NationStates Jolt Archive

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

I'd like to see what sort of reactions you have to Franklin's philosophy - myself, tho, I think it's great

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

I'd like to see what sort of reactions you have to Franklin's philosophy - myself, tho, I think it's great

It is completely true even in this day and age. Look at the poor people being arrested in NYC as I type this...most of them are being denied their rights to "keep the president safe". A lot of these people were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The actual protesters...isn't there something about free speech and assembly in the Constitution???

Whats truly pathetic is that most people are stupid enough to be cowed into submission by ambiguous and imaginary threats by terrorists. They give up their political freedoms in exchange for false security by the same people that are taking their security and freedoms away. Franklin was right on. A true patriot would stand by the founding ideals of this country, not by some made up bullsh*t by these neocon bastards. The only thing they care about is whats lining their pockets.

I disagree, of course they still deserve freedom and safety - but it's stupid to try and buy one with the other. err on the side of liberty, I say. Fear is the oldest trick in the book.

Franklin's ideas were great for the 1700's, but today's world is totally different than the one he lived in.

Franklin's ideas were great for the 1700's, but today's world is totally different than the one he lived in.

Ahh but the motives of people are just the same.

Create a boogieman and chip away at peoples rights.

Franklin's ideas were great for the 1700's, but today's world is totally different than the one he lived in.

True - however my reasoning behind it is that since it was our founding father(s)' idea, one of the men who founded our country, it would be very much a disservice to them to turn one's back on their ideals

Franklin's ideas were great for the 1700's, but today's world is totally different than the one he lived in.

And as I think about it. We should get rid the Constitution and the Dec since they are old ideas on old paper! ;)

Of course I think that he is correct.
But this quote is just a simple example of American Patriotism, it isn't so controversial and dynamic to cause political arguements :headbang:

Ahh but the motives of people are just the same.

Create a boogieman and chip away at peoples rights.
No, George Bush isn't trying to become king or dictator via the Patriot Act. Back then they were genuinely afraid of someone trying to reinstate a monarchy or ruin their fledgeling Republic, right now it isn't.

True - however my reasoning behind it is that since it was our founding father(s)' idea, one of the men who founded our country, it would be very much a disservice to them to turn one's back on their ideals
We've done it before, see how we get invovled in international alliances and have formed political parties, both of which George Washington warned against.

And as I think about it. We should get rid the Constitution and the Dec since they are old ideas on old paper!
We don't get rid of it, but we have amended it quite a bit since its original induction.

Ben Franklin had some pretty good ideas...I have heard the same quote indicating that those who sacrifice liverty for security will lose both and deserve neither, but I don't know if that's also Ben Franklin or if it was someone else.

Frankly, the Patriot Act doesn't look to me as though it's really done a whole lot of good. What the hell is wrong with treating terrorists like common criminals? We lock them up, give them a trial, give them a lawyer, and if they misbehave, they go to solitary confinement just like everyone else. We're not officially at war (Iraq be damned; the combat portion of it is over and we all know that Iraq's either going to be divided or turn into a totalitarian theocracy within a year or two) so the idea of declaring people "enemy combatants" is not just unnecessary, it's insane.

It is completely true even in this day and age. Look at the poor people being arrested in NYC as I type this...most of them are being denied their rights to "keep the president safe". A lot of these people were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The actual protesters...isn't there something about free speech and assembly in the Constitution???

These people didn't want the GOP there. Isn't there something in the Constitution about free speech and peaceable assembly?

No, George Bush isn't trying to become king or dictator via the Patriot Act.

While the Bush adminstration isn't technically trying to remove democracy, the Patriot Act and the executive repeal of the Sunshine Laws are effective in removing many checks and balances that were established by the founding fathers to prevent a gradual fall into dictatorship.

The Patriot Act allows a government organization or the police to declare an individual an "enemy combatant" and therefore deny that individual basic rights. Like an attorney, being held indefinately without a charge, and in some cases removal of American citizenship.

The Bush administration started by creating an executive order that refused to permit documents from the executive branch to be published and distributed to the public. Then the Patriot Act, then Patriot II. It seems the administration is using the fear of terrorist attack to advance their own personal agendas. I really can't see any other motivation for this continued behavior to give more and more power to the executive branch and remove many means the people can use to legally resist.

I think Ben Franklin would be ashamed.

While the Bush adminstration isn't technically trying to remove democracy, the Patriot Act and the executive repeal of the Sunshine Laws are effective in removing many checks and balances that were established by the founding fathers to prevent a gradual fall into dictatorship.

The Patriot Act allows a government organization or the police to declare an individual an "enemy combatant" and therefore deny that individual basic rights. Like an attorney, being held indefinately without a charge, and in some cases removal of American citizenship.

The Bush administration started by creating an executive order that refused to permit documents from the executive branch to be published and distributed to the public. Then the Patriot Act, then Patriot II. It seems the administration is using the fear of terrorist attack to advance their own personal agendas. I really can't see any other motivation for this continued behavior to give more and more power to the executive branch and remove many means the people can use to legally resist.

I think Ben Franklin would be ashamed.
There has been the possibility for the executive branch to basically become a dictatorship since the 1970's, but it hasn't happened. Power isn't the motive.

These people didn't want the GOP there. Isn't there something in the Constitution about free speech and peaceable assembly?
So how do you justify the fact that people were pre-emptively arrested before the protesting in NYC even began, and instead of being moved to a holding pen or jail, were taken to a former toxic waste holding facility and held for hours? Arrested for protesting -BEFORE IT HAPPENED- thats pretty scary. Some of those not-protesters have been displaying symptoms of being held in a toxic waste facility. Where's the civil rights in that? Next thing you know they'll be bombing innocent civilians in countries that MIGHT attack us. Oh wait- it already happened.

I agree, I think the Patriot Act is wrong. The fact that they can do these things with no solid evidence that a person actually has direct ties to terrorist activities is just wrong and in violation of the constitution.

However, the main thing i want to know about the patriot act is...

Everyone bashes Bush for it... (actually I do too, but that's beside the point here), but why is it that Kerry doesn't seem to say anything about repealing it? Now I don't know how the American process works too well because I don't really live there... however I'm pretty sure Kerry's administration (if he were elected) could repeal it.

So... to all Kerry supporters who use this as a reason why Bush should be removed from power... if Kerry is so different, why doesn't he denounce it?

Mainly because he's not that different. Democrats and Republicans, when you get right down to brass tacks, are remarkably close to each other on the political spectrum. Our system, essentially, is like a dictatorship with one more choice on the ballot.

Vote Libertarian! Win a Free Country!

Mainly because he's not that different. Democrats and Republicans, when you get right down to brass tacks, are remarkably close to each other on the political spectrum. Our system, essentially, is like a dictatorship with one more choice on the ballot.

Vote Libertarian! Win a Free Country!


Vote Communist, get the benefits of a Libertarian country, without the mean rich people!

So what do you say in response to the argument that the Patriot Act helps catch terrorists?

It worked in Buffalo, didn't it?

As for this being against the Constitution, remember why we wrote that thing to begin with? I thought it was (partially) to provide for the common defense. Isn't it just as unpatriotic to not provide for the common defense?

My explanation for that idea, is that I (as well as many economists) have concluded that Marx was not interested in destroying capitalism, he was interested in everyone directly (as opposed to indirectly, which is the rising tide idea) benefiting from it. A government doesn't need to exist in any real volume, because the way Communism was intended was for a full democracy. The idea being that all aspects of life would become democratic. Now, even a Libertarian can agree that that is a nice idea. I actually would like to discuss this with some libertarians, see if I can bring some over to the left-hand side.

This is one of the many reasons I hate the Bush administration.

I sencerely hope Bush and his lackies face war crimes charges when they're thrown out of office.

The patriot act is garbage. I'd rip it up the second I got into office if I became US president. People should be given more rights in light of 11/9, not less.

So what do you say in response to the argument that the Patriot Act helps catch terrorists?

It worked in Buffalo, didn't it?

As for this being against the Constitution, remember why we wrote that thing to begin with? I thought it was (partially) to provide for the common defense. Isn't it just as unpatriotic to not provide for the common defense?


The Constitution is about defending the rights and liberties of the people. Every single part of the constitution was written to grant us more rights, not less. Look at the pattern that the document follows.

The Patriot Act overrules some of the rights granted to us specifically by the constitution. Right to Privacy, Right to Trial by Jury, etc.

The Constitution is nearly a holy document. It has held the fundamental beliefs of all Americans for more than 200 years. It is the one thing that binds us all together. It is the foundation of our countries' greatness. The Patriot Act smacks everything that we believe in, right in the face. For its very conception, for thinking the very notion that this document is anything less than sacred, Bush has damned himself as one of the great failures in our countries' history.

That is what the Patriot Act means to me, what does it mean to you?

I like the quote very much. Would you fly a plane as much without metal detectors? Would you drive as much with no speed limits (anywhere,including your homes street)? Would you walk on a sidewalk as much? Would you ride your bike in the bike path as much? I see that there is a point where to much liberty actually can confine another person at home unless they want that liberty to endanger thier lives and others. The problem is figuring out where the medium is. Where does it not effect another persons well being or livelyhood in the process.

In regard to the patriot act. I do not like the provisions about anything domestic without implication. I do however favor as much security measures needed for any non citizen.

This is one of the many reasons I hate the Bush administration.

I sencerely hope Bush and his lackies face war crimes charges when they're thrown out of office.

The patriot act is garbage. I'd rip it up the second I got into office if I became US president. People should be given more rights in light of 11/9, not less.


Are you a European, I noticed your calendar system there (day, month, year)?

We don't get rid of it, but we have amended it quite a bit since its original induction.

Yes, but there's a bit of difference between, say, the 12th Amendment, which modifies the original method of selecting Presidents to allow for Presidential/Vice Presidential tickets, and a hypothetical amendment that specifies that Amendments I, IV, V, VI, IX, and XIV shall be null and void for any American citizen if the President so dictates. One tailors the document to allow for better election procedure. The other wads up the original and throws it in the garbage.

Speaking of garbage, the claim that the Constitution is irrelevant simply because it's old is pure poppycock. The Constitution has served us extremely effectively for over 200 years, through crises that are far, far worse than the present one. If it can work in a time when we all risk getting reduced to our component atoms because some guy on the other side of the world pushes a button, I think that just maybe, it might be enough to survive in an era when a few wackos can, with years of preperation, knock over a skyscraper. For those of you bad at math, even if Al Queda launched an attack as devastating as the World Trade Center bombing each week every week, it would still take. . .tum te tum. . .1,898 years to kill every American, and I'm not accounting for population growth.

The truth is, the world hasn't really changed since 9/11, Republican protestations to the contrary. All that has changed is that now we are aware of the fact that people want to kill us for the opulence of our lifestyle (no, it isn't because "they hate freedom"). But the very problem with Al Queda's reasoning, as well as those who want to denude the Constitution to save America, is that they don't understand what really binds this nation together. This is not a nation bound under a single religion (whether Christianity as many of our fanatics see it or Capitalism as many of their fanatics see it), or ethnicity, or common origin story. No, the ties that bind our nation together are those that certain ideas are right and inviolate: the belief that all men are inherently worthy of respect as men, the belief that all men ought to be allowed to exercise their free will as they see fit so long as they do not harm another, the belief that no man has the right to reduce the dignity of another. These are the glue that hold our nation together, and these are the beliefs embodied in documents like the Constitution and Ben Franklin's quote. They are the things that seperate us from those that oppose us, whether you talk about the Confederates, or the Nazis, or the Soviets, or Al Queda. So long as even one person clings to those beliefs, then America still lives, and if you destroy those ideas, then no matter how many people in what used to be America live, the nation as a whole will die. That can be done by physically killing everyone who holds those ideas, yes, but it's far more likely that it would come from people believing that, in a time of great necessity, it might be important to lay aside those beliefs.

I'm Canadian, but I use a lot of European things like that. I.E. I use British spellings and such, and that date system.

Just force of habit, my family is French Canadian.

Plus some is out of choice. I like Europe.

The Constitution is about defending the rights and liberties of the people.

What about my right to be safe? What about that right?

Would you complain if Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? If FDR created internment camps? It is well within Constitutional Law from a historical standpoint that my right to be safe is more important than your right to read about making bombs for Allah.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

I'd like to see what sort of reactions you have to Franklin's philosophy - myself, tho, I think it's great

Franklin was a smart man. He's right: if we give up our civil liberties (in this case, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments) to obtain temporary security, we deserve neither our liberties nor safety. This country was founded on the Constitution. If we give up our Amendment Rights, we are giving up our Constitution. If we give up our Constitution, then we deserve to live in a totalarian government.

Go here for the brief outline of the USA Patriot Act: http://www.aclu.org/Files/OpenFile.cfm?id=11812

Here's a fact sheet on Patriot Act II: http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12234&c=206

Is this something you want? The Patriot Acts take away rights from anyone, including Democrats and Republicans. How many of us are willing to give up our civil liberties to be falsly secure?

I'm not.

Would you complain if Lincoln suspended habeas corpus? If FDR created internment camps? It is well within Constitutional Law from a historical standpoint that my right to be safe is more important than your right to read about making bombs for Allah.

I think this is a good point. If there is two or more rights that become conflicting, then of course there will be an order of precedence. There should also be a balancing act as much as possible. Really, Unless someone could prove otherwise I would say the people that obtained the powers through the PA are just doing thier jobs, like any other american.



so take off that tin foil dunce cap