“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety,
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
- Benjamin Franklin (1755)
deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
- 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? How does this impact current debates such as the increased security used at airports across the nation and use of drones that many feel invades their privacy?
I think that what Benjamin Franklin was trying to say is that we should not give up part of our Liberty in order to provide something temporary. Perhaps he thought there were other ways to maximize safety without jeopardizing our liberty. Personally, I think that the best way to balance liberty and security in America is by each being independent of each other instead of being co-relational. If these two are viewed as having equal weight then when we maximize one the other will inevitably lessen. Therefore we cannot maximize both at the same time unless they are independent of each other. In addition, the proper balance does change during times of crisis such as when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus rights during the Civil War. However, those restrictions were only provisional. This ensured that our liberty was taken away but only for a small period of time.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, what the Bush administration did after 9/11 should have been only temporary and not permanent. The tight security at airports, increased drone usage, and warrantless wiretapping should have only been used during the time of crisis and not until today. I understand that these measures were taken to make our airports and country safer but it was at the expense of our privacy and liberty. Just like the writs of habeas corpus is a privilege granted by the Constitution, I think that our liberty is a privilege that unfortunately can be taken away when someone takes advantage of it. Finally, although liberty is something that is extremely valued in America, it seems like security will always manage to dominate in times of crisis because of the fear of being unsafe and uncertain.
-Erik Martinez
I agree. Franklin was very clear in my opinion. I think he believed that governments can never provide absolute security without severe infringements of civil rights. It is not possible to have absolute freedom and absolute security.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that a society that usually strives for freedom over security will find itself with levels of prosperity and strength that would be unimaginable to those that live in the latter. I believe it's a travesty that we have to live with things such as warrant-less wiretapping, indefinite detention, civilian torture, and free speech limitations all under the banner of Security. In the process of defeating terrorism, our government has allowed them to win by making us give up (even if "temporarily") cornerstones of our way of life. We have subserviently given in to fear, and have let the very dictatorial mechanizations our forefathers fought against become the rule of the day. In a bitter twist of irony, the Second Amendment, as valuable as it is, has been the least hampered right that we have while the rest have been desecrated.
The rights that we cherish extend to everyone, not just Americans. Illegally killing a non-combatant during peacetime is just as immoral as killing an American.
Our Presidents have had a history of such betrayals of our values; from FDR imprisoning innocent Americans, to Bush's Patriot Act, and now to Obama's Drones and revamped NDAA. No actions such as those are excusable.
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
~James Madison
I feel that an infringement on personal liberty is wrong, but I also feel that in times of crisis or tragedy (like 9/11), it's more understandable. I think too that the implemented liberty infringements are almost necessary to ensure citizens that their safety is valued, and that there is something being done about the situation. For example, if measures weren't taken to strengthen airport security after 9/11, many citizens would probably be afraid to fly on an airplane again.
ReplyDeletePart of having an effective government requires an exchange of trust and protection. Citizens give up some of their personal freedoms and obey laws in exchange for protection from the government, like through the military, police, and even health care. Although I agree with extra government protection, especially after a tragedy, I do think that the government should not abuse this relationship. If being protected meant being a puppet, then it's not worth giving up one's liberties at all.
In my opinion during times of crisis the liberty should be less to ensure safety. Personally, I do NOT think that safety is more important than liberty, but I don’t think that anyone realizes how free we already are. I can’t think of things that I want, which I can’t get because of some law. I don’t think (for example) the warrantless wiretapping after 9/11 was bad. First of all, who am I to think that I am that important that the government is going to wiretap me. Second of all, I have nothing to hide, so even if they do why does it matter? And third of all, it is an effective way to catch the actual criminals or the people that do have something to hide.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the American people is they only want the government around when they need it. Many people believe in a small government with limited powers because they don't want to feel like there is someone controlling them. A government that has too much power can seem like an invisible, always-watching, force that is way too oppressive.
ReplyDeleteThe government should be allowed to infringe on certain liberties only if the people are aware of it and willing. I believe that the warrantless wiretapping after 9/11 was not something that the government should be allowed to do. As we discussed at the beginning of the quarter, people are often alright with government intervention as long as the people ask for it. If a government becomes too much a part of peoples' lives when there is not a crisis it causes problems. I do believe that the government should have the ability to slightly shift things during times of crisis but it should not abuse this power.
I understand where Ben Franklin is coming from. At that time, they valued freedom very highly. It was what they worked for and how our country became to be what it is today. Don’t get me wrong I love our freedom and the luxuries that we have now just as much as the next person and I am well aware of how fortunate we are, however, under the circumstances that we are in, I would argue that we need to let go of some of that freedom in order to be protected. If Ben were alive today, he’d probably be disappointed with my comments. I don’t believe there is an equal balance between liberty and safety. I feel like it all happens in moderation and people need to be flexible and be able to give and take. If you want to make sure you’re going to be safe on an airplane to Disney or the Bahamas, you’re going to have to suck it up and abide by the regulations and extra hassle through security. I feel like too many people over react these days with some of the limitations the government has put on our freedom. With all of the craziness that has been occurring such as school shootings, 9/11, street crime, why not cut back a little on our free will? We’re lucky enough to be living in a country where the government hasn’t taken everything away from us, and there is some type of order and organization for the most part. I think the way things are going now, is the way it should be. Quite frankly it needs to be this way in order to keep the country running. This is as balanced as its going to be. The government will always have an upper hand on our lives and if that’s going to keep me safe then by all means.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with Benjamin Franklin. In times of crisis, we need to understand that certain liberties might be taken away in order to ensure our safety. For example, after 9/11, security at airports was heightened. In order to go onto an airplane one needs to go through extensive checks. Honestly, it makes me feel a lot safer knowing that people along with their bags, have been checked. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy, and I believe everyone would agree that we do not wish to see anything of that sort happen again. The government is not tightening up on American liberties just because they feel like it. They are doing it to protect us.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to drone usage in America, I feel that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Knowing that there is an eye is the sky looking out for me makes me feel all the more safe. I, as an American, am all for freedom and civil liberties, but I also want to feel protected.
-Caitlin
I believe in times of crisis government should be able to infringe on our liberty to keep the citizens safe. I don’t think there can ever truly be a complete balance of liberty and security because in the world we live in today security usually needs to be maximized. Since 9/11 security has especially been maximized, like at airports, making security more dominant. If the government has to practice the use of warrantless wiretapping, drones and amped up airport security along with many other security measures that have been taken to protect the citizens they should be allowed. Yes it may be a little bit invading of privacy, but would you rather have that or feel safe in your country. We still have most of our freedom and liberty, people just start to find things to complain about or overact when the government begins a new security measure or adds more restrictions to a freedom of ours. If these are the restrictions and requirements to keep my family and me safe, I believe they should be taken.
ReplyDeleteThis prompt reminds me of the 3 goals that the Founding Fathers had when they were drafting out the Constitution. Those goals were Management, Liberty, and Democracy. These goals will contradict with each other quite frequently. For instance if the majority of the country wants the 1st amendment of free speech to be repealed, it will both be a demonstration of Democracy, but also an infringement on Liberty. In this case that we are discussing, if the government wants to save the liberty of many citizens, they may need to sacrifice their management or step up their management in order to protect people and decrease some of their liberties.
ReplyDeleteIt is a very fine line for the President and Congress to tip toe because if they go too far in any direction there will be massive backlash from the citizens and from Congress. Conversely, if they do no go in any directions it could seriously jeopardize the safety of the citizens of this nation and put us in a vulnerable position. Its a conundrum that the Founding Fathers knew would be prevalent but I don't believe that they thought it would be this much of an issue at any point
I completely agree with Franklin, a government can never guarantee absolute freedom to its citizens without becoming more dangerous than the original threat. Just look at Germany under Hitler or Soviet Union under Stalin, they took away citizens rights, had absolute control, and killed millions of their own people.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that the government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from threats. However, the American government is currently taking away our basic rights with the Patriot Act, which allows for warrantless wiretapping, search and seizure, detention for an unknown period of time without being brought to court; and now the Obama administration is claiming it has a legal right to kill American citizens if they are an imminent threat to national security, all of this tramples the rights all citizens are guaranteed under the Constitution. The government has and is continuing to take away our rights and will do so until we stop them. The second Amendment was created as a last defense for the American People against a tyrannical government taking over; that is why it, like every right must be adamantly defended.
After reading his quote i understood where he came from, but then again I feel like sometimes we need to think logically. We need to understand that in orde to gain something we are going to lose something. So to maintain our safety if we temporarily have to lose some freedom that should be ok. I mean in some situations either we can fight for our freedom or we just keep our mouths shut and be safe. I think its hard to balance it. I feel like depending on what situation we are in we are going to pick one over the other. I feel like the extra checking at the airport is actually a good thing. WHo cares if it invades a little bit of privacy. WHat is better privacy or your life.
ReplyDeleteSafety First. Although, how can someone feel safe if she/he feels trapped because of the lack of liberty? And so, safety may always out weigh liberty. Americans are already spoiled by the huge amount of liberty that has been given, which may have been done so carelessly because currently we are complaining/suffering the consequences. If liberty was a bit more thought out then there may not be so much tragedy caused by bad people that take advantage of such liberty. And so because of people that intent to cause harm or even the people that do so without intent is when liberty decreases and safety hits the max. But even though there can be changes to safety measures, there will always be a loop hole that people could find, resulting in more and more liberty taken away and even becoming extinct.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, safety comes first and has to come first, especially for national safety, although it limits some of our personal liberty. It is the governmental responsibility to protect the nation, even if it means infringing upon individual liberties. The more national crisises the higher security is going to be (9/11). When we look at the increased airport security it gives us a better feeling and a feeling of safety. No one wants the tragedy that happened on 9/11, therefore I am sure that most of the Americans are willing to give up some of their liberty in regard to safe their own lives. The only problem that appears, is the decreasing safety within the following years and it loses its importance if nothing happens. Most of the times, people only react when something bad happens and do not try to prevent themselves from it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ben Franklin. Giving up our given liberties to have some safety.It is not effective. Why does government have to take drastic measures only in times of crisis. There should already be certain safety measures even before tragedies happen and perhaps those tragedies would not happen in the first place. It sounds too much to ask, but the U.S. should be more prepared than ever of any upcoming attacks because we already have a history of them. We must maximize the preparation of safety and implement it, but not so drastic as to scare the American people. Drones just make the the country live in some sort of bubble. We have a shield of drones around our country, it's weird. I understand the increased securities at airports due to the smuggling of illegal weapon, drugs, and other items. But, drones just seem to enforce how much our country is becoming so dependent on the military or the police will become the military. I am not saying that everyone should own a gun now because we know that anyone can just cause a disaster because of what has happened at schools, shopping malls, and movie theaters. Drones do not necessarily make me feel safe, but is unconstitutional because it invades my liberty and privacy in my own country. It would not be surprising for the U.S. to say that it is for the safety of the American citizens and then use for other reasons. It just opens doors for the government to control the people even more than they already do.
ReplyDeleteI can understand both sides. The fact of the matter is that things have to be compromised in order to keep our nation safe. When Ben Franklin said that quote, people had been under strict England rule. In those times, there were not many liberties available. People should be scared of their liberties taken, but if it is for safety, I think that it is necessary. But that does now mean that there shouldn't be any privacy laws. I believe that in certain circumstances, such as trains, planes, and government buildings, there should be a less strict policy for privacy. There is more opportunities at risk with the amount of traffic that goes in and out of these places. I believe that in a world where violence has become so prominent people have to be proactive. By proactive, I mean, that we should take steps to ensure that the public i safe.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is no balance. During a time of crisis the people are not thinking about their freedom but are only thinking about their safety. A recent example is Christopher Dorner and the war he declared on the LA Police. The people of LA were not concern about losing their freedom by going out but they were concern about losing their lives and sought safety. I think that safety is always more dominant than liberty. I am not sure that we can maximize both at the same time. In order to have the liberty we want then we don’t need the restrictions that safety requires. I think that the issue with airplanes is not even a great concern about liberty anymore. People want a safe trip and see the limitation of their liberty as a good and a necessity.
ReplyDeleteThat was a good point of the LA Police and Christopher Dorner to show that safety is more valuable than liberty. I do believe as well that people care more about their safety when in crisis.
DeleteBased off of Benjamin Franklin quote it seems like if you have to give up important liberties for some safety it shows that the liberties were never safe from not being taken away. However, I believe that things continuously change and some crisis may come about where liberties might be challenged in an attempt to help resolved issue. From my perspective safety seems to be more valuable now than liberty. For example, with the 9/11 attacks yielded the war taxes were raised to help aid the troops during the war which started a recession in America. It is kind of like to be safe some Americans have to pay the price for protection in times of crisis. I believe liberty and safety cannot be maximize at the same time depending because safety seems to be more important than liberty even though liberty is still a significant part of American society. This impacts debates on security at airports and the use of drones because individuals feel like their privacy is invaded and they are paying excess amount for safety even though their liberty is being lessoned. Also, this impacts debates because some believe we need the extra security to avoid terrorist attacks while others believe it is too much of an invasion of privacy.
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Franklin is essentially saying that the two concepts must be kept separate in order to protect civil liberties. You cannot sell one in order to buy the other. Liberty must be protected by the government while safety needs to be created. Liberty is something that all people are afforded at birth and the government is responsible for protecting liberties. It can do this by creating laws of protection and enforcement of those laws. The Supreme court also protects civil liberties by deeming laws unconstitutional. Safely is something that the government tries to ensure. Safety again is created through laws and enforcement of the law. You can not sell liberty for safety. By allowing the government to take away liberties. Liberty is given at birth thus it is not something that can be sold, if you are willing to sacrifice it than you should not be allowed to have it.
ReplyDelete