my TV or radio.

  7. ymarsakar Says:

    These people live in a zero sum world where the strong beats down the weak and the ones with food eats and the ones without, starve, Purple.

    That’s why when faced with a choice between giving up security for liberty or giving up liberty for security, they are thinking that they must lose in one for the other or vice a versa, so they will always choose the status quo rather than risk rocking their privileged boats.

    They will never accept the fact that without security, there is no liberty, and without liberty, there is no security. Thus liberty must sacrifice for the interests of security and security must be sacrificed for the interests of liberty, for without one partner in the deal, the entire edifice collapses.

    Since these tofu parasite eaters have no interest in improving the foundations of America, they don’t even give a damn if the edifice collapses so long as they “get”, meaning steal, their liberty at the expense of somebody else’s security.

  8. mike Says:

    I would have to ask you in response to your last comment, why couldn’t it be seen as some people “getting” their security at the expense of my liberty? Every year we have more and more laws preventing my freedom to choose, and your freedom to choose. I “have to” accept that I am living in the 21st century, and they are 21st century precautions. I can’t even choose to not wear a seatbelt without penalty because the government knows what’s best for me. I can pay taxes, and do what I am told while I leave my rights in the hands of people that believe they are above the law. We need to stand up for ourselves and stop letting the government round every corner under the premise of saving us from ourselves. I can abide by laws and know we need them to for our society to succeed, but I also know that we can live without laws lke the one recently passed in Illinois that prevents companies from “lurring” potential credit card recipients with promises of free gifts for signing up. I mean, If this is the kind of security we are being provided in trade for liberty while we still have the problems we have in this country, then yes we are going to hell in a hand basket.

  9. ymarsakar Says:

    We need to stand up for ourselves and stop letting the government round every corner under the premise of saving us from ourselves.

    If the government could actually save people like they say, it would be different. Since they can’t do anything of that sort, it’s pointless for them to decrement liberty.

    The government has no authority to make people safe here in America, at the expense of people’s human and legal rights. They have the Constitutional authority to wage war against external enemies, but not war against internal enemies.

    For example, the last few weeks of search and illegal seizure from the TSA and HOmeland security trumped 4 years of the Patriot Act. Given that the Patriot Act and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq did a better job of protecting Americans, while not decreasing civil liberties at all in a non-trivial fashion, it’s kind of obvious that there’s no point in giving up essential liberties for temporary security. But there is a point in giving up non-essential and trivial liberties for permanent and substantial security.

    There is no security provided by this Obamanation. This is no security provided by Obama’s foreign policy. There is no security provided by Democrat made laws. There is no security.

    Enriching their bank accounts is not security.

    Take care you don’t redefine essential words like security based upon what politicians claim.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: